Victoria’s Secret doesn’t want to be itself any more
This summer, Victoria’s Secret dropped a bombshell: It would be leaving behind some of its most iconic brand elements — its angels and fashion show — as it worked to carve out a new place for itself in today’s world. As part of the effort to reposition Victoria’s Secret as a “leading global advocate for female empowerment”, the brand recently announced the formation of a new, nearly-all-female Board, along with the launch of the VS Collective, a new lineup of “trailblazing” brand ambassadors that includes athlete-activist Megan Rapinoe and inclusivity advocate Paloma Elsesser. Sumner Payne and Blake Crist hash out why they did it, what it means, and how they should have responded differently. This month on The Dissection.
Place your bets: Distinctive or culturally relevant?
The fact that they are abandoning the fantasy of Victoria’s Secret models rather than expanding the fantasy fuels this larger narrative where plus is always the “other.” The issue was never that Victoria’s Secret has Victoria’s Secret Angels…[The issue was that] we wanted Angels who reflected us, who reflected an inclusive narrative, but rather than expand that to include plus, to include trans, to include diversity, they said, let’s retire the fantasy and give you something else.
SUMNER: There’s an argument that they risked obsolescence if they didn’t move in a new direction, so this is not necessarily a mistake. It’s more that as such a huge company, with so much influence, that they waited this long to make a change. This kind of blatant “inclusivity washing” is too little, way too late — and it’s far less believable when it’s the last trick they pulled out of the bag to save a business in distress.
BLAKE: The decision is especially fraught when you take into account the amount of money they’re going to lose, both in revenue and in brand equity. That collection of brand assets are all worth real money. When you see those, people instantly make a connection. It stokes that desire to buy. Now they have to build it all up again from scratch.
SUMNER: Definitely. There’s still enormous equity in the brand they’ve built. It’s still a $7 billion business that appeals to a lot of women. You have these newer brands like Savage, all championing inclusivity and turning outdated beauty standards on their head. But I think there’s room in the market for more than one type of brand and aspiration. The “old” VS might still appeal to their current customer base, so what do they stand to lose and what are their chances of winning with a new audience?
BLAKE: Obviously the goal of the company is to make money and it appears they think the most efficient way to do that is by trying to be culturally relevant.
SUMNER: Yeah, they’re selling lingerie and women’s underwear. Switching gears completely to becoming a platform that celebrates women’s voices and accomplishments might be asking people to make too big a mental leap from what they actually do as a brand. Instead of taking twenty steps forward, I think they could have started with just five or ten steps. They could have just tried to expand those beauty standards and notions of what it means to be “sexy” — but still within the existing VS brand world.
Where’s the idea: Completely missing or just a slow build?
Of course there will be people who are like, “Does this make sense?” I, too, was like, “What? Why do you want to work with me?”
—Megan Rapinoe
BLAKE: I’m really struck by how big of a reinvention this is for the brand. But also, there clearly wasn’t enough actual proof of the reinvention ready to go out to the public when they flipped the switch.
SUMNER: Exactly. There were already a lot of problems with the brand — and its products — that had nothing to do with being tone deaf or their bad place in culture. This facelift isn’t enough to magically fix that or suddenly convince women that VS is for them. You can say you’re a more inclusive brand, but if you’re not actually investing in improving the products, expanding the range of available sizes, then you’re not actually serving the women you now claim to embrace.
BLAKE: Can you think of other brands that have faced something similar? Is there an analogy out there in the history books of marketing for us to look at?
One that comes to mind for me is when Playboy announced they would no longer include nudity. That signaled a push for a more mainstream audience and a rejection of the brand’s past. In this case, the brand didn’t follow through and flipped back to its infamous nude centerfolds.
Another example is Lululemon, whose founder has just done a lot of bad, racist stuff, but they seem to have isolated the problem by getting rid of him, so the problem didn’t become endemic to the brand like it has for VS.
SUMNER: I think Gillette’s 2019 “The Best Men Can Be” campaign is an example of what not to do. It was a shallow attempt, at best, to address toxic masculinity. After serious backlash, they kind of teetered and never followed through.
On the other hand, I think Aerie’s 2014 rebrand was top notch because they launched their new stores and product lines along with the #AerieReal campaign. The change was inside-out, a whole new brand experience from the top to bottom, and not just a marketing message. They’re killing it.
BLAKE: I mean, it seems like what’s missing is an overarching creative idea, one with a roadmap for how the brand should go out into the world. There’s no action. At this point, it’s just kind of an aspiration of how they want to counterbalance their toxic effect on culture. It just seems to lack context and be too aspirational.
SUMNER: Part of what’s missing, too, is a connection between the new ambassadors, like Megan Rapinoe, and the VS brand itself. What makes Paloma Elsesser a more on-brand body advocate than, say, someone like Ashley Graham? It seems like they’ve chosen “woke” partners willy nilly at the expense of having their own POV on why these women are uniquely fit to represent VS. Championing inclusivity and individuality seems to be the only common thread, but it’s certainly not one that’s ownable to the VS brand.
Optical illusion: Are taking action and getting credit mutually exclusive?
Victoria’s Secret still has the largest market share in the US and very high brand recognition, and if they can evolve their product and distribution as well, they may be able to grow quickly again. It’s going to take more than just an interesting group of spokeswomen.
—Chantal Fernandez, senior correspondent at the trade publication The Business of Fashion
BLAKE: Something I don’t think I realized when I first heard about their new direction was that this campaign is the result of not just the old guard making a new marketing decision, but an entirely new board of mostly women that has separated from the parent company L Brands. I think this is encouraging, that it’s not just a short term thing. I think we’re really seeing the beginning of something. The question is will they be able to carry it through?
But I think we’re actually grappling with two things here, there’s the actual background work with the new, female-led board and then there’s getting credit for the optics. Those are two things in my mind.
SUMNER: So much of the buzz and debate has been among either industry insiders or a small minority of outspoken, highly-opinionated consumers. I’d be curious to know what percentage of their actual customer base is aware of the new direction. I wonder to what extent this really is going to be a complete reinvention visible to the everyday person. Or is it a short-term PR play to save face with the larger industry and investor community?
BLAKE: At the end of the day, it’s whether or not they’re putting in the real work. If they really believe that they’ve had a role in creating a problematic culture around some of these things (and think a recalibration needs to happen) then put more money where your mouth is, do more things in schools, education, advocacy.
SUMNER: It’s a step in the right direction for sure, but all optics and not enough action isn’t enough to save the business. Just because they feature a trans model or a queer model or a size 14 model doesn’t suddently make VS a “woke” brand. They haven’t actually updated their products or taken the actions necessary to deliver on that promise.
BLAKE: We can always start to get a pulse on this with their most recent communications and while there’s more diversity in their advertisements, you have to get pretty far down on their website to see plus-size models or other body types that break the traditional VS mold. And I haven’t seen any person beyond a certain age range.
I think that’s a good, though unsatisfying, place to end it. Do we need a sign off? It seems weird to just say bye to each other? Like as always Sumner, it’s been a pleasure, until next time?
SUMNER: Until next time.
BLAKE: Until next time.
The Dissection is a bi-monthly conversation where Dirt strategists (and the occasional friend) pick apart the latest hottest marketing stories. For more arguing and sh*t talking, subscribe to our newsletter.
