“This Is How The Rich See Us”: People Are Gagged Over This Skims Cofounder’s “Unprofessional” Response To The $148 Advent Calendar Backlash

Coverage from WWD, Yahoo, and BuzzFeed reports that a Skims cofounder’s response to backlash over a $148 advent calendar has gone viral, drawing widespread criticism described as unprofessional. The coverage does not yet specify the cofounder’s name, the exact wording of the response, or the platform where it was posted. BuzzFeed frames the moment with the phrase “This Is How The Rich See Us,” noting that people are gagged over the reply, while Yahoo describes the response as unprofessional and says it is going viral. WWD’s coverage is titled “The Business of Beauty Advent Calendars Today,” placing the incident within a broader look at the advent calendar market. The coverage does not state how many units the calendar sold, how many complaints were filed, or whether Skims has issued a corporate statement separate from the cofounder’s reply. The $148 price point has become a focal point of the backlash, with coverage suggesting the cost and the response together fueled the viral reaction. The coverage does not specify when the advent calendar launched, how long it has been on sale, or what products it contains. Beauty advent calendars have grown into a significant seasonal category, with brands packaging multiple products into limited-edition boxes sold at premium prices during the holiday shopping period. The coverage does not provide historical sales data for Skims beauty products or compare this calendar’s price to competing offerings. The incident touches on broader tensions around luxury pricing, influencer-founded brands, and public expectations for executive conduct during consumer controversies. What to watch next depends entirely on developments the coverage has not yet reported. It is unknown whether Skims will distance itself from the cofounder’s comments, issue an apology, or adjust pricing or marketing for the calendar. The coverage does not indicate whether retailers carrying the product have responded, whether the calendar remains available for purchase, or whether the viral reaction has affected sales. Readers should treat any details beyond the viral nature of the response, the $148 price, and the characterization of the reply as unprofessional as unverified until further reporting emerges.