Gwyneth Paltrow’s lifestyle brand, Goop, is often the butt of jokes.
Paltrow was once mocked for exalting the wonders of a $200 smoothie with magical dust. The expensive and impractical nature of her recommendations for diet, décor, and clothing are routinely made fun of.
Now, Paltrow acknowledges that her involvement is holding back the brand.
The Guardian reports that she plans to eventually distance her famous face and name from the brand. Paltrow believes that Goop will prosper more when she’s not there.
“In order to build the brand I want to build, its scalability is limited if I connect to it,” she said at the 2016 Sage Summit in Chicago, according to The Guardian.
“So I always think: ‘How can I grow the brand? How can I separate myself from the brand?’ and I think it’s going to be more its own brand,” she said.
Further, she said that “my dream is that one day no one will remember that I had anything to do with it.”
Which leads to two questions: If Goop wasn’t so inherently linked to Paltrow, then would we be so inclined to mock it, or would it just be another lifestyle brand hawking expensive products for the very wealthy? Would it fare better?
And, arguably, removing a celebrity from a brand should make it more relatable. But the question is if Goop’s entire branding is so out of touch with consumers’ demands, Paltrow aside.
Consumers today crave authenticity. It’s why we’ve seen Instagram stars have become the new faces of marketing campaigns, why the Photoshop-free lingerie brand Aerie has thrived, and why the body-positivity movement – one that doesn’t appear to endorse expensive juice cleanses – has come to dominance.