Trends & Drivers of the Aesthetic Market During a Turbulent Economy

Purpose: Aesthetic procedures are important revenue sources for plastic surgeons.  With the gain in popularity of non-surgical aesthetic procedures, many plastic surgeons question how to best tailor their aesthetic practice, particularly in the context of a turbulent economy.  Here we examine the economic trends and drivers that shaped the aesthetic market between 2000 and 2011.

Methods: Revenue from aesthetic procedures performed between 2000 and 2011 were calculated from the American Society of Plastic Surgeon’s (ASPS) annual reports.¹  This timeframe uniquely encompassed periods of economic growth, stagnation, and recession.  Revenue regression analysis was performed against The Dow Jones Industrial average (DJI), S&P500, unemployment rate, real GDP per capita, Case-Shiller Home Price Index, disposable income per capita (DIPC) and consumer price index (CPI) calendar-year-averaged data (Federal Reserve Economic Data).² All nominal data was adjusted for inflation using the CPI and reported in 2012 US dollars.

Results: In 2011, the total revenue for all aesthetic procedures was $11.7B. This represents a 20% increase from 2000. This growth has been driven through an increased consumption of minimally-invasive procedures. Specifically, revenue from minimally-invasive procedures increased from $3.0B to $5.7B (90% growth) while revenue from surgical procedures decreased from $6.6B to $6.0B (10% decline). Taken together, minimally-invasive procedure revenue grew from 30% of the entire aesthetic market in 2000 to nearly 50% in 2011. Linear regression analysis showed a significant correlation between surgical procedure revenue and the DJI (R=0.72; p<0.01), S&P500 (R=0.64, p<0.05), and unemployment rate (R=-0.81; p<0.001). Minimally-invasive procedure revenue was significantly correlated real GDP per capita (R=0.88; p<0.001), home price index(R=0.63; p<0.05), and DIPC (R=0.93; p<0.001). No economic indicator in this study was found to be significantly correlated with both surgical and minimally-invasive revenue.

Discussion: Despite economic turbulence, minimally-invasive procedures are the most-rapidly growing source of revenue and are poised to be the dominant source of revenue in the aesthetic market.  In contrast, revenue generated from surgical procedures remained fairly static despite economic fluctuations.  Further, surgical revenue is only weakly sensitive to indicators of macroeconomic growth, while revenue from minimally-invasive procedures was found to be relatively sensitive to microeconomic indicators of disposable income.

Conclusion: Plastic surgeons should note these trends and associations in order to make educated decisions regarding practice management.