Victoria's Secret is bringing back its famous runway fashion show later this year, with the old Victoria's Secret supermodels. This made me wonder why re-branding to being an "inclusive" brand worked for a company like Abercrombie & Fitch, but not for a company like VS, which is going back to its roots. In this episode of The DWD, I talk about that rebranding angle. Other places you can find The DWD: Newsletter: thedevilwearsdatanews.beehiiv.com/subscribe LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/thedevilwearsdata/ Instagram: @thedevilwearsdata Articles mentioned in the video can be found in the video description. Enjoy & thanks for watching! :)
Being obese or being a man identifying as a woman isn't inclusivity though. It literally goes against the companies whole aesthetic of being a beautiful and sexy woman. I can agree that VS needed more black women, asian women etc and they started including those like Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell who were gorgeous, great figures etc. Everyone, including men and women loved seeing Tyra Banks and Naomi in their prime on that runway. But then VS, decided to add plus sized models. That is great. Plus size though is like Kate Upton or Toccara Jones. But VS went too far and some of those models were not plus sized/hour glass. They were just obese, which is not appealing. And the beginning of the end was adding biological males into the show. It's true a lot of people don't support this concept. But it's also because transwomen are pretty detectable and noticeably different from biological women. So the curves, small feet and hands, softer bodies were gone. They were replaced with big hands, big feet, no hips and muscular transwomen. People don't find that appealing for the VS brand.
I mean, that's an industry wide problem. I'm reading Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its luster, by Dana Thomas, and it is so good to hear that I am not imagining things - I have watched clothing quality tank over my 40+ year lifetime. You aren't wrong, guys. Quality is in the trash. I thought I was just an old lady yelling at clouds.
@@manicpepsicola3431 They really were though (which is something I've complained about maaaany times) back when I got my first couple of pairs of underwear from the PINK line, the material was thicker cotton, well-made (carefully sewn seams and clean stitching), soft and sturdy waist bands and elastics, literal EMBROIDERED logos! I actually still have a few pair (yes they are 20 years old, no I do not wear them though I COULD and that's kinda the point.) The underwear they have now and that they have had for roughly the past ~15 years is absolutely horrific quality that barely makes it through a single wash in the washing machine.
I think the issue was less that there was inclusivity but more that inclusivity meant boring to VS. Fat people and trans people and people of colour still like lace, glitter, and pretty patterns. You can be inclusive AND glamourous.
When I was doing the research for this video, this was probably the top criticism I came across - people really hated that “inclusive” suddenly translated to “boring.” It’ll be interesting to see how they incorporate diverse models at the VS fashion show later this year, which is going back to its old ways
100%. They went the wrong direction. They made it clear that they did not and could not see all of their prospective customers as part of the fantasy. They chopped their wings off. It almost reads like they are sulking about having to dress normal people. If they had a marketing team with any sense, they would rock the most fabulous inclusive show ever. Add sequins and sparkles and lace in hard to find sizes and colors, and make your own niche, guys. You have the reach to blow up the market. Big fail on their part.
Abercrombie was always marketed to the people who were going to wear the clothes. VS was always marketed to the men who wanted women to wear the clothes.
I feel like Abercrombie was marketed to my mom growing up, and that is how she ended up buying my brother it. Then when I was that age it was not relevant anymore.
I disagree. I think Victoria's Secret was always marketed to the women who wanted the validation of the men who wanted the women in the lingerie. The majority of their customers were women. Fewer women care about that now. It doesn't mean that women no longer want pretty things. They just don't want the fantasy to be targeted towards the men. Savage X Fenty sells a fantasy but it isn't about appealing to men like male validation is the only way to be sexy.
@@morighani Roy Raymond founded VS with the explicit intention of creating a store where men could feel comfortable shopping for their wives (etc.). It is true that directing marketing more towards women fueled expansion after he sold it, but their stock in trade has always been male fantasy.
this, VS is the only brand that i would eye whether by accident or on purpose when i pass thru women's isle, all the other brand seems like it was marketed towards women, but VS seems like it was marketed towards men, which, tbh, why would men buy that?
I haven't watched the full video yet, but my guess is that inclusivity isn't the problem. It's the fact that the look of the products they marketed after the rebrand isn't what they were known, they looked like a poorly thought out unoriginal savage fenty clone. They'd have done better by being inclusive without trying to be avant-garde at the same time
I think you missed the point of the video entirely, this video looks at ONE angle of the companies - the rebranding angle. Nothing of what you said is related I am a marketing professor and will be using this video to teach my class.
I also kind of wonder if it has to do with changing demographics and economy... Historically, VS was meant for men to buy lingerie for their wives/gfs. But fast forward to today, there's the loneliness epidemic, and existing couples are economically burdened even if both have jobs. Women have more income now, but still can't afford much compared to men back in the day who could afford a literal house in their 20s with almost any job. So it makes sense women today will on average rather buy the more practical casual everyday-wear over overpriced lingerie while on a budget. I have bought things from VS myself, and honestly don't see the quality matching the price. I can buy something of similar quality off Chinese sellers on Amazon or Aliexpress for like $10 instead of $60. And ethically it doesn't make much difference because VS like any clothing brand probably gets their product materials from the same place anyway. Moreover, while on a budget, the innerwear matters far less than the clothing that people will see in public. The general expectations for women have changed from being an at-home wife, to being a big part of the workforce, less women feel a "need" to wear sexy lingerie to please their man or woman (plus I think people today seem to not be so picky when it comes to what women wear, they just want that bod lol), as the focus shifts from the husband to the general public where we are better off to focus on clothing for work or going out. And in today's economy less men can afford to buy clothing as gifts to their women (especially since now that most women have their own income, will have more individualized tastes that their bf/husband may not be able to satisfy). So I think more women who buy it today are doing for themselves who genuinely enjoy it, and not just for their man. They no longer feel obligation to, like in the olden days of dependency, and less men are buying lingerie as gifts.
People seemed to have forgotten that VS was losing money before they went inclusive. I remember watching quite a few reasons on the fall of VS before. Either this was not known the the public or people wanted to forget that.
@@sugarzblossom8168 This is true, VS negative growth was in the single digits then launched their DEI campaign and The Collective aka Purple Haired Weirdos then their revenue went down by double digits LOL
It's the same issue that Bud Light's marketing director noted in their brief segment later in the video - when your market share is shrinking, you have to find ways to expand the market back. In the case of Bud Light, rather than trying to make a new product that is appealing to younger drinkers (who don't like the taste of American lagers as much as their parents did) they simply tried a pure marketing strategy and it backfired. At least both VS and A&F are updating the products themselves, not just trying to sell the same old products to new people. I only shopped at VS once. I found the bra ill-fitting and uncomfortable. My size isn't that unusual (32F) but I've gotten better fitting bras at Target.
@@katarh the fitting system they use is also odd. They measured and fit me at a 34B twice. It was way too small. I generally wear a 32DD or 34D, and Macy's, Soma, and every other lingerie store managed to fit me correctly. I find Soma, Maidenform, and Warners much better quality and fit at the same price as VS, so haven't bothered with VS in a couple years.
The trouble with VS is the things they provided to be inclusive weren't pretty, they weren't sexy, at best they were basic but the fits weren't good. Ladies who are larger still want to buy sexy, pretty underware, they still want a fashion show that is a fun, sexy feminine show and they made it boring.
obviously anything inclusive is gonna be ugly because of the regression to the mean of the lowest common denominator. Beauty is rare by definition, it's requires exclusivity for the standard to be maintained - aka refinement. When you have a group of people who celebrate ugliness in everything including buildings, they listened to the marketing team but people lie. Everyone wants to be beautiful BECAUSE not everybody can be. So they gave people the attainable they THOUGHT they wanted and it backfired - hugely.
@@softdev1there you go. and the fact ppl refuse to believe this is so funny reading the comments 💀💀💀 the fact is the angels could make a potato sack look sexy
@BlackRose-rp7kv The angels wouldn't be able to make poorly fitting and poorly sewn underwear look pretty. No Victoria's Secret Angel would look good in this outfit, I'm sorry. 0:10 😆
It makes me so glad and thankful that i dont live in the US or Europe. I don't have to tiptoe around the English language and grammar to keep people around me happy. Being around people who allow each other to speak and comment on everything around us lik a normal human being instead of indulging in weird word salad and redressed words is just one of the main reasons my own children are growing up "normal". No one is trying to guess their "sexuality" as toddlers 😢
LMFAO there is no way you actually believe literal toddlers are trying to figure that out. Stop reading propaganda sincerely, an American 🇺🇸 @@trefens5635
VS rebrand was just insulting 😑 I mean to be inclusive appearently meant to be boring to them. It signaled to us women that to VS, if you are not a tall slim super model goddess, you only deserve to wear boring underwear and not the glitzy, sparkly fantasy underwear their VS angles were wearing before. Gee, thanks VS 😑 In addition to that stain on their brand imag, their products also became of poor quality and higher price. There simply was no reason to buy VS anymore.
