Opinion piece. This is Maxine Buchert's personal view, based on public reporting up to 13 November 2026. Skims hasn't said the backlash was planned, and nothing below claims inside knowledge of its decisions.
In short: Skims sold a 12-door Accessories Advent Calendar for $148, or €188 in Europe, with hair ties, bobby pins and keychains behind the doors. Unboxing videos mocking it reached tens of millions of views, and within days Skims offered every buyer a refund or store credit. Everyone has had their laugh, but I think the person laughing hardest is Kim Kardashian. I run a social media agency, and my read is that the backlash was planned and did exactly what Skims wanted. For anyone working in marketing or communications, the response is the part to study. Skims handled the crisis so smoothly that the smoothness itself makes the whole thing look intentional, and a planned stunt and a well-handled mistake both need the same preparation before launch day.
What happened with the Skims advent calendar?
Skims put the calendar on sale in its holiday shop on 29 October 2026 at $148 in the US and £158 in the UK (The Tab, 2026). On Skims' French site it cost €188, which comes to €15.67 a door (Touteslesbox, 2026). Behind the doors were hair ties, bobby pins, clips, headbands, four keychains, a compact mirror and a Skims squishy (LA Mag, 2026).
The unboxings came next. One TikTok of a creator opening the doors one by one reached about 65 million views in three days, according to Entertainment Weekly (IBTimes, 2026). Creator Kayla Ryan's video passed 26 million views across Instagram and TikTok (The Daily Beast, 2026). On 8 November a Skims spokesperson told TODAY the company was "aware of the feedback" and had contacted every buyer with a choice of a full refund or Skims credit (LA Mag). By then the calendar had sold out, and the product page offered a waiting list (FashionUnited, 2026).
Who buys a $148 box of hair ties?
Buyers knew the category before they paid. Skims sold it as an accessories calendar and described the contents as hair accessories and keychains from launch (The Tab). Several outlets also report that the product description listed all 12 compartments (IBTimes). I couldn't confirm whether that full list was on the page on 29 October or added later, because archived copies of the page don't open that section, so I'll only lean on the first point.
Even so, a $148 accessories box is an odd thing to buy for yourself. My guess is that a large share of the first buyers were influencers and content creators who wanted an easy viral video. An advent calendar opening is a ready-made format, with 12 reveals, a reaction at each door and a verdict at the end, and the price tag gives viewers something to be angry about from the first second. The two biggest videos alone reached around 90 million views. For a creator, $148 for a video at that scale is cheap production. I can't see Skims' customer list, so this part is a guess, and I'd love to see the order data.
Why does the refund offer work in Skims' favour?
Look at the two options. Buyers could send the calendar back for a refund or keep it and take store credit. One consumer site reported the email as offering a full refund with return shipping waived, or $150 in credit for keeping the box, slightly more than the $148 price (Ibisik, 2026). I haven't seen the email myself, so treat those exact terms as unconfirmed.
Either way, returning it means repacking a box of scrunchies and taking it to the post office. Keeping it means doing nothing and getting money to spend on leggings or a bra you might have bought anyway. I'd expect most people to take the credit. That money gets spent at Skims, so Skims keeps the revenue, gains a second purchase and gets weeks of free press on top. Skims' own returns policy shows the same pull towards credit in normal times: in Europe, a refund costs the customer an €8 return fee (Skims returns policy).
The speed points the same way. Skims had an apology and refund offer in buyers' inboxes within 72 hours of the viral video (Everything PR, 2026). One TikToker, Sean Anthony, posted that his refund offer arrived before the calendar did (The Daily Beast, 2026). That looks to me like a response written before anyone needed it.
Did the Kardashians know people would be angry?
I think so. The family has made a living from public attention since Keeping Up with the Kardashians started in 2007, and a team that experienced knows how a bag of bobby pins at $148 will land. The industry also has public examples of exactly this reaction. Chanel's $825 advent calendar was mocked on TikTok in 2021 for the same gap between price and contents (LA Mag), and Zoella's calendar went through the same thing in 2017 (Creative Bloq, 2026). Pricing a product like this is a choice, and the reaction was predictable to anyone who has watched advent calendar unboxings over the last five years.
Why does good crisis communication make the backlash look planned?
Look at what Skims did in the first three days. A spokesperson gave matching statements to TODAY, Entertainment Weekly and Page Six. Every buyer got a personal email with a refund or credit offer within 72 hours of the viral video, and the apology didn't blame customers, even though the contents had been described online before purchase (Everything PR). Kim Kardashian didn't comment herself, which kept the founder out of the story (Cheatsheet, 2026). One buyer received his refund offer before his calendar arrived (The Daily Beast).
None of that happens on the fly. To email every buyer that fast, someone needs approved wording, a refund and credit policy signed off by finance, the order list and the authority to press send. Those are the same things you'd prepare if you planned the outrage, and the same things you'd prepare if you were cautious about a risky product. From the outside the two look identical, and that's why the episode reads as a stunt.
The polish also has a cost. Everything PR warns that once people suspect a controversy was manufactured, even a good apology starts to look staged (Everything PR), and commenters were already calling it Kim's marketing genius within days (Mediaweek, 2026). Skims can absorb that suspicion. Most brands couldn't.
What would prove me wrong?
Skims could have misjudged it. FashionUnited reads the backlash as a sign of how far a clothing brand can stretch its name into cheaper accessories before customers push back. On that reading the price was a mistake (FashionUnited). We also won't see how many buyers took credit over cash, or how many calendars went to creators. If most buyers took the refund, my argument gets a lot weaker.
What should marketers and communications teams take from it?
I'd read the Skims case as a study in preparation, and I wouldn't copy the product. Four points stand out to me.
- The crisis plan belongs in the launch plan. Skims' answer arrived within three days because the pieces were ready. If a launch could draw criticism, the statement, the customer offer and the person who signs it off should be agreed before it goes live.
- Speed reads as intent. A response that lands before the product does protects customers, and it also tells observers you saw the reaction coming. Decide which of those signals you can live with.
- Keep the founder's name out when the founder is the brand. Kim stayed silent and a spokesperson took every question, so the story stayed about a product.
- Views from outrage aren't goodwill. Around 90 million views on two videos mocking the product is reach, and we have no public figures on what it did to sales or to how people see Skims. Judge an episode like this on enquiries, sales and sentiment, and treat the view count as the least useful number.
Frequently asked questions
Was the Skims advent calendar a PR stunt?
Skims hasn't said so, and we can't prove it. Our view is that a brand run by a family with nearly 20 years of experience in public attention priced a box of hair accessories at $148 knowing people would film themselves mocking it, and the refund-or-credit offer kept most of the money inside Skims.
What did Skims' crisis response include?
A spokesperson statement to several outlets, a personal email to every buyer within about 72 hours offering a full refund or Skims credit, an apology that didn't blame customers, and no personal comment from Kim Kardashian.
Why can a good apology make a backlash look planned?
A fast, polished response needs approved wording, a signed-off offer and the customer list ready in advance. That's the same preparation a planned stunt needs, so a very smooth response invites people to suspect the controversy was manufactured.
Should smaller brands try outrage marketing?
We wouldn't. Skims has enough demand that angry views still lead to sales and store credit gets spent. A smaller brand risks the angry comments without either, and the lasting lesson from Skims is how prepared its response was.
Planning a launch and want a second opinion on how you'd handle the reaction? Tell us what you're launching and we'll reply within 48 hours with first thoughts on where we'd start.
Written by Maxine Buchert, CEO and co-founder of Meridian. This is an opinion piece based on public reporting. Skims hasn't commented on whether the backlash was planned. Last updated 13 November 2026.
