Jump to content

slacker

Members
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I have a lot of VS catalogs from the 90s to 2010s that I would like to sell, if you or anyone else is interested
  2. It's so obvious that they know they're being photographed, and are playing it up for the camera. What I mean to say is that I fully support their decision
  3. It's working sporadically for me now. uBlock Origin (adblocker) can interfere with it, but that wasn't the cause of the original issue because I tested it with that disabled, although enabling it now does seem to block the forward/back buttons. I can live with it the way it's working now.
  4. Thanks! You go way back to the early days of this forum too, right?
  5. Funny enough, my issue using the latest version of Firefox went away a couple of months ago. Not sure if it was a Firefox update or a forum software update. Edit: the correct image loads in the new tab and clicking the dots loads the correct image, but the fwd and back buttons don't work. I can live w that.
  6. Can I be a grumpy old man for a minute? I've been a member of this site since before it was called Bellazon, back in the Chillax days. Those are my credentials to complain like an old man. The new built-in Bellazon image gallery SUCKS for anyone using Firefox. It is straight up broken, and even if it did work I would hate it compared to the simple method of displaying large images that existed before it. Fancy image galleries with animations and resizing are annoying af. A simple click bringing up the big image with no bells and whistles other than maybe a forward and back arrow is infinitely better. I assume the correct behavior is you click on a thumbnail in a post, a separate tab opens, and the image you clicked on is displayed in large size at the correct position in the multiple image gallery (the dreaded "dots"). What happens with Firefox is you click a thumbnail and all you get is the dots and no image, or you get a different image from the one you clicked on. The forward and back buttons don't work or only rarely work. When you click a different dot you either get no image at all, or you get a random image flickering for a split second and then presumably the correct image for that dot. Sometimes you have to click the first dot in order to get it to work, but the random image always flickers when going to the next image. I hate it! And don't ask me to switch to Chrome. Never going to happen.
  7. Ever since the switch to the new image gallery, it's completely broken on Firefox, and no I'm not going to switch to Chrome. Nothing would make me happier than reverting back to the old style gallery. I'm having the exact problem described by Franwald: I click on an image in a post, a separate page opens with the gallery, and either no images load, or one image loads that's not necessarily the one I originally clicked on. The only way to get it to work is to click one of the other "dots," and then I get the random image flashing before it switches to the one that corresponds with the dots, and sometimes I get no image at all. The back and next buttons don't even work. IT'S TERRIBLE! FIX IT BELLAZON!
  8. I'm surprised no one has stated the obvious about the difference between Romee then and Romee now: she lost a ton of weight since those photos were taken, and that has changed the contours of her face.
  9. A little bit of research reveals that the TL founder worked for Aeropostale and Google, but investment capital came from a group that includes a former CEO at VS. Seems like a former VS CEO leaving and then helping to fund a competitor that is the "antithesis of Victoria's Secret" would be reason enough to inspire a call out from Razek: https://fashionista.com/2016/02/thirdlove
  10. You took some of the words right out of my mouth! Let's not forget that most of us live in a free-market, capitalist society, and ThirdLove is an underdog that is taking and running with every little scrap it can get to try to get ahead. I'm sure they were founded with good intentions, but their purpose is profit, not "caring about how women feel about themselves." All marketing, branding, and advertising is manipulation, and when a company takes a political stance they're potentially getting themselves into really hot water. Ed Razek has every right to promote his vision of his brand, and not give a sh*t if that offends the people who are not his customers. I'm not a Lamborghini customer, so the best option for me is to not pay attention to what they say as a company!
  11. ThirdLove's founder says her company is "the antithesis of Victoria's Secret." That's great, and more power to her, but VS didn't become one of the most popular and profitable apparel brands by being the "opposite." ThirdLove wouldn't be able to make the comparison or say anything were it not for VS's spectacular success over decades, branding itself the way it did. ThirdLove ultimately only cares about their bottom line and are milking this situation for all its worth to try to grab some of VS's market share. There are some interesting, contrarian comments under that post: "He’s right though. Stop looking at everything through the lens of social justice. Some people like women to look like women and be feminine. Not plus size, not trans ...traditionally feminine. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Get over it. This constant social justice is annoying and boring." "Some women enjoy being feminine and wearing pretty lingerie. Who are you to judge them for that?" "I understand both sides here. The way Ed went about wording his statement was very wrong, but on the other hand he has a point. If their company wants to focus on fantasy and slim 'angels' then so be it. We have so many other amazing companies out there that support women so much, so instead of hating on one company for wanting a certain brand style, shop at the companies you do support and focus on being supportive instead of hatful! We all need to accept that were all different ❤️" As was pointed out in the quote from The New Republic in my previous comment, criticizing VS for promoting a certain image of women and body type through the lens of social justice and "body positivity" is a complete waste of time. It's like criticizing Bentley and Lamborghini for low fuel efficiency. For my whole life I was brainwashed to believe that Hitler-style fascism was the worst thing that could happen to a nation, but the current political climate in the USA has shown me that Left Wing Authoritarianism can lead us down a road that's just as bad. If a company wants to put on a fashion show with models who are plus size, trans, and physically or mentally disabled (see: Aerie campaign - https://www.teenvogue.com/story/aerie-models-disabilities-illnesses) I am ALL FOR them having the freedom to make that decision, but I'm not going to watch it, not going to be excited by it, and most importantly, not going to be inspired to run down to the store and spend MY money. If that business model works and turns a profit, fantastic. I grew up despising advertising, but as I've gotten older I've realized that it serves one useful purpose: it shows a culture a reflection of itself and what it really wants. I'm old enough to have watched ideals of male and female beauty evolve from the birth of aerobics and fitness, 90s supermodels, "heroin chic," VS Angels, and doe-eyed "aliens," so if the next generation decides that ordinary, chubby, disabled, and trans is "sexy" then who am I to argue? On the other hand, take a walk through any major art museum and check out the ancient statues depicting the ideals of male and female beauty. There's a reason why we have "ideals" that push the envelope beyond the ordinary. To move forward, we need to aspire to more, not get lazy and decide that "everyone is special." I'll be sad if the VS brand dies or become unrecognizable, but I'm also aware enough to accept that everything changes and nothing stays the same. I just don't like this prudish, divisive, unsexy, un-fun, cultural and political situation at all.