A lot of SJWs hate on pretty stuff as appealing to the male gaze or some BS. When that demo mostly hate beauty and prize what is ugly, they just went with what the customer SAID they want but don't ACTUALLY want.
One comment about the rebranding that stuck with me called it boring, almost saying: "to include *your (insert any adjective here)*, we HAD to make it boring!" And somehow it's quite visible, even without all the data.
When you know a group really doesn't want anything to do with you, but is forced to include you because they need your dollars, what does that really say about you as the consumer if you spend your money with them?
@@ippanpedrozo1162 i think you're confusing "justified criticism" with whining - you have no basis for your judgement, which ironically means that your comment is just that - whining
@@ippanpedrozo1162 nobody forced them. They were doing badly as a brand, they wanted extra money, they saw a part of the market who just weren't investing in them (i wonder why), and made a half assed attempt at capitalizing on them. it didn't work (who would have guessed). No matter how much they were criticized, you do realize that people can choose not to buy from them right? and if they do so, well the brand will have to make some decisions, what are they gonna focus on. nobody "forced" them. you are treating a brand as a puppy. If the brand doesn't provide a product that people are buying, for one reason or another, call it whining or not, well, tough luck, what do you expect? for people to shell 40 dolars for a shitty bra they don't want just out of pity for a conglomerate? they aren't doing you a favour you know? the criticism alone doesn't even matter. you think VS's spirit was crying on their pr room at the thought of some tweets? no. i can promise you, if their growth was unaffected and fruitful, they would have gone on automatic pilot like before. the "whining" (which, it's actualy valid criticism, not just whining, but regardless) didn't accomplish anything. in the end, it turns out that neglecting a big chunk of the population isn't the smartest business idea when your competition has actually managed to capitalize on it (and now you are the loser).
Got it. So Abercrombie opened the door to its exclusive club, while Victoria's Secret got rid of selling a beautiful dream and gave, instead, a harsh dose of reality.
Yep thing is, no dude wants too see fat chicks in lingerie and neither do women. VS was supposed too be a fantasy not reality whereas as Abercrombie wasn't selling lingerie they were seen as snobbish. Difference between dropping being snobbish and changing your brand too something it isn't
Exactly. Like, it's not difficult to continue to make lacey, sexy underwear but in way bigger sizes and dress the bigger models as the angels. Instead they chose to just make their underwear as boring as humanly possible
@@miglek9613 it's like they didn't even deign to do any market research, because one of the biggest complaints from plus size women is that bras in their size are mostly the boring stuff and it's hard to find pretty pieces.
I’m a professional bra fitter and I will tell you the problem with Victoria secrets is they’re sizing. Most women are not a 32C or 34D. Their products are cheap, tacky, and do not provide any necessary support the girls need to stay lifted and not painful. Shop small business and look for a local bra fitter in your area instead of supporting a company like VS 🍒🍒
@@InnocuousInes-pe8mk Problem: going publicly traded is like a disease. It slowly taints the goals, leadership, and mission of the company as it approaches optimizing its stock price and value. The effects aren't immediate in many cases.. It can take decades to cycle out old leadership and ideas. I'd say any compromise on quality is nearly always a private equity problem, because the kind of principle that says, "Let's cut every corner we can and see what we can get away with, while still keeping our market share and reputation," is generally a profit and *ultimately* private equity motivation, not a principled one from a good company. We should absolutely believe our lying eyes that when a company, over the course of decades, *decreases* in quality rather than working to maintain or improve its quality is likely not doing so for the benefit of its customers, but the people putting money into their company who want to see bigger quarters. Of course, marketing is its own beast. They did say it themselves, they want to appeal to the cool kids. The vapid and the vain, short-lived trend followers, who probably don't care or really think ill of their clothing falling apart within a year or two. You could argue, I guess, that providing the least quality service that people will still buy is still providing a service they see value in, but I just see it as long-term manipulation abusing the ignorance of their customers in quality fashion, and using their old brand name they built on better practices as leverage.
@@ippanpedrozo1162you know what? i'll explain it to you anyway, abercombie says "hey... we expand the size range so you can fit too!" while victoria secret says "here's a duller version of our your fatass can wear" and now we can see the difference!
This actually isn’t the first time that Abercrombie has had a major rebrand, like they used to make fancy camping and hunting gear in the 1900’s and like Teddy Rosevelt was really into them and my grandparents have a rifle that was made by them Like quite the wild swing from being like a boogie version of a bass pro shop to the jeans that the popular kids at your school wore
I dunno, it made sense to me... They were a preppy REI selling quality camping gear which then transitioned into preppy outdoors clothing which evolved in to preppy clothing company for young people...
OK so there are a few reasons I loved this video: 1) I have seen videos about Victoria’s Secret and Abercrombie individually but never together. They truly are great to compare because sometimes people will be like “oh Abercrombie made a comeback because their clothes are inclusive now.” Yeah but so are Victoria’s Secrets so that’s not enough of an argument! 2) you really touched on the points the other videos miss. You mention their positioning - VS was adored for the fantasy. So many women loved the Angels, the wings, the godly supermodels that didn’t seem human. I personally want that back! I was sad when the show stopped being a thing because you’re right. It’s just like Disney. It was a FANTASY! 3) I think you’re right. They’ll incorporate the inclusive models with the old school models and that’s what will bring them back into the limelight again. The difference between evolution and revolution is something I haven’t thought of before but makes so much sense!! Thanks for an awesome video. I just subscribed to your newsletter and can’t wait to see more of what you do!
VS didn’t have to remove the glamour from their inclusivity. People loved the fantasy, the shine and angel wings. Nothing wrong with putting a plus-size model in their ads, but give her pretty wings. They put these new models on beige backgrounds and made no effort to make them look attractive, you would not recognise the photoshoot as VS if you didn’t see the logo
I would argue that it is easier to make +size clothes than bras for bigger boobs. Later must actually be well crafted and constructed. Which is why after all the funky marketing and strategy changes VS still had to bring the knowledge and craftsmanship into their designs. But they didn't.
I would also like to point out that VS will 100% fit you in the wrong size bra. Their people don't know how to actually do bra fittings and the fact that many of their bras only go up to DD cup size (which in reality is more of a medium size, not large) means that a lot of women cannot find a good fitting bra at VS and the staff will often just give them a size that's band is too large and cup is too small. There is way better info online about how to get a good fitting bra nowdays, so fewer people are falling for VS's BS. Idk if Abercrombie even sells bras, but if they do its a way smaller part of their business and I don't think anyone would think of going there to get fitted.
@@claudiameier666bra sizes go up to Q at least, i’m an i so comparatively DD isn’t large. plus a lot of people get measured wrong so their cup size is to small.
They also inflate sizes at what seems like random. Many young women I knew would get fitted at VS and be told their size was 2 cup sizes larger at VS and fit poorly
@@claudiameier666 nope. There are small DD. Small band DD cups are small. I'm a 32DD and my cups are significantly smaller than a 36C's cups. I do not look super well endowed. A 32D is smaller than a 34C, volume wise.
Brilliant question and even better analysis! I've seen a lot of stuff around Abercrombie doing well, but I had never thought to compare it with VS. It's true -- the two brands are SO similar in terms of audience and stuff...but inclusivity only worked for one of them. I love that you've included sources in this story both of who were great! Thank you!
IMO, inclusivity is not the issue, it was simply a branding mismatch for Bud Light. Brands must seek out new audiences to grow, however Dylan Mulvaney was totally misaligned with the brand. If they wanted to tap into the LGBTQ+ community, a safer bet would be a conservative gay man with that kind of country, rough and tumble aesthetic, or a white woman with the same vibe to try to get more women into drinking their beer. Better yet, develop a product that mimics that seltzer/wine cooler type drinks that are popular in these groups. I totally agree that VS has neglected influencer marketing for far too long. Imagine a VS or Pink PR unboxing or brand trip?! People are still excited about these brands and teens are excited to get to know them. There is a lot to be unlocked there!
Are you on a marketing team? Because if you're not, I'd suggest you try to get into one. You are one piece of paper away from being a more competent corporate marketer than most, if even.
@@jacobp.2024 alot of the time the problem isn't the marketing team it's the company management/shareholders. not to say all marketers are competent and saintly, but many of these problems come from the fact that large companies are usually undemocratic in nature which means that if the shareholders have a bad idea and you have a good idea, you're doing the bad idea anyways because I said so and I pay you. doesn't help that alot of companies use contractors for marketing which puts the marketer in an even weaker position to say something against a bad idea.
@@EPWillard very true. I’ve worked in marketing for years for corporations. The boss gets the final say. No matter how idiotic their ideas are you do what they say. Forget my years of experience. We’ll just go with the CEO’s campaign who has zero marketing experience 😒
no. dylan mulvaney wasn't even involved in any marketing, all that happened was a single customized can sent to her. THAT'S IT. her tik tok being funny about it came right into the biggots alley to weaponize. it really was straight up bad luck. there was never a marketing campaign involving her.....and as a proof, bud light themselves did a 180 extremely easy, they had no association with her, no business relationship, nothing (and as a side note, said 180 didn't satisfy anyone lol)
Progress is good but I'm too bitter to buy from them. They didn't want me as a customer then, they are not getting my money now. There are enough other brands that have been inclusive for much longer, without making a big deal out of it. And I am frankly disappointed that not more customers have a long memory. Cheers!
This is just my initial guess but I think one issue with VS, yes they added plus sizes but it looked sloppily thrown together. The clothing wasn’t actually flattering to the plus size models. In my option it was a “since you begged so much, here just take it” but there wasn’t any forethought into actual designs for plus bodies. They just tried to copy paste already made styles for smaller bodies
Sadly the new A&F stuff just feels like generic fast fashion garbage. They no longer carry their original staples and I don’t really see a brand identity now, you’re just paying $80 for something you can get on SHEIN for $6
That is because fast fashion has killed the market. You won’t buy a new shirt if it last too long and you won’t buy a trend because you are 13. See the issue, how will they endlessly grow at faster rates if they don’t make crap. Most people will buy it either way.
@@RusticRonnie i don't know about that. i buy my clothes to last. part of it comes down to choosing smartly, not just throwing away money on a single piece that supposedly will last you forever (not to mention, even in theory, that is only useful for something like a coat, and maybe shoes, because your body changes a lot thought the years). Chose clothes that will work with each other, find a staple for yourself on a sale and get two or three of the same, now you can wear one while the other is washing, you can spread the wear out which makes them last longer even if you sum up the wear time, etc. Personally, i see some decay in clothes quality, but also in their pricing, nothing stops you from shelling out more if you deem it worth it. Not to mention, again, you can buy smartly, don't just grab the first thing you see on a shelf, think about the type of textile it's made of, what you would wear it with, how easy it will be to wash, etc.
Interesting, inclusivity was helpful to Abercrombie because it increased its customer base and did not clash with its overall selling point. The same cannot be said for Victoria Secret.
All I know is that VS never had my size, and after all this talk about inclusivity, they still don't. Abercrombie on the other hand, greatly expanded its size range.
Bought a vs set last year and I was so excited bc I grew up watching the glamour and the glitz and wanted that experience (I’m no supermodel, not even close, I’m average) but that bra didn’t last five wears. The seams were awful and the underwire was probably the worst thing ever. It was more of a painful contraption honestly. Also want to add that growing up in a VS dominated world, EDs were EVERYWHERE. It was the “heroin chic” era. Practically every girl in my class would gather together and watch their diet and workout videos from the models. And I remember trying it out and literally crying as a 5’1 13 year old because what those 5’10+ grown women were eating was wayyyyyyyyyyyy too little for me. I associate VS with unhealthily obtained thinness. Never saw that with Abercrombie though, they were more of the “sporty, athletic, chic” type. No “what I eat in a day/week to stay stick thin”
I don't understand why VS couldn't just put mid&plus sized and disabled models in the same high fantasy lingerie & wings as the other models, that could be sick af. u could deck out any prosthetic limbs in like, gold and jewels. keep the brand fantasy alive while being more body inclusive. I feel like this would have worked way better
no it would look gross. thats not what vs is about. if people actually want2 that then oraganize a show. wfenty could have disavbled they already have fat
Exactly - they became just like any other underwear brand out there. Before the re-brand, you could instantly tell apart VS models from other underwear models - because they had a very specific look. This was not just their body size - they could have easily added in models of different shapes and sizes, but kept their original vibe. It was the hair especially - they all got that iconic bombshell style. The makeup, the posture/walk, the femininity and the joy. There was more focus on sensuality and glamour. And the way the angels were actually ambassadors, and interacted with their followers in certain 'angelic' ways. I get that they did have very specific requirements for people who wanted to be models. But compared to other models (who can sometimes be walking skeletons), the VS models seems very healthy, fit and shapely. And it was part of that uniformity that made them so recognisable. But not the only thing that made them beautiful.
I think the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light situation also relates to something you said about authenticity, a lot of customers who would've applauded Bud Light's inclusion boycotted the brand afterwards because of how the company handled the backlash. Dylan was put through a horrible experience from people who reacted badly & she shared that the company did not back her up or offer to help her in any way in dealing with in. So because of how the company abandoned her admist the backlash more inclusive potential customers turned against the company, plus their follow up actions made their initial feature of her seem more inauthentic & calculated.
They are actually starting to make their sizes A LOT bigger. As someone who has shopped there for a while because other brands don’t offer true petite sizes, i’ve noticed the clothes are now mostly mediums when they used to be extra small. This is probably because all of the backlash the brand has faced and vanity sizing. I think it’s interesting that people are all for body inclusivity until it involves skinny people.
the point about Abercrombie "opening up" their exclusivity in a way that VS couldn't, because VS's brand image was more aspirational (but accessible) than exclusionary, is really interesting. Abercrombie didn't just market exclusivity in their ad copy, they were exclusive. Their clothing was definitely on the more expensive end of the suburban wardrobe and kids who were rocking new Abercrombie every week during the height of its popularity were spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on that one brand. Their graphic tee shirts were like $50 and some kids had dozens of them. Opening up their ad copy makes that perceived luxury status seem accessible to more people. Past the glamour of the seasonal Angels show, VS was a relatively affordable brand that could sell the idea of "you'll never be Heidi Klum, but maybe you can feel glamorous and desired/desirable with some new lingerie" while getting customers to regularly come back for dailywear with frequent discount and "free product with purchase" coupons. But at some point there must've been a law that every shopping mall in America, even the very dead ones, must have a Victoria's Secret. I'm a cis-dude so I can't speak for any experience firsthand, but I've known more than a few people who had wardrobes full of VS because they'd keep getting free stuff, even if they didn't think the bras were a 10/10, etc. My understanding is that online shopping and a proliferation of better options for sizing + fit + quality, etc have also largely hurt VS in the last 15 or so years.
this is an amazing piece of work that i can use as a starter for my future research on this topic! as a law student, i’m interested in all things business, and it’s always fun to connect something i love (fashion and retail) with my degree and future career. the research papers really made the information more credible. thank you for the video, excited to follow what’s coming next ;)
Great analysis and comparison. I really appreciate the research that you put into your videos. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's quite another to have the ability to back up those opinions/ideas with hard data and facts. As someone who understands and appreciates the importance of evidence-based and evidence-informed practice and decision-making, thank you so much for ensuring that your information is appropriately researched. I also really liked your analogy of a toxic friend finally growing up and deciding to be better - oh, I wish more companies and people did this! Looking forward to your next video, DWD.
This was the first video on this channel I’ve watched, and I immediately subscribed! Love that it’s a balanced mix of analysis from the creator and that subject matter experts were consulted too!
VS clothes show off a fit body. They're not just aspirational, but actual flattering clothes that can be bought by those of us with fit bodies! A&F was for a certain life stage and client profile who grew up, so they needed to grow up too. Their clothes still look good, even on the plus size models. The clothes don't require a fit body, even if ads used to only use fit models before. VS clothes look terrible on unfit bodies.
Great video. 100% spot on, VS suddenly changing the brand identify and values seemingly out of no where _of course_ made consumers think 🤨 what’s up? Also 100% should have just made subtle changes in products available and marketing over time and stay flexible and aware of what consumers were saying of the changes and proceed accordingly.
