Has Acrylic Been Misunderstood?
A few years ago, around the time of COVID, if you'd asked me what the future of the industry looked like, I'd probably have pointed straight at soft builder gel (or BIAB as it’s sometimes known). Like so many nail techs, I loved the idea of it. It was easy to apply since it required no additional training at the time (builder gel in a bottle courses simply didn't exist) and offered an upgrade in strength from traditional gel polish without changing the way we worked. Clients wanted natural-looking nails, brands were launching new systems left, right and centre, and it felt as though acrylic was slowly becoming a thing of the past for techs and clients alike. I don't think I was alone in thinking that we were watching a real shift in the industry.
The funny thing is, my opinion on soft builder gel hasn't actually changed. I still think it's a great product. I still think there are clients it's absolutely perfect for, and I still recommend it when it's the right choice. What has changed is that I stopped looking at it as the obvious choice for everyone. Somewhere along the line, I realised I was reaching for it because it had become my default rather than because I'd actually considered what would be the best option for the client.
I think the industry became very good at selling the idea that soft builder gel was the best answer for everyone. We started hearing comparisons between builder gel and acrylic as though one had won and the other had lost, and personally that’s never been a particularly helpful conversation. Products shouldn’t compete with each other. They're different chemistries, designed to behave in different ways, and suit different clients and lifestyles.
At the same time, the products themselves have changed. The last couple of years have seen reformulations happening across the industry at a pace I've never seen before. The TPO ban has forced brands back to the drawing board with their formulas, HEMA became the ingredient everyone suddenly wanted to avoid, and manufacturers have been trying to balance performance, safety, legislation and demand all at once. Don’t get me wrong, none of those things are inherently bad. Regulations change, science evolves and the products absolutely should evolve alongside them. The challenge has been that, as technicians, we've been expected to evolve just as quickly.
It feels as though we've spent the last few years constantly relearning products and techniques we thought we already knew. A builder gel that behaved like a dream one month suddenly became completely different after a reformulation. One brand holds structure brilliantly while another seems far more flexible. A product that worked perfectly for one technician becomes a nightmare for another because their application style, lamp or work environment is slightly different. Every few months there seems to be another ingredient being discussed, another formulation changing or another social media debate telling us we've all been doing it wrong. It got a little exhausting for me, trying to keep up, particularly when all we really want is consistency for our clients.
As what my clients wanted changed, so did what I needed from my products. Clients wanted more detailed art and so were wearing sets for longer, they wanted to keep longer lengths, or they simply had jobs and hobbies that were much harder on their hands than they used to be. I found myself carrying out the same repairs (namely pocket lifting) for the same clients again and again and, at first, I looked at my application. Was my prep the reason? Was I building enough structure? Was I doing something wrong? The more I looked, the more I realised this was never the case. I was just asking a flexible product to do a job it was never designed to do when I should have been looking at other products available on the market.
That doesn't mean soft builder gel had failed. It was doing exactly what it was supposed to. The mistake was expecting one product to cover every situation. It's a trap I think a lot of us fall into because companies and trends have a way of making us believe there's a “best” system or a one size fits all wonder product, when in reality there are only systems that are more or less suitable for a particular client.
That realisation quietly led me back to acrylic. One client at a time, I found myself thinking, "Actually, acrylic would probably be the better choice here." Then another. Then another. It was a product I was familiar with and it felt comfortable. Before I knew it, I realised most of the enhancements leaving my studio were acrylic again, not because I'd fallen out of love with builder gel, but because these more rigid products were simply solving more of the problems my current clients had.
I'd almost forgotten was just how consistent acrylic is. Yes, formulations improve over time, but the chemistry itself hasn't been on the same rollercoaster as soft builder gel. We know how it behaves. We know how it cures. We know what to expect from it in six months' time, and I suddenly don't find myself wondering whether a quiet reformulation has changed the way it performs. There is something very reassuring about working with a system that feels so established when so much of the gel market currently feels like it's constantly shifting beneath our feet.
I also think acrylic has suffered at the hands of years of clever marketing. Somewhere along the line it became the product associated with damage, while builder gel became the "healthy" alternative. That’s just simply not true. Healthy nails come from correct education, considerate application and safe removal, not from the name on the bottle. I've seen beautiful acrylic services that protected the natural nail for years, and I've seen builder gel services that caused unnecessary damage because they were applied or removed incorrectly. Neither product is inherently good or bad. They're just different.
I truly think this is a shift, we're beginning to see acrylic earn back some of the respect it lost. Not because soft builder gel is disappearing, but because more technicians are starting to think beyond trends and look at clients more as individual requirements instead of an all-encompassing “nails”. That's something I really do welcome, because it moves the conversation away from opinions and back towards understanding the science behind the product.
I've always said there is no such thing as right and wrong in this industry, only safe and unsafe, and that applies to this topic just as much as it does anywhere else. I haven't stopped using soft builder gel because I think it's wrong. I've stopped using it because it no longer fits the majority of the clients I work with. Another technician, with a completely different clientele, might come to the opposite conclusion and they'd be just as right.
Maybe that's the real lesson I’ve learned. Not that acrylic is the best, but I’m finally remembering that no product should ever have to be everything. Maybe it's also because, after a few years of constant change, I’m rediscovering the value of a product that simply gets on with the job it was designed to do. And I think that's where the conversation should have been all along: not asking which system is better, but asking which system is best for this client, this lifestyle and this set of nails.
