With skincare products that promise to ‘brighten’ and ‘refine’ or ‘even’ and ‘smoothen’ your skin, has this jargon been rescripted to sell old wine in a new bottle? We attempt to find out
Since its conception, the beauty industry has claimed to empower women. In reality, it built its empire on their insecurities—often camouflaged as making women feel confident. Lipstick and kohl to adorn the face. Thick, white creams for softer skin. Talc powder for a fresher-looking complexion. The playbook borrowed the language of feminism, but only on paper. In practice, it became a powerful enforcer of anti-feminist ideals.
We’ve all seen the commercials where a woman’s skin colour decides and dictates her prospects to land a job or be in a relationship. On billboards and magazine covers, every blemish, strand of grey hair, pores and sign of texture is erased—airbrushed out of existence.The beauty industry consciously sold a version of beauty that was not just unrealistic, but dangerously one-dimensional.
And, that was just the beginning.
The marketing of beauty products was no accident. Marketing speak around ‘lightening’ or ‘whitening’ was a calculated way to create demand through insecurity. A 2019 World Health Organisation study revealed that lightening products made up almost 50 per cent of the skincare in India.
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/cvdpmp8d/pexels_photo_31552022.webp)
Skincare products that ‘brighten’ and ‘refine,’ ‘even’ and ‘smoothen’ your skin, leaving it ‘spotless’ and ‘flawless’ have entered the chat. Image: Instagram.com/laneigein
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/iihql6n8/pexels_photo_gfcgfnb_.avif)
A 2019 World Health Organisation study revealed that lightening products made up almost 50 per cent of the skincare in India. Image: Pexels
According to a report, in 2020, Fair & Lovely (now rebranded as Glow & Lovely), earned $550 million (or ₹4,100 crores) annually, in India alone. Before Fair & Lovely’s dominance, Afghan Snow—often cited as India’s first facial cream—featured brown-skinned Poonam Dhillon in its advertisements. But even that did little to shift the cultural obsession with whiteness.
Beauty looks different now, but the pressure isn't. Search for ‘whitening’ products on Nykaa or Tira, and the results are sparse. In their place: skincare products that ‘brighten’ and ‘refine,’ ‘even’ and ‘smoothen’ your skin, leaving it ‘spotless’ and ‘flawless’. But look closely, and it’s hard to shake the feeling: Has this jargon been rewritten to sell the same old insecurities, dressed up in a new packaging?
What forced Indian beauty brands to alter their messaging?
Not too long ago, beauty products were wildly aspirational for most. A face cream promised to make you 10 shades fairer, erase every dark spot, smoothen texture, vanish acne, and deliver an instant radiance—basically, turn you into someone completely different. For years, the industry got away with quietly pushing colourism, skin and body dysmorphia, and a zero-tolerance policy for pores and marks or anything resembling real skin.
Actor and director Shibani Dandekar Akhtar confesses feeling a sense of insecurity and inadequacy because of the way beauty brands market their products. “Maybe the women endorsing those products have flawless skin, but not everyone does. When this idea of perfect, flawless skin is sold, it’s a tough one to keep up with. I’ve accepted that I’ll never have ‘perfect’ skin,” she says. “I’m glad the market offers products to help me care for my skin; I use them while embracing my so-called ‘flaws’ and feel as good as I possibly can, without striving for this ideal of perfection.”
“IN A COUNTRY LIKE INDIA, WITH A BROAD SPECTRUM OF SKIN TONES AND TEXTURES, WHEN CAMPAIGNS ARE WHITEWASHED, I’M LEFT CONFUSED AS A CONSUMER”
Shibani Dandekar Akhtar
Diipa Khosla Büller, content creator and founder of indē wild, recalls facing harsh colourism. “Growing up, I was constantly reminded that I was the ‘darker one’ in my family, and it didn’t help that beauty advertisements reinforced the same idea. It led me to believe I needed to change myself, that I was inferior, and, more importantly, unworthy. It took me years to unlearn that messaging.”
