Is the word anti-aging bad? Actually, I have other stuff to think about.

If you have read any fashion magazine recently, you may have seen the debate about the use of the term “anti-aging” in the world of personal care. The marketing folks now reject that term because, apparently, it sheds aging in a negative light. The new buzzwords are “healthy aging,” “aging well” or some similar phrase. These new words, so the argument goes, are part of the lexicon of an industry that embraces aging — done in the right way.

Some of this word soup reflects real change. One example of this is the nature of product claims. Companies now focus more on skin characteristics that reflect the health of skin (texture, tone, radiance) and less on wrinkles. This is consistent with the guidance of any responsible dermatologist that a face lift will eliminate your wrinkles but it will never give you skin that looks young or healthy. The sort of skin dewy, radiant skin that we call “beautiful skin” comes in part from skincare but more importantly from healthy behaviors, such as the religious use of sunscreen and keeping to a healthy diet. If the focus on “healthy aging” leads to real shifts in behavior, I am all for it. Go Allure!

That said, I think the personal care industry is still missing the point. The use of one word or another will never change one basic truth: there is no major personal care company dedicated to the lives of women who are in fact aging now, i.e., women over 40 or so. Injury is added to insult when major skincare brands use young women to advertise anti-aging (whoops — healthy aging) skincare.

Perhaps things have changed of late. Or not. Now, when skincare companies do target women over 40, they represent our lives (and our skin) as defined by one event: menopause. This is indeed a major event for our skin and that should be recognized …. but we have days and nights filled with all sorts of stuff that doesn’t relate to our ovaries in the slightest. (Frankly, if these companies were truly transparent, they would clearly explain the connection between reduced estrogen and loss of collagen, and then advise women to consult with their physicians on whether estrogen supplementation is a viable option).

Those who claim that the personal care market is saturated by the recent influx of startups are ignoring an enormous segment of the population, not only in the United States but worldwide. These women deserve a company that is dedicated to them. And regardless of the right or wrong of the issue, there is money to be made. Reliable studies have proven that women over 40 want — and are both able and willing to pay for — personal care that addresses their needs.

So what does this company look like?

First, this company seeks to understand what women over 40 want and need from personal care. It assumes nothing and bases its action on empirical data that is the result of comprehensive studies that ask these women what they want and need.

Second, this company markets to women over 40 only using women over 40 in ads. Prestige personal care is often priced well into the hundreds of dollars. A consumer that spends this amount appropriately expects marketing that resonates, not marketing that ignores or insults.

Third, this company has leadership that includes women over 40 and it routinely seeks out the and guidance of women over 40, including through the use of ongoing consumer surveys or standing advisory councils.

Fourth, this company engages with its consumers, recognizing the sophistication of these women. These women are less likely than teenagers to purchase on impulse and they want education. They are happy to indulge in extraordinary personal care, but they want to know why a product or brand is extraordinary.

Finally, like any personal care company, this company should create products that are effective, easy to use and a pleasure to use. Too many companies have left out the “personal” in “personal care.”

(Hmmm. I might like to create that company.)

More on that later.