A recent controversy surrounding a South Korean cosmetics brand has highlighted a significant issue in the K-beauty industry. The brand faced backlash after marketing a blush shade as the “adorable cheeks of a Mongolian baby,” an outdated stereotype that sparked outrage online. Content creator Khaliun brought this to light in a viral Instagram video, forcing the brand to apologize and adjust its marketing language to describe the shade as “a beautiful deep mocha pink color that appears gently warmed by the sun.” This incident is emblematic of a more extensive problem: a beauty industry that primarily caters to a narrow demographic while neglecting the diversity of global consumers.
The K-Beauty Phenomenon
The fascination with Korean beauty began in the 2010s, focusing predominantly on skincare routines that emphasized concepts like double cleansing and achieving the coveted “glass skin.” Since these practices were primarily facial-centric, issues of inclusion did not prominently arise.
As K-pop and K-dramas gained popularity worldwide, they became crucial vehicles for promoting K-beauty. The visibility of these cultural exports contributed to South Korea overtaking France as the leading cosmetic exporter to the U.S. in 2024, with shipments amounting to 1.7 billion dollars.
The Shift to Color Cosmetics
However, this success took a problematic turn with the introduction of color cosmetics. Brands typically offered foundation shades intended for their local market, usually limited to three to five very light tones like “porcelain” and “ivory.” When these brands ventured into foreign markets, darker-skinned consumers found themselves excluded from the beauty innovations they had long awaited.
The Persisting Standards of Beauty
Despite the K-pop industry’s efforts to challenge gender norms, racial inclusivity remains lacking. The prevailing beauty standards emphasize light skin, a small V-shaped face, and large eyes. A recent study defined these norms as a form of cultural racism, promoting an aesthetic that feels universal while marginalizing countless others. In many Asian cultures, the preference for light skin is tied to historical notions of social status.
The Cultural Clash
The globalization of K-beauty has sparked cultural clashes, as evidenced by YouTube series like “Black Girl Tries Korean Makeup.” This series highlighted the frustration among Black creators regarding the lack of darker foundation shades and the emphasis on whitening products. Some in the Korean audience defended the brands, arguing that their standards should be viewed through a domestic lens rather than a Western perspective.
Steps Toward Inclusion
Real change within the industry has become evident: diversity can be immensely profitable. TIRTIR, for instance, saw a staggering 55.465% increase in sales in the U.S. after expanding their foundation range to include darker shades. Brands like Dear Dahlia and Yepo Beauty have begun to recognize this need, launching products specifically designed for deeper skin tones.
The Importance of Authenticity
Despite some positive movements, not all attempts at inclusion have been successful. Youthforia’s release of a tone perceived as a caricature garnered negative feedback, reminding brands that poorly executed inclusion can sometimes lead to more harm than good.
Confronting Beauty Ideals
The conversation surrounding beauty is further complicated by societal pressures around youth and aging. The rise in popularity of collagen-based products speaks to a global anxiety about aging, a pressure that predominantly affects women. The standards propagated by K-culture influence self-esteem and societal expectations in complex ways.
As South Korea slowly transitions toward a multicultural society, it faces a pivotal moment in its beauty industry. To truly resonate with a global audience, brands must acknowledge the diversity of their customers and redefine beauty standards to encompass a broader range of identities. The question remains: with K-beauty’s potential for revolutionizing beauty routines, will the next wave prioritize genuine inclusivity?