Goop and the Monetisation of Female Empowerment

Lately, there has been a lot of coverage of the ludicrous claims made by Goop, the “modern lifestyle brand” owned by Gwyneth Paltrow. A few weeks previous, it was the preserve of a particular niche of the market, but now we all know about it due to an incisive blog by Dr. Jen Gunter, an OB-GYN devoted to promoting evidence-based health care, you know, the kind that actually works. Paltrow made things worse for herself by attempting a rebuttal of Dr. Gunter’s criticism, only to reveal the secrets of her playbook for selling snake oil.

On the face of it, Goop is an enterprise devoted to extracting money from the stupid and affluent. But there is more to it than a simple money-making machine: it's a model that has existed for a long time, but with Goop it’s gone nuclear. I got to thinking about this after reading a related thread on Reddit. People are asking why she is hawking these nonsense products when she is surely rich enough as it is. Well, maybe that’s not true, they respond. After all, her acting roles have dried up as she ages, and it costs a lot to maintain the Hollywood lifestyle. Goop is an expanding business, acquiring $15 – 20 million in venture capital in 2016. Undoubtedly her celebrity status helps in their marketing strategy, but there are plenty other “wellness coaches” and “mummy bloggers” - and they are often women, and so are their customers. The Goop website’s main demographic is women aged 25 – 45, earning more than $60,000 per annum. It’s a familiar pattern, we all know someone who has embraced this New Age lifestyle, and they’re almost always stay-at-home-mums or disillusioned working women with a comfortable household income.

I don’t have access to Paltrow’s tax returns, but it would be reasonable to assume that she’s received a far smaller acting fee than in previous years and that she draws a sizeable income from Goop. It’s probably enough to keep things ticking over. But she gets more from Goop than just a paycheck – and she might even be making a loss from the company. Look at the amount of effort that Paltrow has invested in the business – you might say that this is normal for any entrepreneur – indeed, running a business requires passion and commitment. But it’s not merely the belief in her product and her ability to succeed; it comes across as a belief in a particular lifestyle and identity. For when consumers buy one of Goop’s magic healing stickers or jade vagina eggs, they are purchasing a piece of Paltrow herself. What she had lost with the dearth of acting roles, she has gained in becoming her own brand. Now her adherents come to worship at her temple of wellness. While Paltrow is no longer as prominent on the silver screen, she has found a new relevance on the pages of magazines and the shelves of virtual health food stores. And that’s what this is all about. Middle age often creates a sense of unfulfillment for western women, and this sort of entrepreneurship offers the remedy. It’s an attractive choice; the chance to be your own boss, acquire a new skill set, sell your own product. And you’re helping people, making a valuable contribution to society, because your customers are as unfulfilled and insecure as you are. Mid-life crises were traditionally the domain of burnt-out businessmen, but in this age of equality, us ladies get to have a go as well.

I’ve lost count of the number of holistic therapists, lifestyle coaches and Reiki practitioners I’ve encountered in middle-class circles. It’s a fashion statement, a social status, one’s own personal brand. You, too, can be like Gwyneth Paltrow. But upon close examination of her brand’s claims, would you want to? Adopting these types of business models involves giving away a part of oneself; mostly one’s credibility. Common sense and scientific evidence are suspended in favour of the promise of independence and success. The marketing is directed almost exclusively at women. Those who buy and sell these products are not stupid, but they succumb to the same human faults as the rest of us. They engage in cognitive dissonance to become the type of person they feel they should aspire to be: glowing, wholesome, adored.

But what are they getting into? Aside from the fact that most of them will not achieve the same success or fame as Paltrow, many will find their business doesn’t offer the riches they had hoped for either, especially if they follow the direct sales model (and many of them do). It's only empowering if it actually gives you power.

At some point, it may dawn upon them how badly they have sold out. We hear lots about the more successful lifestyle marketers, and their willingness to believe is never scrutinised or doubted. But if it hasn’t worked out for you, it may give you a sobering dose of reality: you sold your soul for this rubbish? Although it could be worse: you may still have faith, but you become a consumer instead of a producer. After all, you know exactly the life-changing benefits of these products: you spent your precious time plugging them.

Has anyone ever bankrupted themselves participating in this circus? Yes, but in most cases, it does not lead to utter financial ruin. Most often, those who get involved do have resources to fall back on, and they have some form of modest success. That’s why the wheel keeps on turning. Sure, there’s an unending supply of disillusioned women to go through the mill, but if there were more cases of people falling into this trap and speaking up about the harm they have suffered, potential victims would be warier. But there’s no reality check. People’s families and peers are usually supportive, due to social mores, and improvements in society are all in favour of female empowerment. But there is a hidden cost: if we’re unable to be honest with women about mistakes and failures, then we’re letting them down. In business, we’re damned if we do, and damned if we don’t: settle for corporate blandness and missed opportunities, or set out alone and risk failure. With many women's careers lagging behind men's, it any wonder that so many seek an alternative?