Toxic beauty standards can be deeply personal. UK-based influencer Ankita Chaturvedi recalls hearing comments like “You look tired,” “You’ve tanned” or “Put something on your face, you’ll look fresh again.” For Meher Jadwani, founder of Dearist, growing up with frizzy curls in a world of glossy shampoo ads led her to chemically straighten her hair at 16.
A lot of the shifts in the beauty industry have come about from changing consumer expectations.With Gen Z emerging as a key demographic—and one that simply didn’t connect with conventional means of marketing—brands were forced to rethink their strategies. In 2022, 49 per cent of beauty consumers stated that beauty advertisements should make them feel good about themselves—and not otherwise.
Are ‘brightening’ and ‘glow’ just marketing buzzwords in skincare?
In the past five years, inclusive and diverse representation—across skin, hair, and body types—is the leading premise of the beauty industry’s facelift. As a result, brands have grown more mindful of the vocabulary deployed to market their product. Clinical studies, science-backed information, consumer-led reviews, and educational glossaries on ingredients have now entered the mainstream.
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/n2sy5usg/is_Clinical_insta1.jpg)
Brands now use clinical studies, science-backed information, consumer-led reviews, and educational glossaries on ingredients to market products. Image: Instagram.com/iscnlinical
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/71wkxs6t/pexels.png)
Claims around brightening and illuminating were among the top in facial skincare launches between 2019 and 2024, according to Mintel. Image: Pexels
Homegrown brands have swiftly picked up on the new normal, earning loyal consumers. While FAE Beauty’s zero-Photoshop policy promises an unfiltered understanding of their products in real-time, Aminu uses terms like ‘nourishing,’ ‘regenerating,’ and ‘longevity’ to describe their skincare solutions. The social media feeds of brands such as Juicy Chemistry, Pahadi Local, Purearth, Ruby’s Organics, and indē wild don’t adhere to the quintessential ‘Instagram face’ aesthetic—instead, they celebrate raw Indian faces. International brands are also now aware of a wider representation across their marketing campaigns.
But, the beauty industry’s 2.0 version isn’t as plain as it seems.
When a product sells brightening benefits, it is often paired with imagery of a white-skinned model with practically immaculate skin. Terms like ‘resurfacing,’ ‘radiant,’ ‘even-toned,’ and ‘texture-smoothing’ are essentially meant to highlight a product’s exfoliative, glow-enhancing, pigmentation-defying, and environmental damage-reversing benefits. However, again, when models with picture-perfect skin—oftentimes wearing make-up—are used to push and promote strong clinical claims, the messaging becomes diluted, even misleading. “In a country like India, with a broad spectrum of skin tones and textures, when campaigns are whitewashed, I’m left confused as a consumer,” cites Akhtar. It all circles back to that one polished illusion of beauty that doesn’t exist in reality.
“MOST BRANDS WILL BE INCLUSIVE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT BENEFITS THEIR BOTTOM LINE. IN THE PAST FEW YEARS THEY’VE BEEN COMPELLED TO ADOPT WOKE TERMINOLOGY BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT CONSUMERS DEMANDED OF THEM, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING”
Parizaad Khan Sethi
Claims around brightening and illuminating were among the top in facial skincare launches between 2019 and 2024, according to Mintel. But how trustworthy are these products? “Technically, from a skincare perspective, brightening and whitening are two different things. While most brands claim to be brightening based on removing dead skin cells or imparting glow, some might be misusing these terms and rebranding their tired old whitening products with callouts like brightening,” says beauty editor and writer Parizaad Khan Sethi . “Most brands will be inclusive only to the extent that benefits their bottom line. In the past few years they’ve been compelled to adopt woke terminology because that’s what consumers demanded of them, but that doesn’t mean anything. With very few exceptions, beauty brands don’t exist to ‘soothe’ our inner conflicts. Some do a great job of inclusivity, and whether they genuinely believe that messaging or are just great at seeming like they do, is a loaded question.”
