A collaborative article and conversation between Zoe Schoenfeldt and Rebecca Doyle on the infamous Victoria's Secret...
Meet Victoria, learn more about the brand's history, its revival, and hear our reader's hot takes.
imagery by Rebecca Doyle
Z: The store had always confused me, with its bright outer ambiance but dark eluded interior. It was like a cavern I could never go inside of, shielding my eyes away in fear of…something. I truly had no clue why the store evoked such a fearful response in me.
R: “Don’t look…don’t look… don’t look……”
Z: Exactly.
R: As a child of the 2000’s roaming the mall, I remember Victoria’s Secret as an ominous presence. A dark yet sparkly shop full of temptation and a sensuality far beyond me. As I grew older, I had other reactions to the brand. I saw the women in their ads, sexy, skinny, and heavily air-brushed. However edited and unrelatable, they were also undeniably beautiful, powerful, and embodying a sense of womanhood that I wanted to claim for myself.
Z: Inside I expected to see thin, size 00 women wandering the store. Instead, I saw all kinds of women shopping and actually finding things to purchase. It was weird to me, I genuinely thought the brand only catered to skinnier women based off of the models they show. I remember walking into the pink dressing rooms, trying things on and they actually fit the way I wanted. Victoria’s Secret was the first brand where I could find my bra size aside from Natori. Being a larger teenager, that was a gift from the heavens. Finally, I felt like I could wear something all the other girls were wearing. But with that, came a sense of heavy realization.
To my surprise and slight horror I also saw men. Alone. In a store allegedly made for women. As a teenager I tried my damndest to avoid the male gaze at all cost, even being fully unaware of the term, and here it was staring at the double D mannequin in a pink lacy bra. As stereotypical as it sounds, the sight of it freaked me out as I hid my first pushup bra. It almost seemed as though the brand wanted random men to be able to skulk in the shadows of a lingerie store.
The store was visually marketed as something beyond the everyday woman. Which is hilariously ironic given the store is located in every mall in America. Talk about “unattainable.” Now that is different from affordable for sure, with prices skyrocketing from when I was a teenager. My first bra from there cost $25, still pricy. But now? The average pushup can go for upwards to $80.
R: Victoria’s Secret and its fashion shows presented a visual wonderland that embraced hyper femme aesthetics, glitter, and glamor. All of this carried on the wings of the angels, an elite force of models including: Tyra Banks, Heidi Klum, Candice Swanepoel, Adriana Lima, Gisele Bundchen, the Hadid sisters and many more. While this sounds so sweet, the bite is bitter.
Z: For those that don’t know, the founders of Victoria’s Secret were two men (big shocker), Roy and Gaye Raymond. The founders had based the brand off of the Victorian era’s associated refinement, with the “secret” being hidden under women’s clothing. The brand started off with a male idealized fantasy that goes back centuries. This was also the era of Jack the Ripper, what exactly does that say?
Pretty gross. It really goes to show that it doesn’t matter what a woman wears. You cannot undo the mindless droll of a lustful man’s inner fantasy.
R: In 1982, Les Wexner, a marketing mogul and the owner of L Brands, purchased Victoria’s Secret from Raymond for $1 million. While Raymond focused on an audience of men buying lingerie for women, Wexner decided to change the direction of the branding. He is quoted as saying, “the notion of Victoria should be a ladies paradise. If men like Victoria’s Secret that should be a bonus - but in my imagination they should be uncomfortable when they are in the store.”
In a clever marketing move, Wexner hired the elegant and talented Cindy Fedus-Fields for the VS catalog in 1984. Where she helped usher in a refined look and the invention of Victoria. In fact, Victoria was a woman crafted and brought life by the team at Victoria's Secret. She came complete with an entire story, as told by Cindy on the Fallen Angel Podcast.
“Victoria was a married woman, 36 years old, living in London. Her husband was a barrister. Her mother, who was deceased, was French.
Her father, who was still living, was a very successful businessman. Victoria was introduced to fashion and luxury and the importance of being feminine by her French mother. When her mother passed away, tragically killed in a car accident, Victoria inherited money from her mother.
So, she opened a lingerie business. It was a way for her to honor the Frenchness of her mother. So even though she was English, raised in England, (and) had all of this refined English sensibility, she still loved and appreciated the romance, the fantasy of French femininity.”
Although Cindy has been clear in expressing her love for Victoria and the idea of designing for the sophisticated woman. Misogyny and male fantasy were always present in the messaging. She recalls Les showing her a Playboy magazine to illustrate to her the types of women they should be seeing in the catalog. As he described them to her, "perfect" with no "moles or freckles." Field's recalls a feeling of shock and discomfort as Les said this without hesitation to her own freckle covered face.
A few years later, Cindy became the General Manager in 1987 and was promoted to President and CEO in 1988. In fact she was one of many powerful, intelligent, and real women behind the scenes of the company, however all things had to go through and be approved by Les Wexner and eventually his hired henchman Ed Razek, who joined the company in 1994.
