| | |  | Gwyneth Paltrow News & Gossip
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow thinks you can change water molecules by being mean to them | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
This story is literally a week old, but it?s slow this week and some sites have only just started to cover it. In last week?s Goop-letter, Gwyneth Paltrow shilled for one of her snake-oil salesmen, some guy who presents himself as a medical doctor. That?s been one of the most amazing things about Gwyneth?s Goop ? we get an insider?s look at the people Gwyneth surrounds herself with, and while I believe there are many celebrities who surround themselves with yes-men and enablers, the fact that Gwyneth doesn?t know the difference is somewhat unsettling. She will fall for anything having to do New Age crap, diets, juice fasts or ?energies.? This was her Goop-letter:
I am fascinated by the growing science behind the energy of consciousness and its effects on matter. I have long had Dr. Emoto’s coffee table book on how negativity changes the structure of water, how the molecules behave differently depending on the words or music being expressed around it. Below, Dr. Sadeghi explores further.
Also we went to NYC last week and crushed a number of spots that deserve to make an update (and some that don’t).
Plus some other bits, remixes, and the like.
Love,
Gp
[From Goop]
You read that correctly. Gwyneth is promoting the work of Masaru Emoto, who conducts experiments where he literally hurts the feelings of water samples (he yells at the water) and then he freezes the samples and the water freezes in an unpleasant way. But he praises other water samples and freezes them and they freeze in a pleasant way. Basically, Gwyneth surrounds herself with people who think you shouldn?t yell at water because you?ll hurt water?s feelings. And that water changes at a molecular level because of feelings.
I stopped myself short of calling this crap a pseudo-science because? well, God knows. There?s scientific evidence to suggest that plants have energies and they respond to positive and negative stimuli, so maybe water is the same, although ?feelings? won?t change water on a molecular level. That?s not the point. The point is that this is what Gwyneth spends her time thinking about ? energies and water and how we?re all being ?negative? and changing her molecular structure. She?s an idiot.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow: Internet comments are 'like war' bloody, dehumanizing' | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Gwyneth Paltrow made an appearance at this year?s Code Conference, which is basically what you think it is. Lots of tech people, lots of geeks. I guess Gwyneth made an appearance on behalf of Goop.com and her efforts to launch the site as a major international brand. Perhaps she could start by paying a little bit more for servers that don?t crash whenever she posts ?Conscious Uncoupling? statements. I?m no techie, but even I know that one. Anyway, she gave a speech about the future of the internet, trolls and how she feels like she?s in a bloody war. Because she gets made fun of for being pretentious. Gwyneth the soldier!
Gwyneth Paltrow, the actress and founder of online lifestyle brand Goop, thinks that nasty, anonymous online commenters should take a look at themselves first before they post.
?The Internet is an amazing opportunity, socially. We have this opportunity to mature and learn, which is the essence of being on earth ? to being the closest person we can be to our actual, real, truest self,? she said ahead of her surprise appearance at the Code Conference today. ?But the Internet also allows us the opportunity to project outward our hatred, our jealousy. It?s culturally acceptable to be an anonymous commenter. It?s culturally acceptable to say, ?I?m just going to take all of my internal pain and externalize it anonymously.??
?It?s taken me a long time to get to the point where I can see these things and not take it as a personal affront and a hurt. I see myself as a chalkboard or a whiteboard or a screen, and someone is just putting up their own projection on it,? she said. ?It has nothing to do with me. They have an internal object, and they?re putting it on me. I kind of look at it as, ?Wow this is an interesting social experiment.? You?re talking about a blind stranger having feelings about you. It can only be projection.?
?Our culture is trying to wrestle with the idea that everybody has a voice, and how it?s unimportant and really important at the same time,? said Paltrow. ?We?re in this very adolescent phase. It?s dangerous, [because] we lack the capacity to say, ?Why does this matter to me, and who am I in this?? ?Why am I having opinions about Angelina Jolie?s operation?? ?What is unhealed in me?? ?Why am I using the Internet to do this???
