I’d argue that no skin is ‘damaged’ as such – not in a cosmetic way, or a convenient marketing way – it’s just living its life with, as you’d expect, varying results. There’s no such thing as ‘normal’ skin – all skin is different with different life styles, different continents, different levels of sun exposure, different pigment levels, different levels of pollution, different diets and so on. I can almost see the torment it took to persuade the brand not to go with ‘anti-ageing’ but really, ‘damage reverse’ isn’t better. I’ve heard a lot of opinions on this new product collection but not one that addresses the typical Boots rhetoric that in order to sell us better, we need our confidence erasing first. It’s called Future Renew Damage Reversal and I hate that the notion the brand is promoting normal skin life as damage. I’m more concerned with the whole ‘damaged’ skin leader they’re using.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |