Linden Corbett

May 8, 2026

 Six years ago Chinese and Asian American communities across the country faced record high levels of xenophobia, discrimination, and aggression. Today’s world is hardly any different, continuing to be characterized by political and subsequent economic instability and the imposition of force exerted by the current Trump administration. Yet despite all of this, we find ourselves “at a very Chinese time in our lives”. There has been an undeniable explosion of growth in the media on Chinese culture, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), and Asian beauty culture, not specific to the ethnicity or nationality of the creator, in addition to the growth in China’s economy and global presence. There are valid concerns regarding the culturally essentialist nature of advertising “reducing the complexities of Chinese identities into a set of tropes”[1]. On the other hand, trends can serve as a form of soft power, diversifying the dialogue about China from polarizing information cycles to “daily exposure and peer-to-peer culture” [1]. These trends can largely be explained and observed by tracking the evolution of American sentiments on China and trends in longevity and health through marketing trends and investment and what that entails for the global economy.

It becomes more apparent as to why TCM and Asian-owned companies exploded in growth and recognition by examining the investment and industry trends of global titans. Closely trailing the United States as the second-largest beauty market in the world is China, who was projected to hit $78 billion in revenue by 2025 [2]. China’s growth in the industry, and its status as the leader of regional growth has attracted international investors. Industry giants such as L’Oreal, Estee Lauder, Proctor and Gamble, and Shiseido have expanded to Asian markets in broad strokes. L’Oreal in particular stands out as the leading foreign beauty group with upwards of $40 billion in revenue in 2022 [2].  As of recently L’Oreal holds a minority stake at 6.67% in Chando Global Holdings, its second major investment in the market, according to its prospectus for an IPO with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in preparation for Chando to go public [2]. What makes L’Oreal successful is its portfolio spanning multiple Chinese brands, brands which were previously tied up in domestic markets. This portfolio focuses on research and development, intensely strategic digital marketing and social media engagement, online and offline retail, and targeting Chinese consumer values such as sustainability and authenticity [2]. In terms of research and development L’Oreal is engaging in a “China-for-China” policy, indicating that major international conglomerates are looking to localize operations to better serve Chinese consumers directly. This underscores a major geopolitical shift hinting at a combination of geopolitical instability, competition, and a strategy towards risk-mitigation [3]. Pivoting towards domestic Chinese markets allows L’Oreal to capitalize on developing products and a consumer base before its competitors. L’Oreal’s digital marketing strategy also indicates where other titans may be going. L’Oreal’s marketing strategy has been focused on creating “immersive brand experiences and connecting with their target audience”[2]. More definitively, L’Oreal prioritizes “brand-owned platforms…, AI-powered diagnostics and recommendations, AR [Augmented Reality] tools that allow consumers to see products on themselves, [and] E-commerce journeys that feel guided” [4]. These strategies are being replicated and utilised in the other giants’ marketing strategies and at its core is effective at capturing online audiences en masse. In China, beauty groups like Chando Global Holdings, establish themselves as brands producing products with “natural, clean ingredients” as their bottom line [2]. The biggest takeaway from L’Oreal’s recent strategies is that some companies outside of the United States are beginning to leverage their potential for growth and stability over venues and consumers in the United States, and market from platforms that advertise their products as natural, clean, and sustainable. 

There is a globally emerging trend that is blurring the lines between the beauty, wellness, and health industries and leveraging adjectives and marketing concepts that promote clean, and clinically effective products. In 2024, the US wellness industry was valued at $480 billion with “eighty-two percent of US consumers considering wellness as a top priority in their everyday lives”[4]. Additionally, millennial and Gen Z consumers are outspending older generations with higher distributions of their income spent on appearance and health, including over-the-counter medications, personal-and-home-care products, vitamins [4]. This is extraordinary considering the broadness of the consumer base and longevity. With younger generations choosing to direct their consumption at an industry that prides itself on so many different aspects, including but not limited to: nutrition, exercise, vitamins and supplements, mental health, and medicine, the runway for profits goes as far as the eye can see. Among the rising trends in the industry, consumers are beginning to “consider clinical effectiveness as a top purchasing factor” which was similar to the Chinese consumers with the exception that Chinese consumers prioritize “clinical efficacy for digestive medication, topical treatments, and eye care products” while preferring “natural and clean ingredients for for supplements, superfoods, and personal-care products” [5]. For reference, about eighty-seven percent of Chinese consumers consider wellness to be a top priority in their everyday lives [4]. 

