"prison of internalization", "psychedleic affect health", , "undeniably", "universal cosmic something", "monetizing", "masquerading"... She is insufferable. I never liked her and this surely is not helping.
29
The opportunistic greediness
of these celebrities, the
fawning press coverage
and exploitation of gullible
consumers is repulsive.
Why do we glorify her, the
Kardashians, the Trumps?
32
I like NYT’s last summer’s profile on G.P. much better. This one seems a bit... promotional. When I first saw this article I thought maybe it’s being run to make up for the other one — which was as brilliant as it was... unflattering. I wish G.P. all the best, but I can’t see how her “brand” can exist without her. She’s kinda stuck rowing that boat, lifting those bales. But then I guess Kylie Jenner doesn’t worry about little details like that. Why should G.P.?
7
All business? This is a women making a mint selling non-cures to non-problems to gullible women.
33
I always assumed "goop" meant junk or a mess or some kind of unappetizing pudding but my Oxford dictionary defines it as a "stupid or fatuous person". What an appropriate, likely inadvertent, choice of a name for an ego-driven, bucks- generating, life-changing, mumbo-jumbo juggernaut. Neither definition is exactly flattering but I think the OED really hits the nail on the head. I wonder if Ms Paltrow has given this any thought?
14
I loved Bruce Paltrow and admire Blythe Danner. I thought both were/are brilliant. I feel bad that their daughter firmly believes she "was masquerading as an actor". Does the make her academy award any less appreciated or more?
I had no idea what Goop was until I looked it up on the internet. I just rolled my eyes and thought to myself, "how Hollywood". I feel no ill will towards Ms. Paltrow and wish her the very best. But I must be honest - I wish she would return to acting because I always thought she had a real talent for it. If she's masquerading as anything, it's in the business world for I wonder if Goop would be as successful if her name was not associated with the business on any level and she was merely a silent partner. A sound and solid product usually stands on its own merits rather than the celebrity name behind it.
The only criticism I have of Ms. Paltrow is her hair. Dear me, cut off a bunch of inches already and get a fresher look. That hair style only makes her look OLDER, as if she is desperately trying to hang onto her long passed youth.
10
Still a hodge podge of entertainment industry cliches (chiefly 'follow your passion'), psychobabble, and pseudo-science. The Wall Street Journal had an endless feature of GP a couple of months ago. Why does the Times feel it needs to offer another platform to this self-absorbed woman who preys on the insecurities of others. As I said in the WSJ: GP, 'have a juicy steak and potatoes with a nice Barolo, preceded by oysters Rockefeller and a dry Martini, at least twice a month'. Feast on dairy, whole grains containing gluten. Oh, one thing she claims, which seems sensible, is to get along with her ex-husband and father of her children. That, if true, is wise.
9
I'm grateful to GP for talking about things that other people struggle to talk about. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be so drawn to alternative medicine and different healing modalities if Western / modern medicine worked for me. But, it barely moves the needle on my chronic illness; only exploring outside of those traditional realms has helped me. To me, the hatred of Goop reeks of sexism. Women are ignored in the medical establishment, and then made fun of when we try to seek help elsewhere.
7
Yes, she was most definitely masquerading - highly overrated actress
10
Wow, I guess GP has never heard of food deserts or income inequality that means plenty of people (especially brown people) have unequal access to the whole foods, outdoor nature trails and meditation apps, classes, and opportunity she says are “all free”. Free for privileged rich white celebrities, sure! How incredibly elitist, out of touch and myopically defensive of her privilege.
20
NYT...You are just playing along on this! Rather than doing the difficult work of investigating the claims of wellness and actual benefit from Goop products, analyzing the practices of Goop and its multi-billion business, you are aiding the promotion and free PR work.
I wonder how often publications feel apologetic about the bidding they do for promoting 'trailblazers' like Elizabeth Holmes and others when eventually they are found out to be nothing but unethical and charming Conmen/women?
17
To me, a "lifestyle company" has that same hollow ring as other attempts primarily of the Internet to monetize and make something out of nothing, like "social networking," "viral videos," "reality TV personality," "Twitter following," etc.
5
I have enormous respect for what GP is doing. I cannot understand the vitriol directed at her and her ambitious, creative company. She’s trying to ask good questions. Everyone harps on one or two of their most out-of-the-box articles. But they’re asking questions relevant to so many women that aren’t being asked in other forums.
And so what if they sell luxury products? Does anyone knock Louis Vuitton or La Mer for being a luxury product?
6
GP is capitalizing on her “fake” movie career to hawk second hand products. The brands you mention are successful based on their own merits- developing their products from the ground up. I think acting was too much work for GP so she’s going for the low hanging fruit.
8
How can the NY Times be so tone-deaf? Here we are, in the third year of the very apotheosis of incompetence and flim-flam that is Trump, a man who has perfected the art of leeching on our addiction to fame and wealth, and the Paper of Record does yet another story on a wealthy, entitled person whose primary skill is being famous. And as if today's piece wasn't enough evidence of poor editorial judgement, it comes only eight months after a similar feature piece about this person ran in the Times Magazine. Isn't there anybody else in the whole wide world more deserving of our attention than this purveyor of pseudoscience and snake-oil?
33
@Robert Munoz
Because everything is for sale and we're all held captive by celebrity culture. Thanks NYT, for selling out.
12
"Because it’s collaborative, it’s emotional, it’s passionate, it’s instinctual. Those are all feminine qualities." I'm pretty sure those are all human qualities. The words that come out of GP's mouth make as much sense as her products.
I know this is an opinion piece, but I'm disappointed in the NYT. There's definitely a news worthy story in here, but its about a celebrity abusing her influence to scam vulnerable people. She is either ignorant about what she's doing (doubtful as she seems pretty educated), or she knows what she's doing and doesn't care.