I never noticed how Victoria Secret has such great beautiful clothes before until, recently i thfited their angel collection of dresses and shorts. HUGE difference between now and then (it’s crazy). The feelings of the clothes versus now is weird. Weirdly a size XS now versus then are very different. I expected the thifted peices to be tighter and uncomfortable but that wasn’t the case and i even bought a corset,dress and other things in XS and they fit TOO tight. I’m even slightly loose in XS clothes and I find it insane how i cannot breath right in an XS bustier- keep in my mind my waist is 22inches.
I'm about to enter my last 6 months of my marketing degree and one of mu modules is retail marketing. Thank you for this video. It is such a great analysis 🎉. I was someone who loved watching the VS shows when I was younger (I am now 28), and always admired the fantasy. I was shocked by their rebrand and this helped me understand my feelings a lot more.
I think a major reason VS has not bounced back yet is because the re-brand has been quite recent, I think with the right direction & a few more years VS can potentially regain some market-share. A&F has been rebranding since 2015, there has been a lot of time for people to forget how toxic A&F was but the incidences with VS are pretty recent and still in the public conscious.
It really wasn’t that recent it was years ago no one noticed though. I remember when I started seeing curvy models it was years before the pandemic for sure.
It seemed like they were on the right track with the VS Pink stuff, not really sure why they didn't expand there more? Literally Pink stuff in a wider size range probably could have competed with Aerie
I am an investor, mainly interested investing in fashion & beauty supply companies, start ups and brand names, insights provided in your Video is worth admiring and the detailed analysis is very helpful in making a right decision, outstanding and keep it up, can’t wait to see more of this kind of videos 👍🏼
I haven’t even finished this video completely but I have to say kudos to you! This is very well done, incredibly interesting, and a great data driven take. I really look forward to checking out the rest of your videos!
I think that inclusivity worked for Abercrombie is that was the “cool kids” brand for Millennials and younger Gen X (born 1977-1980). Now that these Millennials and younger Gen X are in their 30s and 40s, and 40% of Millennials are high mid-size (size 12-16) or plus-size, this was the opportunity to give these Millennials/younger Gen X a chance to go back to their childhood and FINALLY be one of the “cool kids”. The majority of today’s Abercrombie customers are Millennials and younger Gen X, so that’s their target audience. It worked because it played on that age group’s inner teenagers who dreamed of being able to wear Abercrombie. Victoria’s Secret’s inclusivity didn’t work because like you said, it lacked authenticity. The VS modeling show was targeted at MEN, and their stores were targeted at women who wanted their men to think that they’re as sexy as the VS models. Other lingerie brands (like Fenty) were already size-inclusive, and they were targeting women who just wanted to feel sexy in their underwear for THEMSELVES, not to get a man’s approval. VS only went inclusive because they were getting their clocks cleaned by brands like Fenty and Aerie.
You guys are overhyping Abercrombie’s come back. They have been restructuring for almost a decade of course they were going to come back, but they’re not good yet. They are constantly being sued for under paying employees and other stuff
Basic business 101 is to understand your customer. Ideology, by definition, is exclusive and only attracted the fringe of society. Ask your customer and listen to your customer, but the key point is the business needs to go out to ask their customers. Responding to customer initiated feedback can be dangerous as once an ideology understands this they can manipulate this.
Abercrombie literally caused me trauma as a teen. I won’t let my daughter shop there. F them. They purposefully made a whole generation of girls feel awful about themselves
VS among my peer group, is seen as bad quality and bad sizes. I stopped buying VS in my early 20s and switched to True&Co for GOOD bras, and Aerie/Target for cheap bras. Also the death of the mall probably did a lot because I hardly ever see stand alone VS stores. No one goes to the mall anymore. Also the marketing for VS was always aimed at men, by the time they became more inclusive, women were sick of their shit.
Cause fat girls can finally be pretty but we're not ready for sexy. Also, the quality declined over all product categories at VS. It almost seemed intentional like "fine, take it then"
In a day and age where Fenty lingerie and Fenty runshows exist, why does Victorias Secret have to copycat that? Its not their brand, it never was and people who do still consume VS want to have it like it always has been. Imo not everything has to be super inclusive and such, brands who are searching for a "luxurious" status dont do that because if everyone can have it, then it is not exclussive...
I dont think inclusivity is the issue either. These brands have some similarities but its really comparing apples to oranges. Abercrombie was able to rebrand its styles to suit gen z’s changing taste. VS wasn’t. Adding inclusive body sizes to a brand that is still based around openly performing to the male gaze isn’t going to make it suddenly appealing to younger audiences. They hate that shit
Myself and many other small chested women were told we don’t have anything for you in the 2000s. Pretty exclusionary, they’ve never been cool to fashion girlies , it’s like a secret 😂 girls did not advertise it a Victoria secret bra was the best fit for them .
Not every company can/needs to be specialized in plus sizes, it depends on their branding and what they can do well, if they can’t figure out how to bring their brand into plus clothing and still keep their quality, it’s not going to go well. It’s ok for some brands to have niches sometimes. Just like how Torrid is exclusive to straight sizes, nothing wrong with that, it’s just their brand and their specialty.
I remember going to VS for the first time in my life with my girlfriend last month, and it was SO disappointing. All our life we had heard it was sexy and glamorous, but when we went there... It didn't have anything we wanted. Nothing looked pretty enough, or sexy, or glamorous. We couldn't have cared less about the inclusion: they just didn't have nice lingerie.
@6:05: "... models with rare proportions..." That's always been a big part of the professional modeling industry - formal measurements and a lean, voluptuous and sculpted hourglass shape. I'm thankful people in the industry have PUBLICLY ADMITTED to THIS FACT!! Having these physical attributes IRL made you objectively sexy/beautiful in the eyes of others. They were considered special. As long as the models were healthy and DIDN'T have eating disorders, I don't see why they had to change the representatives of an ICONIC lingerie/fragrance/gym apparel company!! I never liked Abercrombie - thought their style was preppy.
@elisabeth4342 No, current model proportions have only been fashionable since the early 90s. Before that classical figures close to average weight were preferred models, and before that very petite slightly plump set glamour standards. Tall and slim was viewed as ugly a century back. Society literally flips to the opposite ideal on a whim and forgets what they thought before. Kinda stupid.
It seems like they must be listening to feedback, because in the past few weeks I have seen several items coming through that appear to be higher quality material/assembly - they are carrying jackets and heavier indigo dyed denim that are a nice step up. Also liking the cropped fit tops for men, more please.
I feel like either evolving the angels to include conventionally pretty but curvy people OR going for a revolutionary Devils or Phoenixes line could have worked better. Or if they wanted to age with their audience maybe a seperate comfort line without sacrificing that core iconic demographic
Bud Light didn't have to completely shut itself off from all LGBTQ+ marketing. They could have stood by Dylan and simply pointed out how they have supported the community since the 90's. For example, most of the rainbow cans were from 2-4 years before the controversy started. In contrast, Nike's sales soared after partnering with Colin Kaepernick in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and it was because they didn't back down after conservatives revolted. So what happened with Dylan was a complete marketing fail for Bud Light all around after doing so well literally until last year.
Majority comes down to corporate identity. VS was and to a degree still is centered around sexual often male fantasy and spectacle, A&F was more skinny hot people and loud overly perfumed dark stores. A&F in that sense is way more accessible and has much more room to adjust. VS on the other hand was/is very locked into their position, so it’s much harder to pivot and more likely to offend the preexisting customer base that want to buy into fantasy not a more sober reality. Not every brand does well with inclusivity (depending on the execution obviously) and from a marketing perspective, VS should have probably doubled down on the exclusivity, because sudden inclusivity just absolutely did not play to their strengths or customers. It just comes off as insincere at that point and changing people’s associations and expectations of a brand takes time.
"While it may not seem obvious at first, there are subtle differences between the two companies" I mean not to be a contratian but one sells clothing to teenagers using the cool teen factor, and the other sells sexy lingerie using unattainable but aspirational supermodels, that alone is a pretty obvious key difference
I remember a neighborhood couple fight at this apartment where the woman was angry at her boyfriend for buying her lingerie from Victoria Secret. Her issue with it, that she was screaming, was not because he bought it but because he compared her to those plus size 'models' from them. Thus, she infer to this as him saying that she is fat and ugly like those 'models' when she really isn't close to that, even without makeup; she was not slender either just average curvy build and a good face. I believe what really happened is that girlfriend already turned away from the brand but her boyfriend didn't knew and paid the price for his ignorance.
