OPINION: Victoria’s Secret is Ditching Their Angels. Why?
HIROKO MASUIKE/NEW YORK TIMES
The views expressed in this article are the authors’ alone. Responses or comments may be sent to ehnewspaper@gmail.com
On June 16, 2021, after more than two decades of creating and setting impossible beauty standards, Victoria’s Secret launched their newest campaign: VS Collective. A press release from the brand described it as “an ever-growing group of accomplished women who share a common passion to drive positive change.” This was a desperate grasp at detached consumers in a changing culture of womenswear. Victoria’s Secret’s CEO, Martin Waters, said it best, “We lost relevance with the modern woman.”
Victoria’s Secret Angels were an iconic and unique category of supermodel. Not only did their contracts include runway shows and photoshoots, but also brand events, promotions, and talk shows. There are many Victoria’s Secret models, however only a few “Angels.” The Angels took on an ambassador role critical to the popularity and fundamentals of the brand.
It is no secret, (Victoria), to what one might associate with an Angel. Most obviously they are skinny, then drop-dead gorgeous, and if you wanted to think critically, oftentimes white. Victoria’s Secret proudly promoted and used extremely narrow beauty standards to sell their product. With those marketing strategies still in the rearview mirror, why should consumers allow such a drastic turnaround.
The downfall of the Angels may then be seen as positive to many: if Victoria’s Secret is becoming inclusive isn’t that a good thing? However, do we as consumers want inclusivity as a last resort to a plummeting brand? According to Business Insider, between 2016 and 2018 Victoria’s Secret’s US market share dropped nine percent, and by 2018 same-store sales were down three percent. Inclusivity was not implemented into the brand out of activism, it was a superficial business saving grace.
In November 2018, the then Chief Marketing Officer of the parent brand to Victoria’s Secret, L Brands, Ed Razek, told Vogue in an interview, “so it’s like, why don’t you do [bra size] 50? Why don’t you do 60? Why don’t you do 24? It’s like, why doesn’t your show do this? 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.”
The tone-deaf comments led to major clapback from critics, many wanting Razek to step down, however it was the female CEO of Victoria’s Secret, Jan Singer, who resigned a week after the controversial interview. Her replacement Jon Mehas was left with a mess and some angry shareholders.
In March 2019, major shareholder Barrington Capital sent a letter to the Chairman and CEO of L Brands, Leslie Wexner, saying “Victoria’s Secret’s brand image is starting to appear to many as being outdated and even a bit ‘tone deaf’ by failing to be aligned with women’s evolving attitudes towards beauty, diversity, and inclusion.”
This was an undeniably defining moment. Victoria’s Secret would not have survived if it did not adapt. Time was of the essence and they stepped up their modern-feminist image. Within a year the brand appointed two more female board members, hired a ‘body-inclusive’ model and a transgender model. Additionally, Ed Razek stepped down as CMO of L Brands, and model Shannia Shaik told the Daily Telegraph in Australia that the annual fashion show was cancelled.
However, these positive changes left a sour taste when Leslie Wexner and Victoria’s Secret were linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A lawsuit filed by lawyer William Uroch states that Epstein allegedly used his connection to the brand to lure 16 year-old Maximilia Cordero into his mansion in New York City, promising her a modelling career. Wexner said about his relationship with Epstein at an investors meeting: “Being taken advantage of by someone who was so sick, so cunning, so depraved, is something that I’m embarrassed I was even close to. But that is in the past.”
This emotional address was not convincing however, as by February 2020, L Brands announced that Wexner would be stepping down as chairman and CEO, yet staying on the board of directors. Then came the Pandemic which caused a 55 per cent stake deal with private equity firm Sycamore Partners to fall through. Sub-brand PINK was on the brink of bankruptcy. The empire was falling, and what was there left to do to save it?
That is what set the stage for the Angels’ to get the boot. Scandal after scandal, loss after loss, the brand had to be reinvented. Leslie Wexner and Ed Razek had built the brand to what we have always known it as: steeped in misogyny and exclusion. With the changing times and no strong leadership, Victoria’s Secret collapsed.
This complete deconstruction is evidence of the deep-rooted misogyny and exclusion in the brand. Victoria’s Secret did not ‘re-brand’, they toppled down and were forced to build themselves back up to something palatable to current consumers. The final jenga block of the Angels shows their criticality to the previous branding. This begs the question: is inclusivity and empowerment as a last resort enough?