?You come across [online comments] about yourself and about your friends, and it?s a very dehumanizing thing. It?s almost like how, in war, you go through this bloody, dehumanizing thing, and then something is defined out of it,? she said. ?My hope is, as we get out of it, we?ll reach the next level of conscience.?
This year may be a tipping point for Internet trolls, she hopes: ?It?s almost like we?re being given this test: Can you regulate yourself? Can you grow from this? Can you learn? You can make it as bloody as you want to, but is that the point??
[From Recode]
She goes on and on about how Goop is profitable and how she has ?big goals? for Goop and she?s finding the ?self-confidence? to see her plans through. She also says that she has never taken any venture capital for Goop and she?s produced it through her ?blood, sweat and tears.? Gurl, you do one post a week and take August off!
So, what are your thoughts on Gwyneth comparing internet trolling to actual warfare? I mean? I don?t want to claim that trolls are all harmless. There are ?trolls? who venture into some truly terrifying territories, issuing threats of physical bodily harm and dropping casual hate speech on a daily basis. Real people get bullied, harassed, threatened and stalked online and that?s a real problem. But my problem is that Gwyneth conflates that real concern with ?people found out about my affair with ~~~ because someone on my team is leaking.? She conflates it with ?people think I?m a pretentious a?hole because they read my words in context in an interview.? That?s not warfare. That?s just Gwyneth being pissed off that some people criticize her (for valid reasons).
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
More Photos Here
    |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow carries $3800 Chanel tote, begins 'Goop Cookbook Club' | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
For all the crap I give Gwyneth Paltrow, I did feel a pang of sympathy for her in these photos. Gwyneth was at LAX a few days ago, carrying (or rolling) her own luggage, and homegirl looked stressed. Probably because she was surrounded by screaming paparazzi and a million flashes going off. So? let?s at least give her some credit for being able to make it into LAX without losing her cool, and while handling her own luggage too. Of course, one of the bags is Chanel (from the new ?Graffiti? collection) and it costs $3800. I?m sure she got it for free.
Meanwhile, would you like to hear about this week?s Goop-letter? It?s about food. AND reading. Gwyneth has deigned to start a book club? a book club only for cookbooks.
This was not my idea. The cookbook club. Which is probably why it?s so good. While I have always liked the idea of a book club (sorta) I am just not that type of gal. Until one of my gorgeous girls suggested we do a different book club of sorts. A cookbook club! Now, as someone who gets in bed and reads cookbooks cover to cover as if they were novels, this idea was scintillating. We set off to find the ideal book to kick it off using the same criteria we would if we were choosing a novel, something challenging, beautiful, and with the possibility of becoming a classic. We landed on Roberta’s Cookbook. And we smoked our own fish, dammit. Please cook with us and tell us what you learned, how you modified, and what the next instructional cooking club tome should be (@goop). Happy cooking.
Love,
gp
[From Goop]
Goop also asks us to tweet about it too, using the hastag #goopcookbookclub. I double-dog dare you to tweet her about the fact that she?s recommending a recipe that involves (GASP) pasta. THE HORROR. This might be the most gauche thing she?s ever done! Trying to interact with the peasantry about? food. Ugh! To be fair, I glanced through the recipes and most of them seem like a lot of work (you have to make your own pasta and buy and cook sea urchin tongues), but none of the recipes are grossly offensive, in the vein of ?one grape, cubed and garnished with a Tic Tac.?
Oh, and I feel like she?s judging people who belong to book clubs ? ?While I have always liked the idea of a book club (sorta) I am just not that type of gal.? Book clubs are for peasants, I suppose. Plus, I don?t imagine Gwyneth?s elite circle of friends are big readers.
Last thing: is she wearing Apple?s leather jacket? Right? That?s like a kid?s jacket.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet and Goop.
