Men's skincare has been "about to have its moment" for about fifteen years. The framing was always wrong. Brands kept treating it as a niche demographic play - build a black or navy version of a female-coded product, add some wood notes to the fragrance, put "for men" on the packaging, and call it a segment.
The category is finally growing. But it is not growing the way those brands predicted.
The fastest-growing segment in prestige skincare is not men buying products made for men. It is men - and an increasingly large portion of non-binary and gender-fluid consumers - buying products made for skin. The "for men" designation is a barrier to purchase for a significant portion of the growing male skincare audience. They do not want to be a niche. They want to be a customer.
The numbers that changed the conversation
Prestige men's skincare grew by 22% globally in 2024 and accelerated into 2025. The US, UK, and Korean markets are leading, with the mid-market following approximately 18 months behind.
But the numbers that matter more are the ones showing where the growth is coming from. The products with the highest growth in the male-identified buyer category are not from men's grooming brands. They are from brands like Cetaphil, CeraVe, Paula's Choice, and The Ordinary - all of which have largely gender-neutral positioning, functional language, and packaging that does not signal gender explicitly.
The male skincare buyer is not searching for "men's moisturiser". They are searching for "best moisturiser for oily skin", "retinol for beginners", or "ceramide for dry skin". The category-level search behaviour is identical to the female buyer. The purchasing barrier is the point at which gendered brand language makes them feel the product is not for them.
Why gender-neutral wins on the commercial fundamentals
Running a gender-neutral SKU is better economics than running a male-coded version of an existing product.
A single SKU serves a broader audience. You do not dilute marketing spend across two separate positioning tracks. You do not carry two packaging variants with their associated minimum order quantities and inventory risk. You do not exclude buyers who are interested but deterred by the signal that the product is designed for someone else.
For smaller and mid-size brands, the efficiency argument alone is compelling. You cannot afford to build and sustain two separate product identities. A single, function-first SKU that communicates directly to what the product does - and does not code for gender anywhere in the packaging, copy, or imagery - captures the whole market rather than half of it.
What gender-neutral actually means in practice
It does not mean removing all design personality. Some of the strongest gender-neutral brands have very clear visual identities.
Aesop is not masculine or feminine - it is precise, ingredient-led, and architectural. The Ordinary is clinical to the point of being anti-aesthetic. Both serve broad audiences because their products are positioned entirely on function.
Gender-neutral means:
- Packaging that communicates ingredient or function rather than lifestyle or gender identity
- Copy that describes what the product does for skin, not what it does for a demographic
- Imagery that shows skin outcomes, not a person performing a gendered role
- Paid targeting based on skin concerns and purchase intent, not demographic gender proxies
The brands that trip here are the ones that think gender-neutral means pastel and deliberately ambiguous. That is not the move. Function-first is the move. When your hero claim is "repairs the skin barrier in 14 days", the gender of the consumer is irrelevant to the claim, and the claim lands equally for anyone with that skin concern.
The male buyer specifically: what works differently
The male skincare buyer who is newer to the category has a shorter trust window than the average experienced female skincare consumer. They are less likely to tolerate a product that does not produce a tangible result in the first two weeks. They are much more likely to make purchasing decisions based on reviews from people with a similar lifestyle - fitness, chefs, athletes, creatives - rather than from traditional skincare content creators.
Creator strategy matters significantly here. A routine recommendation from a fitness creator, a chef, or a sportsperson converts the male skincare consumer more effectively than the same recommendation from a traditional beauty influencer. The product needs to be present in the right contextual conversations, not just in the right category feeds.
The other factor is routine architecture. The multi-step skincare routine that drives retention in the established female skincare market does not land in the same way with newer male buyers. A two or three-step entry point - cleanser, moisturiser, SPF - with clear outcomes and a low daily time investment converts better than opening with a full regimen. Brands that build for simplicity at entry and expand the routine post-purchase through email education will have materially better retention data than brands that front-load complexity.
The category is not a phase
The men's skincare growth is not driven by a cultural moment. It is driven by a generational shift. Gen Z men grew up in an environment where skincare is a normal topic in male social circles, where grooming content is mainstream across every social platform, and where the stigma that existed for previous generations around male skincare simply does not register.
That cohort is now entering its highest discretionary spending years. They are not going to stop buying skincare as they age. They are going to buy more of it, and they are going to buy premium.
Brands that build function-first positioning, remove the gender friction from their customer experience, and show up credibly in the conversations where this buyer actually lives will capture a significant and durable share of the fastest-growing segment in prestige beauty.
The window to establish that positioning before the category becomes saturated is open now. It will not stay open at the same cost for long.