Brightening versus whitening: What skincare claims really mean
Today, brands are speaking to consumers who are not only more aware of skincare ingredients but also more sensitive to the language used in marketing. Which means—brands can’t really mess up.
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/6tuf53vq/envato_a_pipette_of_cosmetic_gel_on_a_beige_background_2025_03_13_02_38_34_utc.jpg)
“Terms like ‘brightening,’ ‘refining,’ and ‘smoothing’ often create high expectations, but their actual results depend on multiple factors,” says Dr Jaishree Sharad. Image: Pexels
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/1sxbmjhr/pexels_photo_4672715.webp)
Dr Jaishree Sharad and Dr Madhuri Agarwal admit that patients still approach them to make their skin fairer and whiter. Image: Pexels
For some formulators and founders, it’s about clarity and care—not changing one’s tone. “The word ‘flawless’ has no business being in skincare. Skin has pores, texture, colour—that’s not a flaw, that’s biology,” says Prachi Bhandari, co-founder of Aminu. “When I work on making a brightening serum, I’m not formulating to change your natural skin tone, but to ease post-inflammatory pigmentation, and bring back clarity. It doesn’t mean lighter or whiter—it means clearer and calmer,” she adds.
For Jadwani, whose brand retails a Brightening Face Mask, language must be backed by science. “I’m always a little wary of overpromising. However, I do use words like ‘glow’ and ‘brightening’ because, to me, it isn’t about altering your skin tone, but what naturally occurs when your skin is nourished, calm, and healthy. And, creating a balanced formulation with amla (brightening), kaolin clay (detoxifying), and shea butter and apricot oil (hydration) is what equips the mask to justify the claim.”
Dermatologists, however, are quick to ground the conversation in science—less semantics, more substance. “Terms like ‘brightening,’ ‘refining,’ and ‘smoothing’ often create high expectations, but their actual results depend on multiple factors,” says Dr Jaishree Sharad, celebrity dermatologist and author of Skin Rules. “Scientifically, certain ingredients like vitamin C, niacinamide, AHAs or retinoids can improve skin texture, reduce dullness, and even tone to a certain extent. But these effects are gradual and vary based on skin type, consistency of use, and other underlying issues. “What these products can’t do is completely change someone’s natural skin tone or erase all imperfections. So, while they can support healthier, more radiant skin, they should be seen as part of a long-term routine, not a quick fix or a dramatic transformation tool. Realistic expectations are key,” adds Sharad.
THE WORD ‘FLAWLESS’ HAS NO BUSINESS BEING IN SKINCARE. SKIN HAS PORES, TEXTURE, COLOUR—THAT’S NOT A FLAW, THAT’S BIOLOGY”
Prachi Bhandari
A label can say ‘Vitamin C’ and still do nothing for your skin, adds celebrity dermatologist Dr Madhuri Agarwal. “The difference between effective skincare and marketing gimmicks often lies in the concentration. Look for evidence-backed ingredients at therapeutic concentrations: retinoids for cell turnover, vitamin C (10-20 per cent) for antioxidant protection, niacinamide (4-5 per cent) for barrier function, and, above all, broad-spectrum sunscreen.” She furthers, “Retinoids, niacinamide, vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid), AHAs/BHAs, ceramides, peptides, zinc, and hyaluronic acid are among the most researched [ingredients]. However, efficacy is not just about the ingredients. It’s about the formulation, pH, concentration, and delivery system. Skincare isn’t supposed to alter your DNA, and you shouldn’t expect that either.”
How consumer behaviour is compelling beauty brands to change
There’s a difference between offering a solution and selling a fear. But what we see time and again is the packaging of insecurities into a narrative of empowerment—when, in truth, it’s often a subtle form of shame-washing, notes Sharad.
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/fiejd5wv/pexels_photo_8140903.webp)
Skincare isn’t supposed to alter your DNA, and you shouldn’t expect that either, says Dr Madhuri Agarwal. Image: Pexels
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/fak58ptz/SHISEIDO.jpg)
Skincare can should be seen as part of a long-term routine, not a quick fix or a dramatic transformation tool, opines Dr Jaishree Sharad. Image: Instagram.com/shiseido
“I feel the pressure to look glowing and radiant all the time—especially in front of the camera—even though, in reality, I’m often battling exhaustion, bloating, or hormonal fatigue. The irony is, I know how marketing works, and yet I still find myself drawn to those same ‘brightening’ or ‘radiance-boosting’ promises,” confesses Chaturvedi. “It’s not about intelligence or awareness—it’s about how deeply these beauty ideals are wired into us.”
Both Agarwal and Sharad admit that patients still approach them to attain fairer skin. Consumers often complain about how beauty brands coaxed them into buying a product for problems that never existed. But here’s the thing: It was the widespread appetite for beauty yardsticks they set that fuelled their success. The Korean glass-skin trend? Few escaped its pull. “Brand advertising in many ways is a mirror of society: they’d never advertise in a way that wouldn’t sell,” says Khan Sethi. “In some ways, advertising says more about us as a society than it does about a brand. If we continue to believe fair skin is more desirable, brands will keep selling us their products marketed on fair-skinned people.”
For real change to take root, responsibility must be shared—by brands and consumers, but also by magazines, beauty influencers, and celebrities.
As a consumer, the most powerful tool is spending. Choose to support brands that align with your personal values, says Khan Sethi. “I’m happy with the way I look, which makes me impervious to beauty marketing. If I find any messaging questionable, I immediately blacklist the brand in my head, and remember not to give them my business henceforth.”
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/0up7gv2b/envato_aesthetic_and_creative_concept_of_skin_care_close_2025_01_09_03_43_11_utc.jpg)
Change will come when education becomes more important than aspiration, says Prachi Bhandari. Image: Pexels
/established/media/post_attachments/theestablished/2025-04-23/0agv2djz/pexels_photo_7479541.jpeg)
Terminology exists to sell skincare—but it doesn’t have to define beauty standards. Image: Pexels
While Khosla believes representation, inclusivity, and education must be built into every level of the brand—not just the label—Jadwani argues that it’s okay to be a quieter brand if that means not selling “miracle fixes” or using exaggerated before-and-after images as marketing tactics. Bhandari adds that it’s easier to say “fix your flaws” than to explain how a product gently supports your skin-barrier function. But “true change will come when education becomes more important than aspiration—and when marketing doesn’t rely on insecurity as a currency.”
“At times, beauty brands may use words like ‘acne,’ ‘pigmentation,’ ‘redness’ or ‘scarring’ to intentionally guide those facing any of these concerns to the right product—not pick on a consumer’s insecurities,” says Akhtar. “What’s important is for brands to be authentic, honest, and transparent, knowing that consumers tend to pin their hopes on a product. It would be great for the billion-dollar industry to come from a place of actually helping people.”
Consumers, too, need to stay vocal. “I see more and more people speak up on social media, whether it’s on fewer foundation shades or something to do with non-inclusive skincare,” she continues. “From this point, the changes should only be bigger and quicker.”
In the end, terminology exists to sell skincare—but it doesn’t have to define beauty standards. Consumers are no longer passive buyers in the beauty machine—but the definitions of beauty still lag behind. The industry may have updated its vocabulary, but the messaging still panders to the same old insecurities. Real change isn’t about reworded labels or sleeker packaging but about dismantling the ideals that made those insecurities profitable in the first place.
Also Read: Are men still dictating the beauty choices women should make?
Also Read: The lip service of inclusivity: Why the beauty industry still doesn’t see brown skin
Also Read: Is it smart to trust skin-type labels on your beauty products?