In 2025, the beauty industry began to live up to a compelling contradiction: more brands publicly embracing inclusivity, yet the field still reveals deep, stubborn gaps that undermine the whole effort. My read is that inclusivity is finally moving from a marketing checkbox to a strategic nerve center — but the execution is uneven, uneven enough to matter for both brands and consumers.
A new lens on progress
- The SeeMe Inclusivity Index, in collaboration with Circana, puts real data behind the claim that inclusive branding can drive growth. Twenty-two brands qualified as “Certified Inclusive,” meaning they consistently represent diverse communities across ads, on sites, and in brand purpose. This isn’t tokenism; it’s a coherent, ongoing policy. Personally, I think this is the signal most brands should heed: inclusion as a business metric, not a PR blip.
- The sales data backs that up. Certified Inclusive brands grew 1.8 times faster than their less inclusive peers, hitting 2.7% year-over-year growth versus 1.5%. In plain terms: when you walk the talk on representation, the market rewards you. What makes this particularly fascinating is that it reframes diversity as a competitive differentiator rather than a philanthropic add-on. If you take a step back and think about it, this is how cultural alignment translates into cash flow.
What’s improving (and what isn’t)
- On-screen representation is creeping upward for certain groups: plus-size talent and older nonwhite talent are inching into more visibility. Yet neither plus-size nor 55-plus talent has cracked 7% of screen time yet. In my opinion, this reveals a stubborn bias baked into production and casting pipelines that still privileges a narrow beauty norm. The numbers suggest incremental progress, not a tidal shift.
- Colorism remains a stubborn blind spot. Deep-skinned talent command less than a quarter of screen time. That’s not simply a tired statistic; it signals a missed opportunity to authentically reflect a global customer base. From my perspective, this should be a wake-up call for brands to diversify casting criteria, audition more widely, and value beauty beyond lightness gradients.
- Gender nonconforming representation shrank to 0.7% of screen time, down from 1.5% in recent years. This isn’t just a cultural misstep; it’s a sign that audacious inclusivity can slip if it’s not embedded into recruitment and content strategy from the top.
What the numbers look like, and what they imply
- The data still overrepresents white talent (about 42% known or perceived as white) and young talent (69% under 30). This static snapshot reveals that while progress exists, it’s not yet a wholesale reimagining of who gets to star in beauty ads. What this really suggests is that there’s a deeply entrenched system shaping who is cast, who is photographed, and what stories get told.
- Age, race, and gender presentation are not just cosmetic labels; they influence how billions of dollars in marketing budgets are allocated. The brands leading inclusivity tend to be the ones most willing to disrupt old norms and to question what “standard beauty” actually means in today’s market.
Who’s leading and why it matters
- The 10 most inclusive brands — Rare Beauty, Haus Labs, MAC, Danessa Myricks Beauty, Lancôme, Dove, Gillette, Pattern Beauty, Sephora, and Fenty Beauty — are not accidental. They reflect a conscious, ongoing strategy to embed representation into product development, advertising, and identity. In my view, these brands are building a more durable, trust-based relationship with consumers who demand reality over idealized fantasy.
- Representation varies by category. Hispanic/Latin talent dominates hair care; East/Southeast Asian talent is most common in skincare; Black talent stands out in men’s and in “brand purpose” content. This signals that brands are learning to align representation with category narratives rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach. What makes this particularly interesting is how it mirrors consumer affinity: different communities engage with different product stories, not just polymerized versions of one story.
Personal reflections on implications
- Inclusivity as strategy implies a future where brands are judged for their long-game commitments, not short-term campaigns. If a label like “Certified Inclusive” becomes a standard, we’ll likely see tighter collaboration with diverse creators, more representative product testing, and transparent reporting on representation metrics. That shift could elevate industry standards across the board.
- The broader trend is that social expectations are shifting faster than production pipelines. Brands that innovate in inclusive storytelling — not just representation but the authenticity, credibility, and community engagement that accompany it — will own cultural capital. My concern is that without structural changes (like casting pipelines, creator partnerships, and supply-chain diversity), gains could stall or reverse when budgets tighten.
A deeper question
- What does sustained inclusivity require beyond ads and packaging? In my opinion, it demands real product accessibility, culturally informed marketing, and leadership that mirrors the diverse consumer base. It also requires ongoing education within companies about bias in casting, photography, and copy. If brands want to defend their inclusivity edge, they must institutionalize it, not tokenize it.
Final takeaway
- The 2025 landscape shows a real, if uneven, step forward: inclusivity can be a growth engine, not just a conscience project. The brands that succeed will be those that translate representation into consistent practice — across ads, product development, and corporate culture. What this suggests is a future where beauty standards become more pluralistic, creative, and ultimately more profitable for those who commit to the long-term work of representation.