The writer basically glorifies GP by saying shes "unbowed" by the fines (fines which should be much worse for the harmful pseudoscience she's selling) she received. It's glorification/blind admiration of questionable characters like this that allow people like Donald Trump to acquire positions of power.
159
@Phil Have you ever listened to the GOOP podcast, read any of the Q&A blog posts or browsed the products on the site? GP and her staff basically research stuff they've heard of that interests them, or is already helping people—and then produce content around it. Is that illegal? They're essentially reporting about stuff that interests them and that people are talking about. What the heck is wrong with that? Since GP is a famous actress her content is popular. Big deal.
8
I am all for empowering women and encouraging women run businesses, but I have to say - she does make me a bit wary. May be because she seems a bit "out there", and her site content can be so aspirational and elitist and over the top - that it feels borderline nuts. But that's her market - she is appealing to an affluent elitist segment, not mass market, and she knows her audience. That's why she is growing. It does not mean she knows what she is doing.
I remember reading an article where she mentioned her Goop facial scrub was so good that she uses it every day, and it's the secret to her "radiant " complexion.. Well, you are not supposed to use products like that every day - you would irritate and dry your skin, and basically make it too thin. It's supposed to be every 2 to 3 days max. But media gave her a platform, and she was using it to promote what feels like nonsense.
I would love to see NYT feature some "real life" women entrepreneur success stories instead.
5
Why are you giving this conwoman a platform? NYT is a serious news paper and I pay good money to get serious articles from it, not some fluff to con people out of their money? Leave the fluff to Jimmy Fallon!
45
I've always been amazed by how critical people are of GP and Goop. I say, Brava and Thanks. For following your passion, for not apologizing for your intellect, for focusing on wellness and wellbeing, for sharing your process and admitting your failings. I agree that people are more comfortable criticizing than taking responsibility. Thank you for encouraging us to do the latter.
39
@Jennifer Dickman
Yes, thanks for sharing your passion only to those who can afford it.
41
Veronica, how is that any different than any other business? I didn’t realize that Apple or Tesla were in the business of discounting based on your income.
I think GP is kind of annoying but I also think people are holding her to an unfair double standard. Good for her for starting and running a business.
27
@Elle
Very good point.
7
No different than Trump - using “name” or “brand” to sell an image with many products based on magical thinking - modern day snake oil salespeople. Move along, nothing to admire here.
290
I'll be watching with interest to see whether Ms. Paltrow's continues to grow. My company tried to expand into the 'lifestyle' category last year by importing a bunch of fashion industry types and re-branding, but that effort has fallen flat on its face, The stock dived, and expectations floundered. Worse, the company's customer base feels that the company has turned its back on them. It's a difficult business! I wish Ms. Paltrow much luck! Why so many out there want to hate on her is beyond me.
13
Gywneth Paltrow is a symptom of so much that’s wrong. “The true tenets of wellness are free? Being in nature, meditating, eating whole foods.” Tell to the 3 billion people in the world living in poverty; this is almost half the people on the planet. Do these people not “want to take responsibility for themselves?” I’m not sure how we came to associate Gywenth Paltrow with liberal values, because her worldview is tone-dead, elitist, and selfish. It wasn’t obvious that she was “masquerading as an actor,” but it’s definitely obvious that she’s a huckster masquerading as a revered wellness guru. If you’re wondering why people on the political right despise the coastal wealthy liberal elite, look no further than “GP.” We do not need this woman as an imaginary avatar for our better selves. There’s no amount of money we can spend on aspirational treatments, products and consumer experiences in the toxic rabbit hole of the internet that will bring us closer to personal growth, true intimacy, and real contentment.
23
@LizR I think she does have liberal values, in the most negative sense of the world.
5
Darn, but there are some people who just seem to be born pretentious.
34
Hah! Well said.
5
The great news about Goop for women is that if you want to buy a $6,500.00 handbag you don't even have to leave the house. She has no idea how shallow she is does she?
26
Paltrow follows in that American tradition of conman or in this case conwoman.
14
For someone that sells beauty aids and wellness products she certainly isn’t aging well. Take a look at her mom hawking some pharmaceutical company on tv, that’s her future and consider you have never seen either without the benefit of a professional makeup artist and digital effects.
This article also failed to mention her plastic surgery.
Money cannot make you immortal, time is the great equalizer.
13
@Paulie she IS aging well. At 46, she frequently posts on Instagram images of her beautiful make-up free face, void of botox, fillers and lip injections. THAT should be inspiration for all women... not the Kardashian-era that we're in in which women are nearly unrecognizable due to all the plastic surgery and crap they inject into their faces. Beauty and confidence comes from the inside, and Gwyneth radiates both!
6
Buy something at $10.00 , hype it and sell it for $150. Buy vitamins and herbs from China at $1.00 and market as a wonder youth promoting anti disease pill for $60.00. This is the new business model. You can use the internet to create the lies and misinformation to sell these things. You can call yourself a business person (like trump) yet be basically a con man.
13
Ms. Paltrow draws the ire of a lot of people. She's beautiful, talented, wealthy, and has always been a person of privilege. On top of all that, she delivers a lot of controversial opinions from on high.
Now she has this company Goop which markets a lot of dubious products and ideas exclusively to females.
Nonetheless, I find Gwyneth Paltrow to be refreshing. She maintains that there is male and there is female. And that there is a difference. She's become a success by channeling female qualities and energy, and I think that's great.
Women can do anything men can do. But at the poles of humanity, there is male and and there is female. Most people have a core, an essential self. This business that we're all transgendered and arbitrary mosaics of male and female is utter nonsense. I admire Ms. Paltrow for implicitly saying, "Yes, I'm female, and I'm doing it this way."
She could have just been a movie star in a corporate system mainly run by males. She has a good sense of humor. Her wonderful duet with Huey Lewis displayed the talent of a major recording artist.
In an idiosyncratic way, it seems Ms Paltrow is mixing e-commerce with a spiritual journey. That is off-putting because the soul is outside the realm of personal property.