More Photos Here
    |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow claims her 'working moms' quote was taken 'out of context' | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
In this week?s Goop-letter, Gwyneth Paltrow has finally responded to the overwhelming criticism about an interview she did back in March. Which just goes to show you: Gwyneth does care about the peasants, but only when we?re coming at her with torches and pitchforks. Just for a recap, Gwyneth was speaking to E! News back in March about her schedule and how she only works on one film a year because she?s a full-time mom. But Goop took it one step too far, comparing herself to peasant working moms and she outright said the life of an actress is more difficult:
?It?s much harder for me. I feel like I set it up in a way that makes it difficult because?for me, like if I miss a school run, they are like, ?Where were you?? I don?t like to be the lead [in a film] so I don?t [have] to work every day, you know, I have little things that I like and obviously I want it to be good and challenging and interesting and be with good people and that kind of thing.? She added, ?I think it?s different when you have an office job, because it?s routine and, you know, you can do all the stuff in the morning and then you come home in the evening. When you?re shooting a movie, they?re like, ?We need you to go to Wisconsin for two weeks,? and then you work 14 hours a day and that part of it is very difficult. I think to have a regular job and be a mom is not as, of course there are challenges, but it?s not like being on set.?
Yes. She said that. Gwyneth did not offer any clarifying statements immediately following that interview, nor did her publicist or agent slam E! News for misquoting her or anything. I believe she said that on the record, and that E! quoted her verbatim. It was a big deal too ? the cable news stations were covering it. There was a segment on Morning Joe. It was big. Well, since Mother?s Day is coming up (this Sunday), Goop devoted her Goop-letter to correcting the record:
A few weeks ago during an interview, I was asked why I have only worked on one film a year since having children. My answer was this: Film work takes one away from home and requires 12-14 hours a day, making it difficult to be the one to make the kids their lunch, drive them to school, and put them to bed. So I have found it easier on my family life to make a film the exception, and my 9-5 job the rule. This somehow was taken to mean I had said a 9-5 job is easier, and a lot of heat was thrown my way, especially by other working mothers who somehow used my out-of-context quote as an opportunity to express feelings (perhaps projected) on the subject. As the mommy wars rage on, I am constantly perplexed and amazed by how little slack we cut each other as women. We see disapproval in the eyes of other mothers when we say how long we breastfed (Too long? Not long enough?), or whether we have decided to go back to work versus stay home. Is it not hard enough to attempt to raise children thoughtfully, while contributing something, or bringing home some (or more) of the bacon? Why do we feel so entitled to opine, often so negatively, on the choices of other women? Perhaps because there is so much pressure to do it all, and do it all well all at the same time (impossible).
To every single mother out there, have a wonderful Mother?s Day.
Love,
gp
[From Goop]
She then shills a ?somewhat radical piece by Brigid Schulte,? which you can read at Goop because I?m not going to cut-and-paste it. So, let?s parse. First, I?ll start with the nice stuff: Gwyneth is right about judgy motherhood and competitive motherhood. I?m an outsider looking in on the Motherhood Industrial Complex, and it scares me to see the level of vitriol, judgment and condescension leveled at mothers by mothers. It?s mommy-on-mommy hate-crime.
Now, for the mean stuff. Gwyneth seems to tiptoe around the idea of outright saying she was misquoted. I think this is on purpose, because she knows she was not misquoted. She says it was taken ?out of context? ? I provided the context above, in the original interview, so you can see her building to her larger point, which is that working on one film a year as an actress is harder than moms who work 9-to-5 jobs. So, no, I don?t think we were ?projecting? on Goop. I think we were justifiably and righteously riled by yet another out-of-touch statement by a woman with a long history of making out-of-touch declarations. Oh, and saying that your critics are ?projecting? ? that?s pretty insulting too. ?Such adorable little small-minded peasants,? Gwyneth said to herself. ?They?re just mad because they?re so poor. And fat.?
