Paltrow was once mocked for exalting the wonders of a $200 smoothie with magical dusts. The expensive and impractical nature of her recommendations for diet, decor, and clothing are routinely mocked.
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 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 (via The Guardian).
"So I always think: 'How can I grow the brand? How can I separate myself from the brand?' and I think its going to be more its own brand."
Further, she said, "my dream is that one day no one will remember that I had anything to do with it."
Which lends itself to the question: if Goop wasn't so inherently linked to Paltrow, 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?
After all, young consumers are willing to spend a large component of their respective incomes on fitness-related experiences; they're into health and wellness, too (but not dieting!).
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 - a movement that doesn't appear to endorse expensive juice cleanses - has come to dominance.