Background: Two Brands, Two Eras
Marketing in the shapewear category told the same story for years. It smooths, it holds you in, the dress sits better. In the early 2000s SPANX built a big brand out of that with a classic journey. Sara Blakely’s story, practical products people genuinely needed, then aggressive PR and Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement at exactly the right moment. That is how SPANX became the flagship of shapewear, known even to people who never bought anything.
Then came 2019 and SKIMS was born, Kim Kardashian’s brand. SKIMS set out to solve the same problem with completely different logic. SPANX was born at a time when shapewear was worn quietly and not discussed. SKIMS arrived in an era of social media, body positivity, and comfort, where underwear is simultaneously content, identity, and public debate.
SPANX did not go anywhere, but in media and pop culture the face of shapewear started tilting more and more toward SKIMS. In marketing that means something very specific. Whoever is visible is treated as the category leader.
Strategy: Change the Frame, Not the Product
SKIMS’ success is not only Kim Kardashian’s fame. Fame is the engine, but an engine alone goes nowhere without a chassis around it. SKIMS built that system around how people shop today. The brand’s focus is inclusion and diversity, but equally important is how all of it gets packaged into social media logic. Campaigns are often provocative and built so they get written about and commented on.
SKIMS positions itself as next-generation shapewear designed for all bodies, focused on comfort and fit. The practical proof is that XXS to 4XL sizing is normal on a standard product page, not an exception or a separate category.
It is the same logic used by several brands that found fast success in a crowded market: do not compete inside the old frame, build a new frame and be first in it.
SPANX is a brand from a different marketing era. Their foundation was authenticity, product innovation, and word of mouth. Sara Blakely’s story sat at the centre of the brand and products were developed against a very practical question: does this make a woman’s life easier, and does she feel better in her clothes? Campaigns were more traditional and leaned on credibility rather than virality.
Fame Is Not a Campaign, It Is a Permanent Media Channel
Fame is not a campaign. Fame is a permanent media channel. Kim Kardashian’s reach is always available to SKIMS, but SKIMS did not rely on it alone. They tied themselves to bigger collaborations and partnerships, such as the official NBA partnership, which lifts the brand in one move from “an Instagram thing” to a serious player.
SPANX’s version of this, before the social media era, was the Oprah effect: one powerful influencer who opened doors and made the brand known. SKIMS does the same, just in a 2020s way, with fame from Kim plus constant social proof from other influencers and organisations.
Scarcity as the Marketing Engine
SKIMS’ second big engine is scarcity. They do not have to run discounts constantly when consumers are already waiting for the next product launch. Limited quantities, waiting lists, and fast sell-outs keep demand tense and the brand permanently in conversation.
It is also clear that SKIMS does not intend to stay in one category. They expanded into leisure and sportswear, and in 2025 NikeSKIMS arrived. A clear signal that the game is played across categories.
SKIMS started as a digital brand, but 2025 showed a very clear direction: the brand is deliberately building itself into more of a physical business, with 18 stores already open in the US plus franchises in Mexico. Underwear is a product where trying it on and feeling the material affect the purchase decision more than a nice photo does.
Campaign Example: The “Faux Hair Micro String Thong” (2025)
In October 2025 SKIMS launched “The Ultimate Bush”, a string thong with artificial pubic hair attached in 12 different shades and textures. The product was clearly designed to generate discussion and to shock. The campaign spread like wildfire across social media and news portals, generating both criticism and curiosity.
The product sold out in under 24 hours. Specific sales figures are not public, but the campaign was a major success in terms of media coverage and brand awareness.
This campaign demonstrated SKIMS’ ability to create earned media with minimal direct advertising spend. The story spread organically, brand noise was enormous, and SKIMS was back at the centre of the conversation without buying advertising in the classic sense.
Results: The Numbers Are Unforgiving
The numbers show fairly brutally how quickly SPANX has ended up in SKIMS’ shadow in six years. SKIMS raised 225 million dollars in 2025 and the company was valued at 5 billion. Meanwhile the figures circulating in media put 2023 sales at roughly 750 million, with 2025 targeting somewhere near 1 billion dollars.
Plans in physical retail are ambitious, and they are no longer only an online store. As of November 2025 they have 18 stores in the US plus 2 franchises in Mexico. When a brand is the official underwear partner of the NBA, the WNBA, and USA Basketball, that is not merely a celebrity project. It is a very clear strategic business.