#488508131 / gettyimages.com
Photos courtesy of Getty, Fame/Flynet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow deigns to open a 'pop-up Goop shop' for the LA peasants | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Gwyneth Paltrow kept her word about not attending this year?s Met Gala after she complained so loudly last year about the infiltration of the peasant class. So what did Goop do while all of her friends were hanging out in NYC? She was in Santa Monica, at a beachside ?holistic healing center for a vitamin IV drip.? Classic. Goop would rather be injected with vitamins (as opposed to consuming them through peasant food) than go to the stupid Met Gala.
Anyway, these are some photos of Goop at the ?grand opening party? for her GOOP pop-up shop at the Brentwood Country Mart. A writer for The Daily Beast went the first day of the shop, and the write-up is a good run-down of what to expect from a GOOP pop-up. An excerpt:
There were, of course, her two books?It?s All Good and My Father?s Daughter?stacked strategically around the room. There was also a lot of the supremely ?tasteful? product that?s already available at Goop.com: $200 Frame jeans, $150 Khadi cloth blankets, $10 balls of cooking twine. There was even a row of four handkerchiefs that had been monogrammed, over and over again, with a familiar set of initials: a lowercase ?gp”; a script ?GP,”; ?GMP? in two handsome variations.
In case you?re wondering, Paltrow?s middle name is Kate. The M is for Martin.
But what really made the Goop Pop-Up such a special place?for good or ill, depending on your view of Gwyneth?s peculiar power?was what the clerk called the ?one of a kind stuff we?ve sourced from around the world.?
Stuff like a $345 key-shaped brass bottle opener by Viennese modernist designer Carl Aubock. And an $825 silver Walker & Hall Sheffield ice bucket. And a giant, fluffy $265 Icelandic shearling pillow. And a $1,750 marble-and-steel side table. And a vintage 1980s Christian Dior leather backgammon set?only $2,350!
[From The Daily Beast]
Is this Goop?s version of a peasanty flea market? I think it might be. It feels like this is Gwyneth?s version of ?de-cluttering? some of her massive estates following her split with Chris. And instead of selling the stuff to an auction house or donating it to someone needy (perchance someone middle class), she decided to do a pop-up store. Bless her heart.
Entertainment Weekly has a rundown too, and they point out that a few items were actually ?cheap? in Goop terms. $18 lip conditioner. A $79 zip-up jacket. HOW GAUCHE.
Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow confirms she will not deign to attend this year's Met Gala | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
The Met Gala is on Monday! So just keep it in mind, on Tuesday we will be knee-deep in fashion coverage. A few years past, CB remarked that the Met Gala turnout was way better than the Oscar turnout that year, and she was right. I think this year will be on par with the Oscars, maybe even a let-down. I don?t think Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are going to be there (so sad). I don?t know if Beyonce and Jay-Z have RSVP?d either. And now comes the confirmation that Gwyneth Paltrow refuses to attend this year?s Met Gala as well! OH NOES.
In the wake of her ?conscious uncoupling? from Chris Martin and whispers that her beloved lifestyle Web site is $1 million in debt, Gwyneth Paltrow will be a no-show at the May 5 Met Gala.
?Gwyneth will not be in New York and is unable to attend the ball,? her rep told Threads.
But don?t cry for Gwynnie. Sources say the perennial attendee was, in fact, invited to the event, even though she slammed it during a tipsy interview last May. Paltrow appeared on an Australian radio show, and after admitting she was ?drunk already,? declared of the posh soiree: ?It sucked. You always think, ?Oh my god, it?s gonna be so glamorous and amazing and you?re going to see all these people,? and then you get there and it?s so hot and it?s so crowded and everyone?s pushing you.?
But sources say designers still invited the goop.com founder to be a guest at their table, and a Vogue rep told Threads the magazine ?is always happy to have Gwyneth attend the Met Gala.?