  12. Thanks for that link! I had a feeling Reddit would be talking about this topic but hadn't searched for it yet. Here's a quote from a short piece from 2014 in The New Republic that also sums up the problem with people blaming VS, and VS being expected to change their business model: "But the most significant problem with this whole outrage chain is that its just misdirected energy. This is a company that cashes in on many women’s insecurities and desires for unattainable standards of beauty. They have a poor track record dealing with similar controversies, and their entire premise is to sell women a sexualized vision of themselves. Why should we look to them for body sensitivity? That disregards the company’s entire purpose as a retailer. Companies should be held accountable whenever they use offensive or insensitive campaigns to turn a profit. But obsessing over those companies least likely to change their methods just seems like a waste of time." https://newrepublic.com/article/120290/latest-victorias-secret-backlash-just-all-others
  13. A New York Times headline on the front page of their website now: "Victoria’s Secret? In 2018, Fewer Women Want to Hear It. The lingerie company has clung to the idea that women should look sexy for men. And its stock is falling." I've been paying attention to the news that L Brands stock is tumbling into free fall and VS isn't doing well, and really trying to understand why that might be the case. That headline is trying to imply that there's a correlation between a lot of VS marketing hinging upon "women looking sexy for men" and the separate issue of its "stock falling." I have a theory: #MeToo and identity politics are killing the original vision of the brand, which is totally incompatible with those political forces, and instead of decisively going one way or the other (either ignoring the politics and staying unabashedly "sexy" and "sexy to men," or becoming a relatively unsexy brand that only sells boringly photographed, comfortable underwear), they've watered their branding down into a confusing mess of mediocrity. If you read a lot of personal opinions from female shoppers online, it's very clear that killing the clothing and swim lines was a huge mistake. That's two fewer reasons for the average shopper to visit the physical stores, where they might be tempted to buy something else while they're there. That also represented something like $500 million in annual sales. Every article I've read that tries to explain why the sales and interest are plummeting is pushing the same theory: that somehow basic human nature with respect to gender relations has changed due to what looks to me like a political fad. Yes, we needed the scumbags exposed by #MeToo outed, shamed, and sent to jail, and that hashtag and trend lasted for a few short months, but a social media hashtag and a few celebrities getting exposed does not equal Women's Liberation and Equal Rights, which was a struggle that lasted for decades. BUT, go out on a Friday night in any major city and you will see nothing but women who want to look sexy for men, and vice-versa. Perhaps the woman writing that NY Times editorial should have just said she would like to see the world eliminate all advertising as we know it. Sex sells, sex has always sold, and the moment sex stops selling, we can be sure that the end is near for our species. Sexual attraction and the desire to be sexually attractive drives almost all advertising, and anyone who says it doesn't is lying to themselves. Advertising is aspirational: you don't see a reflection of yourself as you are, but of how you would like to be, and how you would like others to see you. IMHO, VS is dying because they completely removed the "fantasy" (no more interiors, just white walls and boring lighting; no more catalogs), they've hit a brick wall with "sexy" due to their executives not knowing how to respond to #MeToo and identity politics, they've destroyed their "angels," by watering them down with too many, and hiding their personalities, which used to be the "personality" of the brand itself, and they killed 2/3 reasons to visit the store, by ending clothing and swim. All brands have a "personality," (see: Wendy's Twitter for a great example), so what was the VS personality that made it great, and what's the VS personality now? It was great when it was unapologetic about being sexy and provocative, had products, marketing, and stores that appealed to both men AND women, and it had a maximum of 5 Angels that gave the brand a face and a voice. Now, the "personality" of the brand feels weak, indecisive, mediocre, voiceless, pandering, and tone deaf. VS is in the worst position a formerly successful brand can be in: instead of leading the trends, they're following and playing catch-up. RIP Victoria's Secret, and thanks for the memories.
  14. I'd bet anything that top row w the Mother's Day scans were scanned by me years ago. I'll try to find the files and upload the full res versions
×
×
  • Create New...
Do Not Sell My Personal Information