Key takeaways on the difference between scalp care and skin care
- The global haircare market is projected to reach $96.82bn by 2025, with scalp care emerging as a key growth area.
- Marketing often promotes the idea that scalp care should mimic facial skincare routines, but experts say this is misleading.
- The scalp differs from facial skin in follicle density, sebaceous activity, microbiome composition and barrier function.
- Trichologist Brian Plunkett calls for evidence-based formulations and transparency in claims, rather than borrowing from facial skincare studies.
Fragrance and skincare-inspired haircare are big business for the future. According to Statista, the global haircare market is projected to generate revenue of $96.82bn by the end of 2025 and is forecast to experience an annual growth rate of 2.69% between 2025 and 2030. Scalp care is an ever-growing sector within this that is ripe for innovation.
One belief currently being propagated is that the scalp is essentially an extension of facial skin and should be treated in the same way. However, one prominent trichologist says this is a common misconception and that facial skin and scalp are totally different.
The rise of ‘skinified’ haircare and scalp care trends
“A wave of marketing is pushing a theory, unsubstantiated, that facial routines, cleansing, exfoliating and moisturising, should also be adopted for the scalp,” said Brian Plunkett, Consultant Trichologist, founder of TrichoCare Education and former Vice President of the Institute of Trichologists. “Importing facial skincare concepts – actives, serums, exfoliants – into scalp and hair products, often without scientific proof.”
As haircare becomes increasingly ‘skinified’ and brands market ‘scalp barrier repair,’ microbiome-balancing actives and anti-ageing serums for hair, they often use terminology borrowed from dermatology.
Plunkett is concerned about this, as he says there is a significant difference between facial skin and the scalp. “The scalp has denser hair follicles, higher sebaceous activity and unique barrier/microbiome interactions that change absorption and outcomes,” he explained. “Sensitive scalp complaints affect 40–50% of individuals, underscoring the need for appropriate formulations and real evidence, not borrowed claims.”
“Higher sebaceous gland density and active sebum secretion in seborrhoeic regions (scalp/face/chest/back) alter product behaviour and microbial ecology compared to facial skin,” he continued.
“Barrier function and dandruff-related microbiome shift interdependently affect scalp sensitivity; strategies must be site-specific and tested accordingly.”
A call for evidence-based formulation in scalp care
Based on this, Plunkett advocates that haircare brands obtain proper scalp-specific evidence rather than use efficacy claims from facial skin studies to create and market scalp products.
“The scalp is biologically and physiologically different from facial skin,” he said.
Some of the differences he draws attention to include:
Hair follicle density: The scalp has a much higher density of hair follicles compared to facial skin, influencing oil production and microbial balance.
Sebaceous gland activity: Scalp sebaceous glands are larger and more active, producing more sebum to protect hair shafts.
Thickness of skin layers: The scalp’s epidermis and dermis are generally thicker than facial skin, providing extra protection for underlying structures.
Blood supply: The scalp has a richer vascular network to nourish hair follicles, essential for hair growth.
He adds that there are also physiological differences, which include:
Different barrier function: The scalp’s barrier is adapted to support hair growth and manage sebum, while facial skin focuses more on environmental protection.
Microbiome composition: The scalp hosts a different microbial ecosystem, with more Malassezia species (linked to dandruff) compared to facial skin.
Sweat and oil balance: Higher sebum production on the scalp can lead to unique conditions like seborrhoeic dermatitis, which is less common on facial skin.
“Phrases like ‘clinically proven,’ ‘dermatologist approved,’ or ‘restores scalp barrier’ are used without transparent protocols, endpoints or statistically powered studies, contrary to the Commission’s guidance on claims presentation and best evidence practices,” Plunkett said.
Going forward, he hopes that haircare brands will recognise the need for stronger science that is specific to scalp care rather than using claims borrowed from facial skincare, as well as fewer ambiguous or overstated claims.
