Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Lingerie chain Victoria’s Secret has long struggled with its marketing strategy, previously criticized for creating unreachable and unhealthy beauty standards.
It is now the brand’s attempt at becoming more inclusive and providing further visibility for marginalized communities which has sparked outrage across the internet.
Victoria’s Secret’s “woke and feminist makeover over the recent years” is now being ditched amidst a drop in sales
Image credits: gettyimages
Back in 2018, Victoria’s Secret former chief marketing officer Ed Razek was slammed for making insensitive remarks about brand talent.
Responsible for a homogenous, airbrushed, and sexualized brand image, Razek infuriated the public with comments he made in a Vogue.com interview about Victoria’s Secret’s casting practices: “Shouldn’t you have transsexuals in the show? No. No, I don’t think we should. Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy.”
Surprisingly, the confirmation of Razek’s departure came on the same day when news talks began circulating that Victoria’s Secret had hired its first-ever transgender model, Valentina Sampaio.
Victoria’s Secret has long struggled with its marketing strategy, previously criticized for creating unreachable and unhealthy beauty standards
Image credits: gettyimages
A year later, the lingerie company signed Ali Tate-Cutler, its first-ever size-14 model.
The retailer worth billions of dollars has since undergone a rebranding, with new CEO Martin Waters being appointed in 2021, implementing policy changes and new partnerships with a number of new spokeswomen including Megan Rapinoe, Priyanka Chopra Jonas, and Naomi Osaka.
But new reports have revealed that Victoria’s Secret’s “woke and feminist makeover over the recent years” was being ditched, as it didn’t translate to business success after all.
As of May 2020, with over 1,070 stores, Victoria’s Secret reportedly remained the largest lingerie retailer in the United States
Image credits: Phillip Pessar
According to Business Of Fashion, the company spent the last two years overhauling its hyper-sexualized image in a bid to regain cultural relevance, and yet, sales have continued to decline.
The retailer’s prime objective now has reportedly been to improve profitability and cross back over $7 billion in annual sales.
As of May 2020, with over 1,070 stores, Victoria’s Secret reportedly remained the largest lingerie retailer in the United States.
Victoria’s Secret spent the last two years overhauling its hyper-sexualized image in a bid to regain cultural relevance
Image credits: candicehuffine
In a new attempt to revitalize itself, the brand has planned to bring back “sexiness.”
As reported by CNN, Victoria’s Secret’s efforts to promote inclusivity – which included getting rid of its famous “Angels” supermodels – earned “favorable reviews from online critics [but] never translated into sales.
”The retailer’s projected revenue for 2023 is reportedly $6.2 billion, which is 5% lower than it was last year, and even lower than 2020, when the brand’s revenue was $7.5 billion.
The retailer’s prime objective now is to improve profitability and cross back over $7 billion in annual sales
Image credits: victoriassecret
Victoria’s Secret stock soared 15% in just five days after ditching its “wokeness strategy,”
Finbold reported.
The decline in Victoria’s Secret’s sales coincided with the company’s decision to predominantly comprise its board of directors with women.
In 2021, American football star Megan called out the brand before its rebranding, claiming it had sent out a “really harmful” message that was “patriarchal, sexist, viewing not just what it meant to be sexy but what the clothes were trying to accomplish through a male lens and through what men desired.”
Victoria’s Secret’s efforts to promote inclusivity included getting rid of its famous “Angels” supermodels, notable for their extremely skinny body type
Image credits: victoriassecret
She also said that Victoria’s Secret’s image “was very much marketed toward younger women.
”Victoria’s Secret: The Tour ’23 new fashion show has reportedly displayed what “fell somewhere in between the personification of male lust of the brand’s aughts-era heyday and the inclusive utopia promoted by its many disruptors.”
Victoria’s Secret and Pink brand president, Greg Unis, outlined this fresh corporate direction when he reportedly addressed investors: “Sexiness can be inclusive.”
The decline in Victoria’s Secret’s sales coincided with the company’s decision to predominantly comprise its board of directors with women
Image credits: victoriassecret
He had explained that “Sexiness can celebrate the diverse experiences of our customers and that’s what we’re focused on.”
Nevertheless, CEO Martin reportedly admitted that the inclusivity initiatives were not profitable for the company, stating, “Despite everyone’s best endeavors, it’s not been enough to carry the day.”
According to Unreserved Media, Victoria’s Secret has had trouble withstanding newer brands who have marketed themselves as being inclusive from the start, such as Rihanna’s Savage X Fenty, because “Victoria’s Secret was built from the male gaze, while Rihanna’s Savage X Fenty is all about what women want.”
Megan Rapinoe called out the brand before its rebranding, claiming it had sent out a “really harmful” message that was “patriarchal and sexist”
Image credits: victoriassecret
“Victoria’s Secret’s show was known for skinny supermodels, featuring the most beautiful women in the world, while your everyday girl could only wish to look like a Victoria’s Secret model. The brand was selling an unachievable reality,” the publication stated.
