Victoria's Secret: From Glitz to Grit – Did Embracing Diversity Cause its Downfall?

Victoria's Secret, once a behemoth of the lingerie industry, now stands as a cautionary tale, its wings clipped and glitter dimmed. Its trajectory – a meteoric rise followed by a spectacular crash – begs the question: did its attempt to embrace diversity contribute to its downfall? The answer, like a lace garter, is deceptively intricate.

Born in 1977, Victoria's Secret catered to a specific fantasy: the male gaze personified by "Angels" – scantily clad supermodels strutting down runways in flamboyant wings. It was a hypersexualized ideal, one that thrived in the 80s and 90s. The annual fashion show, a sequin-studded spectacle, became a cultural phenomenon, drawing millions of viewers. Sales soared, the brand synonymous with unattainable beauty standards and a narrow definition of sexy.

Yet, the tides were turning. The #MeToo movement and body positivity wave challenged Victoria's Secret's exclusionary gaze. Women demanded comfort, diversity, and a celebration of all body types. The "perfect body" ideal was crumbling, and Victoria's Secret, clinging to its wings, seemed oblivious.

In 2018, then-CEO Ed Razek made inflammatory comments about plus-size and transgender models, igniting widespread criticism. The brand, accused of being tone-deaf and out of touch, faced boycotts and plummeting sales. The iconic fashion show was eventually canceled, marking a symbolic end to an era.

So, where did Victoria's Secret go wrong? Was it simply a case of failing to adapt to changing social values? The answer is multifaceted.

Ignoring the Diversity Landscape: For decades, Victoria's Secret operated in a self-made bubble, catering to a limited view of what women find desirable. Their marketing leaned heavily on male fantasy, perpetuating unrealistic beauty standards and excluding a vast majority who didn't fit the "Angel" mold. When the wind of change blew, the brand found itself unprepared to navigate the diverse landscape of female desires.

Misconstruing Inclusivity: In response to growing criticism, Victoria's Secret embraced "diversity" haphazardly. Casting a few models of color or plus-size figures wasn't enough. It felt tokenistic, a mere bandage on a gaping wound of exclusion. True inclusivity requires understanding the nuances of different body types, ethnicities, and gender identities, and designing products and marketing that truly resonate with them.

Internal Dissonance: The brand's attempt to reconcile its hypersexualized past with a newfound inclusivity created dissonance. The push for comfort clashed with the push-up bras and barely-there lingerie; the celebration of body positivity coexisted awkwardly with airbrushed advertisements. This internal conflict confused customers and diluted the brand's identity.

Competition from Savvy Newcomers: While Victoria's Secret clung to its outdated formula, a wave of innovative lingerie brands emerged, catering to a diverse clientele. These brands offered comfortable, functional lingerie, embraced inclusivity, and prioritized ethical production – all things Victoria's Secret had ignored. In this new battlefield, the brand's once-powerful wings felt heavy and outdated.

However, to claim that embracing diversity solely caused Victoria's Secret's fall would be oversimplifying a complex story. Internal mismanagement, financial missteps, and a failure to innovate all played a part. Yet, ignoring the changing demands of its customers, particularly their desire for diverse representation and body positivity, undoubtedly contributed significantly to its decline.

Victoria's Secret stands as a cautionary tale for brands clinging to outdated ideals. In today's world, diversity and inclusivity are not trends, but necessities. Brands that fail to recognize and embrace these values risk not just falling behind, but becoming irrelevant altogether.

Its 2023 relaunch, touted as a bold embrace of diversity and body positivity, landed with a resounding thud, igniting controversy and leaving many wondering – can the brand truly rise from the ashes of its troubled past?

The anticipation surrounding the relaunch was palpable. After years of declining sales and mounting criticism for its exclusionary practices, Victoria's Secret promised a fresh start. Gone were the "Angels" in their barely-there lingerie, replaced by a diverse cast of models representing various body types, ethnicities, and abilities. The revamped marketing featured women of all shapes and sizes celebrating their bodies, a stark contrast to the hypersexualized imagery of the past.

Yet, the cheers of praise were soon drowned out by a chorus of criticism. Accusations of tokenism and performative activism were hurled at the brand. Critics argued that the casting choices felt like mere window dressing, a superficial attempt to appease without making any real changes. The lingerie itself, some pointed out, remained largely unchanged, catering to a narrow body type and perpetuating the same standards it claimed to reject.

Part of the problem, many argued, was the disconnect between the messaging and the brand's history. The legacy of objectification and exclusion cast a long shadow, making it difficult for viewers to buy into the new narrative. Questions lingered about the sincerity of the brand's commitment to diversity, with past controversies like Ed Razek's insensitive comments adding fuel to the fire.

Further complicating matters was the format of the relaunch itself. Replacing the extravagant fashion show of yore was a tour featuring intimate, model-led presentations across the country. While some praised the shift towards a more relatable approach, others saw it as a way to avoid scrutiny and control the audience's experience. The lack of a central platform, some argued, diluted the message and hindered the relaunch's ability to reach a wider audience.

However, amidst the skepticism, there were glimmers of hope. Some lauded the brand's efforts to move the needle, even if imperfectly. The inclusion of plus-size models, LGBTQ+ models, and models with disabilities, they argued, was a step in the right direction, a sign of progress that shouldn't be dismissed. Others commended the brand for opening up the conversation about body acceptance and inclusivity, even if it meant facing uncomfortable truths.

The Victoria's Secret saga is far from over. Whether the brand can truly shed its tarnished image and embrace a diverse future remains to be seen. Its 2023 relaunch, though controversial, serves as a crucial test case, highlighting the challenges and complexities of navigating an industry in flux. The path forward will require not just cosmetic changes, but a genuine commitment to understanding and celebrating the diverse desires and bodies of its customers. Only then can Victoria's Secret truly hope to reclaim its wings and soar once more.