Tech News
Gwyneth Paltrow is taking Goop back to basics—and says her best source of business advice is her ‘Fight Club’ group chat of female CEOs

It’s been almost 17 years since Gwyneth Paltrow launched Goop as a newsletter—since then there have been beauty products, a fashion line, vibrators and vagina candles. But this year—after some tough restructuring—Goop is getting back to its basics, Paltrow tells Fortune in an exclusive interview.
While the brand did multiple rounds of layoffs in 2024, Paltrow says that the overall business is healthy. The company’s 2024 revenue increased 10% from 2023, Fortune is the first to report. Goop Beauty, one of three categories the company is now focusing on, was up 34%. Its fashion line G. Label grew 42% year-over-year. Goop Kitchen revenue, from six ghost kitchens throughout greater Los Angeles, grew 60%.
Paltrow called Fortune to talk about growing Goop into its “heritage brand” era, whether she’d sell and when she expects to reach profitability, and the female CEO group chat that has helped her come into her own as a founder. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Where are you seeing the most growth? What are you most excited about?
What I’m most excited about is the refining of the brand that we’re doing—our hyper focus on beauty, fashion, and food. Those are the verticals where we’re seeing incredible product-market fit and margin. Food, beauty, and G. Label all grew exponentially last year. Since COVID, we’ve had to stay so agile, and getting to the other side of that and focusing on our strengths—there’s power in that.
When you say you’re refining the brand, what made you realize that was necessary? When did you say, it’s time for us to take a look and refine what we’re doing?
There are things that have bugged me for a while—like our beauty product had different architectures, if you will. I always found them a bit confusing. I wanted to streamline that. Our design, when I did it 12 years ago, felt really innovative-looking. A lot of it was oft-copied—design, colors, fonts. It was time to refresh everything and get back to the core of this beautiful, aspirational brand that from a curatorial perspective is finding the best of the best in service of our discerning customer. The best way to put a stake in the ground around redefining your values is that the touch points look redefined. I think all brands should be doing this, even a soft rebrand, every once in a while.
What is Goop today? How are you defining the brand now?
It’s very much back to its DNA of being a pioneer in content and beauty and fashion—being that go-to place for women who trust that we do the work and research to surface and make the best of the best.
There’s been some reporting about layoffs at Goop over the past several months. What wasn’t working and needed to be restructured?
When COVID happened, it threw so many consumer businesses into instability. I was really trying to conserve all the money on the balance sheet. For that reason, I became very risk-averse and I didn’t want to make any bold changes. I felt like we just have to keep our head above water and keep growing the best we can. I got to a point about a year ago where our payroll number was high, and I needed to be fiscally more disciplined. I needed to reallocate some of that payroll into growth again. I think, because we’re Goop, it’s more fun to write about a layoff at Goop. But companies do this all the time. This is a very healthy, normal thing to do. It’s very painful, and probably why I don’t do this as often as I should. Because I love the people who work at Goop. It’s always a very difficult thing to do, but sometimes for the rigor of the business, it’s necessary. But it wasn’t coming from a place of financial need, it was coming from taking a sharp look at the business and understanding that we really needed to reallocate some of that back into growth. I hate doing that more than anything in the world, but it’s actually been very necessary for the business.
As you focus on three categories, you’ve pulled back from some others. How did you decide what to let go of?
I created a complicated business model by mistake when I started this, because I didn’t start it to start a business. I started it to send out content—I was looking for a space on the internet where I could be a reader. The product lines came later. So it’s not so much that something wasn’t working, it was that you’re spreading resources across a lot of things. Where are you getting the most bang for your buck, if your resources are limited? What are the businesses that have the best customer with the most longevity, buying the products with the most margin? I sort of let the data help me find that.
Take sexual wellness, for example. It was a really important idea for the brand and it’s an absolute important part of wellness. But our vibrators, for example, were a one-and-done customer. There’s no [lifetime value]. I’m so glad we made them, I’m so glad we are helping dispel this idea that there’s shame in sexuality. But you want to be investing in the products with [the best] buying patterns.
On the content origins of Goop, what is your content strategy today? The landscape has shifted a lot, with Substack and other publications with similar points of view to Goop.
Having the business model be a media model is not what’s interesting to us. But I do think it’s an important lever for marketing and creating community and interest.
Is the Goop customer the same across beauty, G. Label, and Kitchen, or is this a different customer in different categories?
