Victoria's Secret and its Subpar Rebrand

When you think about Victoria's Secret, what comes to mind? If you thought 6-foot tall blonde-haired skinny models and (dangerously) unachievable looks then you're pretty much spot-on.

You might also recall their infamous runways, where their 'angels' would wear huge wings, crazy impractical outfits and pretty much submit to the male gaze through glitz and glamour. After all it was originally created for men to shop for lingerie for their ladies...

But now in a time of increasing female empowerment, where does Victoria's Secret stand? Most women now shop for their own lingerie, body standards aren't nearly as harsh as back then and we are slowly reclaiming back the power that was so highly held by men in the past.

And after many years of failing sales and disdain by new and old consumers, Victoria's Secret has tried to rebrand itself, now with a board made up of almost all women and a promise to change, they are trying to show consumers that things will be different this time (not the first time I've heard that...). But for a company that was at the forefront of toxic body standards in the early 2000s, how authentic can this change be?

In this tweet posted June 2022, Victoria's Secret stated that they have changed and are attempting to become "a leading advocate for women" which is a high promise due to the fact that many believe they would most likely not be rebranding if sales had not plummeted in the last few years, and if FENTY were not so successful.

And the responses reflect this, one user stating that "it took a declining sales for them to wake up. They still don’t really care." and another calling it "performative".

And things didn't get any better...

In introducing their rebrand, Victoria's Secret posted a short video promoting their new and improved company and showcased different types of models wearing their clothing, stating that YOU define what's beautiful, no one else. Unfortunately, this also came with great criticism as all the models wore bland underwear, which is not what VS is known for. When you look back at their shows and clothing from the early 2000s, it is hugely glamorous, sparkly and as one commenter stated, "VS was about fantasy, and this looks utilitarian."

In showcasing a variety of bodies yet making their underwear bland and boring, they are reinforcing that one cannot feel sexy having a different body type to what is seen as universally attractive (e.g. skinny, tall, white), and through this many people holding out for hope felt disappointed, as the glamour was what made it so desirable to begin with. People were also concerned that they did not want to spend money creating glamorous pieces for plus-sized consumers.

They also kept the diversity very surface level. Despite having a selection of different people, everyone is still conventionally attractive. A consistent theme within their attempt at inclusivity is their models still having thin waists and not much belly, everyone having clear skin. This image taken from their ad campaign shows this. Also unsurprisingly only showing one non-skinny model? No one having stretch marks or other blemishes too...

Also, if you check out their online website, there still seems to be a trend of the types of models showcasing their lines...

In short, you can't fake authenticity.

Victoria's Secret are going to have to try a lot harder if they want to be accepted as an 'inclusive' brand, and they could probably by start putting more effort into the clothing they advertise.

They can also take a leaf out of Rihanna's book, her brand FENTY being highly successful due to always catering to their consumers needs and actually caring about them.

Remember that as ironic that it is for them to say, you do dictate what's beautiful and just because you can't see it, doesn't mean that isn't the case.

M:)