Ms. Paltrow is a bright, complicated person doing something different and supporting her family. Compared to most corporate actors, her flaws are very venial.
7
That's too bad she feels she was masquerading as an actor. Her performances in "Shakespeare in Love," "Emma," and "Sylvia" were top-notch. Then again Hollywood worships youth so maybe it was savvy to depart when young.
4
She's says Good is trying to "eliminate shame"? What kind of delusional mumbo-jumbo is this? She should start working on the shame she garnered by selling questionably dangerous products to women. I agree with recent comments regarding the interview; I'm a little disappointed the NY Times would give space to this huckster.
25
@Tom Shame? conning folks with mumbo Jumbo unproven pills and buying clothes from India at $20.00 and selling for $200?
3
The Goop site used to be "reviews" of restaurants, hotels, vaca spots, cooking, fitness, etc. Now they are selling high priced clothing, ie, $500 white shirts and beauty products. Jade egg indeed.
6
I always thought she was merely masquerading as an actress, and as a businesswoman, she's equally incomprehensible.
26
I wouldn't be upset if I never saw Gwyneth's name or picture in the NYT again.
64
This is a woman from a privileged background who decided that higher education was “not for her”. With the influence of her parents and a despicable professional mentor she earned an arguably undeserved acting award and parlayed that into a multimillion dollar business that as far as I can tell has enriched mainly her. As a capitalist I have no issue with her work ethic or ingenuity; but I have observed nothing about her experience, intellect or character that leads me to either idolize her or “ want to have a beer” with her. Are there no better examples of American womanhood that the NYT can find to put on a pedestal for emulation?
48
NY Times you really dropped the ball. She is the friendly feminine face of pseudoscience and you let her off the hook. Too many answers demanded a follow up question. You cannot simply say here is this really cool alternative modality, which we are not recommending you try, but if you really want to try, you can buy it here. If you are selling something then you are recommending and endorsing it, not simply informing your audience of it.
Now we have this person selling the idea of "clean food" and not a single question about this nonsense.
No one is upset with GP because she says people should eat better or exercise more. It is the selling and tacit endorsement of pseudoscience (which she calls alternative modalities) that is the problem and that she never has the courage to directly confront.
She is a celebrity masquerading as an ethical business person bringing life lessons to women to help them. She is simply using her celebrity to sell any new fad, however suspect or dubious, until someone calls her out. And You NYT failed to do that.
I expect better from the NY Times.
258
@David W. I nominate this for a "TimesPicks"
29
@David W.
"It is the selling and tacit endorsement of pseudoscience (which she calls alternative modalities) that is the problem and that she never has the courage to directly confront."
That is exactly it! She's still playing the naive, well-intentioned ingenue. "Alternative modalities" indeed. We have another word for that in Brooklyn, but then this is the NY Times, so I will refrain.
36
@David W. Have you tried any of her recipes or featured "modalities?" I have started eating clean and feel so much better. GOOP podcasts have turned me on to several therapies that I'd have not otherwise heard of. I would say, if you haven't tried it, don't knock it. Jeesh.
2
Paltrow's mother appears in ads for Prolia, a respected osteoporosis medication.
Maybe Ms. Danner should let her daughter handle her medical needs. She is, after all, an expert on everything.
13
Gwyneth Paltrow has always miraculously seemed to be in the spotlight. Except, I don't think it's miraculous. Spielberg's goddaughter, born of a very famous and wealthy showbiz couple, managed to somehow snag choice movie roles and win an Oscar, along with numerous fashion magazine covers (Vogue, Harper's, etc.) and beauty campaigns (Estee Lauder). Yet, I've never quite understood what rendered her so special among even more talented and far more beautiful actresses. How did she always remain in the spotlight even without having been in a movie in years? The answer? Connections. Specifically in the media. This article? One of so many over the years that I've lost count. Goop will be successful. Not because it is remarkable (it isn't in a sea of similar start-ups) but because Paltrow is extremely rich and connected. And the media promotes her endlessly.
69
@LBM
FWIW, connections aren't everything.
Her brother has never really gotten it together.
1
It's difficult for me to fathom why nytimes would, in essence, promote pseudoscienctific snake oil health products. Talking about her acting seems fine to me but unless you're casting a serious critical eye to the ridiculous claims her company makes, you shouldn't be writing about her business.
48
Ah, Gwyneth . . . still goop-y after all these years.
(Apologies to Paul Simon.)
17
Please. With so many women contributing true innovation and value to the world, we have to read about GP? Why don't you poll your readers for some interesting and novel story ideas. We're not interested in this one.
52
I actually thought she was a very good actress.
8
“I was masquerading as an actor.”
Sounds like a Trump excuse for not being considered accomplished at something.
Good try, though.
9
But I don’t want to eliminate men. And more and more, to tell you the truth, men tell me, “We really need that same kind of content, and we want the same kinds of products.”
No, no we don't. We don't need more celebrity-driven products that offer little beyond a shrinking bank account and dubious results.
30
Is this soft ball interview because of how that Times Magazine "Goop'd" profile had us all laughing last summer? Honestly, I find neither Paltrow, nor her lifestyle company, interesting in the least, and I'm supposed to be her target demographic. This seems sort of like a do-over/apology to Paltrow, rather than a true corner office profile.
33
Another feature on Ms. Paltrow? Why? I wish her no ill, but also have zero interest and expect the NYT has better things to write about.
43
@Ponderer she clearly has a good PR agent, and the NYTimes seems to always bite on their story pitches
19
Will the New York Times ever tire of writing features about Gwyneth Paltrow?? I swear, every time I turn around, there's another dumb article about this person celebrating her "genius." She's just another shameless person who has eschewed all decorum and privacy in this digital age and it's all in worship for the blessed buck. Could there be a story that isn't tripping over itself in admiration of unfettered capitalism? Is everything for sale? Time to highlight someone who doesn't yearn for celebrity and works for the sake of doing good work. Really NYT, this constant applause for GOOP is embarrassing.