CEO Martin Waters admitted that the inclusivity initiatives were not profitable for the company
Image credits: victoriassecret
It explained: “Savage on the other hand embraces diversity, a movement that shook social media and almost every well-known fashion and beauty brand in the world.
“The lingerie brand speaks diversity in every form, featuring women and men of all sizes, skin tones, and ages, including pregnant [people] and drag queens.”
Many people were unsurprised at the announcement, while others thought the drop in sales was caused by poor quality products
Notice that the majority of responses in favor of the return to ridiculously thin models are from men, the 50% of the population who do not use or wear VS products, but who probably keep the VS catalogs in their “spank banks”. Notice also it was exclusively women who mentioned the drop in the quality of VS products as the reason for the drop in sales. I too have noticed a drop in quality. A lot of their stuff is cheap, scratchy, tight, and really uncomfortable to wear. Back in the eighties, VS was the epitome of really nice quality, elegant, and classy lingerie. Nowadays its quality has dropped nearly to the level of Frederick’s of Hollywood stripper and porn shoot supplies. That’s why I haven’t bought anything there for years, except one particular fragrance I always liked—-the quality of which has also gone way down to the point where it smells like cheap drugstore cologne. I have recently turned away from VS, and started buying a similar fragrance from The Body Shop, which smells wonderful in comparison. It’s such a shame that they’re blaming the drop in sales on their normal size models and embrace of inclusivity, rather than on the overpriced cheap tacky products they’ve been selling recently.
What has happened to this website, it's lost its soul. It's just a buzzfeed clone at this point.
Money, capitalism, copy/paste by "writers".
Load More Replies...
ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL OF YOU TO SHARE THIS BP Then losing profitability has nothing to do with "going woke" because in fact most companies who do "go woke" and do it right end up being MORE profitable. When it's just s****y lip service from a company with no soul we know and we'll spend our money elsewhere. Victoria's secret never really catered to women anyways. It preyed on young insecure women, and was all based on the misogynistic male gaze. They can't just do a 180 and expect women who know the truth to suddenly be on board. For shame BP and writer Andréa Oldereide, you're no feminist.
This is exactly it. None of this "woke rebrand" was authentic and it was sooo patronizing. It was so clearly a WELL THIS IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR and then they put no effort into making it real. Their weird fashion show this year didn't fail because it wasn't angels. It failed because the clothes were ugly, it made no sense for a lingerie company, and had no vision. Had they actually come up with products that were good quality, that people want, and just chilled out a bit on the dehydrated stick thin models, they would have been fine. You can't reasonably blame their lack of success on their half-assed, begrudging attempt to rebrand.
Load More Replies...
Notice that the majority of responses in favor of the return to ridiculously thin models are from men, the 50% of the population who do not use or wear VS products, but who probably keep the VS catalogs in their “spank banks”. Notice also it was exclusively women who mentioned the drop in the quality of VS products as the reason for the drop in sales. I too have noticed a drop in quality. A lot of their stuff is cheap, scratchy, tight, and really uncomfortable to wear. Back in the eighties, VS was the epitome of really nice quality, elegant, and classy lingerie. Nowadays its quality has dropped nearly to the level of Frederick’s of Hollywood stripper and porn shoot supplies. That’s why I haven’t bought anything there for years, except one particular fragrance I always liked—-the quality of which has also gone way down to the point where it smells like cheap drugstore cologne. I have recently turned away from VS, and started buying a similar fragrance from The Body Shop, which smells wonderful in comparison. It’s such a shame that they’re blaming the drop in sales on their normal size models and embrace of inclusivity, rather than on the overpriced cheap tacky products they’ve been selling recently.
What has happened to this website, it's lost its soul. It's just a buzzfeed clone at this point.
Money, capitalism, copy/paste by "writers".
Load More Replies... ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL OF YOU TO SHARE THIS BP Then losing profitability has nothing to do with "going woke" because in fact most companies who do "go woke" and do it right end up being MORE profitable. When it's just s****y lip service from a company with no soul we know and we'll spend our money elsewhere. Victoria's secret never really catered to women anyways. It preyed on young insecure women, and was all based on the misogynistic male gaze. They can't just do a 180 and expect women who know the truth to suddenly be on board. For shame BP and writer Andréa Oldereide, you're no feminist.
This is exactly it. None of this "woke rebrand" was authentic and it was sooo patronizing. It was so clearly a WELL THIS IS WHAT YOU ASKED FOR and then they put no effort into making it real. Their weird fashion show this year didn't fail because it wasn't angels. It failed because the clothes were ugly, it made no sense for a lingerie company, and had no vision. Had they actually come up with products that were good quality, that people want, and just chilled out a bit on the dehydrated stick thin models, they would have been fine. You can't reasonably blame their lack of success on their half-assed, begrudging attempt to rebrand.
Load More Replies...
-58
60