A simpler routine doesn’t mean a simpler product
For years, skincare routines seemed to move in one direction: more.
More steps, more targeted serums, more active ingredients and more products designed to address individual skin concerns. Today, however, consumer expectations are beginning to shift.
In its Global Beauty Views 2026 report, NIQ describes one of the changes shaping the beauty market as “simpler routines, higher expectations.” Consumers are becoming more selective about the products they use, while efficacy, ingredient credibility and multifunctionality are gaining importance.
This creates an interesting challenge for cosmetic brands and R&D teams.
Because while skincare routines may be getting simpler, the products within them do not necessarily become simpler to formulate.
From more products to more functionality
Reducing the number of steps in a skincare routine does not necessarily mean reducing consumer expectations.
Quite the opposite.
When fewer products remain in a routine, each of them may be expected to deliver more: hydration combined with barrier support, antioxidant protection alongside anti-ageing benefits, or targeted activity combined with a high-quality sensory experience.
This is where multifunctional product development becomes particularly relevant.
But multifunctionality should not be confused with simply increasing the number of active ingredients in a formula.
A long INCI list or multiple trending ingredients on the front of the packaging do not automatically make a cosmetic more advanced – or more effective.
More active ingredients do not automatically mean greater functionality.
The real challenge is to design a formulation in which individual components work together as a coherent system.
Multifunctionality starts with formulation design
Developing a multifunctional cosmetic requires looking beyond individual ingredients and considering the performance of the complete formulation.
Several factors become particularly important.
Complementary mechanisms of action
If a product is designed to address several skin needs, ingredients should be selected not only for their individual properties but also for how their functions complement one another.
Instead of creating a collection of unrelated active ingredients, R&D can design a system in which different components support specific aspects of the intended product performance.
For example, a barrier-focused formulation may combine ingredients supporting hydration, lipid replenishment, soothing and protection against environmental stress.
The objective is not to maximise the number of claims.
It is to build a formulation in which every component has a clear purpose.
Effective concentrations matter
The presence of an active ingredient in the INCI list tells us very little about the actual performance of the finished product.
Its concentration, quality, form, stability and interaction with the formulation all matter.
This becomes even more important in multifunctional products, where several active systems need to coexist within one formula.
Adding another active ingredient may look attractive from a marketing perspective, but from an R&D perspective the question should always be different:
Does it meaningfully improve the performance of the final product?
Compatibility becomes increasingly important
The more functions we expect from one formulation, the more carefully its components need to be evaluated together.
Active ingredients can have different requirements regarding pH, solubility, temperature or processing conditions. They can also influence viscosity, colour, fragrance or the stability of the entire system.
This means that combining several individually interesting ingredients does not automatically result in a successful multifunctional formula.
Sometimes achieving more functionality requires adding something.
Sometimes it requires removing something.
And sometimes the most effective solution is not the most complex one.
Stability cannot be an afterthought
A multifunctional product still needs to remain stable throughout its intended shelf life.
Its appearance, viscosity, fragrance, pH and other defined parameters should remain within specification, while the packaging and formulation need to remain compatible.
This is why stability and packaging compatibility testing are integral parts of product development rather than formalities performed once a formula has already been completed.
A product that delivers multiple benefits but cannot maintain its properties over time is not a successfully designed multifunctional cosmetic.
The delivery system matters too
Ingredient selection is only one part of formulation development.
How an active ingredient is incorporated and delivered can also influence its performance.
Depending on the formulation and the substance involved, this may include appropriate emulsification systems, encapsulation technologies or other delivery approaches designed to improve stability, availability or compatibility within the formula.
This is another reason why comparing cosmetics only by their lists of active ingredients can be misleading.
Two products may highlight similar ingredients while being fundamentally different in terms of formulation architecture and final performance.
Sensory performance remains part of efficacy
Simplifying a skincare routine does not mean consumers are willing to compromise on product experience.
Texture, absorption, spreadability, finish and compatibility with other products remain important elements of daily use.
And this has a direct impact on real-world product performance.
A technically advanced formula that feels unpleasant, pills under makeup or leaves an undesirable finish may simply be used less frequently or in smaller quantities.
For this reason, sensory performance should not be treated as something added at the end of product development.
It is one of the parameters that needs to be designed into the formula from the beginning.
One product, several benefits – but each should be justified
Multifunctionality also creates an important question around claims.
If a cosmetic is designed to provide several benefits, each claim should have an appropriate basis and comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
This means that the development process should connect formulation design with the intended communication from an early stage.
What does the product actually need to achieve?
Which ingredients and formulation technologies can support these objectives?
How will its performance be evaluated?
And which claims can ultimately be communicated responsibly?
These questions should be asked before the final product reaches the market – not after the formulation has already been completed.
Simpler routines may require more sophisticated R&D
The move towards simpler skincare routines should therefore not be interpreted as a move towards less sophisticated cosmetics.
In many cases, it may mean exactly the opposite.
If consumers expect fewer products to perform more functions, R&D teams need to balance multiple objectives within a single formulation: efficacy, stability, compatibility, safety, sensory performance and the intended claims.
The goal is not to create the longest possible INCI list.
Nor is it to include every ingredient currently attracting attention on social media.
The goal is to understand what the product needs to achieve and then build the formulation around that purpose.
At MG Evolution®, this is how we approach cosmetic product development.
Because a simpler routine doesn’t necessarily require a simpler product. It requires a better-designed one.