[From The NY Post]
If you remember, Gwyneth?s attendance at last year?s Met Gala was a complete and utter catastrophe. First of all, she wore that fug Valentino dress. Then Chris Martin attended but he refused to pose for photos with her, even with people inside the tent. Then Goop deigned to declare the Met Gala the most ?un-fun? thing ever. Then she called herself “literally a transvestite.” Then everyone said that she had terrible body odor, like a peasant. Then Chloe Sevigny had the nerve to mock Gwyneth?s tantrums. All in all, Gwyneth had the worst Met Gala experience ever. It makes sense that she doesn?t want to go this year, although I will miss her. We were writing stories about her for like a month afterward. She was the goop that kept giving, gossip-wise.
Speaking of Goop Giving, she posted this photo this week, tagging it: ?spring cleaning @goop #goopgiving?. Um, is she giving away those purses? I?ll take one!
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet and Goop?s IG.
More Photos Here
    |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow 'brags about her peaceful divorce,' she's insufferable (shock) | | Added 10 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Another day, another rumor that Gwyneth Paltrow is a smug, insufferable d-bag. I know, how shocking. I mean, I have to give it to Radar: they know their audience. When most of us hear any story about Gwyneth being insufferable, we?re like, ?Yep, I bet that?s true.? And it probably is. Considering what she?s said publicly, it?s not hard to imagine she?s even worse privately, when she doesn?t have to self-censor for the peasants.
Anything you can do Gwyneth can do better! Park Avenue princess Paltrow and her rocker husband Chris Martin are having the most amicable divorce in Hollywood history but RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned that her smug attitude about the split is wearing on her friends.
?Conscious uncoupling? has become a joke among Gwyneth?s friend,? a source close to the 41-year-old Country Strong star told Radar. ?All she?s doing is bragging about how peaceful her divorce is and how she and Chris planned it so perfectly that it is hardly disrupting their lives.?
Paltrow has become the butt of jokes too, with Joan Rivers slamming her for her uptight attitude, with the 80-year-old comedienne saying she has a ?stick up her rear end.?
And her website GOOP, where she made the announcement about her divorce is bleeding cash as Radar has reported, but none of that seems to phase the cool blonde beauty.
?Gwyneth has always thought she had the most perfect life and even though she?s getting a divorce and both of them are getting bad press she doesn?t care,? the source told Radar. ?She has become insufferable saying how happy she is with the way everything is evolving. It?s so ridiculous to listen to her talk as if nothing bad is going on at all for her. But Gwyneth has always had a protected privileged life and this is no different.?
[From Radar]
One of my favorite headlines to come out of the Consciously Uncoupling was The Superficial?s ?Gwyneth Paltrow Officially Declares Marriage Is For Poor People.? It?s so true. Gwyneth thinks that whatever she?s doing is the most cutting-edge thing, that she?s ahead of the curve. She really believes that divorce is the new ?thing? and that only peasants stay married. That?s what this reminds me of.
Also, as I said on Friday, this week?s Goop-letter is all about everyday toxic products. Gwyneth offers suggestions (expensive suggestions) for how to rid ourselves of toxic chemicals in every day products. The funny thing is that she names a product from Jessica Alba?s Honest Company? and Gwyneth only gave it a ?C? grade. Sort of:
Doesn’t sound like Jessica Alba and Gwyneth Paltrow will be joining forces anytime soon. On Friday, April 25, the recently uncoupled Paltrow fired off a GOOP dispatch from Hong Kong. This week’s installment of her lifestyle newsletter/website, entitled “The Dirty on Getting Clean,” is all about safe, non-toxic and environmentally friendly cleaning products?and at least one item from Alba’s own lifestyle brand, The Honest Company, gets a bad grade. “Many of the ‘clean’ products I proudly use (and have even touted on goop) have turned out to be a product of marketing, rather than actually safe,” Chris Martin’s future ex-wife wrote.
