Consumer trend lists are the wrong input for a development decision. They describe what is being bought now, which by the time you have developed, tested, registered and shipped is what was being bought a year ago.
The more useful signal for a brand owner is what other brands are asking to build, because that is already a year ahead of shelf and it tells you what the comparison set will look like when you arrive. This is written from that angle — patterns in the briefs that reach us — with no market-size figures, because we do not have data we could stand behind and a made-up number is worse than none.
The Structural Shifts
These are slower than trends and matter more, because they change what a product has to be rather than what it contains.
Barrier is the default frame, not a category
A few years ago barrier care was a segment. Now it is the framing most briefs arrive in, whatever the product is. Even actives-led concepts are positioned as barrier-respecting rather than barrier-challenging.
Practically, this means the supporting system matters as much as the hero active — and it is a reason ceramide and lipid systems appear in briefs that are not about ceramides at all.
Fewer steps, more work per step
The ten-step routine has receded, in Korea before anywhere else. Briefs increasingly ask for one product to do what two used to, and consumers who tried maximalism and came back are the reason.
This is harder to formulate than it sounds. A hybrid product usually means competing viscosity and sensory targets in one formula, and it is a common source of extra development rounds.
Ingredient transparency is a differentiator now
Buyers ask what percentage, of what — the raw material or the active content. Enough consumers have learned that a headline number can mean either that answering it precisely has become a positioning choice rather than an evasion.
For a brand this cuts both ways. If you are going to name a percentage, be ready to say which one it is. See how the question plays out for peptides, where the two figures can differ by orders of magnitude.
Sun care stopped being seasonal
Daily-use SPF, cosmetically elegant, worn under or instead of makeup. This is one of the strongest areas of Korean formulation and one of the hardest to export, because the US treats sunscreen as a drug with a narrower filter list. Plan the market before the formula on this category, not after.
Clinic adjacency
Products positioned as companions to in-clinic treatment. It drives the biotech active categories and it is where claim discipline matters most, because the language available in a clinic context does not survive translation into consumer marketing in most export markets.
The Ingredient Cycle
Ingredients move through a predictable arc, and knowing where one sits tells you more than knowing it is popular.
Emerging. In clinics and specialist products. High cost, thin supply, uncertain regulatory position in export markets. Real differentiation, real risk.
Ascending. Consumer awareness rising, supply improving, cost falling. This is the window where building is most rewarded — awareness exists so you do not have to create it, and the category is not yet saturated.
Mainstream. Everyone has one. The ingredient no longer differentiates; formulation quality, concentration transparency and the supporting system do.
Commodity. Present in almost everything, rarely the hero. Still valuable as part of a system.
Two mistakes follow from ignoring the arc. Building on an emerging ingredient without pricing the regulatory risk — exosome sourcing is the clearest current example, where the source material decides whether you can sell in Europe at all. And building on a mainstream ingredient expecting it to differentiate, which produces a good product with no reason to be chosen.
The commercially safest position is usually an ascending active in a well-built system, launched with a specific claim you can substantiate.
What Ages Badly
Patterns we see in briefs that tend not to survive contact with a market.
A trend as the whole concept. If the product is the trend, the product ends when the trend does. Trends work as an entry point into a positioning that outlasts them, not as the positioning.
A trend you cannot legally express in your market. Regularly the clinic-adjacent ones. Confirm the claim set is available to you before development, not after artwork.
Stacking three hero actives. Cost rises steeply, stability work compounds, and substantiating what each contributes gets harder rather than easier. One lead active with a supporting complex almost always outperforms.
A format chosen for the photograph. Two-part systems, unusual dispensers, dramatic textures. Occasionally right. Usually they add component cost, lead time and failure modes for a benefit that is real for one social post and absent thereafter.
Chasing a trend with an ODM timeline. If you are eighteen months from shelf, you are not launching into today's trend. Either build on a structural shift, which moves slowly enough to catch, or go private label and accept a non-exclusive base to hit the window — the trade-off is set out in OEM, ODM and private label compared.
Reading a Trend Before Committing
Five questions, and they take an afternoon.
- Where is it in the cycle? Emerging, ascending, mainstream or commodity.
- Can you say what you want to say about it in every market you sell in? Check before formulating.
- Does it survive your timeline? Count backwards from shelf, including testing and registration, and ask whether the trend is still there.
- What happens if it fades? A product that only makes sense inside the trend is a dead SKU when it passes. One that makes sense as a good product with a timely story is not.
- Is the ingredient the differentiator, or is your execution? If the ingredient is mainstream, your differentiation has to come from the formula, the sensory profile or the brand — and you should be able to name which.
What We Would Build
Not advice for every brand, but the pattern with the best odds across the briefs we see:
One hero product. An ascending active, not an emerging one. A barrier-respecting supporting system. A conventional, well-executed format rather than a novel one. A specific claim you can substantiate in every market you sell in. Transparent about concentration, including which figure the number refers to.
Then extend from real sell-through data rather than from the next trend list. What that costs and in what order is set out in the development cost breakdown.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should we build our first product around a trending ingredient?
Around an ascending one, ideally — awareness already exists and the category is not yet saturated. Emerging ingredients carry regulatory and supply risk that a first product is badly placed to absorb; mainstream ones no longer differentiate. Whichever you choose, the ingredient should be the entry point to a positioning that outlasts it.
How do we know if a trend will last long enough?
Count backwards from your intended shelf date through registration, testing and development, and ask whether the trend is still plausible at the far end. If the honest answer is no, either build on a structural shift instead — those move slowly enough to catch — or go private label to hit the window and accept a non-exclusive base.
Why not use the strongest trending actives together?
Because cost, stability work and substantiation difficulty all compound, while the marketing benefit does not. Three hero actives in one formula is usually a more expensive product that is harder to explain and harder to defend. One lead active with a supporting complex is the better structure almost every time.
Do you publish market size data?
No. We do not hold data we could stand behind, and a figure repeated from a secondary source is worse than no figure because it is treated as verified. What we can describe is the pattern in the development briefs that reach us, which is a year ahead of shelf and directly relevant to what your comparison set will look like on arrival.
What is the safest first product for a new brand?
An ascending active in a conventional format with a claim you can substantiate everywhere you sell. Novel formats and emerging actives are where the differentiation is, and also where the cost, the lead time and the regulatory risk are. A first product is usually the wrong place to spend all three at once.