European founders keep asking me the same question:

"Should we build for Gen Alpha too?"

My answer: No.

Not because the market isn't there. It is. $4.7 billion in the US and growing. Not because the opportunity isn't real. It is. Tweens are buying, parents are buying for them, and the trajectory is clear.

But because the opportunity isn't sustainable.

And more importantly, because it's not right.

Over the past two weeks, I've shown you how Gen Alpha is rewiring beauty discovery and what that behaviour reveals about the future of ALL brand strategy. I've shown you the patterns, ambient discovery, algorithmic validation, identity-driven purchase, and why they matter beyond this one demographic.

But I haven't answered the question directly: Should you build products for 8-12 year olds?

This is my answer. And it's not the one most strategists will give you.

In this piece:

💛 Why targeting Gen Alpha is not a sustainable brand strategy (even if it's profitable right now)
💛 The ethical case (which is also the business case)
💛 What to do instead: How to design for the pattern without needing children as customers
💛 The framework for values-based brand building in a market that's optimising for exploitation

Quick favour: This is Part 3 (final) of my series on Gen Alpha and brand strategy. If you want to build a brand that understands where discovery is going WITHOUT exploiting developmental vulnerabilities to prove it, this is for you. Subscribe below to stay in this conversation and future news.

Let me be direct: You can make money targeting Gen Alpha. A lot of money. The US market is proving that right now.

But here's what the growth metrics aren't showing you:

In 10 years, today's 8-year-olds will be 18. They'll have platforms. They'll have voices. And they'll start (possibly) asking questions:

"Why did brands teach me my face was a project when I was eight?"

"Why did companies profit from my insecurity before I even understood what insecurity was?"

"Why was no one protecting me from this?"

We've seen this cycle before:

The difference this time: you're watching it happen in real time. You can see the US market making these mistakes. You can see the infrastructure being built. You can see where this is heading.

You have the advantage of foresight. The question is whether you'll use it.

Right now, there's no regulation around marketing beauty products to children. But there will be.

We've seen this pattern:

Beauty marketing to Gen Alpha is following the same trajectory. The backlash is already starting:

It's not "if" regulation comes. It's when.

And when it does, do you want to be the brand that profited from the gap? Or the brand that saw the gap and refused to exploit it?

Here's the business reality most brands aren't modelling:

If your growth strategy depends on creating needs in children who don't have those needs yet, you're not building brand loyalty. You're building dependency.

And dependency doesn't create lifetime value the way trust does.

When Gen Alpha is old enough to make their own choices, when they're 18, 25, 30, will they remember your brand on good terms? Or will they remember you as the brand that taught them their skin needed intervention before it actually did?

The brands winning Gen Alpha today might capture market share. But they're not building the kind of relationship that lasts 20 years.

They're building the kind of relationship that becomes a cautionary tale.

Let's talk about what's actually happening to young people right now.

Anxiety and depression rates in children and adolescents have doubled in the past decade. Self-harm is up. Body dysmorphia is up. The age of the first depressive episode is getting younger.

There are many factors: social media, academic pressure, economic uncertainty, and climate anxiety.

But here's one factor we don't talk about enough: We're teaching children that their baseline state requires intervention.

Not just in beauty. In wellness. In productivity. In self-optimisation of every kind.

We've created a culture where "self-care" starts at 8. Having a routine is mandatory. Where your body is a project that needs constant management.

And we're calling it "empowerment."

But it's not empowerment when an 8-year-old feels like she's failing because she doesn't have a skincare routine. It's not empowerment when a 10-year-old is worried about her skin barrier. It's not empowerment when a 12-year-old feels behind because she isn't using actives yet.

That's anxiety dressed up as self-care.

And brands are profiting from it.

No one is forcing you to target Gen Alpha. There's no regulation requiring it. There's no business imperative.

The only pressure is market pressure: "Everyone else is doing it, so should we?"

But you're not everyone else.

You're a founder who has the luxury of perspective. You're watching the US market make expensive mistakes in real time. You're not under the same growth pressure. You're not chasing the same quarterly metrics.

You have the space to make a different choice.

And here's the thing about making the ethical choice early: it usually turns out to be the smart business choice later.

The brands that refused to use child labour didn't just avoid scandal; they built trust with conscious consumers.

The brands that went sustainable early didn't just reduce their carbon footprint; they captured a market segment that's now massive.

The brands that treated their workers well didn't just "do the right thing"; they built employee loyalty that became a competitive advantage.

Ethics and strategy aren't opposed. They're aligned on a longer timeline. The question is whether you're building for the next quarter or the next 20 years.

Here's the bigger picture:

Every time a brand launches a tween skincare line, they're normalising the idea that children need beauty products.

Every time a brand markets to 8-year-olds, they're saying: "It's acceptable to create needs in people who are still developing their sense of self."

Every time a brand prioritises growth over developmental appropriateness, they're choosing short-term profit over long-term responsibility.

And cumulatively, those choices build an industry.

You're not just making a decision about your brand. You're making a decision about what kind of industry you want to exist in.

Do you want to be part of an industry that Gen Alpha looks back on and says, "They saw us as customers before they saw us as children"?

Or do you want to be part of an industry that says: "We understood where discovery was going, and we designed for it without needing to exploit children to prove we understood it"?

That's the choice.

And it's not just ethical. It's strategic.

Because the industry that makes the second choice is the one that will still have trust in 20 years.

Here's the strategic path forward:

You understand that discovery is becoming ambient. That validation is algorithmic. That purchase is identity-driven.

You don't need to target 8-year-olds to design for those truths.

You can build a brand that works within the new discovery logic WITHOUT making children your customers.

Here's how.

The discovery shift isn't unique to Gen Alpha. It's happening with Gen Z. With Millennials. With every demographic that's chronically online.

What Gen Alpha shows you early, everyone else is moving toward.

So instead of creating a "tween line," create a brand that understands:

Ambient discovery:

Algorithmic validation:

Identity-driven purchase:

Build for 25-year-olds who are experiencing the same discovery shift Gen Alpha is showing you early.

Design products that are shareable, ritual-based, and identity-clarifying, for adults who want those things consciously, not children who are absorbing them unconsciously.

You capture the strategic insight without contributing to the harm.

If you're going to create anything that might be used by younger consumers, design parents INTO the experience, not out of it.

Most brands minimise parental involvement to reduce purchase friction.

You can do the opposite: make parental involvement the entire point.

You're not competing in the "capture tweens before anyone else does" race.

You're building trust with parents who are looking for brands that respect their child's development.

That's a smaller market today. But it's the market that will remember you well in 20 years.

Right now, "age-appropriate beauty" is defined by the brands selling it.

They're saying: "It's gentle, so it's fine." "It's dermatologist-approved, so it's responsible." "Kids want it, so we're meeting demand."

You can redefine the conversation.

Instead of "age-appropriate products," talk about "developmentally appropriate relationships with beauty."

What this sounds like:

"At 8-12, your skin doesn't need intervention. It needs to be left alone to do what it's designed to do. Here's what's actually normal for this age, and here's when you might need help (spoiler: it's not now)."

"If your tween is asking for skincare, they're not asking because their skin needs it. They're asking because culture has taught them that having a routine = fitting in. Here's how to have that conversation with them."

"Skincare routines should start when your skin actually needs them, usually around puberty, when hormones shift. Starting earlier doesn't give you a head start. It just creates needs that didn't exist."

The strategic advantage:

You position yourself as the brand that tells the truth, not the brand that profits from confusion.

You build authority with parents who are looking for guidance, not just products.

And you set yourself up to be the brand Gen Alpha chooses when they're old enough to make their own decisions, because you're the brand that didn't exploit them when they were young.

If you're committed to building for the discovery shift WITHOUT targeting children, here's your framework:

Most brands optimise for growth: new markets, new demographics, new revenue streams.

You can streamline for transparency: clear values, honest communication, long-term trust.

This means:

In practice:

Put an "Our Values" page on your site that explicitly says: "We don't create products for children under 13. Here's why, and here's what we believe about developmental appropriateness."

When someone asks "Do you have a tween line?", your answer is: "No. And here's why that's our strength."

The metric that matters:

Not market expansion. Trust depth. How deeply do your customers trust you? Would they recommend you to others based on your values, not just your products?

Most brands use education as a funnel: teach them just enough to make them want to buy.

You can use education as a service: teach them how to think, not what to buy.

This means:

In practice:

Create a content series that teaches parents and teens:

Make it free. Make it findable. Don't gate it. Just educate.

The metric that matters:

Not conversion rate. Share rate among parents. Are parents sending this to each other? That's the signal you're building trust.

Most brands optimise for lifetime value: how much can we extract from this customer over time?

You can optimise for lifetime trust: how much value can we provide before we ask for anything?

This means:

In practice:

If you create anything for younger consumers (even 16+), build in natural graduation points:

"This product is designed for ages 16-20, when your skin is figuring itself out. By 21, you probably won't need this anymore, and that's exactly what should happen."

The metric that matters:

Not retention rate. Reactivation rate. Do customers come back to you years later because they trust you? That's the signal you built a real relationship.

Most brands follow market trends: "Everyone else is doing X, so should we."

You can lead by refusing: "Everyone else is doing X. Here's why we're not, and why that's the future."

This means:

In practice:

Write about your decision. Speak about it. Make it part of your brand story.

"We could launch a tween line. The market is there. But we're choosing not to. Here's why, and here's what we're building instead."

The metric that matters:

Not press coverage. Peer respect. Are other founders citing you as an example? Are you being invited to speak about this? That's the signal you're shaping the conversation.