Victoria's Secret's Rebrand: Genuine Inclusivity or Performative Activism?

Since the first Victoria’s Secret fashion show in 1995, the lingerie company has heavily influenced the beauty standard with their very specific type of model. The ‘Angels’, as they were called, defined what we saw as beautiful for the late '90s and throughout the 2000s. They were very thin and tall, but still slightly curvier than the standard high fashion model. The majority of them were white; the most culturally diverse models they had were Brazilian or Dutch, and maybe the occasional Black model. They were all very beautiful, but in a way that fit into strict, conventional definitions of beauty. In recent years, the televised fashion show started to feature more women of color, but their body types still fit the cookie-cutter Angel look. With the rise of inclusive lingerie companies, Victoria’s Secret has been questioned about their refusal to stray from their type of models. Recently, they have stated they will end the fashion show and the Angels, and instead rely on a team of social and political figures to represent their brand.

Body inclusivity has been on the rise in the fashion industry, especially when the target customer is women. Brands like Thirdlove and Aerie have focused on selling lingerie in a way that appeals to women, rather than banking on their insecurities. The models are unedited and show how the products would look on a wide range of body types. Probably the biggest threat to Victoria’s Secret was the rise of Rihanna’s Savage x Fenty brand. Both the collections and the runway shows combined body inclusivity and diversity with glamour and fantasy. Victoria’s Secret was struggling to keep up, and they needed to change their image to stay relevant. It seemed like their mind was still stuck in the late '90s and early '00s when they were considered progressive for branching out from the ultra-thin industry look that was common in that era. VS’s chief marketing officer, Ed Razek, said “none of the designers who did shows would use any of our girls” and “they were too “fat” was the prevailing wisdom of fashion at the time”. While there may have been a time when the Angels were considered too curvy for the industry, that was almost two decades ago. The brand may have been considered inclusive in the past, but much has changed since those days. Agencies have entire divisions dedicated to plus-size models, and several other lingerie and swimwear brands regularly have plus-size women in their shows. However, Victoria’s Secret stuck with their Angels and showed no signs of diversifying.  

Victoria’s Secret has been experiencing some financial issues, heightened by the success of brands like Savage x Fenty. They’ve been questioned multiple times in the past years about their intentions to become more inclusive, and for a while, they answered by ignoring their issues. If they had taken action a few years ago, then it would’ve seemed more genuine. The time for authentic activism has passed, especially since they made it clear they had no intentions to incorporate diversity into the show. In an interview with Vogue, Victoria’s Secret chief marketing officer Ed Razek and executive vice president of public relations Monica Mitro stated they had thought about it, specifically with transgender and plus-size models, but didn’t go through with it because “the show is a fantasy”, implying that these models don’t fit in with the fantasy. Razek also said that they had tried to do a plus-size show in 2000, but that it was unsuccessful and not many people watched it, compared to the average one billion viewers of the VS Fashion Show. Razek’s comments caused lots of controversies, and in 2019 he resigned and the fashion show was canceled. 

Now, just two years later, the brand is aiming to completely overhaul its image. When Victoria’s Secret announced that they were done with the Angels and would now use the “VS Collective” to represent the brand, it seemed like a step in the right direction. The new group of women brought on to the team will be brand ambassadors and brand advisors, including soccer player Megan Rapinoe, plus-size model Paloma Elsesser, actress Priyanka Chopra and others. These women are considered to be influential and important figures in their fields and are outspoken about their activism. The company now has a new executive team with a predominantly female board of directors. Victoria’s Secret is clearly trying to improve its relationship with the current generation of customers, but it's difficult not to question their motives. Like many companies and public figures who attempt to rebrand, it is most likely an attempt to cover up a past riddled with scandal and criticism. While I would like to be optimistic about this strive for inclusivity and celebrating diverse groups of women, VS’s past overshadows this new future they’re trying to sell. The better way to go about this probably would have been to listen to and act on the criticisms years ago, because it's not like strides for inclusivity haven’t been happening for years now. This feels like a desperate attempt to pander to the wave of inclusivity and cling on to any last bits of relevancy. Had Victoria’s Secret not outright rejected the idea of branching outside of their model type, their attempt to seem more feminist and body-positive wouldn’t have come off so manufactured. I’m still hesitant to trust the intentions of the new female-dominated board and the ambassadors replacing the Angels, but at least it's a step in the right direction.