Ever since launching in 2008, Goop has caught some flack for offering higher-priced, ultra-luxe items (this season's gift guide did include big-ticket items like a $5,800 leather toiletry bag, so we get it). By default, founder Gwyneth Paltrow has weathered some criticism too. But she's addressing it in our March issue, reminding shoppers and the internet at large that the site's stocked with plenty of more affordable options too.
"Sometimes I'll get annoyed if someone's like, 'Goop is so expensive.' I'm like, 'Have you looked at the website? Have you seen the range of price points? 'Cause we sell things that are $8,'" she tells us. "I'm like, 'If you want to f--ck with me, bring your A-game. At least have all your information.'"
We got the message loud and clear and browsed to find our favorite options for under $100 (there were plenty). Even so, can we have a word before you start shopping?
We get that a $50 t-shirt might seem like an investment, but it's one that feels more do-able than, say, that $6,000 cosmetic bag. It's worth going back to the brand's mission statement too for another lens to examine the price tags. "We're all resource strapped, so goop hopes to surface the very best experiences, recipes, products, and advice," it reads, putting forth the fashion-math tenet that buying one item at a slightly higher price point actually ends up being more affordable than buying multiple cheaper versions (whether due to wardrobe boredom or a lower-quality item falling apart). If one $50 tee stays in your closet for five years while the $12 version disintegrates after two cycles in the washing machine, what's the better value? We'll take the pricier piece, thanks.
Soludos lace smoking slipper, $75, goop.com
Monrow t-shirt, $58, goop.com
Alternative Apparel dress, $58, goop.com
Sarah Chloe ring, $90, goop.com
Gaia clutch, $90, goop.com
Kule t-shirt, $88, goop.com
Loeffler Randall eyeglass case, $75, goop.com
Reebok sneakers, $90, goop.com
Mikoh bikini top, $86, goop.com
Pursen Prima travel jewelry case, $58, goop.com
Photos: Getty Images
Source: http://feeds.glamour.com/c/35377/f/665038/s/4d4fa309/sc/28/l/0L0Sglamour0N0Cfashion0Cblogs0Cdressed0C20A160C0A20Cis0Egoop0Etoo0Eexpensive/story01.htm
No comments: