When Harry Styles launched Pleasing in late 2021, it was easy to see why the venture generated so much buzz. Here was one of the world’s most magnetic pop stars, known for his eclectic fashion, gender-fluid aesthetics, and charisma, packaging that essence into a beauty brand. With nail polishes, skincare serums, and later apparel, Pleasing felt like a natural extension of Styles’ persona: playful, inclusive, and stylishly offbeat. Fans flocked, early collections sold out, and suddenly “celebrity beauty” wasn’t just the territory of Rihanna’s Fenty or Selena Gomez’s Rare—it was Harry’s, too.
Three years on, however, the shimmer has dulled. Pleasing remains charming in its design, but the brand sits at a crossroads. It pleases, yes. But it doesn’t quite dazzle.
Where Pleasing Shines
To its credit, Pleasing has carved out a unique aesthetic in a crowded marketplace. The marbled nail polish bottles with rounded tops are instantly recognizable, almost collectible. Campaigns have leaned into Styles’ ethos of gender inclusivity—products aren’t marketed toward men or women but rather toward anyone who feels like experimenting.
That spirit of freedom and play is the brand’s strongest asset. In an industry still too often constrained by binaries and rigid beauty standards, Pleasing sends the message that polish, makeup, or self-care belongs to everyone. It’s a message deeply aligned with Harry’s public image, where painted nails, sequins, and bold prints are as natural as a tailored suit.
Moreover, the design language soft pastels, glossy textures, whimsical names taps into the joy of beauty rather than the pressure of perfection. Pleasing isn’t about contouring like a Kardashian or high-performance skincare routines. It’s about fun, experimentation, and a touch of quirk.
Where It Falters
And yet, for all its charm, Pleasing hasn’t evolved much beyond its initial splash. The product offerings feel limited compared to the broader ambitions suggested by the brand’s ethos. Nail polish, a serum, a few apparel drops, some collaborations—these are nice, but hardly game-changing.
Other celebrity brands have transcended their founders’ fame by establishing staying power through innovation. Fenty Beauty, for instance, disrupted the industry by pioneering inclusive foundation shades. Kylie Cosmetics became a powerhouse by capitalizing on trend-driven lip kits. Even Hailey Bieber’s Rhode is building a strong reputation in skincare with accessible, targeted products. Pleasing, by contrast, sometimes feels more like a fan shop dressed up as a lifestyle brand.
The question becomes: who is Pleasing really for? If it’s mainly serving Harry’s fandom, its ceiling may be limited. If it hopes to establish itself in the broader beauty and lifestyle market, it needs more substance than stylish packaging and a few whimsical polishes.
What Could Come Next
There’s still enormous potential. Styles’ cultural influence is undeniable, and the demand for brands that blend beauty, fashion, and self-expression remains high. Pleasing could expand meaningfully into fragrance, for instance, where Harry’s reputation for scent (he’s been the face of Gucci’s fragrance campaigns) would translate seamlessly. Wellness products, apparel collaborations with designers aligned with his aesthetic, or even sustainable packaging innovations could give the brand fresh energy.
Another pathway could be partnerships that go beyond celebrity endorsement. Pleasing has dipped into collaborations, but deeper, more creative partnerships with up-and-coming artists, designers, or even queer-owned businesses could cement its credibility and longevity.
The Verdict
At its best, Pleasing captures the whimsical charm of Harry Styles’ artistry. It’s joyful, playful, and perfectly on brand. But in 2025, that isn’t quite enough. The beauty and lifestyle market is brutally competitive, and without bold innovation, even Harry’s stardust risks fading in the product aisle.
Pleasing? Absolutely. But for a star who has always thrived on reinvention, the brand could and should leave us wanting a little less.
Leave a Reply