This creates a picture that can’t quite explain the recent uptick in demand for TCM and Asian beauty products in Western markets until the source of influence for consumers is considered. Seeing the product in store and recommendations from friends and family are the largest sources of US consumer influence when purchasing health and wellness products and services [4]. However, there is a compound effect of consumer influence that cannot be solely attributed to a recommendation or brand recognition. These sources are considered informal sources of influences to consumer buying behavior, its counterpart, formal sources of influence, are well designed and endorsed and range from “advertising, personal selling, sale promotion, and public relation” [6]. Conclusively, formal sources have been found to have more influence on consumer buying behavior [6], explaining the efficacy of content creators and social media campaigns in advertising. Industry titans such as L’Oreal and Proctor and Gamble are implementing advertising strategies that prioritize search-driven educational content, high trust digital experiences, and lifecycle & retention marketing [7]. Search-driven education content refers to products that cater to specific concerns that directly fulfill a consumer’s concerns. High trust digital experiences reinforce the product’s, and brand’s, credibility by using clinical efficacy, testimonials, and credible endorsements. Finally, lifecycle and retention marketing is a lot more vague in terms of concrete strategy. Examples include customer loyalty programs and email lists, and are essentially aimed at building consumer trust and continued consumption [7]. These strategies build a platform and foundation that aims at attracting customers and ensuring their loyalty. What remains fascinating about these practices is that they seem to be employed around the globe. From China to the US, consumers are zeroing in on longevity and health, by whatever personalized definition they choose. 

Traveling back in time to 2020 and 2022, American views on China were placed at thirty-two on a scale of zero to one-hundred, with zero indicating a “very negative feeling” and one-hundred indicating a “very positive feeling” [10]. Then, in 2024, the average American view hit twenty-four, only to rebound in 2025 to a pre-pandemic level of thirty-five [10]. These statistics alone cannot explain what or how American political ideology and perceptions shifted so drastically within a five-year time period, but it does present interesting findings in relation to American views on cooperation with China. Among Americans top political concerns, government corruption and threats to democracy, are trade issues. The Section 232 tariffs implemented by the current Trump administration on critical industries such as semiconductor equipment and critical minerals will have somewhat predictable impacts [11], but the question about the trade relationship between the US and China will have far greater implications. As of 2025, the majority of Americans now favor policy decisions undertaking friendly cooperation and engagement with China, falling directly in line with their economic policy views with regards to China [10]. The majority of Americans also now oppose higher tariffs on Chinese imports, with the majority of Americans also favoring reducing tariffs on Chinese imports in exchange for China reducing its trade deficit with the United States [10]. Reducing the US trade deficit with China reincentivizes domestic manufacturing and then encourages higher rates of employment [12]. The risk of not improving trade relations with China could result in regional alliances to develop trading blocs that sustain the other without the influence of the US. While the US navigates deep partisan divides, the rest of the world is adjusting to a reality that replaces US hegemony with multipolarity. Roughly three-quarters of G20 countries are ready to modernize their cross-border payment systems. This means that where money used to flow internationally through multiple banks, each taking a cut, with added delays is now being transitioned into a new system that uses digital tokens for increased speed and efficiency [11]. The caveat here for the US is that this could reduce the dollar’s international dominance as new methods of transfer open up for “trade, energy payments, and remittances that do not have to run through dollar-based correspondent banking”[11]. Reducing dependence on the US dollar has long been a primary objective of the intergovernmental organization, BRICS, including China and India. Both of which have recently taken their cross-border payment systems live in addition to Saudi Arabia [11].

If the US were to embrace the increasingly multipolar world with the intentions of still maintaining a stronghold as a leader, it would require strategic planning and policy to shift “the burden of international leadership” to other countries while minimizing fallout caused by US disengagement [13]. An approach the US could take here is to rebalance itself among the new order by supporting a regional state, or more, who share similar interests while narrowing its level of engagement. One example of such a proposition would be a coalition aimed at reducing critical mineral production and processing outside of China [13]. This would allow the US in its current bandwidth to leverage its authority and power while empowering a regional state to develop and grow while maintaining civil trade relations with China. 

As for the rest of the globe that is approaching a scenario that is operating with an unstable set of US policy objectives and motivations, legal mechanisms would be a viable policy decision moving forward. More specifically, legal mechanisms protecting against unilateralism and monopolies in international markets would help to instill anti-trust like mechanisms. An effective and neutral organization such as the World Trade Organization, with its dispute settlement body, is critical to the stability of a changing international economy [14]. 