61
She could play Ivanka when the Trump movie is made. But good for her - she’s allowed to do well.
5
Let's not point fingers at Goop or Gwyneth Paltrow. Her success and the success of her brand are reflections of society at large.
There's a lot to admire about Paltrow. She has used the resources at her disposal, as would any of us in her shoes. It's unfair to fault her for having more resources to begin with. First, not everyone can take $10 and turn it into $20, so more power to her for finding a way to do so. Second, the fact that she started with more resources is a broader systemic issue in a society which doles out disparate outcomes. Let's not pin that issue on one person.
I've never purchased from Goop. But I can't ignore its success- and that means Paltrow has found a brand voice and message that speaks to consumers, the same as her turns in films spoke to viewers. Trash her all you want; that's not going to stop her company growing, jade eggs or not. She is, at the very least, deeply in tune with modern culture, if not at the forefront of it. That awareness is, quite frankly, a talent.
13
There's a story somewhere about Gwyneth Paltrow making some comment to a younger woman in a yoga studio to the effect of GP being the reason that anyone does yoga at all.
In my younger days I thought it was funny to ask "What Would Gwyneth Do?" and act accordingly. Fun to have an actress in my age group, who looked similar to me, that churned out movies that I watched with my daughter. Fast forward 20 years, and I find GP over the top insufferable. She is so tone deaf and out of touch with reality it's laughable, and she continues to get more out of touch with each passing day. Jade eggs? Prohibitively expensive "beauty" products? The one thing I can say is her company gives people jobs, but let's be honest- those people wouldn't have any problem getting jobs in the first place. GP is a true testament to how being overall very mediocre but being able to leverage some incredible connections and privilege can take you far.
235
@S. Carlson amen. seriously articulate. thanks
32
@S. Carlson
Ah, but were is the self awareness? A little self depricating humor might make her seem human. Unfortunately, she dosn’t have the perspective. Tall, blond, blue eyed, white, and a, “movie star.” My guess is that if the movie roles were still coming she would not be, “changing careers.” It has the same kind of cringe-worthyness of Alex Trebek hawking life insurance. When is enough, enough?
27
@Prant I see Gyneth as not so different from Ivanka. Raised in a bubble of affluence, clueless about the lives of ordinary people.
41
I'm not one of the thousands of Gwyneth Paltrow haters, but let's face facts, her company wouldn't have prospered if a celebrity hadn't been at the helm. For most of this interview I had no idea what she was talking about, but I do know that for Gwyneth Paltrow to take credit for the growing awareness of gluten-free foods is more than a stretch, it's delusions of grandeur. Get real, well before Goop existed there was already an awareness of gluten-free and consumer-driven demand for gluten-free products.
263
As a fraud, based only on social media marketing as y and fame, Ms. Paltrow is in equally first class(not) status with the Kardashian and trump families. Famous for being famous. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Cry my beloved country. Where have you gone joe DiMaggio? So many cliches to apply to the truly ephemeral.
50
@karen She is an Oscar winner for Best Actress! Say what you will about her recent business ventures but GP undeniably has talent far, far beyond the Kardashians/Trumps.
7
For someone who wants to help launch the next stage of human evolution, she has terribly simplistic and retrograde ideas. She assigns stereotypical labels of "male" and "female" to roles/behaviors that have traditionally been assigned to those genders. She seems ignorant of feminism, gender non-conformity, as well as psychological concepts that have been around for over 100 years. Perhaps the "lifestyle guru" needs to educate herself about more than just business? And how "aware" is someone who could barely tolerate a single meditation retreat?
22
Pretty disingenuous of her to say, with respect to highly questionable products she sells, that they only 'suggest' and put up Q and A's about the product - she is an extremely famous person pushing a lifestyle brand and products and knows perfectly well how this can 'snow' people into thinking there are health benefits to expensive products where there is no scientific basis for the claims. Shame on her.
19
Isn't the first question you think of (and ask if you are interviewing her), "Why did you name your company "Goop?"
Especially in light of the term being generically associated with "a sticky wet viscous substance." (For example, "What is that goop on the bottom of your shoe?")
6
@Dan88 Maybe you know this, but it's her initials with two o's in between. I suppose gap, gep, gip, gop, and gup (not to mention gaap, giip, geep, and guup) weren't jazzy enough.
3
@Ken I didn't know that, and am kind of glad I didn't. I wonder what was wrong with keeping it simply "GP?"
For example, Roger Federer's sportsware is marketed as "RF," not "Raaff," "Reef," "Riif," "Roof," "Ruuf," or sometimes "Ryyf," all of which be ridiculous.
Even so, at least Roger wouldn't be forced to answer why he associated his brand with a concept like, "wipe that riif off before you come back in the house."
1
I believe the name “goop” came from her initials and the double “O” as a suggestion from a successful tech entrepreneur. The advice being that double letters have been used to great success, such as Google and Apple.
1
A perfect symbol of the 21st century American economy. Sham products with no real value or function, sold by a smiling but cynical huckster, and bought by culpably credulous consumers— likely on credit cards— believing that goop (at least an honest name) will give their lives meaning solely because the seller is famous.
36
@Peeking Through the Fence Well said!
2
If the “CEO” were not a favorite celebrity you’d be doing an expose on medical fraud. Shades of Theranos ! Where is the WSJ when we need them!
24
I have trouble believing she thinks psychedelics are the next "big thing" when it comes to health, mental health and addiction, but has yet to try them due to fear....that said, I've shopped at GOOP.
Instead of fattening the bank accounts of these life style "gurus," just go to your local library and check out a bunch of books on design and architecture, art, wine, food and healthy eating, from visionary experts in their respective fields. Trust me, you'll be much better informed, have more money in your pocket, and you can make your own better choices that fit your lifestyle.
