Vibrating cleansing brushes? High frequency? Skincare devices? – oh my! Here’s what James Vivian has to say on at-home electronic facial tools.

When it comes to at-home electronic skincare devices we (and you should, too) have your reservations on their efficacy. Nothing will compare to an in-clinic tool but sometimes, getting in-clinic isn’t available to all – so this is a particularly nuanced space.

So nuanced in fact, that we’ve written a whole blog post about what we think about these gadgets. 

It’s clear that these types of devices (i.e. vibrating cleansing brushes, medicube booster, NuFACE, FOREO, etc.) have gained popularity over time, here’s two reasons why we think that is…
1.    Post COVID hangover. During lockdowns etc many people had time on their hands at-home and (for better or for worse) were paying more attention than usual to their skin. As clinics were closed, many folks were seeking products, devices and treatments to boost their results from home. 
2.    Conscious and clued-in consumers. People are becoming increasingly aware of technologies and treatments offered in-clinic and what they can offer the skin. Introducing at-home devices which are typically much cheaper (yet less effective) leverages off this knowledge and the marketing makes it seem like these at-home alternatives are pretty much the same (SPOILER ALERT: they’re not!).

So, James – what is the likelihood of these at-home tools *actually* being effective in sculpting, tightening, slimming, rejuvenating etc? 

A fabulous question! Here’s your answer. 
Devices offered in-clinic that perform functions such as the ones listed above, need to (ideally) be operated by a professional with specific knowledge in these conditions and someone with the prowess on who is and who is not an ideal candidate. Which leads us to; there must be a case for the power behind the device. The strength and sophistication of a technology has a great deal to do with the results it will yield. The higher the power the greater the ramifications if something were to go wrong, that is also a reason why at-home devices are considerably lower in strength. Lower in strength means safer and therefore potentially ineffective, or they need to be used very regularly – to achieve the results (that often won’t happen). At-home compliance is a tough one to control!

Not to mention, these devices are often bought with the best of intentions but rarely get the use they require. If we had a dollar for every time a client told us they bought an at-home device, used it once then retired it to the bottom drawer – well we’d have a pretty penny! 

As with everything in skin, there is no one-size-fits-all approach! That means that the use of these tools can often do more harm than good. 

If an at-home skincare device isn’t used properly, often enough or on the right skin – the ramifications can be bad. Burns, irritation, reactions and more (oh my!). 

Theres also something that needs to be said when a bad experience that happens at-home can spoil the confidence of an entire industry. A poor reaction to a device at-home does not (and should not) reflect the abilities of a profession/professional who can do a lot of good with the right tools in the right environment. 

Lastly, these devices usually aren’t cheap. We recommend spending the same amount of money on skincare or a treatment to target your concerns –which will often yield a better, more personalised result. Also, the eco warrior in us must also mention that purchasing then abandoning a device (typically created from plastic) is wasteful. Wasteful in resource and wasteful in (landfill) waste.

In summary, these at-home devices can absolutely be effective in certain ways if they are;
a)    Used properly
b)    Are of good quality
c)    Are used enough/the dosage is currect
d)    Used on the right skin
e)    The expectation of results is realistic!

What’s the difference between an in-clinic device and an at-home device? 
Simply put, devices used in-clinic should be more powerful and effective than something than a client can do to themselves at home. This said, they will offer the same type of technology, for example, LED. For context, the LED device we use at James Vivian was an investment of over $10K whereas one you can grab in-store and use at home can be anywhere from $100 to $1,000. 

Just because the cheaper, at-home device won’t hold a candle to the machine we use in-clinic, that doesn’t mean we don’t love LED or the type of therapy. We just prefer the device we use for a multitude of reasons. 

So, James, what would you recommend to those seeking an at-home device to address concerns of ageing?

Firstly, it’s important to note that here at James Vivian, we embrace the ageing process. We opt for language that supports the privilege associated with ageing – so we opt for the term ‘age-management’.

When it comes to devices that seek to lift and sculpt the face (whether they’re electronic like a NuFace or not, like a Gua Sha) it seems like they offer more of a moment of ritual than they do results. The sculpting or lifting potential of any gadget mentioned above will most likely be very short lived, so a combination of in-clinic treatments (dermal and cosmetic) and skincare will yield the best results. 

Here at James Vivian, what we can offer in the realms of lifting and tightening the skin are laser and heat-based treatments like Morpheus 8 and Tixel. 

Whether you’re interested in a treatment or simply looking to chat to a professional about your skincare/devices, we’re always here to help! Book a skin-chat with one of our team members here or reach out here with any preliminary questions.

Can’t wait to meet you!