Jesus get over it if your going to be triggered by some simple advertising best not leave the house today. If you love the products, great, if you feel they’re bringing your skin to life in ways that other products can’t, that’s also great, and if they’re allowing you to feel positive about your age, your complexion and your self-perception, even better. There’s nothing wrong with wanting the best skin you can have – your face is yours to do as you wish with – and a good skin day is always a great day but believing you are damaged is not good, not good at all. Future Renew isn’t nearly as impactful is it?

So we have to ask ourselves who decided that lines and creases, pigmentation, lack of luminosity and lack of firmness is damage? You could argue that it doesn’t matter, and to some people, it won’t but if the word ‘Damage’ is the one that’s resonating with you as you browse the range then that’s the marketing doing it’s job. 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.

The almost truth eileen cook