19
Perfect!
3
Masquerading as an actor? Clear enough. Shrewd businesswoman? Highly debatable. Just another predator on the wrong side of honest? The most likely of all.
32
@In Wonderland Another commenter called it peddling snake oil. She's Trumpian.
10
This is an example of the flattening of value driven by celebrity. She peddles snake oil. This isn't important, unique or heroic.
11
This article reflects one of the problems with contemporary journalism. In an effort to seem balanced and objective, the author says that "many people deride Goop as little more than an e-commerce platform peddling pseudoscience and baubles." Please report the facts here. Goop DOES peddle pseudoscience. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.
54
@Northstar5 totally a matter of fact.
5
reality check, her "business" ventures would have failed miserably if she did have her fame as an actress to launch them on. This entire notion of being a businesswoman masquerading as an actress is absurd.
14
"I was masquerading as an actor."
i.e., she was an actor.
5
Gwyneth Paltrow is to on line marketing what Donald Trump is to the presidency.
23
What's really fascinating are all the snide and snarky comments below - pointing out that - "If it weren't for the fact that Gwyneth Paltrow was a well-known actress - she would never have been able to successfully start up her company" --
Hmmm --
The last time I looked - Ms. Paltrow was an Academy-Award-winning actor - with numerous roles in big-budget Hollywood films - which pay her enough money to allow her to finance her own start-up - whatever it may be --
Lots of hard and grueling work preparing for a film - along with talent - and dedication - and - oh yes - commitment -- all ingredients one would expect to find in a successful businessperson -
And - for those who accuse Goop of being "elitist" - and out of the reach of most people - I suggest you head over to the Real Estate section of the NY Times - where you can read about privileged people - who are not movie stars or celebrities - talking about the four-million "Dream Home" which they just bought --
And -
If - instead of Ms. Paltrow - this was Hillary Clinton or Helen Mirren reinventing themself as a businesswoman - everyone here would be tripping over themselves - while gushing with admiration and approval -
You may not like what Ms. Paltrow is doing - or how she's doing it -- but you certainly have to give her credit for making it work - and keeping her eyes on her own prize...
5
It seems to me that Goop is simply another sad indicator of the American reality - namely that the majority of citizens work every day in the dimming hopes of staying out of crippling debt, unable to afford useful health insurance, while a parasitic leisure class minority has so much expendable income they need to invent things on which to spend it.
30
I am annoyed that the silly, vapid Gweneth/Ivanka/Kim types parlay good looks and family connections to pretend to be some sort of model of female empowerment or creativity.
53
@Dee Agree with your comment. By NYT only promoting the pretty rich girls, serves to reinforce the old stereotype of female "empowerment", not redefine it. I'd prefer to read about women who actually break the mold.
8
Why does the NYT keep publishing, and in a sense providing free advertisement, for Ms Paltrow and her quack products? She is duping young impressionable girls and women with wacky claims for products that are clearly over priced and over exaggerated on there health benefits. I feel like I already read this article a few months ago and was just as angered by her claims.
Please stop or find some other true entrepreneurial women doing really great things. They are out there, tell their stories!
104
@Susan completely agree. NYT keep promoting her for whatever reason.
20
@ihatecooking0101 She got the Magazine cover just a few months ago. Granted it wasn't all complimentary, but still!
14
I'm sorry, she's around my age and I liked her as an actress and I also enjoyed her style but she has apparently turned into an unapologetic huckster. Goop is a bunch of garbage, some of it even dangerous. Paltrow never even went to college- what does she know about health or life in general? It troubles me no end that people in this country will buy anything if it's sold by a "celebrity."
53
@atb
True. Trump is a prime example of this.
4
and now masquerading as a business woman.. think i'll start reading people mag for some real news.. there's no business like show business or as p.t. barnum said there's a sucker born evey minute..
14
Words fail me. Oh wait, no they don't. Narcissism, opportunism, greed. Want another? Dilettante. Want more? Some people don't want to hear and will cover their ears and go nah nah nah nah nah until you go away. Others already know the score.
38
Gwyneth Paltrow os a 21st century Marie Antoinette. She's completely out of touch with lesser beings. When she divorces she's uncoupling. When she eats its grass she choses. Just listening to her talk tells the listener just how superior she believes herself to be. I have no time for her.
28
Psychedelics? Bad idea, very bad idea. But then so is the very name of her company, “Goop”. I cant imagine taking advise from a company named Goop. And I think selling psychedelics to the public who may have some potentially dangerous reactions or children may come in contact with is so stupid it defies sensibility.
3
Hawking over-priced balms and salves with no proven effectiveness is not "Empowering or Evolutionary" or blah blah blah whatever other buzzword you choose. It is cynical, irresponsible, profiteering at the expense of the ignorant and vapid. For shame.
10
Capitalism can get so tiresome, can't it?
11
Just what we don't need, another Khloe Kardashian. What they are selling is an utter waste of money. Be your own lifestyle guru.
12
@moti sen
or another "first daughter" like ivanka.
5
"This interview...was conducted at an undisclosed location in New York City." Ohhhh, how clandestine. Heaven forbid we should know where the puff piece self promotional give and take took place. But at least we can purchase GP's Goop products and join the charade parade of unsatisfied customers.
29
Sure NY Times jump on the celebrity adulation wagon. We just don’t have enough of that.
20
What a puff piece and what softball questions, verging on obsequious smugness. Her claim that gluten free exploded after her book of 1915??! The gluten free fad started long before that......this is classic promotion of superfiical consumption. She is a promoter of same...her ability to take advantage of the ominous anti-science, anti-true knowledge trends makes me shiver
18
You're partially right, Gwyneth: You were masquerading as an actor. Now you're masquerading as a health expert.
