Everyone's Skin Is Different: The Industry's Convenient Catch-All

It’s true that individual skin varies. But somewhere along the way, this obvious fact became a catch-all defence against any criticism of product performance.

“Why didn’t this work for me?” “Everyone’s skin is different.”

“Why do I see no results after months?” “Everyone’s skin is different.”

“Why did this highly-rated product break me out?” “Everyone’s skin is different.”

The statement is accurate. The way it’s used often isn’t.

When Variation Is the Real Answer

Let’s acknowledge where individual variation genuinely matters:

Sensitivity and Tolerance

Some people react to ingredients that most tolerate well. This is real:

• Fragrance allergies
• Responses to specific preservatives
• Sensitivity to certain botanicals
• Intolerance to even low concentrations of actives

If a well-formulated retinol causes persistent irritation despite careful use, individual tolerance is a legitimate explanation.

Skin Type Matching

Products designed for oily skin may not suit dry skin, and vice versa. A mattifying moisturiser will fail someone with desert-dry skin — that’s mismatch, not product failure.

Unique Responses

Occasionally, people have genuinely unusual responses to products. Rare allergies, paradoxical reactions, and individual biology exist.

When Variation Is an Excuse

The problem arises when “everyone’s skin is different” deflects legitimate product criticism:

Underdosed Actives

A serum containing 0.1% of a peptide at homeopathic doses won’t work for anyone. When it fails, the explanation isn’t individual variation — it’s inadequate formulation.

“Everyone’s skin is different” shouldn’t shield products that were never going to work because the actives aren’t at effective levels.

Poor Formulation

If a vitamin C serum has oxidised, if an emulsion is unstable, if the pH doesn’t allow the active to work — these are product failures.

Individual variation doesn’t explain why a fundamentally flawed product doesn’t work.

Inflated Claims

When a product claims to “eliminate wrinkles” and doesn’t, the issue isn’t that your skin is different. The issue is that the claim was unrealistic.

Individual variation becomes a convenient excuse for overpromising.

Universal Mechanisms

Some ingredients work through mechanisms that don’t vary much person to person:

• Humectants attract water. They do this in everyone.
• Occlusives reduce TEWL. This is physics, not biology.
• SPF blocks UV radiation. The laws of physics apply universally.

When simple, mechanistic products fail, “everyone’s skin is different” isn’t the answer. Something else is wrong.

The Responsibility Shift

“Everyone’s skin is different” conveniently shifts responsibility from product to consumer:

The Brand Perspective

If a product doesn’t work, it’s not our formulation — it’s your skin. You’re the variable, not us.

This framing eliminates accountability. No product can ever truly fail because failure is redefined as individual mismatch.

The Consumer Burden

The message becomes: you need to find what works for your unique skin. Keep buying, keep experimenting. Each failure isn’t a product problem — it’s a matching problem that requires more purchases to solve.

This is convenient for an industry selling trial and error.

The Influencer Shield

When sponsored products don’t work for viewers, “everyone’s skin is different” provides cover. The recommendation wasn’t wrong; the viewer’s skin just wasn’t suitable.

This protects relationships while invalidating consumer experience.

The Underlying Assumptions

The phrase carries implicit assumptions worth examining:

“Your Experience Is Unique”

This implies that general principles don’t apply to you. That expertise can’t predict what will work. That you’re an exception to rules that work for everyone else.

Sometimes true. Often used to dismiss legitimate feedback.

”Results Vary”

Yes, results vary. But variation has limits. A well-formulated 0.5% retinol should produce some observable change in most users over 12 weeks. If it produces nothing, “results vary” isn’t sufficient explanation.

”Keep Looking”

The subtext is that the right product exists if you search long enough. This normalises endless purchasing and experimentation rather than questioning whether products are delivering on their claims.

What Honest Variation Looks Like

Legitimate individual variation affects:

Tolerance thresholds: Some people handle 1% retinol immediately; others need months of adjustment at 0.25%.

Response magnitude: A product might reduce redness by 40% in one person and 20% in another.

Time to results: Some people see vitamin C benefits in 4 weeks; others need 12.

Side effect profiles: Niacinamide is well-tolerated by most but causes flushing in some.

These are variations in degree and timeline — not variations where a functional product produces zero effect in some users.

Questions to Ask Instead

When a product doesn’t work, before accepting “everyone’s skin is different”:

Was the formulation adequate?

• Were actives at researched concentrations?
• Was pH appropriate for the actives?
• Was the product within date and properly stored?

Was use consistent and appropriate?

• Used for long enough?
• Applied correctly?
• No conflicting products interfering?

Were expectations reasonable?

• Were claims realistic in the first place?
• Was improvement measurable or just hoped-for?

Is this a pattern?

• Has this brand/type of product failed repeatedly?
• Do similar products from other brands work?

If the formulation was adequate, use was correct, expectations were reasonable, and similar products work — then individual variation might genuinely explain the mismatch.

If the product was underdosed, unstable, or overclaimed — individual variation isn’t the explanation.

The Informed Position

The honest approach acknowledges:

Variation is real. Not every product suits every person. Some trial and error is genuinely necessary.

Variation has limits. Effective products at effective concentrations work for most people, even if degree and timeline vary.

Not all failure is mismatch. Some products fail because they’re poorly formulated, not because your skin is unusual.

The burden cuts both ways. Brands should formulate effective products; consumers should use them appropriately.

The Bottom Line

“Everyone’s skin is different” is true. It’s also become a thought-terminating cliche that shields ineffective products from criticism.

Use the phrase when it genuinely applies: true sensitisation, skin type mismatch, unusual individual responses.

Reject it when it deflects legitimate concerns: underdosed formulations, unrealistic claims, products that wouldn’t work for anyone.

Your skin is individual. But you’re not so unique that basic cosmetic chemistry doesn’t apply to you. When products fail, consider whether it’s your skin — or whether the product was never going to work as claimed.

Individual variation explains some things. It doesn’t explain everything. And the industry’s overreliance on this defence should make you skeptical, not accepting.