There’s the Venn diagram—there’s overlap and distinct cohorts as well. If you’re in one vertical, you might want to check out the rest of what we have to offer. It’s an interesting way to cross-pollinate the customer.
When you see these new generations of lifestyle and wellness brands popping up, from Meghan’s As Ever to other startups, what do you think of them?
I think startups challenge the status quo. They make a Williams-Sonoma be like, ‘Wow, what is this person doing? Maybe we need to do better by our customer.’ Or a Target or LVMH brand. Quote-unquote competition—you should use that as a lever to make what you’re doing better and not rest on your laurels and to constantly assess why you exist as a brand.
Do you expect to be profitable this year?
We’re very, very close, which is incredibly exciting, and a big milestone. It depends on a couple of levers. We’re had profitable months, many of those, but I don’t want to say full profitability until we have a full year.
Do you want to exit? How are you thinking about your options?
I’m very excited to build. I’m excited to open more stores. To index into our wholesale strategies, to go into other countries. I’m in building mode and not thinking about an exit right now. I don’t even really want to think about it for another three years, or even start thinking about it.
How is the beauty business now? Are there changes you’re making?
Our product is absolutely best in class. We’re not always that good at articulating how incredible they are. I think we could do a better job at communicating the incredible quality of everything.
You want to be where the customer is, which is why we have such a good business on Amazon. We’re talked about other big wholesalers, and we are definitely exploring that right now.
Why has Goop Kitchen worked so well? Do you see it scaling beyond LA? How did you know it was working?
It’s been incredible to watch the product-market fit of that venture—the repeat rates and customer satisfaction, how quickly it’s growing, quarter after quarter. We have a very robust growth plan. We closed a round of funding for that business last year, we have another four stores opening in LA County and in 2026 we will be going into New York.
It just felt like it was intuitively working. All the hard work on Goop for all these years—you set it up so people understand intrinsically if they see Goop Kitchen, ‘Oh, I think I could make an assumption about what that food might be.’ And then we really deliver on that food. It’s been really easy from a customer acquisition standpoint, and people love the food, so they come back and back.
When you look across the landscape of lifestyle brands and competitors, do you feel like you still have some sort of first-mover advantage?
I haven’t really thought about that. Maybe I’m too close to it to know, but I do think we are the OG, and in that sense, we’re becoming kind of a heritage brand. There’s always intrinsic brand value there. When you’re the first mover, you’re category defining. So I hope so.
We’re bumping up against our 20th anniversary in the next few years. It’s amazing to me we’ve been around this long. We want to energetically own who we are and what we’ve accomplished—continue to innovate and accept our place in the landscape and lean into it.
As a founder and leader, what resources have you turned to to grow through all these changes?
I have great help. I have great coaches, mentors. I have a group of female CEO-founders I’m on a group chat with. There are some public company CEOs on there, some very nascent companies. It’s a very safe space where we can go and talk through some of the harder things. I really would not be able to do this without the women in my life who are there in that capacity. We traverse these difficult things, and you forget that it’s going to be OK. So many people have gone through this before.
Any names you can share?
It’s sort of like Fight Club. We’re not really supposed to talk about it. But it’s kind of fun at this point to be one of the women who has something to say to newer founders—like, whoops, don’t step in this pothole. It’s nice to pay it forward.
What are some of those moments you’ve given advice on? What are some of the ‘potholes’ of Goop’s journey?
I have strong feelings about ecommerce platforms and ESPs and ERPs. Don’t be sold software you don’t need. There’s a lot that happens when we outsource expertise and don’t follow our own instincts. Some of my worst decisions have been made from that place. We went on an ERP too early without the right team to implement it. [People will try to convince you], you’ve got to get off QuickBooks, you’ve got to do this and that. A founder’s instinct is really important. Sometimes we sell ourselves short by not listening to that instinct.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Tech News
Jet maker Bombardier warns Canada that F-35 review may backfire

The head of Canadian jet manufacturer Bombardier Inc. raised concerns about Canada’s decision to review a contract to buy dozens of F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin Corp., the country’s latest response to the trade war with the US.
“Canceling the F-35s might be a good idea, but we need to think about it,” Bombardier Chief Executive Officer Eric Martel told a business audience in Montreal. “We have contracts with the Pentagon. Will there be reciprocity there?”
Bombardier has invested in recent years in its defense unit, which converts jets into military aircraft. It has two contracts with the US government, one for communication aircraft and another for surveillance planes.
New Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney ordered a review of the F-35 purchase agreement, a C$19 billion ($13.3 billion) deal for 88 jets that was finalized in 2023. The deal hasn’t been scrapped, but the government needs to “make sure that the contract in its current form is in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces,” a defense ministry spokesperson said.
Earlier this month, President Donald Trump put 25% tariffs on imports on Canadian goods that don’t fall under the US–Mexico–Canada Agreement, and added 25% import taxes to aluminum and steel products. He has repeatedly said he believes Canada should be the 51st US state — a recent poll showed that 90% of Canadians disagree — and members of his administration have taken the Canadian government to task for its low level of military spending.
“Trump isn’t wrong on everything,” Martel said. “We’ve been hiding behind our big brother for a while, and we’re completely dependent on him militarily.”
In 2023, Canada finalized a deal to order as many as 16 military surveillance aircraft from Boeing Co. as part of an investment worth more than $7 billion, rejecting a competing Bombardier proposal.
The jet maker’s shares have dropped 18% since Trump was elected on Nov. 5, but are still up about 50% over the past year.
In February, Bombardier set aside its financial outlook for the year because of risk and uncertainty about tariffs. “Not providing guidance is the most responsible thing for us to do,” Martel said at the time. About 60% of Bombardier’s business comes from the US, and its planes are currently built and shipped under the rules of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
Bombardier has a complicated supply chain that includes manufacturing in US and Mexico with more than 2,800 US-based suppliers across 47 states. US-made parts and systems make up a significant proportion of the cost of its aircraft.
The Global 7500, the firm’s flagship jet, has wings made in Texas, avionics from Iowa and motors made in Indiana. More than half of its building costs are tied to US manufacturing, but the assembly and finishing are done in Canada, which makes the jet subject to tariffs.
Two-thirds of Canada’s aerospace industry exports depend on the US market, Martel said.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Tech News
Gavin Newsom is welcoming prominent conservatives on his new podcast, but critics say it’s risky to align himself ‘in a slightly unpredictable middle’

LOS ANGELES (AP) — As a wounded Democratic Party struggles to regroup, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is holding mostly chummy conversations with prominent conservatives on a new podcast he’s touting as a way for the party to grapple with the MAGA movement’s popularity.
In doing so, he appears intent on showing he is more than a progressive warrior. But he has stunned some members of his own party by agreeing with his guests on issues such as restricting transgender women and girls in sports. Newsom called dismantling police departments “lunacy” and remained silent when Steve Bannon, an architect of President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, falsely said Trump won the 2020 presidential election.
The programs provide a fresh lens on a liberal governor and potential 2028 presidential candidate who not long ago was enlisted as a chief surrogate for President Joe Biden’s campaign. Ahead of the 2022 midterms, he chastised national Democrats for being too passive in defending abortion rights and same-sex marriage, an issue he championed two decades ago as mayor of San Francisco.
Newsom said his choice of podcast guests reflects his interest in knowing more about how Republicans organized in the last election, when Trump swept every battleground state and Republicans locked up majorities in the House and Senate.
“I think we all agreed after the last election that it’s important for Democrats to explore new and unique ways of talking to people,” he added in an email to supporters.
Newsom’s party criticizes his guests
After spotlighting Bannon, conservative radio personality Michael Savage and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, Newsom will quickly diversify his lineup: His next guest is Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, last year’s Democratic vice presidential nominee. But some Democrats say the governor, who is widely viewed as having presidential ambitions, is selling out Democratic values in favor of his own political aspirations.
Aimee Allison, the founder and president of She the People, a national organizing hub for electing women of color, said Newsom is betraying California and “showing his weakness and naked ambition.” Allison was among Democrats who helped Newsom defeat a 2021 recall attempt.
“We need a governor that will defend California’s values, support vulnerable children, LGBTQ+ people, Black people, women, and everyone else who’s in the line (of) fire of the Trump administration. Instead he is making the worst moves possible in a time of rising fascism. He’s trying to remake himself to be acceptable to MAGA,” Allison wrote in an email, referring to supporters of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.
California Assembly member Chris Ward and state Sen. Carolina Menjivar, who lead the state’s LGBTQ+ legislative caucus, said they were “profoundly sickened” by Newsom’s statement on transgender athletes. And Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, another potential 2028 candidate, said of Bannon, “I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform — ever, anywhere.”
Finding a new audience
Podcasts have become an increasingly important venue in politics, and as Newsom considers a national campaign he has been praised by some for venturing into unfamiliar territory.
Democratic consultant Bill Burton, who was national press secretary for former President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, credited Newsom with trying to reach voters who might not engage with traditional media.
“I think there are going to be a lot of people this alienates in the short term,” Burton said. But, he added, Democrats “have to take a lot of big swings.”
The governor — who called Trump a threat to American democracy throughout last year’s campaign — has been trying to navigate a tenuous relationship with the White House as the state recovers from the devastating Los Angeles wildfires in January. He’s requested $40 billion in federal aid.
Newsom, while progressive, has never been locked into one ideological position: He’s broken at times with more liberal factions in the Legislature. His shift this time may be to head off the kind of criticism Republicans have aimed at former Vice President Kamala Harris, also of California, or edge toward positions more closely in line with public opinion. According to AP VoteCast, 55% of voters nationwide in the 2024 election said support for transgender rights in government and society has gone too far.
During the podcast episodes released so far, Newsom has been mostly affable and agreeable, though he’s challenged his guests at times. This is not the tart-tongued Newsom who appeared in a 2023 televised debate with Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, whom he described as weak and pathetic, or who called the state legislature into special session last year to attempt to safeguard the state’s progressive policies under a Trump administration.
In an age of rigid partisanship, talking with the other side is “so rarely a part of public discourse it seems like either bravery or lunacy,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. “While there are clear risks, he is trying to align his national reputation … in a slightly unpredictable middle.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Tech News
Turkey plans new big tech regulations that risk clash with U.S.

Turkey is planning new rules to rein in the dominance of major tech firms, imitating the European Union’s regulatory approach at the risk of provoking U.S. retaliation.
The bill, set to be submitted to parliament soon, would prevent technology companies such as Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Meta Platforms Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. from favoring their own services in search engines, app stores, or marketplaces, senior Turkish officials told Bloomberg. The bill is backed by the ruling party and was prepared in collaboration with Turkey’s antitrust authority.
Failure to comply could result in fines of up to 10% of a company’s annual revenue, added the officials, who asked not to be identified discussing private matters.
The move comes amid heightened tensions between the U.S. and the European Union over digital regulations. The EU’s Digital Markets Act or DMA, enacted in May 2023, aims to curb anti-competitive practices by imposing obligations on “gatekeeper” platforms. Turkey’s proposal aligns with the EU’s approach and could risk straining the nation’s trade ties with Washington.
US President Donald Trump has strongly criticized the EU’s DMA, calling it “overseas extortion” targeting American tech firms. In response, he has threatened to impose tariffs.
Under the proposal, closed ecosystems like Apple’s would be required to let users install third-party apps from outside of their platforms, the officials said. In Apple’s case, this means allowing downloads to iPhones and iPads from outside of the App Store, similar to how Google allows sideloading on Android devices.
It would also restrict platforms from processing user data without explicit consent and limit how they use that data for commercial purposes.
Additionally, tech firms would be required to provide commercial users — such as app developers, advertisers and marketplace sellers — with clear information on service scope, performance, and pricing.
The proposal is still subject to revisions before being enacted, and its final provisions could change during the legislative process.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
-
Tech News3 months ago
How Costco’s formula for reaching uncertain consumers is pushing shares past $1,000 to all-time highs
-
Tech News3 months ago
Luigi Mangione hires top lawyer—whose husband is representing Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs
-
Tech News3 months ago
Lego bricks have won over adults, growing its $10 billion toy market foothold—and there’s more to come
-
Tech News3 months ago
Quentin Tarantino thinks movies are still better than TV shows like Yellowstone
-
Tech News3 months ago
Inside the FOMC: Boston Fed President Susan Collins on changing her mind, teamwork, and the alchemy behind the base rate
-
Tech News3 months ago
Nancy Pelosi has hip replacement surgery at a US military hospital in Germany after falling at Battle of the Bulge ceremony
-
Tech News3 months ago
Trump and members of Congress want drones shot down while more are spotted near military facilities
-
Tech News3 months ago
Hundreds of OpenAI’s current and ex-employees are about to get a huge payday by cashing out up to $10 million each in a private stock sale