Z: He also happened to have retained Jeffrey Epstein as his financial manager from 1987 to 2007 until Epstein was found stealing funds. The baton was later passed through to Raúl Martinez, who recently flew his way back to Vogue as Global Creative Director of Condé Nast. Finally in 2024 we have current CEO, Hillary Super, former CEO at Savage x Fenty. With what she’s got left to work with, God help her. Super is left with the hard pressed task of restoring and reframing the brand’s values based off a tarnished legacy.
R: That is if we can or should…
Just as Mary Shelley posed to her audience with Frankenstein's creature, we are asking: is Victoria a monster by nature or by nurture?
In the 2000’s Les Wexner felt that they should design for a new woman. So, Victoria was killed, and rebuilt into the hot new it girl, a TC or target customer. Cindy Fields explains, “So this new girl had a name, TC. The muse for the company was no longer a sophisticated, vaguely European lady. TC was a fame-adjacent, upwardly mobile bombshell. TC was this 27-year-old woman. She had an MBA from Stanford. She lived in Chicago.”
The bombshell, this explosively sexual and hot characterization shaped this era of not only Victoria's Secret but many other household mall brands at the time, like the now disgraced Hollister and Abercrombie & Fitch. For those of us coming to age in this era, it created a complex and disturbing reality. Should we feel guilty for finding pleasure in the imagery that was presented to us, of women owning their sexuality?
VS became even more directed towards young women when they created PINK. A sister brand to Victoria targeted towards teens and tweens. Marketing underwear and lounge wear with their branding across the butt. How can we redefine what sexy means to us when we were taught to be bombshells? Can we be bombshells? Or was this just an elitist scheme to prey on young women’s desire to be included, by purchasing mass produced panties?
the rebrand
Back in 2018 a slew of controversies came forward. It became clear that this brand was never about empowering women behind closed doors. The marketing director at the time scoffed at the idea of hiring transgender and plus-sized models. Saying, transgender models should not be cast “because the show is a fantasy.” Despite retracting his statement Ed Razek later retired. Within the same month, the company hired their first openly trans model, Valentina Sampaio. As the father of the VS Fashion Show, Razek had many infamous lines and horrific moments.
Former employee, Casey Crowe Taylor, spoke about the abuse she faced by Razek behind the scenes of one of the fashion shows. After allegedly having his ego hurt by a broken promise of Taylor Swift wearing that year's fantasy bra, Ed snapped at Casey. Telling her she didn't need any food from the catering table. Even going as far to say "I don't even know how you look at yourself." He attempted to engage the models in his attack but none of them would answer his questions of whether or not Casey should partake in her lunch, much to her relief. She said this was never spoken of again, other than having her co-worker remark, "Ed makes some strange jokes doesn't he?" This was her last straw.
Alongside the brand's refusal to expand their ideals, was the issue with models “dieting” regiments in order to maintain their physique in the show. Many former angels and models that worked with the company have come forward to talk about the pressures they faced to remain totally toned, while being a size 0 or 00. This was a requirement to remain employed. For many, this resulted in an eating disorder or the loss of themselves to the regimen. There was also the presence of alleged misogyny and harassment in the workplace from an investigation in 2020.
The brand came under intense fire for an overt lack of diversity. The fantasy of being an angel was not accessible to all. In fact, it wasn't until August of 2021 that Victoria's Secret completely relaunched their brand after it was revealed that the company's owners had ulterior motives, and were active participants in the abuse of women. It felt like a new brand was being formed when the company became public, splitting from parent company L Brands. They decided to retire the angels. Relaunching with the motto, “We’ve changed.” This time around, diverse models presented this new era. Modeling neutral and simple everyday pieces. Hiring “ambassadors” instead of angels. With actors and Olympic stars at the forefront of their ad campaigns and collections, consumers immediately noticed the undeniable visual shift in the brand.
“We now know beauty was always yours to define. We see you.”
ok… do you really though?
While seemingly positive, the brand was instantly stripped of the glitter, the glamor, and the drama. It felt so condescending. You are welcome here but no more being sexy. This reaffirmed that the brand was more about catering to a male fantasy than listening to women. A woman wearing her underwear, even lingerie, should not be seen as a performative action for men. All women can and should receive pleasure by dressing their bodies the way they want.
Although the new branding was inclusive, many were left wondering if this was too good to be true. Many plus-sized individuals were hesitant on speaking out in support of these small changes, fearing that they would be short lived. The brand needs to not only welcome diverse bodies but embrace them. Rihanna already showed us it’s not hard to be inclusive and create a space where every woman can feel sexy in their own body. Their direct competitor, Savage X Fenty, was inclusive from the jump. Representing real and diverse beauty.
Employing a softer color palette, and stripping the brand's associated glamour down, allowed them to start from scratch. In order to fully embody the values of beauty being “yours to define” Victoria needs her boldness back. The next step could be turning the brand into a “fantasy” for women, by women. For everyone to be able to embody. The issue customers are left with is if the brand actually wants to improve, or if they feel forced to conform for the sake of relevancy.
Victoria’s Secret is battling with their past, and empowering women without the need for validation is the only way to reverse the damage. Playing it safe made it seem that the brand wasn’t willing to adapt their known and popular aesthetics for various body types. Being sexy and glamorous was only for the sake of being a spectacle, never in private, never for yourself. We’ve already seen the ways brands and celebrities embrace changing bodies without feeling the need to downplay their identity, and this shouldn’t be any different. With the changing tides, this angel had to swim before it could fly again.
Fighting so hard to break from what they once were, they killed the magic we loved in the process. They unintentionally reminded us of the nasty intentions the brand started out with. The glitter cover eventually fell off and left a gluey mess. Should we care? If we do, we should have a voice in what they show since the zeitgeist has shifted. But is the discourse worth the spark? There are plenty of places we can turn to, Savage x Fenty being one, that have viable options paired with strong values. By looking back, we risk clinging to nostalgic ideas created by capitalist schemes, vying to reanimate what once was.
she's back...
This year, things changed. The angels have been resurrected. So what does this mean? Can a diverse presentation of glamor revive the brand? Or is it a sign that we are back peddling into the return of heroin chic?
Bringing back the glitz of earlier VS runways could give the audience whiplash after their not so earnest rebrand. On one hand, they risk perpetuating the harmful rhetoric that feeling sexy as a woman is only achieved by wearing flashy lingerie. On the other, it’s giving space for women to feel empowered under a huge household brand name and, finally, for plus-size and transgender models to take up space and shine on their runway.
With iconic models of the 90's like Kate Moss and Tyra Banks at the forefront of internet commentary, viewers of the recent show had no shortage of opinions. People complained the production value was lackluster, the outfits were not as “sparkly” as they were, and that the models looked “too (insert adjective)” to be walking in the show. Unfortunately, models who would not traditionally fit the angel role faced backlash. Is it possible to escape this? After all, the brand fostered an environment that upheld an unhealthy and unattainable representation of beauty for so long.
Tyra Banks in particular was heavily criticized online. Many were commenting on her history as the host of America's Next Top Model. Pointing out how she would have criticized a model of her current size. It’s fairly strange to place the responsibility of body inclusivity on a Black woman simply modeling for a runway. Tyra is a product of the modeling industry of the 90's and early 2000's. It is hard to imagine the experiences she must have had on set that shaped her practices and opinions during the time of ANTM. The toxic teachings represented in relics of that era should be left in the past. This is about improving the industry is it not? Although we shouldn't excuse harmful behaviors from the 2000's, how can we move forward if we don't celebrate an individual's growth and acceptance of their own beauty?
We also saw the inclusion of transgender models, Alex Consani and Valentina Sampaio. Sampaio wrote in an Instagram post:
"This moment is one I will cherish for a lifetime, The Victoria’s Secret family has shown the world that being trans is just as exceptional and beautiful as anyone else on that runway. Inclusivity is crucial to the world we’re building, and I’m honored to walk with pride, love, and the hope of inspiring the next generation. Thank you, Victoria’s Secret, for making a long-held dream come true."
Meanwhile, Consani, the internet's it girl and Gen Z's darling, made her debut on the VS runway. With her wicked sense of humor, Consani is dismantling the concept of the secretive and demure angel. In fact, we can wonder if hiring Alex was the best move made by the company yet.
Many people voiced their concerns regarding the quality of the show's outfits and creative direction. Various comments said that the performers, Lisa and Tyla, had better styling than many of the actual models walking on the runway. As for Cher? Let’s be honest, it’s Cher, everybody loves her. A lot of feedback also focused on the quality of the garments looking “cheap” and some wings being labelled as “tacky.” The venue was also a cause of confusion, according to some, it looked more like a rented out warehouse than a runway. With “We are Back,” plastered across the background it left the show feeling a bit desperate.
Valid issues surrounding the styling of plus-size models, and the quality of their garments also arose. While the presence of models of all sizes was a long overdue victory, it’s easy to notice the effort to cover up their midsections on the runway. Many of the thinner models sported open two pieces, while curvier models were left with ribbons and fabrics tied around their waists. While we may not know if these choices were based off of personal comfort, it’s underwhelming to see the disparity.
This show has evidence of improvement and we should celebrate the fact that there is progress no matter how minimal. But the reversal of one brand's values doesn’t mean all the work is done. We must continue to consider how the angel fantasy impacts the societal expectations of women. Is it the brands fault for commodifying women’s sexuality, and attempting to broaden the space? Or is it our own projections onto women affecting our expectations? The answer may be both. It’s critical to think about the ways we may be critiquing from conjecture versus calling out legitimate issues with the brand's history. Many of the limitless responses to the show were about the models age, size, and general projections of personal beliefs. The focus was drawn once again to the models bodies, and it isn’t entirely at the fault of the company. If we want Victoria’s Secret to be more about empowering women through glamorous expression, we also need to be part of that messaging.
Perhaps the brand needs time and space to grow their new set of wings if we want them to stick around. With that comes imperfections, which is scary for a brand’s identity that was once rooted in an illusionary fantasy. If Victoria seeks to change, we should allow such changes to be made...
So, do you think it’s worth it for Victoria’s Secret to stick around? Do you even care? If you don’t, why not? We’d love to hear it.
BY REBECCA DOYLE & ZOE SCHOENFELDT
sources: