One Brand, Multiple Generations: What Beauty Marketing Is Getting Right

Reaching more generations does not require a brand to become more generic. A recent Launchmetrics discussion in New York offered a more useful lesson: keep the brand core clear, then change the voice, channel and format through which different audiences encounter it.

Beauty marketing has spent much of the past decade chasing the next generation.

First Millennials. Then Gen Z. Now Gen Alpha.

At the September 22, 2026 Launchmetrics breakfast in New York, Beauty in the Multigenerational Era: Winning Every Generation, the discussion pointed in a different direction. The challenge is increasingly not how to replace one target generation with another, but how to build a brand that can remain relevant across several generations at the same time.

Launchmetrics’ accompanying report, Beauty in the Multigenerational Era: Capturing Market Share Across Ages, found that brands making deliberate efforts to reach multiple generations within at least one campaign saw Media Impact Value, or MIV, increase by an average of 42% from Q4 2025 to Q1 2026, compared with 36% among brands taking a less multigenerational approach.

The six-point difference is interesting. But the more useful takeaway for brands is not the number itself. It is how the stronger examples were structured.

They were not creating a different brand for every generation. They were keeping the brand consistent while changing how different audiences encountered it.

The problem with chasing generations

For years, many brands have treated younger consumers as the primary source of future growth.

The logic is understandable. Younger consumers can shape culture, accelerate social trends and potentially remain customers for decades. But an excessive focus on one generation creates another risk: the brand can begin reorganizing itself around the audience rather than around its own identity.

That tension came up repeatedly during the Launchmetrics discussion.

Angie Castro-Patterson, Senior Vice President at Havas Formula, who leads the agency’s Beauty & Wellness practice, argued that brands need to establish what remains non-negotiable before deciding how to communicate through different platforms or partners.

The audience may change.

The format may change.

The messenger may change.

The brand should not.

That distinction matters because consumers rarely encounter a brand in only one place. A customer may first see a product through TikTok, later read about it in traditional media, encounter it in a retailer, notice a celebrity partnership and finally visit the brand’s own website.

If each of those touchpoints communicates a slightly different idea of what the brand stands for, reach can increase while brand clarity decreases.

The same message does not require the same execution

Launchmetrics’ report makes this point particularly well.

Its conclusion is not that every generation should receive identical content. Instead, the stronger campaigns used one cohesive brand message delivered through different Voices and channels depending on the audience.

Renee Ogaki, Founder and CEO of OGAKI, describes the same principle in the report: a Gen Z creator may express a brand message through a short GRWM video, while a Millennial tastemaker may place it in a Substack recommendation and a Gen X dermatologist may explain it through educational video content.

The message remains consistent. The storytelling changes.

This is more sophisticated than simple demographic targeting. It treats different generations not as separate markets requiring separate brands, but as different entry points into the same brand.

MAC: one campaign, multiple entry points

MAC Cosmetics provides one of the clearest examples.

Its “I Only Wear MAC” campaign brought together talent spanning several decades, including Kris Jenner, Kristen McMenamy, Kiko Mizuhara, Doja Cat and younger creators.

According to Launchmetrics, the campaign generated $4.9 million in MIV within 48 hours.

But the more interesting part is not simply the scale.

Each participant created a different cultural entry point into the same campaign. A younger audience did not need to relate to Kris Jenner. An older audience did not need to identify with a nineteen-year-old creator. The campaign did not require one person to represent everyone.

Instead, MAC created a single idea large enough to accommodate several audiences.

That is fundamentally different from trying to find one “universal” spokesperson who somehow represents every demographic.

Lancôme: building a network around one idea

Lancôme took a more layered approach with its Absolue Longevity campaign.

The launch combined ambassadors from different generations, influencer seeding, medical credibility and an entertainment partnership around a single idea: longevity.

Launchmetrics reports that approximately one thousand product boxes were sent to influencers, editors and medical experts ahead of the ambassador announcements. The campaign involved figures including Zoë Saldaña, Demi Moore and Ella McCutcheon, while the broader rollout extended into The Devil Wears Prada 2 and a Vogue editorial.

The campaign generated $6.5 million in MIV in one month.

Its Voice Mix was also relatively balanced: Traditional Media accounted for 38.8%, followed by Influencers at 24.7%, Celebrities at 17.1%, Owned Media at 15.4% and Partners at 4.0%.

This matters because it shows that multigenerational marketing is not simply about selecting ambassadors of different ages. The campaign architecture itself was diversified.

Different Voices performed different roles.

• Media provided editorial validation and context.
• Influencers translated the product into personal experience.
• Celebrities created visibility and cultural attention.
• Owned Media maintained the brand’s own narrative.
• Partners extended the story into adjacent cultural environments.

The brand did not depend on one channel to do everything.

The underestimated role of Owned Media

One of the more interesting points in the keynote was the role of Owned Media.

Krista Johnson, Director of Brand Insights at Launchmetrics, noted that influencers still generate substantial media impact in beauty, but highlighted the growth of Owned Media among successful multigenerational campaigns.

Her point was practical: unlike influencer or editorial coverage, Owned Media is one of the few communication environments a brand directly controls.

That does not mean brands should retreat into their own channels. Quite the opposite.

Owned Media becomes more valuable when it works together with external Voices. A strong website, social account or editorial platform can provide the central narrative. Media, creators, retailers and partners can then interpret or validate that narrative for their respective audiences.

The functions are different, and both are necessary.

Channel selection should follow the product

Another useful point from the panel was the rejection of formulaic channel planning.

Influencers can be particularly effective in makeup because the product is highly demonstrable: texture, color, application and immediate visual impact translate naturally into social content.

Haircare and skincare often benefit from more explanatory formats.

Fragrance presents an even more interesting case.

As Steph Saltzman, Beauty & Style Director at Fashionista, noted during the discussion, fragrance cannot literally be experienced through a screen, yet fragrance content has developed an effective language of description, atmosphere and identity that can still drive interest and conversion.

The implication is straightforward.

Brands should not start with “Which platform is growing fastest?” They should start with “How does this product need to be understood?”

Then the channel and format can follow the product.

Much digital marketing still works in the opposite direction. A platform becomes fashionable, budgets move toward it, and brands then try to force the product into that format.

Fragmentation may be a bigger risk than channel choice

Perhaps the most relevant point for many companies came from Castro-Patterson.

She identified fragmentation between PR, influencer, paid media and other partners as a recurring problem. Different agencies receive different briefs. Different teams develop different language. Different channels optimize for different objectives.

No one is necessarily responsible for ensuring that the consumer experiences one coherent brand.

This problem becomes more serious as brands add channels.

Multichannel marketing is not automatically integrated marketing.

Being present on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, editorial media, retail and experiential channels does not create a coherent consumer journey unless those activities originate from the same strategic idea.

The e.l.f. example discussed during the panel illustrated the opposite approach. Castro-Patterson described a structure in which agencies, spokespeople and teams begin from a shared brand perspective, then develop different executions for different audiences and channels.

That may be the more important organizational lesson from the event.

Before adding another platform, another creator or another campaign, brands may need to improve the connective tissue between the partners they already have.

What Japanese brands can take from this

For Japanese companies entering the U.S., the temptation is often to treat localization as adaptation.

Different language. Different imagery. Different influencers. Different social platforms. Sometimes even different positioning.

Some of those changes may be necessary. But localization should not mean rebuilding the identity of the brand every time the audience changes.

A stronger process is to separate what should remain consistent from what can change.

Should remain consistent	Can change by market or audience
Core brand idea	Spokesperson or creator
Product value proposition	Platform and format
Proof points	Cultural reference
Brand identity and strategic positioning	Local partner or retailer
What the company wants to be known for	Tone and execution

This distinction becomes particularly important when several local partners are involved.

A distributor may describe the product one way. A PR agency another. A creator another. A retailer may simplify the story further.

Without a clearly defined central narrative, the U.S. market can gradually create its own version of the brand.

Sometimes that version is stronger. Sometimes it is simply inconsistent.

HMC Perspective

The broader lesson from Launchmetrics’ multigenerational discussion is not that every brand must market equally to every age group.

Nor does the 42% versus 36% MIV comparison prove that multigenerational marketing itself caused higher performance. MIV is Launchmetrics’ proprietary measure of media impact, not sales, and the report presents an observed relationship within the analyzed brands rather than a controlled causal study.

What the examples do show is a useful strategic pattern.

The brands highlighted in the report did not become broader by becoming more generic.

They became broader by creating more ways to enter the same brand.

As markets fragment across generations, platforms and media environments, the challenge is not simply to produce more variations of content. It is to make sure those variations still lead back to the same idea.

For global brands, and particularly for companies entering a new market, that may be one of the more durable definitions of localization:

Keep the core clear. Expand the ways people can discover it.

Frequently asked questions

What is multigenerational marketing?

Multigenerational marketing is an approach in which a brand communicates with more than one age group while maintaining a coherent brand identity. The message does not have to be identical for every audience; the Voice, channel, format or spokesperson can change while the core proposition remains consistent.

Does multigenerational marketing mean targeting every generation?

No. Not every brand needs to target every age group. The strategic question is which audiences are relevant to the product and how the brand can reach them without weakening its positioning.

Why does Owned Media matter?

Owned Media gives a brand direct control over its core narrative. External media, creators, retailers and partners can extend or validate that story, but the brand’s own channels provide a consistent reference point.

What can Japanese brands entering the U.S. learn from this?

Localization works best when companies separate the elements that should remain constant—such as the product value proposition, proof points and strategic identity—from the elements that can adapt locally, such as creators, platforms, cultural references, tone and partners.

What is Media Impact Value (MIV)?

Media Impact Value is a proprietary Launchmetrics metric that assigns an estimated monetary value to media placements, social posts and other forms of coverage using quantitative and qualitative factors. It is a media-impact measurement framework and should not be treated as equivalent to sales or revenue.

---

Suggested author note

Hisashi Miyao is Founder & Principal of H. MIYAO CORP., a New York-based consultancy supporting cross-border market development, partner development and business opportunities between Japan and international markets.

Sources and further reading

• Launchmetrics, Beauty in the Multigenerational Era: Capturing Market Share Across Ages (2026): Report PDF
• Launchmetrics, Beauty in the Multigenerational Era: Winning Every Generation, New York, September 22, 2026. H. MIYAO CORP. attended the keynote and panel discussion.
• Havas Formula, leadership information: https://havasformula.com/about/
• Fashionista, team information: https://fashionista.com/page/the-team