Dermatologists lead Gen Z skin-care trust, Curology survey finds

By Daniel Okafor

In a Curology survey of nearly 2,000 skin-care purchasers aged 13 to 29, 43% named dermatologists as their most trusted source, compared with 9% who chose social media.

The findings describe this survey group, not every Gen Z shopper. They come from Curology, an online tele-dermatology service, and measure consumer attitudes rather than clinical outcomes or treatment efficacy.

What does the trust ranking show?

Dermatologists led the trust ranking. Their 43% share exceeded social media’s 9% by 34 percentage points, making the dermatologist figure nearly five times as large.

Respondents were choosing a “most trusted” source, not necessarily the source they consulted most often. That wording is the hinge. The trust result can coexist with much heavier social media use.

The survey therefore supports a narrow but useful conclusion: young skin-care buyers in this group placed far more confidence in dermatologists than in social media when identifying their most authoritative advice source.

It does not show that social media lacks influence. The 9% figure measures trust, not visibility, discussion volume, or purchasing activity. None of those measures appears in the report.

Takeaway: Dermatologists won the credibility question, while social media remained central to everyday behavior.

Does social media still shape purchases?

Despite only 9% naming social media as their most trusted source, 62% said they still turn to social media for skin-care advice. That reach far exceeded the trust ranking.

Sixty-five percent said they had bought a skin-care product based on a social recommendation during the previous six months. The finding places social recommendations directly beside purchasing decisions, not merely conversations or views.

The two percentages answer different questions. One measures who provides advice; the other records whether a recommendation led to a purchase. The available summary reports neither overlap between respondents in those measures nor a conversion rate. So 65% should not be read as a conversion rate among social-media users.

The summary specifies no product categories, prices, ingredients, or evidence standards. The data cannot establish which content persuaded buyers or whether recommendations were accurate, sponsored, or independent. That is a meaningful limit for a consumer survey.

Takeaway: Social media need not be the final authority to influence what these buyers purchase.

What did Curology’s CEO say?

Kathy Savitt, Curology’s chief executive, told Cosmetics Business: “trust and influence not being the same thing.” Her phrase separates credibility from commercial reach.

The numbers support that distinction. Dermatologists led the most-trusted measure at 43%, while 62% reported seeking skin-care advice on social media and 65% reported a purchase based on a social recommendation within six months.

The research came from a company whose service sits inside the category respondents said they trust most. That does not make the findings wrong, but it makes the survey methodology especially relevant to readers weighing the numbers.

The available summary does not report the sampling method, field dates, geography, question wording, respondent demographics, or margin of error. It also does not say whether an independent organization collected the responses. Without those details, the results work best as a directional signal rather than a precise estimate for all Gen Z.

Takeaway: The central insight is credible, while important methodological details remain absent.

What should readers take away?

The results do not support a story of social media replacing dermatology. Only 9% chose social media as their most trusted source, while 43% chose dermatologists. Nor do they show dermatologists have displaced social media as a purchasing channel.

The tension is commercially useful. A recommendation can prompt a purchase without carrying the authority consumers assign to a clinician. Expert advice can inspire trust without setting the terms of online shopping.

For dermatologists, the survey points to an opportunity to turn high trust into practical guidance that reaches younger buyers where they already seek advice. For brands and platforms, the same figures suggest that recommendations carry buying weight even when users distinguish them from expert advice.

The next useful measure would show whether dermatology guidance changes product choices and whether social recommendations align with evidence. Such evidence would test the gap Savitt identified, rather than treating trust and influence as interchangeable.

Takeaway: The next test is whether trusted dermatology guidance can also shape purchasing decisions.