To the American public, and consumers around the globe, it is not initially apparent the scale at which marketing and investment decisions by conglomerates and political conflict impact day-to-day decisions. Beyond changes in political ideology and economy are shifts within culture that have grown alongside the rise of digital marketing and social media in coordination with trends honing in on concepts such as longevity and health. Yet, it would be remiss to overlook the comeback of a state that was once viewed so negatively, and with such a focal point as an antagonist in the last two decades. Perhaps it is successful maneuvering on the behalf of the Chinese government, or perhaps it is the result of strategic, targeted marketing that encouraged positive engagement, but it worked. In dealing with a turbulent America, with deep internal divisions, China is convincing the American public opinion on one thing: the US must cooperate. 

Image Credits; https://openverse.org/image/80e28652-caa5-403b-8a8b-7f1b75088303?q=china&p=12

Works Cited

[3] Capri, Alex. 2023. “The in-China-for-China corporate gray zone | White paper.” Hinrich Foundation. https://www.hinrichfoundation.com/research/wp/trade-geopolitics/china-corporate-gray-zone.

[13] Cooper, Zack, Emma Ashford, and Joan Lee. 2025. “An American Strategy for a Multipolar World • Stimson Center.” Stimson Center. https://www.stimson.org/2025/an-american-strategy-for-a-multipolar-world/#elementor-toc__heading-anchor-5.

[4] Ekren, Cansu. 2026. “L’Oréal Digital Marketing Strategy: How Gen AI and AR Personalize Beauty.” Digital Agency Network. https://digitalagencynetwork.com/loreal-digital-marketing-strategy/.

[12] Ferry, Jeff. 2024. “How Budget Deficits Grow Due to Trade Deficits.” Prosperous America. https://prosperousamerica.org/how-budget-deficits-grow-due-to-trade-deficits/#:~:text=If%20the%20trade%20deficit%20were,easier%20to%20maintain%20full%20employment.

[2] Interesse, Giulia. 2025. “China’s Cosmetics and Personal Care Market: Key Trends and Business Outlook.” China Briefing. https://www.china-briefing.com/news/chinas-cosmetics-and-personal-care-market-key-trends-and-business-outlook/.

[10] Kafura, Craig. 2025. “Americans Reverse Course on US-China Competition.” Chicago Council on Global Affairs. https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-reverse-course-us-china-competition.

[8] Kalish, Ira. 2026. “Weekly Global Economic Update – Week of April 6, 2026.” Deloitte. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/economy/global-economic-outlook/weekly-update.html.

[6] Khan, Shahzad. 2012. “The Influence of Formal and Informal Sources on Consumer Buying Behavior.” Global Journal of Management and Business Research. https://journalofbusiness.org/index.php/GJMBR/article/view/745/1-The-Influence-of-Formal-and-Informal_JATS_NLM_xml#:~:text=Formal%20sources%20are%20more%20influential%20on%20consumer,this%20is%20an%20informal%20source%20of%20influence.

[11] Lipsky, Josh, and Sophia Busch. 2026. “Five trends to watch in the global economy in 2026.” Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/five-trends-to-watch-in-the-global-economy-in-2026/.

[14] Lissovolik, Yaroslav. 2026. “The Economics of Multipolarity.” BRICS+ Analytics. https://brics-plus-analytics.org/the-economics-of-multipolarity/.

[5] “State of Beauty industry trends 2025.” 2025. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/state-of-beauty.

[4] “The top wellness trends in 2024.” 2024. McKinsey. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/the-trends-defining-the-1-point-8-trillion-dollar-global-wellness-market-in-2024.

[1] Valentine, Ashish. 2026. “Some Gen Z Americans can’t stop ‘Chinamaxxing.’” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2026/03/13/nx-s1-5743795/chinamaxxing-gen-z-word-of-week.

[7] “Wellness Branding & Marketing Strategy Guide 2026.” 2026. The Branded Agency. https://www.brandedagency.com/blog/wellness-branding-marketing.

[9] Predin, Josipa M., and Leon Neal. 2025. “The New Consumer 2026 And Five Mega-Trends Reshaping American Commerce.” Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/josipamajic/2025/12/12/the-new-consumer-2026-five-mega-trends-reshaping-american-commerce/.