VS reacted too slow. The buyers dictate the trends and not the brands. The brands just can anticipate and jump on the trend wagon to capitalise of that. When the trend was inclusivity VS remained rigid and lost many customers. Now with the rise of more feminine and traditional styles for women they are again behind, when they could have incorporate this style perfectly because it has been their style all along. It would have felt more natural and authentic. They are responding way too slow to trend changes. There are brands who shape trends and brands who can only follow. VS seems to be in the second category and they’re doing a bad job at it.
I’ll never understand thr A&f turn around . It was considered so uncool to wear it at my hs in the 2000s . It was only popular in all white schools and shit, absolutely clowned on and only the racist white kids wore that shit , I wouldn’t have been caught dead in Abercrombie
I only ever heard about it through some song, but otherwise nobody I knew or went to school with even mentioned it. Maybe because my school was more than half Asian? Idk how popular it is with Asian Americans.
I mean I always thought it was because their quality was trash, their sizing is literally a satire of itself, and the price is nonsensical. I literally get an skin reaction to their clothes the couple times I tried to buy them. Even after I washed them three times, even when I idiotically went back and bought different clothes from a different Victoria's secret, still the contact dermatitis what's the internet it says might be because they literally soak their clothes in a formaldehyde derivative when they ship it across the ocean. And you can imagine the stuff Victoria's secret sells is not where you want to have that kind of reaction.
One question is that there is no point in just bringing inclusion to the catwalks and campaigns. We need larger sizes in stores. Some brands work with inclusion in campaigns, but this is not reflected in the products offered.
Just now, I went on Victoria's Secret's website. Even now, when they're supposedly more "inclusive" you can't get a bra with a cup size bigger than a DDD/F online. So many retailers online offer a wider range of sizes now. That certainly isn't helping VS.
Victoria's Secret is bringing back its famous runway fashion show later this year, with the old Victoria's Secret supermodels. This made me wonder why re-branding to being an "inclusive" brand worked for a company like Abercrombie & Fitch, but not for a company like VS, which is going back to its roots.
In this episode of The DWD, I talk about that rebranding angle.
Other places you can find The DWD:
Newsletter: thedevilwearsdatanews.beehiiv.com/subscribe
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/thedevilwearsdata/
Instagram: @thedevilwearsdata
Articles mentioned in the video can be found in the video description.
Enjoy & thanks for watching! :)
Being obese or being a man identifying as a woman isn't inclusivity though. It literally goes against the companies whole aesthetic of being a beautiful and sexy woman.
I can agree that VS needed more black women, asian women etc and they started including those like Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell who were gorgeous, great figures etc. Everyone, including men and women loved seeing Tyra Banks and Naomi in their prime on that runway.
But then VS, decided to add plus sized models. That is great. Plus size though is like Kate Upton or Toccara Jones.
But VS went too far and some of those models were not plus sized/hour glass. They were just obese, which is not appealing. And the beginning of the end was adding biological males into the show. It's true a lot of people don't support this concept. But it's also because transwomen are pretty detectable and noticeably different from biological women. So the curves, small feet and hands, softer bodies were gone. They were replaced with big hands, big feet, no hips and muscular transwomen. People don't find that appealing for the VS brand.
For me its the quality of the VS products. The quality went down while their prices went up.
To be fair they were never known for their quality
I feel that way about A&F. The old jeans and flannels were the best ❤
I mean, that's an industry wide problem. I'm reading Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its luster, by Dana Thomas, and it is so good to hear that I am not imagining things - I have watched clothing quality tank over my 40+ year lifetime. You aren't wrong, guys. Quality is in the trash. I thought I was just an old lady yelling at clouds.
@@manicpepsicola3431 in the '90s their basic underwear and bras were actually very good!
@@manicpepsicola3431 They really were though (which is something I've complained about maaaany times) back when I got my first couple of pairs of underwear from the PINK line, the material was thicker cotton, well-made (carefully sewn seams and clean stitching), soft and sturdy waist bands and elastics, literal EMBROIDERED logos! I actually still have a few pair (yes they are 20 years old, no I do not wear them though I COULD and that's kinda the point.) The underwear they have now and that they have had for roughly the past ~15 years is absolutely horrific quality that barely makes it through a single wash in the washing machine.
I think the issue was less that there was inclusivity but more that inclusivity meant boring to VS. Fat people and trans people and people of colour still like lace, glitter, and pretty patterns. You can be inclusive AND glamourous.
When I was doing the research for this video, this was probably the top criticism I came across - people really hated that “inclusive” suddenly translated to “boring.” It’ll be interesting to see how they incorporate diverse models at the VS fashion show later this year, which is going back to its old ways
100%. They went the wrong direction. They made it clear that they did not and could not see all of their prospective customers as part of the fantasy. They chopped their wings off. It almost reads like they are sulking about having to dress normal people. If they had a marketing team with any sense, they would rock the most fabulous inclusive show ever. Add sequins and sparkles and lace in hard to find sizes and colors, and make your own niche, guys. You have the reach to blow up the market. Big fail on their part.
They are absolutely throwing a tantrum , if you want the ugly people we'll give you the ugly clothes 🤪
@@ambds1975 They did that and it didn't work.
it's fap material for men, who want to look at women.... just women
Abercrombie was always marketed to the people who were going to wear the clothes. VS was always marketed to the men who wanted women to wear the clothes.
I feel like Abercrombie was marketed to my mom growing up, and that is how she ended up buying my brother it.
Then when I was that age it was not relevant anymore.
I disagree. I think Victoria's Secret was always marketed to the women who wanted the validation of the men who wanted the women in the lingerie. The majority of their customers were women. Fewer women care about that now. It doesn't mean that women no longer want pretty things. They just don't want the fantasy to be targeted towards the men. Savage X Fenty sells a fantasy but it isn't about appealing to men like male validation is the only way to be sexy.
that’s not true at all lol. vs was always marketed for women
@@morighani Roy Raymond founded VS with the explicit intention of creating a store where men could feel comfortable shopping for their wives (etc.). It is true that directing marketing more towards women fueled expansion after he sold it, but their stock in trade has always been male fantasy.
this, VS is the only brand that i would eye whether by accident or on purpose when i pass thru women's isle, all the other brand seems like it was marketed towards women, but VS seems like it was marketed towards men, which, tbh, why would men buy that?
I haven't watched the full video yet, but my guess is that inclusivity isn't the problem. It's the fact that the look of the products they marketed after the rebrand isn't what they were known, they looked like a poorly thought out unoriginal savage fenty clone. They'd have done better by being inclusive without trying to be avant-garde at the same time
I think you missed the point of the video entirely, this video looks at ONE angle of the companies - the rebranding angle. Nothing of what you said is related
I am a marketing professor and will be using this video to teach my class.
I also kind of wonder if it has to do with changing demographics and economy... Historically, VS was meant for men to buy lingerie for their wives/gfs. But fast forward to today, there's the loneliness epidemic, and existing couples are economically burdened even if both have jobs. Women have more income now, but still can't afford much compared to men back in the day who could afford a literal house in their 20s with almost any job. So it makes sense women today will on average rather buy the more practical casual everyday-wear over overpriced lingerie while on a budget.
I have bought things from VS myself, and honestly don't see the quality matching the price. I can buy something of similar quality off Chinese sellers on Amazon or Aliexpress for like $10 instead of $60. And ethically it doesn't make much difference because VS like any clothing brand probably gets their product materials from the same place anyway. Moreover, while on a budget, the innerwear matters far less than the clothing that people will see in public.
The general expectations for women have changed from being an at-home wife, to being a big part of the workforce, less women feel a "need" to wear sexy lingerie to please their man or woman (plus I think people today seem to not be so picky when it comes to what women wear, they just want that bod lol), as the focus shifts from the husband to the general public where we are better off to focus on clothing for work or going out. And in today's economy less men can afford to buy clothing as gifts to their women (especially since now that most women have their own income, will have more individualized tastes that their bf/husband may not be able to satisfy). So I think more women who buy it today are doing for themselves who genuinely enjoy it, and not just for their man. They no longer feel obligation to, like in the olden days of dependency, and less men are buying lingerie as gifts.
People say this but more people had a problem with the inclusivity.
Cool thesis but watch the video maybe?
How about you watch the video
People seemed to have forgotten that VS was losing money before they went inclusive.
I remember watching quite a few reasons on the fall of VS before. Either this was not known the the public or people wanted to forget that.
@@sugarzblossom8168 This is true, VS negative growth was in the single digits then launched their DEI campaign and The Collective aka Purple Haired Weirdos then their revenue went down by double digits LOL
It's the same issue that Bud Light's marketing director noted in their brief segment later in the video - when your market share is shrinking, you have to find ways to expand the market back. In the case of Bud Light, rather than trying to make a new product that is appealing to younger drinkers (who don't like the taste of American lagers as much as their parents did) they simply tried a pure marketing strategy and it backfired.
At least both VS and A&F are updating the products themselves, not just trying to sell the same old products to new people.
I only shopped at VS once. I found the bra ill-fitting and uncomfortable. My size isn't that unusual (32F) but I've gotten better fitting bras at Target.
but wasn't A&F losing market share and money before their pivot? I agree with the video that the VS pivot was too sudden and not well thought out
it got worse when they did die hiring and runway showing
@@katarh the fitting system they use is also odd. They measured and fit me at a 34B twice. It was way too small. I generally wear a 32DD or 34D, and Macy's, Soma, and every other lingerie store managed to fit me correctly. I find Soma, Maidenform, and Warners much better quality and fit at the same price as VS, so haven't bothered with VS in a couple years.
The trouble with VS is the things they provided to be inclusive weren't pretty, they weren't sexy, at best they were basic but the fits weren't good. Ladies who are larger still want to buy sexy, pretty underware, they still want a fashion show that is a fun, sexy feminine show and they made it boring.
obviously anything inclusive is gonna be ugly because of the regression to the mean of the lowest common denominator. Beauty is rare by definition, it's requires exclusivity for the standard to be maintained - aka refinement. When you have a group of people who celebrate ugliness in everything including buildings, they listened to the marketing team but people lie. Everyone wants to be beautiful BECAUSE not everybody can be. So they gave people the attainable they THOUGHT they wanted and it backfired - hugely.
@@seabreeze4559 you can still make pretty underwear for people of more than one body type. Other companies do it.
I bet if you put the “ugly” underwear on the Angels, it wouldn’t be boring or ugly at all.
@@softdev1there you go. and the fact ppl refuse to believe this is so funny reading the comments 💀💀💀 the fact is the angels could make a potato sack look sexy
@BlackRose-rp7kv The angels wouldn't be able to make poorly fitting and poorly sewn underwear look pretty. No Victoria's Secret Angel would look good in this outfit, I'm sorry. 0:10 😆
The fashion drinking game: Take a drink whenever you hear a euphemism for "fat".
You'll end up in the hospital!!!! All fashion does now is catering to the whales and gaslight you saying they are beautiful!!!
😹👏🏻
It makes me so glad and thankful that i dont live in the US or Europe. I don't have to tiptoe around the English language and grammar to keep people around me happy. Being around people who allow each other to speak and comment on everything around us lik a normal human being instead of indulging in weird word salad and redressed words is just one of the main reasons my own children are growing up "normal". No one is trying to guess their "sexuality" as toddlers 😢
LMFAO there is no way you actually believe literal toddlers are trying to figure that out. Stop reading propaganda
sincerely, an American 🇺🇸
@@trefens5635
VS rebrand was just insulting 😑 I mean to be inclusive appearently meant to be boring to them. It signaled to us women that to VS, if you are not a tall slim super model goddess, you only deserve to wear boring underwear and not the glitzy, sparkly fantasy underwear their VS angles were wearing before. Gee, thanks VS 😑 In addition to that stain on their brand imag, their products also became of poor quality and higher price. There simply was no reason to buy VS anymore.
A lot of SJWs hate on pretty stuff as appealing to the male gaze or some BS. When that demo mostly hate beauty and prize what is ugly, they just went with what the customer SAID they want but don't ACTUALLY want.
You could always start your own underwear line and give the people what they want
@@seabreeze4559 You just made that up! SJWs love pretty lingerie just like everyone else. Why do you think people loved Savage X Fenty? 😂
then people could shop elsewhere. noone has to cater to us fat folk .
@@softdev1no they can’t, that is an expensive endeavor that is hard to get money for.
One comment about the rebranding that stuck with me called it boring, almost saying: "to include *your (insert any adjective here)*, we HAD to make it boring!" And somehow it's quite visible, even without all the data.
well yeah SJWs hate beauty and prize whatever is dowdy or ugly so.... yeah. They love ugliness.
When you know a group really doesn't want anything to do with you, but is forced to include you because they need your dollars, what does that really say about you as the consumer if you spend your money with them?
they weren't forced to include because they need your money, they were forced to include because of the whining about beauty standards and anorexia
@@ippanpedrozo1162 i think you're confusing "justified criticism" with whining - you have no basis for your judgement, which ironically means that your comment is just that - whining
@@ippanpedrozo1162 nobody forced them. They were doing badly as a brand, they wanted extra money, they saw a part of the market who just weren't investing in them (i wonder why), and made a half assed attempt at capitalizing on them. it didn't work (who would have guessed).
No matter how much they were criticized, you do realize that people can choose not to buy from them right? and if they do so, well the brand will have to make some decisions, what are they gonna focus on. nobody "forced" them. you are treating a brand as a puppy. If the brand doesn't provide a product that people are buying, for one reason or another, call it whining or not, well, tough luck, what do you expect? for people to shell 40 dolars for a shitty bra they don't want just out of pity for a conglomerate? they aren't doing you a favour you know?
the criticism alone doesn't even matter. you think VS's spirit was crying on their pr room at the thought of some tweets? no. i can promise you, if their growth was unaffected and fruitful, they would have gone on automatic pilot like before. the "whining" (which, it's actualy valid criticism, not just whining, but regardless) didn't accomplish anything. in the end, it turns out that neglecting a big chunk of the population isn't the smartest business idea when your competition has actually managed to capitalize on it (and now you are the loser).
Got it. So Abercrombie opened the door to its exclusive club, while Victoria's Secret got rid of selling a beautiful dream and gave, instead, a harsh dose of reality.
Yep thing is, no dude wants too see fat chicks in lingerie and neither do women. VS was supposed too be a fantasy not reality whereas as Abercrombie wasn't selling lingerie they were seen as snobbish. Difference between dropping being snobbish and changing your brand too something it isn't
Exactly. Like, it's not difficult to continue to make lacey, sexy underwear but in way bigger sizes and dress the bigger models as the angels. Instead they chose to just make their underwear as boring as humanly possible
@@miglek9613 that's victoria's secret! The more the diverse the uglier and lamer the stuff they sell is 💀
@@miglek9613 it's like they didn't even deign to do any market research, because one of the biggest complaints from plus size women is that bras in their size are mostly the boring stuff and it's hard to find pretty pieces.
I’m a professional bra fitter and I will tell you the problem with Victoria secrets is they’re sizing. Most women are not a 32C or 34D. Their products are cheap, tacky, and do not provide any necessary support the girls need to stay lifted and not painful. Shop small business and look for a local bra fitter in your area instead of supporting a company like VS 🍒🍒
I just A&F would’ve maintained their quality 😭 Their stuff in the 2000s was nice, but private equity wins again
Me too! Loved their old jeans, hoodies and flannels
A&F has been a publicly traded company for decades afaik. not really a private equity problem
@@InnocuousInes-pe8mk Problem: going publicly traded is like a disease. It slowly taints the goals, leadership, and mission of the company as it approaches optimizing its stock price and value. The effects aren't immediate in many cases..
It can take decades to cycle out old leadership and ideas. I'd say any compromise on quality is nearly always a private equity problem, because the kind of principle that says, "Let's cut every corner we can and see what we can get away with, while still keeping our market share and reputation," is generally a profit and *ultimately* private equity motivation, not a principled one from a good company. We should absolutely believe our lying eyes that when a company, over the course of decades, *decreases* in quality rather than working to maintain or improve its quality is likely not doing so for the benefit of its customers, but the people putting money into their company who want to see bigger quarters.
Of course, marketing is its own beast. They did say it themselves, they want to appeal to the cool kids. The vapid and the vain, short-lived trend followers, who probably don't care or really think ill of their clothing falling apart within a year or two. You could argue, I guess, that providing the least quality service that people will still buy is still providing a service they see value in, but I just see it as long-term manipulation abusing the ignorance of their customers in quality fashion, and using their old brand name they built on better practices as leverage.
Finch grew their friend group
Victoria killed the fantasy
@@popstarprincess123 well summarized 💯
killing the fantasy of anorexia is a good thing no?
If I was female, I'd be offended if a company added the brand concept of -- "Great news fat chicks! We got clothes for you too now!".
@@ippanpedrozo1162the point flew to high over your head i won't even try to explain it
@@ippanpedrozo1162you know what? i'll explain it to you anyway, abercombie says "hey... we expand the size range so you can fit too!" while victoria secret says "here's a duller version of our your fatass can wear" and now we can see the difference!
This actually isn’t the first time that Abercrombie has had a major rebrand, like they used to make fancy camping and hunting gear in the 1900’s and like Teddy Rosevelt was really into them and my grandparents have a rifle that was made by them
Like quite the wild swing from being like a boogie version of a bass pro shop to the jeans that the popular kids at your school wore
I dunno, it made sense to me... They were a preppy REI selling quality camping gear which then transitioned into preppy outdoors clothing which evolved in to preppy clothing company for young people...
OK so there are a few reasons I loved this video:
1) I have seen videos about Victoria’s Secret and Abercrombie individually but never together. They truly are great to compare because sometimes people will be like “oh Abercrombie made a comeback because their clothes are inclusive now.” Yeah but so are Victoria’s Secrets so that’s not enough of an argument!
2) you really touched on the points the other videos miss. You mention their positioning - VS was adored for the fantasy. So many women loved the Angels, the wings, the godly supermodels that didn’t seem human. I personally want that back! I was sad when the show stopped being a thing because you’re right. It’s just like Disney. It was a FANTASY!
3) I think you’re right. They’ll incorporate the inclusive models with the old school models and that’s what will bring them back into the limelight again. The difference between evolution and revolution is something I haven’t thought of before but makes so much sense!!
Thanks for an awesome video. I just subscribed to your newsletter and can’t wait to see more of what you do!
Thanks so much!! Yes, so interesting to compare these brands who have had completely different fates in the 2020s.
VS didn’t have to remove the glamour from their inclusivity. People loved the fantasy, the shine and angel wings. Nothing wrong with putting a plus-size model in their ads, but give her pretty wings. They put these new models on beige backgrounds and made no effort to make them look attractive, you would not recognise the photoshoot as VS if you didn’t see the logo
I would argue that it is easier to make +size clothes than bras for bigger boobs. Later must actually be well crafted and constructed. Which is why after all the funky marketing and strategy changes VS still had to bring the knowledge and craftsmanship into their designs. But they didn't.
Their quality is abhorrent.
I would also like to point out that VS will 100% fit you in the wrong size bra. Their people don't know how to actually do bra fittings and the fact that many of their bras only go up to DD cup size (which in reality is more of a medium size, not large) means that a lot of women cannot find a good fitting bra at VS and the staff will often just give them a size that's band is too large and cup is too small. There is way better info online about how to get a good fitting bra nowdays, so fewer people are falling for VS's BS. Idk if Abercrombie even sells bras, but if they do its a way smaller part of their business and I don't think anyone would think of going there to get fitted.
dd is large. they arent covering furniture. it wass meant for the slim and curvy
@@claudiameier666 DD is not large at all. you don't actually know how cup sizes work.
@@claudiameier666bra sizes go up to Q at least, i’m an i so comparatively DD isn’t large. plus a lot of people get measured wrong so their cup size is to small.
They also inflate sizes at what seems like random. Many young women I knew would get fitted at VS and be told their size was 2 cup sizes larger at VS and fit poorly
@@claudiameier666 nope. There are small DD. Small band DD cups are small. I'm a 32DD and my cups are significantly smaller than a 36C's cups. I do not look super well endowed. A 32D is smaller than a 34C, volume wise.
Brilliant question and even better analysis! I've seen a lot of stuff around Abercrombie doing well, but I had never thought to compare it with VS. It's true -- the two brands are SO similar in terms of audience and stuff...but inclusivity only worked for one of them. I love that you've included sources in this story both of who were great! Thank you!
IMO, inclusivity is not the issue, it was simply a branding mismatch for Bud Light. Brands must seek out new audiences to grow, however Dylan Mulvaney was totally misaligned with the brand. If they wanted to tap into the LGBTQ+ community, a safer bet would be a conservative gay man with that kind of country, rough and tumble aesthetic, or a white woman with the same vibe to try to get more women into drinking their beer. Better yet, develop a product that mimics that seltzer/wine cooler type drinks that are popular in these groups.
I totally agree that VS has neglected influencer marketing for far too long. Imagine a VS or Pink PR unboxing or brand trip?! People are still excited about these brands and teens are excited to get to know them. There is a lot to be unlocked there!
Are you on a marketing team? Because if you're not, I'd suggest you try to get into one. You are one piece of paper away from being a more competent corporate marketer than most, if even.
@@jacobp.2024 alot of the time the problem isn't the marketing team it's the company management/shareholders.
not to say all marketers are competent and saintly, but many of these problems come from the fact that large companies are usually undemocratic in nature which means that if the shareholders have a bad idea and you have a good idea, you're doing the bad idea anyways because I said so and I pay you.
doesn't help that alot of companies use contractors for marketing which puts the marketer in an even weaker position to say something against a bad idea.
@@EPWillard very true. I’ve worked in marketing for years for corporations. The boss gets the final say. No matter how idiotic their ideas are you do what they say. Forget my years of experience. We’ll just go with the CEO’s campaign who has zero marketing experience 😒
no. dylan mulvaney wasn't even involved in any marketing, all that happened was a single customized can sent to her. THAT'S IT. her tik tok being funny about it came right into the biggots alley to weaponize. it really was straight up bad luck. there was never a marketing campaign involving her.....and as a proof, bud light themselves did a 180 extremely easy, they had no association with her, no business relationship, nothing (and as a side note, said 180 didn't satisfy anyone lol)
Progress is good but I'm too bitter to buy from them. They didn't want me as a customer then, they are not getting my money now. There are enough other brands that have been inclusive for much longer, without making a big deal out of it. And I am frankly disappointed that not more customers have a long memory. Cheers!
Good news, they'll never care about you. No fashion brand actual cares about you. They just want you to shut up and consume
Well said
the curve jeans are good though, like GOOD
It's completely different people throughout tho
think their target demographic are younger people and not you 😅
This is just my initial guess but I think one issue with VS, yes they added plus sizes but it looked sloppily thrown together. The clothing wasn’t actually flattering to the plus size models. In my option it was a “since you begged so much, here just take it” but there wasn’t any forethought into actual designs for plus bodies. They just tried to copy paste already made styles for smaller bodies
Sadly the new A&F stuff just feels like generic fast fashion garbage. They no longer carry their original staples and I don’t really see a brand identity now, you’re just paying $80 for something you can get on SHEIN for $6
They probably got it from the same factory as Shein
The A&F rebrand is terrible and highly overrated.
That is because fast fashion has killed the market.
You won’t buy a new shirt if it last too long and you won’t buy a trend because you are 13. See the issue, how will they endlessly grow at faster rates if they don’t make crap. Most people will buy it either way.
@@RusticRonnie i don't know about that. i buy my clothes to last. part of it comes down to choosing smartly, not just throwing away money on a single piece that supposedly will last you forever (not to mention, even in theory, that is only useful for something like a coat, and maybe shoes, because your body changes a lot thought the years). Chose clothes that will work with each other, find a staple for yourself on a sale and get two or three of the same, now you can wear one while the other is washing, you can spread the wear out which makes them last longer even if you sum up the wear time, etc.
Personally, i see some decay in clothes quality, but also in their pricing, nothing stops you from shelling out more if you deem it worth it. Not to mention, again, you can buy smartly, don't just grab the first thing you see on a shelf, think about the type of textile it's made of, what you would wear it with, how easy it will be to wash, etc.
Interesting, inclusivity was helpful to Abercrombie because it increased its customer base and did not clash with its overall selling point. The same cannot be said for Victoria Secret.
All I know is that VS never had my size, and after all this talk about inclusivity, they still don't. Abercrombie on the other hand, greatly expanded its size range.