Deferring to Gregg Renfrew of skincare and cosmetics company Beautycounter as well as the Environmental Working Group (EWG) for expert advice on which products are truly safe and which ones aren’t, Paltrow, 41, writes: “I will never give up my perfume, but maybe I can switch to greener and unscented laundry detergent, and remove some of the hand soaps I thought were great until I checked them on EWG.org . . . Food for thought.”
The lengthy post then goes on to explain the hidden hazard (“80% of the chemicals in personal care products have never been tested for safety,” Renfrew says), all of the health risks involved, and then lists dozens of products and their “grades” as provided by EWG.
In the “What We Were Using” list is The Honest Company’s All-Purpose Cleaner, which was given a “C” by the EWG. EWG.org notes that Alba’s product “May contain ingredients with potential for acute aquatic toxicity; respiratory effects; nervous system effects,” and similar products from the Method and Green Works brands get a “C” and “F,” respectively.
Fellow actress/aspiring lifestyle guru Alba seemingly threw more direct shade at Paltrow last March while promoting her book The Honest Life: Living Naturally and True to You, she sniffed of Paltrow’s advice to moms and other women: “Gwyneth Paltrow probably lives a very similar lifestyle, but I didn’t grow up with a bunch of money, so my tips are much more grounded: repurposing things and making things at home,” she told the New York Daily News.
[From Us Weekly]
That will teach that peasant to move in on Gwyneth?s territory. Dame Gwyneth is grounded! Just yesterday, she spoke to a peasant. She saw someone with dark skin and she asked them to retrieve her Mercedes. He was all, ?Ma?am, I?m not a valet? but Gwyneth just ignored him until he brought her car around. And people claim she?s not grounded.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Is Gwyneth Paltrow planning to write a smug 'conscious uncoupling' book' | | Added 11 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Gwyneth Paltrow was in Hong Kong yesterday for an event at the Landmark Mandarin Oriental Hotel. It?s not important what the event was. I?m assuming that for Goop, the event was ?A cool six figures in her bank account.? You can see some photos here ? hand to God, her boobs look bigger. Did Goop get a breakup boob job?
Anyway, there?s a funny story in this week?s Star Mag. Apparently, Gwyneth has already made up her mind to write a book about Consciously Uncoupling. It?s not that off-the-wall ?after all, Goop is a bestselling author? of cookbooks which read like creepy pro-ana blogs. Why not a creepy breakup book? Just imagine all of the nonsense that will come pouring out of Gwyneth?s ghostwriter!
It was the Goopy phrase heard ?round the world: Conscious Uncoupling. Soon the term, which Gwyneth Paltrow used to describe her split from Chris Martin, will be splashed across the cover of her self-help book about the art of divorce. Gwyneth first learned about the concept from her mentor, Dr. Habib Sadeghi, and now hopes to revamp the way people end their marriages.
?In typical Gwyneth fashion, she thinks she will eventually become the expert on divorce and how to do it in a better way,? says an insider, adding that Gwyneth is even hoping to get Chris to write the forward for the book!
[From Star Magazine, print edition]
I know many of you will dismiss it out of hand because it?s Star, but in my opinion, there?s something here. It wouldn?t surprise me at all if Gwyneth was already shopping this book proposal around to publishers.
Meanwhile, you can read this week?s Goop-letter here. It?s all about toxic chemicals in everyday products. It?s a serious issue, for sure, but I couldn?t help staring at the new Restorsea ads that have cropped up, or the blatant shilling for the Goop Store and all of that. After reading that story about Goop-as-a-tax-shelter, I really can?t look at Gwyneth?s little side project the same way.
Photos courtesy of Goop?s IG, Getty and WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow's Goop.com is hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt | | Added 11 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Last week, we heard about Gwyneth Paltrow?s latest conscious uncoupling, this time with Sebastian Bishop, the CEO of Goop. As I said last week, I was actually surprised that Goop had such a professional CEO-type running the business end, because Goop is a somewhat budget endeavor. I guess the branding is ?these are just tips that Gwyneth is giving to her fans,? like it?s a personal blog or something. But it looks like Goop has grown into a legit business with significant profits. The problem is that Gwyneth spends money like it?s going out of style and she and Bishop were both taking ?interest-free loans? out of the coffers. Radar is about to throw a lot of numbers at you, so just stick it out!
Gwyneth Paltrow?s marriage isn?t the only area of her life that?s in shambles. Just days after the CEO of her lifestyle company, GOOP, announced his unexpected departure, RadarOnline.com has uncovered disturbing corporate filings that reveal the company?s dire financial state: For two years running, they racked up serious losses totaling more than $300,000 ? thanks in part to an interest-free loan Paltrow took from the company coffers!
According to the most recent corporate documentation filed with the Companies House in the U.K., in 2011, GOOP ?incurred a loss of $255,312 (152,060) and had a net liabilities of $259,969 (154,834).? And in 2012, they reported ?a loss of $39,823 (23,718) and ? net liabilities of $298,512 (177,788).?
It?s not that GOOP wasn?t making money. In fact, in 2012, they raked in more than $1.5 million (908,378), thanks in part to $463,486 (276,040) in product sales, as well as an impressive (222,243) from Groupon promotions and $373,159 in commissions. All told, the company made $1,893,065 (1,127,456).
But that same year, GOOP spent $98,150 (58,456) on Goop.com, $79,961 (47,623) on the notorious GOOP newsletter, $189,590 (112,918) on product costs, and a whopping $1,564,995 (932,096) in administrative expenses,? adding up to the grand profit total of a loss of $39,823 (23,718).
Chief among those ?administrative expenses? were Paltrow and CEO Sebastian Bishop?s ?renumeration,? or salaries, for which the company allotted $587,653.25 (350,000), a sizable increase from the previous year?s figure of $172,585 (102,788), despite the company?s losses.
The documents also show that in 2012, both Paltrow and Bishop were the recipient of interest-free ?loans to directors,? with Paltrow?s listed at a balance of $49,025 (29,200), of which none was paid back, and Bishop?s at $83,617 (49,800). Other expenses in 2012 included $456,007 (271,584) in other wages, $34,507 (20,551) on travel, nearly $4,000 (2,118) on ?Entertaining,? and nearly $5,000 (2,951) on ?Staff Entertainment.?
All told, the expenses swallowed up the entire $1.8 million profit for the year and then some, resulting in a loss of $39,823. Paltrow and Bishop?s report had an excuse, insisting, ?As the company started product sales in June 2012, the directors are of the opinion that predicted profits will provide sufficient resources to enable the company to continue trading for the foreseeable future.?
The continued existence of GOOP, it seems, would depend upon it, since the report noted that in addition to the losses, the company owed creditors more than $1.2 million (722,111), all of which would come due by the end of 2013.
[From Radar]
Radar goes on to say that Goop has donated to charity too – $2000 to the David Lynch Foundation so kids can learn transcendental meditation, plus about $9000 more to other charities.
If you really look through the numbers and the details about the business, there are some startling realizations, at least for me. I want to know about the ?commissions? especially. When Gwyneth began Goop, she claimed that people weren?t paying her to promote various products, but that claim seems less and less likely. I also think that the bloated figures given for Goop?s ?expenses? mean that Gwyneth is using company money to go on vacation and whatever trendy therapy she?s into at that moment, and then she writes about it in a Goop newsletter, thus making it ?business.? And how can they spend that much money on operating Goop.com and still have such crappy servers?!
Anyway? just further evidence that Gwyneth?s Goop is just a sketchy scheme to write off her vacations and pay herself to party.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Gwyneth Paltrow is consciously uncoupling from the (attractive) CEO of Goop | | Added 11 years ago | Source: CeleBitchy |
|
|
|
|
|
Even though I?m a ?professional blogger? (I still can?t believe I get paid to gossip), I don?t really spend that much time on other blogs. I was sitting here, struggling to come up with a suitable comparison for Gwyneth Paltrow?s Goop.com, and I couldn?t really. I remember when Goop felt more homespun, like it was just a simple pet project from Gwyneth, like she was making a personal newsletter public. Nowadays, Goop.com is an industry with its own online catalogue of specialty products and collaborations with major designers. I still think Goop.com is a poorly operated site though. But, again, I don?t know what I should be comparing it to. Compared to other online boutiques, Goop sucks. Compared to comparably sized blogs, Goop looks amateurish and budget. What?s my point? My point is that I was startled to realize that Goop.com has a CEO. And he?s quitting the Goop.
After Gwyneth Paltrow?s ?conscious uncoupling? with Chris Martin, she now faces another painful split: Seb Bishop, the highlyregarded CEO of Goop, has quit.
Page Six has exclusively confirmed Bishop, a leading British entrepreneur who was international CEO of AIDS-fighting charity (RED) before joining Goop in 2011, has quit Paltrow?s lifestyle blog, on which she announced her separation from Martin last month.
We?re told that Bishop resigned after Paltrow ? in a move to sever her ties to London, where Martin lives ? announced to Goop staff she was moving the office from the British capital to Los Angeles.
Our source said: ?Seb was ready to move his wife Heidi and their children from London, and had even been looking at properties in Los Angeles, but then he abruptly quit.? The source added, ?There is speculation that he and Paltrow disagreed on the direction of Goop, partly that she used the Web site as a vehicle for her personal life, and the ?conscious uncoupling? announcement.?
Paltrow?s rep Stephen Huvane confirmed Bishop is leaving Goop, but denied he abruptly quit in a disagreement with Paltrow.
He told us, ?It?s not completely true. Seb is still with Goop, but has decided not to relocate his family to Los Angeles. He will be transitioning out over time until a replacement is named.?
Either way, the ?corporate uncoupling? is a huge blow to Paltrow. Multimillionaire Bishop, 40, was a top ad agency art director who made his mark at the age of 26 when he founded Espotting, which brought the paid-search online advertising model to Europe. In 2008, he became CEO of (RED), the organization created by Bono and Bobby Shriver to raise money to fight HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, and is also an investor in mobile news app Summly.
Bishop and Paltrow were photographed together at Goop?s summer party in Mayfair, London, last May. He could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.
[From Page Six]
Basically, Bishop sounds like a heavy-hitter in the world of online content and he?s been working as the CEO of Goop? That?s so weird. Stranger still, he was prepared to move his family to LA so that he could continue his Goop work and now he?s not. Something seems? weird. Very strange. I?m including some photos of Seb and his wife Heidi. Heidi looks like a young Gwyneth. Odd.
So, do you buy the idea that Seb didn?t want Goop.com to be operated as some kind of personal website, that it would defeat the established branding of Goop? While that would be funny if true, I doubt it. So much of Goop.com is personal ? Gwyneth posts personal stuff on there all the time. It?s just that the cat?s out of the bag with how low-tech and amateurish the whole Goop operation is now that their server crashed when Gwyneth and Chris announced their split.
Also: Us Weekly is saying that something is up too, which just goes to the now months-long conspiracy theory that someone in Gwyneth’s camp is leaking like a mofo. Probably a peasant. The unnamed peasant told Us Weekly: “A week and a half ago, he abruptly resigned from GOOP. It’s really suspicious — I think something weird is going on with GOOP.” So many conspiracies!
You can read this week?s Goop-letter here. It?s all about pain and holistic pain-management. I wanted a Vicodin after a skimmed it for a minute.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Getty.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| | | 5.885.728
Photos Online+ 2.250 past week
3.215
Users Online | | |
| | | | | | | | We Salute
Kat Graham
Photos of Kat Graham will not count in your daily view limit, if you are a registered member
Tribute ends in
1 hours | | |
| | |
|
