Skims is facing a backlash over its $148 12-day advent calendar after customers posted videos criticising its contents and the company offered buyers either a full refund or credit towards other products.
The calendar contains keychains, bobby pins, scrunchies and hair ties, rather than the bodysuits and loungewear associated with Kim Kardashian’s brand. Content creator Kayla Ryan said in a TikTok video: “We might be on track for the worst advent calendar I’ve ever opened.”
While opening one compartment, Ryan added: “I could get these at Dollar Tree,” after finding three hair ties.
Skims contacted customers who bought the calendar and offered a choice of returning it for a cash refund or keeping it in exchange for store credit. The arrangement prompted speculation that the product had been designed to generate controversy and encourage further spending.
Jessica Tillery, senior vice-president of brand communications at Allison Worldwide, suggested the credit could benefit Skims if customers spent beyond its value. “Every dollar spent over that $148 credit is new revenue for them,” she wrote in a LinkedIn post. “Every person who comes back to shop with that credit is a repeat purchaser.”
Why the Skims advent calendar backlash may damage trust
Research cited by marketers indicates that shoppers can spend more than the value of a gift card or store credit. Blackhawk Network’s 2026 research found that nearly 60% of shoppers said they would exceed a card’s balance, spending an average of $73 extra.
A 2025 study by Ata Jami, a lecturer at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, also found that consumers were more likely to spend money returned to them and to spend more freely when it did not feel like ordinary cash.
However, other marketing professionals rejected the idea that the calendar was an intentional stunt. Chris Ribeiro, founder of consumer insights firm Starlight Analytics and a marketing professor at Rutgers Business School, said: “Any time you alienate your core customer and make them feel stupid, that’s bad marketing in my opinion.”
He said the store credit should not be treated as an unexpected benefit. “This store credit is the customer’s own $148, following a poor experience,” Ribeiro added.
Starlight’s tracking of US social media posts about Skims and the calendar found that negative posts outnumbered positive ones by about eight to one between November 2 and November 11. Although the overall volume of discussion declined, negative posts accounted for 76% of mentions on November 11, compared with 13% on November 6.
Nataly Kelly, chief marketing officer at consumer insights platform Zappi, said the product appeared not to have been tested against shoppers’ expectations of what a $148 purchase should contain.
“A logo can’t carry a box of hair ties anymore,” Kelly said. Zappi’s research found that only one in 10 consumers bought exclusively from name brands, suggesting that brand recognition alone may not compensate for a product viewed as poor value.
Ben Metcalfe, founder of BlackFire Marketing, said offering store credit was “smarter than just a refund” because it could bring customers back to the retailer. But he noted that store credit often goes unused: a 2024 Bankrate survey found that about 43% of Americans held leftover gift cards, vouchers or credit, with an average of $244 unspent.
Metcalfe said Skims was likely to absorb the cost of an individual calendar, but warned that the longer-term issue was what customers remembered about the experience.
“Negative attention can boost awareness, but awareness isn’t loyalty,” he said. “Brands can survive a single viral mistake, but they struggle when their customers start to see a pattern.”