SPANX meanwhile is still strong and financially secure, but on different logic. Blackstone bought a majority stake in SPANX in 2021 in a deal that valued the brand at 1.2 billion dollars. Sara Blakely stayed in the ownership group and as the face of the brand, but day-to-day management sits with hired leadership.
Put those two numbers side by side and SKIMS has reached, in six years, a valuation roughly four times SPANX’s value at the time of the Blackstone deal. That is an especially sharp contrast, given that SPANX had years of head start and pioneer status.
Criticism
Growth this fast never comes without criticism.
One of the more painful subjects is greenwashing, particularly through packaging claims. SKIMS was criticised for using the message “I am not plastic” on packaging that carried an LDPE plastic marking. To a customer that reads like “we do not use plastic”, while the marking says otherwise. A trust deficit appears quickly in a place like that, because it leaves the impression that the story was prettied up for greenwashing purposes.
A second line of criticism concerns the supply chain, meaning where and under what conditions products are made. The subject of a factory in Myanmar reached the public, with reports of forced and unpaid overtime. SKIMS stated that it stopped sourcing from that factory in April 2022 after the allegations appeared. Remake’s reports have also rated SKIMS weakly on transparency and human rights policies. That suggests there is too little clarity from the outside about how production is monitored and how risks are prevented.
The third criticism concerns the demand-generation model itself. Limited quantities and fast sell-outs are brilliant for sales, but the price is impulse buying and overconsumption. FOMO works because the decision has to be made before there is time to calmly consider whether the thing is actually needed. This is not only SKIMS’ problem, but SKIMS uses it especially skilfully, which makes the subject more visible and puts the question of brand responsibility more sharply on the table.
Lessons Learned for Marketers
A new leader does not beat the old leader on product alone. It wins by changing the game and the rules of the market. SKIMS did not start selling shapewear. It created a new meaning and a new reason to buy it.
Fame is a channel, not a strategy. Strategy begins where fame gets tied to retail channels and partnerships. That is what grows a business, rather than just producing social media posts.
In underwear, the physical store still matters. People want to touch, try, and understand how something actually fits. SKIMS moving further into physical retail is a logical step, not a retreat into the past.
Criticism does not kill a brand, but silence kills trust. Greenwashing and supply chain questions are basic hygiene that you have to be able to explain clearly and answer.
The SKIMS and SPANX campaigns reflect different marketing philosophies and different eras. SKIMS began as a digital brand that keeps itself permanently in view through Kim Kardashian’s personal brand, social media, launches, and collaborations, which in turn produce constant attention and new reasons to talk about the brand. SPANX grew up in a different world: Sara Blakely’s authenticity, solving customer problems, and Oprah’s endorsement made the product the “normal choice” without today’s social media noise. Today SPANX is closer to reliable classic, holding market share and growing steadily, while SKIMS plays on speed, cultural visibility, and partnerships, and has turned that game its own way in six years.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is SKIMS bigger than SPANX?
By valuation, yes. SKIMS was valued at 5 billion dollars in 2025, roughly four times SPANX’s 1.2 billion valuation at the time of the 2021 Blackstone deal. SPANX remains financially strong but is growing on a slower, steadier model.
What is SKIMS’ marketing strategy?
Three parts: Kim Kardashian’s fame used as a permanent media channel rather than a one-off campaign, manufactured scarcity through limited drops and waiting lists, and inclusive sizing built into standard product pages rather than a separate range.
Why did SPANX lose visibility?
It did not lose customers so much as lose the cultural conversation. SPANX was built for an era of word of mouth and endorsement. SKIMS was built for an era where the product launch is itself the media event.
What criticism does SKIMS face?
Greenwashing over packaging claims, supply chain transparency including a Myanmar factory it stopped sourcing from in 2022, and the overconsumption effects of its scarcity-driven launch model.
Related Reading on Shopping Scientists
- Hoka: From Startup Idea to Billion Dollar Running Shoe Brand – another challenger that rewrote its category’s rules.
- How e.l.f.’s “So Many Dicks” Campaign Shook Corporate America – provocation as an earned media engine.
- The Brand That Deleted Its Social Media – the opposite approach to cultural visibility.