62
She is a disgusting snake-oil salesman. Her products are high-priced nonsense of the highest order. This interview was a low point for the NYT. Her gang of con men and women exploit the wealthy Dunning Kruger-ites of the world, who, you should be aware, also eschew vaccinations and other actual fact based science. What's the harm? There is plenty. Plenty. Got POLIO??
35
This interview and the manner in which it is presented is beneath the dignity of the New York Times.
42
Is she still aerating her private parts?
What a loon.
14
Maybe in her new ventures with Goop she should engage in psychic readings too.
11
Lookit...I think it’s great that Paltrow has found a way to be relevant or whatever even if her New Age claptrap sounds like the self-help version of Dianetics (Diet-netics?). People can reinvent themselves and charge whatever they want whatever they think the market will bear. People can spend their money on snake oil and believe it does x, y, and z. Free country. HOWEVER...For better or worse, our culture gives undue weight to the power of celebrity (see: White House), and this can lead people astray. Is it asinine? Yes, but if you are going to make MEDICAL claims about your products and use your celebrity in the marketing, you have a responsibility to do your due diligence and not pull a Zuckerburg with the disingenuous response when called out for it. And for the record, commenting on how ridiculous Paltrow and her people sound is not tantamount to sexism: Dr. Oz is just as crazy and irresponsible for the same reasons Paltrow is.
12
Why, NYT, are you giving this mental lightweight a platform for her dangerous nonsense?
47
The one cookbook of GPs that I browsed through had multiple pictures of her family and full length pics of her daughter, which had absolutely nothing to do with the recipes. I felt she was promoting herself and lifestyle (using her family), not the food. The cost of her geegaws takes me completely out of the range of one of her consumers.
3
I agree that she was masquerading as an actor, her appearances would have been much better served by an actual actor.
10
I enjoyed the film ‘Sliding Doors’.
1
I’m indifferent about GP... I only read this article for the same reason I read any article about her: For the chance to read anything about her glorious, delightful and talented mother, Blythe Danner. Sometimes, like today, I’m lucky.
4
Good career change, GP, for a lot of reasons.
2
This morning, and so often in the past months, I watched an long interview by Andrei Tarkovsky. As in his films and each frame, his thoughts and the spiritual nourishment they give serves both as poetry and inspiration. It gives one hope, especially in these dark times.
I read this interview on GP and before I even read it I said to myself, Why must you do this NY Times? I think its the second time in a very short time such nonsense has been served up on the Front Page of this paper. I did read it and I screamed with laughter, actually. Laughter is always good and very healthy. Its also free and an authentic reaction to what I just read.
I feel sorry that our culture is taken to the tune of 250 million by this woman. She masquerades whatever mask she wears for us.
I think if she had the courage to listen to 5 minutes of Andrei Tarkovsky she would feel a sense of shame and despair. She would feel her human poverty.
Tomorrow I will wake up and feel grateful that I try to follow truth and do so authentically, and that I am not her.
62
@C T...Agreed! The world could use more Tarkovsky right now. Coincidentally I’m reading “Sculpting in Time” ...brilliant man, great book! Sometimes I wonder if the 20th century was the best we could muster, culturally.
7
@C T
Paltrow is like Trump. There's no shame, just money.
10
I wish her well in her venture because I’ve enjoyed her work as an actor, met her father-who I admired. But I have to admit she confuses me. Maybe it’s my male energy, her words not mine.
4
Like anything in life, trust yourself. I say this in that G.P. has found the way to trust her instincts. Good for her. She shares her ideas and concepts and you get to decide if it is for you. Nothing more than that. We all weren't born into a famous family, but that is not what created Goop. Gwyneth did. I like her.
4
First, of course she "masqueraded" as an actor. That is, after all, what actors do. And her success there and the celebrity status it afforded her, gave her a platform and an immediate audience for her views.
She's obviously determined to run a successful business. She is quick to pick up on new trends and to incorporate them. Again, her celebrity is key in getting the publicity she needs.
I think waht irks people like myself is that she spouts advice that is a conglomeration of toms of stuff other people have done, rarely attributing "her" ideas to their sources, and while some of it is grounded, a large portion of the "magic" is woo. But a lot of the magic in the huge conglomerates that market products - makeup, hair styling concoctions, perfumes - - is from commercial woo.
Which is not unusual in businesses where after all, there is a bottom line. That isn't mocking her: she has found a niche and has built something.
I'd compare my reaction to her with how I viewed Madonna: WHAT a business woman! A brilliant marketer, a tough negotiator, a brawler when need be. Not a singer, though.
4
Meh. Why not feature women entrepreneurs who have really made a difference. Paltrow appeals to wealthy bored women whose day is dictated by matters far beyond what the rest of us care about.
64
It seems like she (and many others) wake up every morning wondering “how can I stay relevant?”
If I were her I’d retire to the South of France, never to return...but I guess ambition begets ambition...ad infinitum. It’s never sated. Oh well, I’ll continue to happily ignore her and so many of the other fraudsters out there...
35
@Dudesworth The American dream is just to make more, more, more money.
3
@atb indeed. Why question the need for a more pretentious, less useful, less talented version of Martha Stewart when there is so much money, money, money to be made?
8
I teach evidence-based thinking to high school students and Goop is a great resource for exams. Epistemological malpractice.
116
@Jgalt I love "epistemological malpractice" Thank you.
14
@Jgalt
Wonderful phrase indeed!
4
The Paltrow interview makes me feel as though I were experiencing a Mike Lindell-"My Pillow" TV spot, with greater pecuniary consequences.
17
Yikes, so many comments filled with scorn!
I applaud her evolution and what she is putting forth. In fact, I intend to buy her gluten free cookbook. I would love to hear more of how she sees female and male energies playing out in the world. Frankly, I’d enjoy conversing with her over a bottle of wine, she’s a fascinating person.
8
@Frank Salmeri She is putting forth pseudo-science in the guise of "wellness." I don't applaud that. It is detrimental to society and a really irresponsible thing to do. She is on par with Jenny McCarthy and the anti-vaccers in my book.
