Shai Eisenman, the founder and chief executive of Bubble, gave an interview to Beauty Independent in June 2026 that is worth reading slowly. The headline numbers are eye-catching. Bubble has crossed $500 million in lifetime retail sales, is profitable, and has repeatedly declined acquisition offers. Source: Beauty Independent, "Bubble Founder Shai Eisenman On Gen Alpha, Beauty Fatigue And Not Selling," June 2026 (https://www.beautyindependent.com/bubble-founder-shai-eisenman-gen-alpha-beauty-fatigue-not-selling/).
The more important content is in the middle of the interview. Eisenman argues that the maximalist routine has peaked and that Gen Alpha is thinking about beauty in a way that breaks the assumptions Gen Z built. For founders running a £500k-£5m brand whose range expanded over the last three years on the logic that more steps drive more lifetime value, this is the category-level signal of the quarter.
The maximalist routine has been the operating thesis
Take a step back to the 2020-2024 period. The dominant operating logic across indie skincare was that complexity sold. The hero product was the anchor. The job of the brand was to expand the customer's routine, one step at a time, until the basket had four or five complementary SKUs that worked together. Cleanser, toner, serum, treatment, moisturiser, oil, mask, mist, eye, lip.
This logic produced beautiful unit economics on paper. Average order value crept up. Cross-sell drove repeat. Subscription stacks layered. Influencer routines normalised the 8-step format. The brands building this way looked like they had figured something out.
The category has now turned. There are three signals that point in the same direction.
First, the basket size data. Multiple retailers (Sephora, Ulta and Boots in their public commentary over the past nine months) are showing flat or declining items-per-transaction in skincare, even as units grow. The customer is buying, but spreading across simpler stacks.
Second, the search behaviour. Queries for "minimalist routine," "skinimalism" and "do I really need" have grown at a steady multi-quarter clip on Google Trends. Queries for "10-step routine" peaked in 2022 and have declined since.
Third, the founder commentary. Eisenman at Bubble. Brian Bordainick at Skinfix in his March 2026 podcast appearance. Wai Lee at Glow Recipe in her Dealmaker Summit panel two weeks ago. The operators with the closest customer relationship are saying the same thing. The customer is asking for fewer steps that work harder.
This is now enough operator and data signal to act on, not just observe.
The Gen Alpha lens
The other half of Eisenman's argument matters separately. She has been running Bubble through the Gen Z and Gen Alpha overlap longer than almost any other founder, because Bubble's price point and category positioning put it directly in front of the 13 to 19 demographic.
Her read, paraphrased, is that Gen Alpha is more sceptical of category complexity than Gen Z was at the same age. Gen Z was the routine-stacking generation, partly because TikTok rewarded the visual choreography of a multi-step routine. Gen Alpha, growing up post-TikTok-shop and post-Sephora-tween, is less impressed by the choreography. They are reading ingredient lists. They are asking which step actually does the work. They are watching their older sisters spend £200 on a 7-step routine that did not visibly change anything, and concluding that fewer products is not just simpler. It is smarter.
The relevant point is not that Gen Alpha is going to be your primary customer next year. It is that the next category-shaping cohort is forming opinions that are structurally hostile to range expansion. The brand-building decisions made in 2026 and 2027 will look either wise or short-sighted depending on which side of the simplification curve they sit.
What "fewer SKUs that work harder" looks like in practice
It is easy to nod along to the simplification thesis and not change anything operationally. The harder question is what acting on it actually looks like.
A few patterns are emerging across the brands defending margin best in this environment.
The hero SKU is doing more work. Multi-action formulas that previously would have been split across two products (a serum plus a treatment) are being collapsed into one. The marketing claim is sharper. "This is the one thing in your routine that does this job" reads better in 2026 than "this completes your routine."
The range is contracting, not expanding. Brands are retiring SKUs that absorb inventory and compliance overhead without contributing repeat. The exercise is unglamorous. It involves a SKU-by-SKU 90-day repeat audit and an honest conversation about which products are doing real work in the customer's life and which are doing PR work for the brand.
The price ladder is tightening. Where the range used to span six prices to support upsell across a routine, it now sits at two or three. The customer can understand the choice. The brand can defend each price point with a specific claim.
The cross-sell logic is changing. Instead of "you bought the serum, here is the toner you should add," the cross-sell is "you bought the serum, here is the eye treatment, and the moisturiser you can add if you do not already use one you love." The brand is no longer fighting the customer's existing routine.
This is a meaningful operating shift, not a marketing tweak. It pulls inventory planning, formulation roadmap, paid acquisition strategy and creator brief all in the same direction.
The risk of the simplification narrative
A note of caution. The simplification thesis is starting to acquire the shape of an industry consensus, and consensus is usually where the easy thinking happens. There are two ways the thesis could mislead a founder.
The first is that simplification does not mean cheap. Brands that read this as a signal to compete on price are misreading. The simplification customer is willing to pay more per SKU for a product that earns its place. La Roche Posay, Augustinus Bader, Skinfix, U Beauty are all defending or growing price in the simplification market. The customer is buying fewer products at higher conviction, not fewer products at lower spend.
The second is that simplification does not apply evenly across categories. Colour cosmetics, fragrance and body care are running on different cycles. Colour is fragmenting (more shades, more finishes, more occasion-specific products). Fragrance is layering (multiple scents on the same person on the same day). Body care is expanding (Sol de Janeiro, Sunday Riley body, Drunk Elephant body). The simplification thesis is sharpest in skincare and adjacent treatment categories. The diagnostic question is whether the customer in your category is consolidating or expanding right now.
The work this week
If the simplification thesis applies to your category and your range is wider than it needs to be, the work this week is straightforward.
Pull a SKU-by-SKU 90-day repeat report. Identify the three SKUs doing the most retention work. Identify the bottom 30 percent of the range by repeat contribution. Have an honest internal conversation about whether the bottom 30 percent is doing PR work for the brand or commercial work.
Then plan the Q4 range. If the simplification curve continues to bend, the brands that contracted ahead of the customer will be defending margin. The brands that kept expanding to fill a routine the customer is shortening will be discounting.
Eisenman's read is sharp because it is built on direct customer signal from a brand at the front edge of the demographic shift. The interview is worth reading in full. The number to take from it is not $500M. It is the line about fewer steps. That is the operating signal of the quarter.