Kim Kardashian, beauty mogul and reality-TV staple, is hitting pause on her skincare and makeup line SKKN by Kim after just three years in business. The website now shows a farewell message saying SKKN will wind down operations on June 29, 2025. What went wrong? Between lofty goals, steep price tags, mixed market performance, and financial hits from partner Coty, this chapter has clearly been more setback than success. Below: a deep dive into the full chronology of SKKN, what the financials say, and what closing it means for Kim’s beauty ambitions.
Origins: Launch, Ambition, and Early Buzz
-
SKKN by Kim was launched in 2022 as a follow-on to Kim Kardashian’s earlier beauty venture, KKW Beauty. The plan was ambitious: a luxury skincare line, lavish routines, high-end pricing.
-
The brand promised a full beauty umbrella: skincare, color cosmetics, fragrance, hair care — everything under one roof.
-
Coty Inc., a major beauty conglomerate, held a 20% stake in SKKN by Kim under a partnership deal. Kardashian held the rest. The association with Coty added industry heft and investment, but also expectations. cosmeticsbusiness.com+2substack.com+2
Pricing & Positioning: The Luxury Hurdle
-
One of the first criticisms: the nine-step skincare routine that reportedly cost over $600. That kind of price point places SKKN in luxury territory — far above many mainstream skincare brands that dominate social media and beauty trends. pagesix.com+1
-
Luxury price tags require either strong brand prestige, outstanding results, or both. While Kardashian is a cultural force, getting fans to invest hundreds of dollars in a full routine is a tougher sell in a crowded, trend-driven market.
RelatedPosts
Key Moments: Relaunches, Adjustments & Acquisitions
-
In 2024, Kim attempted a makeup relaunch under SKKN: adding lip liners, powders, eyeshadow palettes in an attempt to expand beyond skincare and perhaps bring in more accessible product lines. This was likely an effort to spread risk and broaden appeal. pagesix.com
-
In March 2025, a significant shift: SKIMS (Kim’s shapewear/fashion brand) acquired full ownership of SKKN by Kim. They bought out both Kim’s majority stake (which she already had) plus Coty’s 20%. This consolidation under Skims pulled all beauty aspirations into a single umbrella. Inside Retail US+2Nasdaq+2
Financials: Losses, Revenue & What Coty Took
-
Coty disclosed a $71.1 million loss related to its stake in SKKN by Kim when it exited the partnership. That’s a large write-down for an investment made with high expectations. cosmeticsbusiness.com+2wwd.com+2
-
Coty had earlier invested heavily — giving credence to the idea that expected returns were not materializing. Inside Retail US+1
-
In broader terms, Coty’s revenue in consumer beauty (including mass color cosmetics, body care) declined, with the performance of SKKN being one factor among many in a challenging macro beauty market. coty.com+1
Why SKKN Never Became “Skims Beauty” (Cultural Impact & Market Share)
-
Despite Kim’s star power, SKKN never achieved the cultural saturation of Skims (her shapewear/lingerie brand). Skims became a household name, seen in pop culture, collaborations, stores; SKKN, by contrast, faced challenges in making new launches viral or feel essential.
-
Price and complexity likely hurt adoption. Luxury skincare can imply prestige, but also friction: multiple steps, high cost, commitment. Not everyone wants or can enter that world.
-
Competition in beauty is brutal: other luxury brands, indie beauty, TikTok-driven micro-brands, fast cycles. Even celebrity brands need to innovate fast, capture hype, build credibility beyond celebrity.
Losses, What Kim Might Have Lost (Financial & Strategic)
-
Immediate financial loss for Coty is public: $71.1M. For Kim, while she regained full control under Skims, what she lost is less public: potential revenue, investment in product development, opportunity cost.
-
The brand’s shutdown may mean write-offs in inventory, marketing, R&D that are sunk costs.
-
Strategically, more than dollars is lost: this represents another attempt at beauty that did not take full hold. Kim has done this before (KKW Beauty), so optics matter — both for investors and consumers.
What’s the Turnover? What Could Be Estimated
-
Public sources do not provide credible numbers for annual SKKN by Kim turnover (total revenue per year), well, at least nothing confirmed. There’s no public audited figure that shows SKKN pulling in hundreds of millions (unlike some of Kim’s other brands).
-
Coty’s financial reports mention revenue declines in its beauty segments, but not specific SKKN volume. From what we can see:
• Coty’s consumer beauty revenue dropped, Lip and color cosmetics had weak results. SKKN was part of that portfolio. coty.com+1
• Coty booked the large loss when divesting the stake, which suggests SKKN underperformed expectations (i.e. revenue likely didn’t meet forecasts needed to justify its luxury positioning). Nasdaq+1
What Does the Closure Mean for Kim and Her Empire?
-
The closing date: June 29, 2025, is when SKKN by Kim officially winds down operations. Inside Retail US+1
-
Kim is consolidating beauty under Skims, her more successful brand. Skims acquired the remaining shares in SKKN, meaning the beauty venture will now be folded under what is primarily known for shapewear, fashion, etc. Vogue Business+2Inside Retail US+2
-
In the long term, this might reduce overhead, reduce brand confusion, and allow reuse of SKKN’s product development, R&D, or customer data for future beauty launches under the Skims umbrella.
-
It may also allow her to scale back the workload: combining operations, fewer separate marketing streams, fewer independent product lines to manage. Given her other commitments (family, law school, media, etc.), that could be a relief.
Funny Tales & Industry Gossip
-
Some people in beauty circles joked that SKKN was “too bougie” from the get-go — the over-luxury pricing made buy-in among regular beauty consumers hard. The joke among influencers was that you need a second mortgage to try the full routine.
-
Others pointed out that even some of the SKKN relaunches (like makeup additions) seemed like afterthoughts — spices thrown in once the initial skincare line didn’t produce the fire sales expected.
-
Rumors surfaced that some product shipments sat underperforming in inventory, or that certain SKKN SKUs didn’t sell out, which is unusual for Kardashian-led drops. For her brands (Skims, KKW), sellouts are a frequent bragging point. For SKKN, not so much. (Though most of this is anecdote, not confirmed numbers.)
What We Don’t Know (Yet) — Open Questions
-
The exact revenue numbers for SKKN by Kim per year — what was the gross income, net income? None of the public filings give clear numbers.
-
How much Kim personally put into SKKN vs what Coty put in — what were her costs, her margins?
-
Whether some SKKN inventory or formulations will be reused under Skims Beauty (if such a line launches in 2026 or after).
-
Consumer sentiment: did loyal fans feel SKKN offered enough value for the price? Were there complaints about product efficacy vs cost?
What This Tells Us About Celebrity Beauty Brands
-
Star power helps launch a brand — it doesn’t guarantee sustainability. Luxury positioning demands consistent performance, affordability or prestige, clear value.
-
Partnerships with big beauty players like Coty are a double-edged sword: they bring investment and infrastructure, but also expectations and liabilities (losses can bite).
-
Consolidation can be practical: rather than running several separate brands, combining under one umbrella may help with cost efficiency, branding consistency, and customer loyalty.
Closing
In celebrity business world, not every venture becomes the next Skims or Fenty Beauty. SKKN by Kim is now being laid to rest, largely because the numbers didn’t stack, the price was high, and the competition was fierce. But it’s not necessarily a failure—it may simply be a redirection. Kim Kardashian lost money, but gained clarity: what works, what her audience tolerates, and where her empire should focus. Stay tuned: beauty often rises again from what seemed like its ashes. Hollywood stories love a sequel—and in business, sometimes that sequel is smarter, leaner… and better priced.