15
@Frank Salmeri Precisely what "is she putting forth"?
3
It's a lot easier to start and be CEO of a business when you're an internationally known actress that can bank roll a company. Even this business itself is known for her, based off her notoriety, more than anything it actually sells. Maybe she feels her calling all along has been business, but its more like business success earned through status.
33
The people reading their NY times online article about GP and raging about “elitists” and “privilege”: long ago outsize rage toward Goop and its founder directed my curiosity to the Goop website. My skin is gorgeous now, so thanks very much.
8
Goop sells Jade Eggs meant to heal your body by placing them inside yourself - I have no words for this modern day snake oil salesmanship.
If you're privileged enough to be able to spend $100 on an oz of face cream, congrats, you made it.
Enjoy those eggs.
105
If people really want to give their hard-earned money to Gwyneth Paltrow, I suppose that’s their prerogative. But it’s a glorified pyramid scheme.
“When a start-up starts, it’s full of feminine energy, even if it’s an all male start-up. Right? Because it’s collaborative, it’s emotional, it’s passionate, it’s instinctual. Those are all feminine qualities.”
This is lunacy.
“When we were young and not even monetizing the business and just sort of creating content, we didn’t necessarily understand anything about claims.”
If you don’t understand anything about claims, please do err on the side of not committing criminal negligence, and don’t make the claims.
“You can’t know what you don’t know”
This is the worst attempt to characterize the ‘known unknown’ that I’ve ever seen.
“What about ibogaine, that shrub from Gabon?”
Iboga has shown the potential to break opioid addictions in a way which has no current medicinal comparisons. How about we keep the scheduled substances away from the greedy celebrities, and focus more on allowing for scientific research?
77
Thank you for publishing this interview. It has destroyed the myth, “mental health”.
8
"Is GOOP just a brand for women?" "It is right now." That's when I stopped reading.
7
@ManhattanWilliam Consider yourself fortunate that she's only targeting women at the moment!
3
Goop charges way too much for its products. My coop carries better quality products. Some consumers pay a premium for celebrity.
19
There’s an informal game known as Buzzword Bingo. GP covers all the squares!
57
Thanks NYT. I find her candor refreshing, and her curiosity inspiring. Isn’t life supposed to be an exploration? Once she was an actress, now she’s an entrepreneur. Are you doing the same thing you were 10 years ago? Yes, her family circumstances provided her some privileges, but she’s bringing her ideas and products (which she truly believes will help people live better lives) to market. (By the way, I love her GOOP sunscreen, and here in AZ, I refuse to use any other. )
8
@NinaMargoTotally your choice, of course....but would you not care if you found out all of her products were way overpriced simply because........her name allows her to gouge?
4
It's times like these that I truly miss the Galloping Gourmet.
44
Smart lady. Good for her to not be tied to the constant praise and need for Hollywood validation. Aging gracefully into what may be her true calling. Good for her. And I like her cookbooks!
11
You go girl! Have fun, life is short.
8
This is simply another case of a woman (in this case a woman) from a very wealthy background with the high level financial backing to help her start her own business and then hailing their start up a great success thanks to their business acumen. To be honest, I’m very tired of this Gentry class who do whatever fits their fancy, while the rest of us slave and work like slaves to our corporate, capitalistic masters, struggling to just make ends meat. I’d love to have come from the wealth and connections to start my own business, too. But alas...
137
@Hugh Jorgen - if a member of what you describe as the "Gentry class" wishes to start a self-promoting, glittery company, well, I just don't care; however, when these "Gentry class" members are permitted to use their celebrity, wealth, and access to more wealth to run for public office, that's when it becomes intolerable and, as some might witness today, dangerous and destructive. Playing the "I-told-you-so/victim card" is one thing when it comes to an LLC, maneuvering it into politics makes me fear for my children's future.
25
@Hugh Jorgen Interesting point of view. Used to kid about that HJ name too. But that's another story.
Paltrow's business? Successful at making some people acquire things they never thought they wanted or needed, and at big ticket prices... lemmings acting out a certain migratory instinct to "the next thing"?
9
I truly don’t follow her, so perhaps someone who does can tell me: about ten years ago, while touting the anti-aging/beauty benefits of her various products and regimens, she snuck off to London and was secretly whisked into one of the leading Harley Street clinics to have work done (a friend was working there).
Has she ever copped to that? Apologies if this article answers my query; I’m too bored with her to even skim the piece.
124
@William McKinley So comment as to an article without actually having read it. Brilliant. As if she is the first to search out non aging methods. She should have copped to that? Isn't that the reason I watch my weight, workout, and do other healthy things? I actually go to a gym, I admit it here and now. She is the first woman to use face creams or anti-aging practices? Actually I am to bored of YOU to continue. .
3
@William McKinley I came to the comments section for the snark. I truly find Ms. Paltrow irritating and her responses to some of the interviewer's questions were disingenuous (sure, her only detractors are people who refuse to get off the couch and improve themselves ...). BUT. Your comment is off the mark. She's allowed to get plastic surgery or other interventions. She's a woman over 40 in the public eye. Let her private doctor visits remain private, please.
5
@junewell not when she’s peddling phony beauty products.
14
Interesting how the girl power interview is illustrated with a pose that’s a caricature of a man’s posture.
77
Your grandparents were eating highly processed food for a good part of their lives, courtesy of post WWII industrialization.
24
One can only begin with the Goop Queen in the Male Power Pose, and the thought pops up : is this a little "Masquerading" as well?
Add "Monetizing" of the Feminine, the peppering of a typical response from GP with jargon and salting that with $20 words, and what do you get : the Queen adding distance between herself and her subjects.
Sure, the content is "free"; but all you gotta do is follow the money. She said it : re: "Monetizing."
She's playing the Everywoman in the pose of the Benign Ruler while trying her darned best to be Jeff Bezos.
