As The BFD reported last week, lingerie brand Victoria’s Secret is going woke. Its famous catalog is dumping its stock-in-trade of scantily-clad Barbie dolls. Instead, perpetual sourpuss Megan Rapinoe, “plus-sized” Paloma Elsesser and some bloke in a dress are its latest figureheads.
But is this yet another case of getting woke and going broke – or vice-versa?
Victoria’s Secret has been struggling for years. Trying (successfully) to grab some publicity by embracing wokeness is just its newest marketing gimmick.
Don’t be fooled: this has little to do with female empowerment[…]
Greater diversity in female representation is something to celebrate, but let us be clear: this is a marketing tactic by a flagging brand to regain some semblance of cultural relevance (and revenue).
Victoria’s Secret’s annual showcase fashion show has been shedding viewers even faster than the Oscars.
For a long time, its annual fashion show sold a fantasy, even if it was a formulaic one. Models with Barbie bodies, bejewelled bras and bedazzled angel wings would strut down the runway against a backdrop of pop performances from the likes of Lady Gaga and Harry Styles; one lucky Angel got to wear the ‘Fantasy Bra’ (which could be worth up to £3.5m). Yet its viewing figures have been steadily declining; its 2018 catwalk show gained only 3.3 million viewers, its lowest ratings ever and a sharp drop from five million viewers just the year before. In 2019, the show was cancelled altogether.
So what’s caused the decline of a once-iconic brand?
There are many reasons behind Victoria Secret’s steady decline. Their products are overpriced and their sizes are limited, misleading, and inconsistent. What’s more, given the various lockdowns of the past year, consumers are probably more interested in comfort and convenience than lacy lingerie sets.
Perhaps most importantly, Victoria’s Secret has time and time again failed to adapt to changing consumer demand. The show’s insistence on using very tall, very thin, conventionally beautiful models has become anachronistic in a world that increasingly celebrates and champions body positivity.
The first is probably true, the second less so. While Twitter activists might bang on about “body positivity”, real people are less interested. There’s a reason grimly “realist” Soviet-style dramas rarely succeed while even the most mediocre Hollywood fantasies continue to draw audiences.
But the firm still has a long way to go if it wants to prove it is not just simply jumping on the female empowerment bandwagon. Like everything else about Victoria’s Secret, this rebrand appears to only be skin deep.
Spectator Australia
Comic-book publishers like Marvel and SF franchises like Star Wars have tried jumping on the “female empowerment” bandwagon – and their sales have tanked. All they’ve done is alienate fans by trying to appeal to Twitter loudmouths who were never interested in comic books or SF movies.
Contrary to the whining of bedroom feminists, it’s not that there isn’t a market for strong female representation – James Cameron proved that decades ago with iconic characters like Ellen Ripley and Sara Connor – but wokeness is a pose that audiences can smell a mile away.
Audiences can smell the off-putting stench of desperation, too.
This is the unique twist Victoria’s Secret has put on the formula. They’ve been going broke. So they’re going woke as a desperate sales gimmick.
Cosmetics manufacturer Dove has pushed a successful female empowerment marketing agenda for years. But Dove succeeded where Victoria’s Secret will surely fail, for two reasons.
First, they weren’t pushing empty, pandering ‘wokeness’. Secondly, they at least appeared to mean it. Victoria’s Secret once sold a fantasy; now it’s trying to sell a lie.
Consumers might buy the one, but they’ll run a mile from the other.
Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD
