Generational Exploration on Aesthetic Medicine Products: Influence of Social Media, Reviews, and Brand Identity—GEMS Bond Survey.

Introduction: The study investigates the impact of social media reviews and brand identity on consumer preferences in the non-surgical aesthetics products across different generations. It highlights the evolving landscape of aesthetic medicine and surgery, driven by technological advancements and a cultural shift towards individual well-being. The research aims to explore the interplay between generational preferences, the influence of social media, and the role of brand identity in shaping consumer decisions. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was employed, with a sample size of > 5000 participants stratified across various generational cohorts. The study utilized an online questionnaire to capture both quantitative and qualitative insights into consumer behaviour, with statistical analysis performed to identify patterns and relationships. Results: Analysis of 5850 responses revealed distinct generational preferences and behaviours. Social media engagement varied significantly across generations, with younger cohorts placing a higher emphasis on online reviews. The study also found that brand identity's influence is diminishing in decision-making processes, with consumers increasingly relying on peer reviews and social media content. Conclusion: The findings highlight a pivotal shift in the non-surgical aesthetics consumer market, emphasizing the growing importance of social media and peer reviews over traditional brand identities. Importantly, the study underscores the critical need for integrating patient safety and evidence-based practice within marketing strategies. As consumer preferences evolve towards valuing transparency and authenticity, non-surgical aesthetics providers must prioritize these elements, ensuring that their services are not only appealing but also grounded in safety and scientific validity. Level of Evidence IV: "This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]