I've always found it impossible in whatever form GP's morphed into and out of to buy her schtick : she seems fake and insincere, above us common folk.
93
Doesn’t GP deserve admiration for following her heart (and head) by starting Goop? While the road to Goop was probably based on GP’s desire to create a brand around herself, much the way Oprah has, I don’t understand people’s disdain for her. Is it that her self assurance is to be admonished because she is a woman, and that a strong sense of self is only to be praised in men (think Elon Musk for an extreme example).
One day hopefully the people of this country, which in general view themselves as progressive, will move beyond the traditional view of “male” and “female” qualities. Then again, even the evolved GP falls into this same trap while describing the evolution of a business from its early free flowing entrepreneurial “female” days to its later structured rule driven “male” phase. Maybe GP isn’t so evolved after all.
6
@Scott Man I'm trying to understand the disdain for GP too, and I feel a bit disdainful of her myself. We don't feel this way about Oprah or Martha Stewart-- maybe because they didn't come from privilege? But also, I think it's because GP tends to be in a bubble, where it doesn't seem to occur to her that non-privileged people exist. There's nothing wrong with a rich person starting a company. Rich people need a purpose too. But Paul Newman's company was charitable. Oprah does charity work too. Martha has affordable products. Gwyneth's products aren't affordable, and some of them have questionable effectiveness. And she knows this and continues to push them. But it's probably also the likability factor, which is unfairly put on women. She's not the most charismatic leader.
5
@AmyB I don't think Oprah or Martha Stewart actively and knowingly push products that don't work. I'm not sure that Oprah or Martha Stewart are actively spreading misleading, false, and possibly damaging "wellness" information. That might be a key difference and part of the reason for the disdain? The cynical indifference towards truth and ethics probably doesn't help either.
5
@Charles K. I love Oprah, I really do, but she gave us Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil, as I recall.
2
Thank you for this enjoyable read. Way to go GP. Cutting edge and illumined ideas need to spread into the culture from somewhere, and you are undoubtedly helping through your platform. The more angles to entry for open, innovative and ancient ideas to re-enter into the culture, the better. Keep up the the good work of care for humanity, and don’t be afraid to try psychedelics someday. If you benefited from the silent retreat, you will likely benefit and enjoy the growth that comes from working with the teacher plants too :)
8
@Leon Lobos
"don’t be afraid to try psychedelics someday"
Are you kidding?!? Back in the day - and I was there - there were more than a few casualties from that attitude. Much better to read Michael Pollan's recent book which makes very clear how to do that safely , and that it's not for everyone.
1
Yes, Pollan’s book is a very informational read. I enjoyed it thoroughly. Did you read the whole interview with GP? She references being afraid to try psychedelics even though her company may endeavor into promoting the ones that have become legal, and some others that may become legal in the next 5 years. Why is it safer for Pollan to try psychedelics than an accomplished artist? I feel both would benefit, if done safely.
1
Television, years ago, in the company of bowsers in the high high end Benz convertable. Somewhere in Spain, searching for proscuitto perfecto. They were all just so. In reality they should have been crowded in a pickup on the back roads of South Carolina.
She wasn't driving.
17
"The true tenets of wellness are all free. Being in nature, meditating, eating whole foods."
This is so fundamentally misguided. Making the kind of changes Paltrow imagines demands time and energy and education, none of which are free, far from it. Goop is elitist because it advertises an elitist culture. It only caters to affluent LA hipsters, and it doesn't seem to have any ambition or desire to widen its consumer base.
117
@Paul
Lighten up Paul. Much of middle America still reads and enjoys GP whether they decide to buy any of her products. She brings forth a positive attitude that we need in these crazy times. And she is correct in that wellness can stem from nature, meditation, and eating whole foods..all of which can be had for free. Stating that we don't have time, education or energy is a lame excuse.
8
I have to agree with you. There are many, many families in this country for whom meditation, time in nature, and whole foods are absolutely not free. Meditation takes valuable time, nature may not be outside your door, but multiple public transit stops away, and healthy eating as free? You only need to travel to any lower-income inner city area to see that food deserts are very much an issue.
I’m all for female empowerment. Good for GP for starting a successful business. However, let’s not pretend that what Goop is peddling is attainable. Typically GP is unapologetic about the intended audience of her luxury lifestyle brand, but her comments on meditation, nature, and healthy eating failed to hit the mark.
16
@Carl Schreiner "much of middle america?"
i don't think so.
8
"Collaborative, emotional, passionate, instinctual."
Exclusively female?
I dunno. Sounds to me like "The Guns of Navarone." A movie I like a lot, by the way.
Why did I read this interview anyway? Such silliness.
155
@B.
I read it for the comments. Yours is great.
57
@B. Thanks for the laugh. And yes to the Guns of Navarone!
13
Why do we care and why is this news?
Why do Americans obsess over "celebrities" and anything they do? She was an actress, she now runs a company, great, now let's move on...
185
@Michael This is not a case of celebrity fascination.
Like it or not, she holds some power, and we are rightly concerned that the powerful not become tooooo abusive. Many sense she is approaching that line, if not already across it.
4
A website that makes it's millions on $100 an ounce eye cream isn't elitist? How many working single mothers can afford that GP?
155
G.P. fails to take into consideration the reality of inequity that exists in our society. If her company can’t evolve and begin to acknowledge the existence of food deserts nationwide and the lack of green spaces in many urban locations, how can she argue that people just don’t want to accept personal responsibility for their health. Health behaviors are undoubtedly important but if she truly wants to begin a lasting health movement among people she’s going to have to start taking a much more intersectional approach beginning with acknowledging the obstacles to starting a wellness journey.
69
@Mel V.G.
You’re absolutely right and it’s never going to happen.
18
Put Gwyneth Paltrow and Elon Musk in the same room to see what shakes out.
86
At least Teslas are cool. Jade eggs in the vagina?!
12