Jump to content
Kevork89

The Official Victoria's Secret Thread

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Clauds said:

Lily's done with VS, I don't think there will be an announcement tho, so we're now down to 11 Angels.

This saddens me a lot because Lily is such an amazing person and model. If only she'd gotten a proper farewell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been lots of signs Lily's been done with VS so this isn't surprising. However, I hope she comes back for one last show next year like Doutzen, Lindsay, Karlie and Erin did.

 

Maybe they'll finally update the VS All Access page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VS clothes? No sane person over the age of 14 would be caught dead in their clothes. Swim was too expensive as is all their lingerie tbh - I like most of my friends only shop their when it’s a sale or with my staff discount lol. The problem is they’re outdated and selling the same image they did in 2005 only now it’s out of date and looks tacky. Also ed Razek looks like an old Perv and is off putting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ceceshores said:

There's been lots of signs Lily's been done with VS so this isn't surprising. However, I hope she comes back for one last show next year like Doutzen, Lindsay, Karlie and Erin did.

 

Maybe they'll finally update the VS All Access page.

 

As far as I know, Lily is not coming back for one last show. Which kinda sucks but at the same time I understand because it wouldn't make any sense after missing this year's show. We'll see next year but I don't think it'll happen, especially because I can see Lily scoring another contract before the show happens in a whole year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fashionfreak1 said:

VS clothes? No sane person over the age of 14 would be caught dead in their clothes. Swim was too expensive as is all their lingerie tbh - I like most of my friends only shop their when it’s a sale or with my staff discount lol. The problem is they’re outdated and selling the same image they did in 2005 only now it’s out of date and looks tacky. Also ed Razek looks like an old Perv and is off putting

I agree about the regular VS clothing, they were all boring and stuffy looking or shiny and sparkley like what a little kid would wear...but PINK yoga pants are great! I'm glad PINK is such a good seller because I will continue to buy their pants and occasionally some of their sweatshirts. 

 

Swim was expensive, but I love their swimsuits and would gladly continue to spend money on them. I just wish they'd bring them back. 

 

But yes, some of their image is out of date, I will also agree with you about that. And my VS store still has pictures of Miranda and Douzten from the 2011 show up!!! Miranda is in her FB and Doutzen is in her Ballet outfit. If you weren't a fan of VS or VSFS, you wouldn't know those weren't current, but still..they've been up for YEARS, how does their signage and marketing for their store not change? When I worked at Bath and Body works, we were constantly having to change signs and put up new advertisements. Why does my VS still have Miranda as the first person you see when you walk in the store, followed by Doutzen? Don't they have Angels who are actually...oh, I dunno....WORKING for the company that they could use? So weird. 

 

Can anyone who works at VS explain this to me please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only clothes that I keep buying is the PINK line. The sweatshirts and sports pants are the only thing that so far seem pretty, I do not know why the main line of VS can not do things like that or an aspect that can be nice. I also have a pair of yoga pants from VSX but I still think that the price is very high for the quality they offer lately. There are other brands that make better designs at a more reasonable price.
Definitely VS would recover some money if they bring back the line of swimsuits.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bump said:

But yes, some of their image is out of date, I will also agree with you about that. And my VS store still has pictures of Miranda and Douzten from the 2011 show up!!! Miranda is in her FB and Doutzen is in her Ballet outfit. If you weren't a fan of VS or VSFS, you wouldn't know those weren't current, but still..they've been up for YEARS, how does their signage and marketing for their store not change? When I worked at Bath and Body works, we were constantly having to change signs and put up new advertisements. Why does my VS still have Miranda as the first person you see when you walk in the store, followed by Doutzen? Don't they have Angels who are actually...oh, I dunno....WORKING for the company that they could use? So weird. 

 

Can anyone who works at VS explain this to me please?

 

I could partially answer your questions :)  First of all the photos are part of a limited edition collection that is exclusive for in-store marketing. Each photo is printed on photo paper (not the usual paper they print marketing on) and each has a serial number on the back. They used to pencil the numbers in but I am pretty sure now they print the numbers digitally :p Unlike other  VS marketing materials (I assume it was the same as B&W), the stores send these photos back to Home Office, instead of destroying them in-store and throwing them out.  Second, part of the Angels' contract states how long VS is allowed to use their images even after their departure. The specifics is probably something decided right before each Angel leaves and it could vary.  I am pretty sure it is to prevent the situation that happened with Stephanie Seymour (and I think Heather Stewart-Whyte) when she left. The situation cost the company A LOT of money because they had to pay employees overtime to remove all [public] marketing images of her across the company. Also, considering how Angels come and go (especially nowadays) it is would be more practical and cost-efficient if they didn't remove images Ex-Angels in their store marketing right away. Hopefully I have answered your question :flower: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lillia said:

What does this say about their models ,lots of instagram followers and  yet they cant move a productline.Their biggest mistake was not setting up VS pink as a seperate brand with its own stores,catalogue ,make up ,perfume etc .instead it swallowed up their main line.

Im suprised  Ed is still allowed to call the shots .

 

 

Having a lot of Social Media followers and being able to sell products are sometimes mutually exclusive. It is a assumption, and sometimes mistake, a lot of the companies make :/ PINK does have its own store and it is a free-standing sub-brand of VS. BTW, I know for a fact Ed was not the one who made this decision about PINK, nor is he the person who called shots in all these decision before or currently. Beauty is also its own sub-brand although it is not free-standing anymore and not as blatant as PINK. I don't feel like going into details right now b/c it is kinda long. Also most companies have separate division for store and catalog/eCommerce. It is not unique to VS :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2018 at 2:02 PM, PinkCouture said:

VS Black Friday Tote (2018)

 

Another photo of the Black Friday tote along with the  PINK Black Friday Tote and other 2 BF images:

image host image host

 

image hostimage host

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elsa reminds me of little riding hood in the next to last pic, and she is stunning in the blue bra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think lead angel will be Grace and Taylor. They are young beautifull and American.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PinkCouture said:

 

Another photo of the Black Friday tote along with the  PINK Black Friday Tote and other 2 BF images:

image host image host

 

image hostimage host

What grown adult will carry that bag with pride sooo tacky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, PinkCouture said:

 

I could partially answer your questions :)  First of all the photos are part of a limited edition collection that is exclusive for in-store marketing. Each photo is printed on photo paper (not the usual paper they print marketing on) and each has a serial number on the back. They used to pencil the numbers in but I am pretty sure now they print the numbers digitally :p Unlike other  VS marketing materials (I assume it was the same as B&W), the stores send these photos back to Home Office, instead of destroying them in-store and throwing them out.  Second, part of the Angels' contract states how long VS is allowed to use their images even after their departure. The specifics is probably something decided right before each Angel leaves and it could vary.  I am pretty sure it is to prevent the situation that happened with Stephanie Seymour (and I think Heather Stewart-Whyte) when she left. The situation cost the company A LOT of money because they had to pay employees overtime to remove all [public] marketing images of her across the company. Also, considering how Angels come and go (especially nowadays) it is would be more practical and cost-efficient if they didn't remove images Ex-Angels in their store marketing right away. Hopefully I have answered your question :flower: 

Thank you! That does make more sense. And yes, we were supposed to send certain marketing back to Home Office. I do remember we threw stuff away sometimes but it was little stuff like price signs. 

 

I would like to see pictures of the Angels and not Miranda (even though she was one of my favorites) at my VS store. But I can understand why. They do show the latest VSFS on big screens behind the checkout, so that's cool. My mom and I critique the outfits as we wait to buy our stuff lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently VS has already a new CEO and is John Mehas, president of Tory Burch. We'll probably read more of this soon but i truly hope VS change for good with this... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...
Do Not Sell My Personal Information