Interview and text by Casa Bien, photographs by Colette der Kinderen.
Paris, 2018. Between fashion shows at Fashion Week, Núria Val meets up with a good friend and hears a piece of advice that would change her life: “You have to meet Gabriela.” Her friend was talking about Gabriela Salord, the other half of Rowse, the natural cosmetics brand they would found that same year.
A.G.
You and Gabriela decided to start a project together as soon as you met; how did that impulse arise?
N.V.
It stems from frustration. At that time I was feeling frustrated with the limitations I faced in the projects I did for others because they didn’t allow me to explore and expand the way I wanted. Gabriela was working for an investment fund and didn’t feel comfortable with certain practices, like the pressure placed on projects and brands.
We had different motivations, but a common vision shaped by nature. Nature plays a very important role in my life as a constant source of inspiration for creation. On the other hand, Gabriela’s family history is marked by the use of plants and natural remedies for care. For her, this project was a way to go back to basics, to connect with her own roots.
A.G.
Tell us about the brand’s early steps. What was it like entering the world of cosmetics?
N.V.
I didn’t like cosmetics; I didn’t connect with that world, but I saw the opportunity to create a cosmetics brand for people like me who either don’t want a 15‑step routine or simply want to understand what that endless list of ingredients means. That helped us build a very solid community from the start.
From that came Rowse’s first product: a winter oil. Oil is the purest thing you can extract from a plant—it works for the skin, as food, and more. It was a very stimulating process creatively to study plants that grow in conditions of extreme cold and understand what allows them to take care of themselves—and us—in those conditions.
A.G.
You’ve developed a distinct language that contrasts with the usual narrative lines in the cosmetics sector. What have been the keys to developing Rowse’s message?
N.V.
The first thing I always explain is that any synthetic ingredient is a version created in a laboratory of something that exists in nature: collagen, retinol, hyaluronic acid, etc. There are ingredients with those properties in nature, but it is more expensive and more difficult to formulate them. In the end, the skin is an organ, and what we put on the skin we absorb just like what we eat. I find it curious that people worry so much about what they eat—whether it’s seasonal, whether it’s locally sourced, etc.—but we don’t have the same perception of what we put on our skin. You can use synthetic cosmetics and nothing is going to happen to you, but what happens if you put them on every day for 40 years? No one would dream of eating a hamburger or processed food every day.
Even so, the hardest task has been to explain the effectiveness of natural products. We have very internalised the idea that something made in a laboratory or synthetic is more effective. This view is the result of more than 30 years of marketing in the cosmetics sector. In fact, when Rowse started there was no market for natural cosmetics as such; the closest thing were herbalist shops.
A.G.
The cosmetics industry has an obvious impact on society’s perception of beauty. You talk about “The beauty of truth.” What exactly do you mean by that?
N.V.
The skin changes; we ourselves change. That’s a reality. Life is a constant process of adaptation and acceptance. We believe you’ll feel much better surrounded by women who accept that their skin is beginning to show wrinkles or that their bodies are changing than in an environment where that reality is covered up.
We often get the classic question: “But is it good for wrinkles?” Yes, of course, it’s good for wrinkles, but it’s not going to erase them. Wrinkles are only erased by an injection, and that only lasts as long as it lasts. We need to talk openly about this topic, especially at a time when beauty is very divided between those who pursue pure aesthetics and those who embrace acceptance and honesty.
Your dark circles aren’t going to disappear just because you use our eye contour, but the ingredients in that product will help you feel better. Licorice oil is a very important pigment; caffeine greatly aids circulation, and so on. No product will erase your wrinkles, but it can contribute to your skin being healthier—that’s the basis of our approach to skincare.
A.G.
The beauty sector is constantly shifting and evolving. How would you describe the current moment? What changes do you think we should be driving?
N.V.
For the past four years, natural cosmetics have been a very strong trend and all brands have joined the plant‑based movement. For L’Oréal, for example, it’s very difficult to gain credibility simply by launching a range of natural products. It’s also impossible for a multinational of their size, with the margins they expect, to create a product like ours. Even so, I think brands like ours have pushed the big companies to do better; they’ve had no other choice. If they only capture a 10 or 20% margin, that’s better than nothing.
There’s also the value of the experiential. A few years ago, the cost per click was very low and we could plan straightforward marketing strategies—green or not—that reached people. That has changed. Since we opened the first pilot store in Madrid and put more emphasis on Rowse’s experiential side—pilates and beauty retreats, cosmetics and plant workshops, etc.—we’ve realised that it’s the community that forms around these experiences that really drives sales and helps the brand evolve.
A.G.
How do you see the relationship between technology and beauty?
N.V.
It’s a complex issue. Right now, investment in the cosmetics world is focused on devices, LED masks and the like. Personally, it’s hard for me to see it as anything more than a passing trend.
On the other hand, we’re setting up a space that’s sort of a beauty bar in Madrid—a place to share things beyond cosmetics. We’re unsure about whether—and how—to integrate technology into that space. The more technological side of our industry can’t be ignored, but you have to find the right formula to make both worlds fit together.
A.G.
How do you see the future of Rowse in 10 years? How do you think the relationship between people and brands will evolve?
N.V.
If I think of Rowse ten years from now, I see it as a project that is much more experiential than online. The digital aspect will still exist, but I believe the project will materialize in one or several spaces that represent the brand on another level: architecture, art, cosmetics, wellness, spa, etc.
In a society that suffers such brand saturation, where everything is so accessible, what do we really enjoy? A pleasant time outdoors, being with whoever you want to be with, getting back to basics. I don’t know if it’s an overly romantic vision, but I believe that the future of a healthy relationship between people and brands lies in being able to provide people with a space, a time and a pleasant experience.
A.G.
You talk about saturation, not only in the beauty sector but at a general level. This saturation of brands pushes us toward overconsumption that has an inevitable impact on people’s lives. In that sense, the discourse on degrowth and regeneration is increasingly present. What is your opinion on this?
N.V.
I completely agree. At Rowse we are increasingly focusing on physical spaces that generate another kind of less material consumption and reduce the weight of e-commerce.
Rowse was born at a time when the online world was very powerful: it seemed that all brands were going to become millionaires through Meta. For both Gabriela and me, that mindset has changed. For us, having a stable project—without aspiring to sell millions—not only works, it is more in line with our way of thinking. The exercise this year—and it has been a very risky exercise at a business level—has been to remove ads and replace them with experiences.
A.G.
In terms of profitability, how has that affected the project?
N.V.
It’s a matter of changing the strategy. For a brand that doesn’t mind lying or paying Meta €100,000 a month, that strategy might work. For me, not anymore. I prefer to pay people before I pay Meta, and have that translate into experiences, workshops, etc. The business will move more slowly, but it will be more sustainable, healthier and will create another kind of synergy. It’s been a complicated change, but it has motivated me a lot: it has brought back my inspiration.
A.G.
And finally, what are the main challenges you identify, at the market level, for a product that prioritizes purpose over the purely commercial to become a real alternative?
N.V.
Margins. In a society where people go crazy for Mercadona’s creams, it’s very difficult to gain ground. There is an educational component that is super important, but the balance between offering something of great quality and finding the sector that is willing to pay for it is complicated.
Whenever a product becomes fashionable, there is a small community that supports it—the community as usual; it’s also hard to reach but it exists—but then the interesting thing is when it starts to grow beyond that community and becomes mainstream. That’s the complicated part.
A very natural movement right now is a sector that goes to Amazon to look for volume. Sometimes we’ve thought about it, but in the end, given the way we understand the brand, the quality of our product, and Rowse’s ethics, it’s very difficult to maintain your identity in a marketplace. We would end up reducing quality to play with price and, in the end, it wouldn’t be worth it.