Bought a vs set last year and I was so excited bc I grew up watching the glamour and the glitz and wanted that experience (I’m no supermodel, not even close, I’m average) but that bra didn’t last five wears. The seams were awful and the underwire was probably the worst thing ever. It was more of a painful contraption honestly. Also want to add that growing up in a VS dominated world, EDs were EVERYWHERE. It was the “heroin chic” era. Practically every girl in my class would gather together and watch their diet and workout videos from the models. And I remember trying it out and literally crying as a 5’1 13 year old because what those 5’10+ grown women were eating was wayyyyyyyyyyyy too little for me. I associate VS with unhealthily obtained thinness. Never saw that with Abercrombie though, they were more of the “sporty, athletic, chic” type. No “what I eat in a day/week to stay stick thin”
I don't understand why VS couldn't just put mid&plus sized and disabled models in the same high fantasy lingerie & wings as the other models, that could be sick af. u could deck out any prosthetic limbs in like, gold and jewels. keep the brand fantasy alive while being more body inclusive. I feel like this would have worked way better
no it would look gross. thats not what vs is about. if people actually want2 that then oraganize a show. wfenty could have disavbled they already have fat
Thank you not only for the excellent and clear analysis but also for citing and including links to your sources!! ❤❤
@@cap4life1 thank you!
Victoria’s Secret stopped making cool sexy underwear and seemed to replace it with something my grandma would wear!
Exactly - they became just like any other underwear brand out there.
Before the re-brand, you could instantly tell apart VS models from other underwear models - because they had a very specific look. This was not just their body size - they could have easily added in models of different shapes and sizes, but kept their original vibe. It was the hair especially - they all got that iconic bombshell style. The makeup, the posture/walk, the femininity and the joy. There was more focus on sensuality and glamour. And the way the angels were actually ambassadors, and interacted with their followers in certain 'angelic' ways.
I get that they did have very specific requirements for people who wanted to be models. But compared to other models (who can sometimes be walking skeletons), the VS models seems very healthy, fit and shapely. And it was part of that uniformity that made them so recognisable. But not the only thing that made them beautiful.
there is a point where extra size is not attractive. vs always had a particular look.
I think the Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light situation also relates to something you said about authenticity, a lot of customers who would've applauded Bud Light's inclusion boycotted the brand afterwards because of how the company handled the backlash. Dylan was put through a horrible experience from people who reacted badly & she shared that the company did not back her up or offer to help her in any way in dealing with in. So because of how the company abandoned her admist the backlash more inclusive potential customers turned against the company, plus their follow up actions made their initial feature of her seem more inauthentic & calculated.
Why is Brandi Melville still getting away with exclusionary and discriminatory practices? That company needs to go away!
implying discrimination isn't just a standard, LOL yankees
i know it’s not great but i can’t find other brands that have 100% cotton pieces that aren’t $50+
dont like dont shop there.
They are actually starting to make their sizes A LOT bigger. As someone who has shopped there for a while because other brands don’t offer true petite sizes, i’ve noticed the clothes are now mostly mediums when they used to be extra small. This is probably because all of the backlash the brand has faced and vanity sizing. I think it’s interesting that people are all for body inclusivity until it involves skinny people.
@@claudiameier666 You sound really smart 😏
Spot on! As a Millennial, the new A&F rebrand is lame from my perspective, the VS rebrand is just depressing. Well documented video! ❤
@@electricnirvana3499 thank you for watching!! 🙏🏻
you seriously deserve more subscribers !
@@biboebbs624 thank you!
the point about Abercrombie "opening up" their exclusivity in a way that VS couldn't, because VS's brand image was more aspirational (but accessible) than exclusionary, is really interesting. Abercrombie didn't just market exclusivity in their ad copy, they were exclusive. Their clothing was definitely on the more expensive end of the suburban wardrobe and kids who were rocking new Abercrombie every week during the height of its popularity were spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on that one brand. Their graphic tee shirts were like $50 and some kids had dozens of them. Opening up their ad copy makes that perceived luxury status seem accessible to more people. Past the glamour of the seasonal Angels show, VS was a relatively affordable brand that could sell the idea of "you'll never be Heidi Klum, but maybe you can feel glamorous and desired/desirable with some new lingerie" while getting customers to regularly come back for dailywear with frequent discount and "free product with purchase" coupons. But at some point there must've been a law that every shopping mall in America, even the very dead ones, must have a Victoria's Secret. I'm a cis-dude so I can't speak for any experience firsthand, but I've known more than a few people who had wardrobes full of VS because they'd keep getting free stuff, even if they didn't think the bras were a 10/10, etc. My understanding is that online shopping and a proliferation of better options for sizing + fit + quality, etc have also largely hurt VS in the last 15 or so years.
@@cartilagehead Love this comment, you’ve added great further detail about the exclusion/aspiration point. Thank you!
this is an amazing piece of work that i can use as a starter for my future research on this topic! as a law student, i’m interested in all things business, and it’s always fun to connect something i love (fashion and retail) with my degree and future career. the research papers really made the information more credible. thank you for the video, excited to follow what’s coming next ;)
Oh wow, so cool you're researching this topic. Thank you for watching and for leaving a comment! All the best with finishing law school.
Great analysis and comparison. I really appreciate the research that you put into your videos. It's one thing to have an opinion. It's quite another to have the ability to back up those opinions/ideas with hard data and facts. As someone who understands and appreciates the importance of evidence-based and evidence-informed practice and decision-making, thank you so much for ensuring that your information is appropriately researched. I also really liked your analogy of a toxic friend finally growing up and deciding to be better - oh, I wish more companies and people did this! Looking forward to your next video, DWD.
Thank you!!
This was the first video on this channel I’ve watched, and I immediately subscribed! Love that it’s a balanced mix of analysis from the creator and that subject matter experts were consulted too!
VS clothes show off a fit body. They're not just aspirational, but actual flattering clothes that can be bought by those of us with fit bodies! A&F was for a certain life stage and client profile who grew up, so they needed to grow up too. Their clothes still look good, even on the plus size models. The clothes don't require a fit body, even if ads used to only use fit models before. VS clothes look terrible on unfit bodies.
Quality, for sure. My VS underwear used to be worth the money, now they’re trash.
Great video. I think I've finally found someone to fill the hole that Pop Fashion podcast left in my heart when they went dark! Subscribed ✔️
Wow, thank you!!
Looking at marketing alone may be misleading here. Consider the quality of garments themselves and the sales results may be less mysterious.
Great video. 100% spot on, VS suddenly changing the brand identify and values seemingly out of no where _of course_ made consumers think 🤨 what’s up?
Also 100% should have just made subtle changes in products available and marketing over time and stay flexible and aware of what consumers were saying of the changes and proceed accordingly.
I never noticed how Victoria Secret has such great beautiful clothes before until, recently i thfited their angel collection of dresses and shorts. HUGE difference between now and then (it’s crazy). The feelings of the clothes versus now is weird. Weirdly a size XS now versus then are very different. I expected the thifted peices to be tighter and uncomfortable but that wasn’t the case and i even bought a corset,dress and other things in XS and they fit TOO tight. I’m even slightly loose in XS clothes and I find it insane how i cannot breath right in an XS bustier- keep in my mind my waist is 22inches.
Very well done! Subscribed!!
@@stephwillis3413 thank you! 🙏🏻
I'm about to enter my last 6 months of my marketing degree and one of mu modules is retail marketing. Thank you for this video. It is such a great analysis 🎉. I was someone who loved watching the VS shows when I was younger (I am now 28), and always admired the fantasy. I was shocked by their rebrand and this helped me understand my feelings a lot more.
@@michellehuxtable5720 thanks so much for watching and congrats on almost finishing school! Good luck with the last 6 months :)
It’s clear asf that they have different audiences motivated to buy for different reasons.
I think a major reason VS has not bounced back yet is because the re-brand has been quite recent, I think with the right direction & a few more years VS can potentially regain some market-share. A&F has been rebranding since 2015, there has been a lot of time for people to forget how toxic A&F was but the incidences with VS are pretty recent and still in the public conscious.
It really wasn’t that recent it was years ago no one noticed though. I remember when I started seeing curvy models it was years before the pandemic for sure.
A lot of people dropped it when the prison labor was exposed too
Their rebrand is boring.
It seemed like they were on the right track with the VS Pink stuff, not really sure why they didn't expand there more? Literally Pink stuff in a wider size range probably could have competed with Aerie
Victoria secret lost because they dont actually carry plus sizes despite having plus size models.
I am an investor, mainly interested investing in fashion & beauty supply companies, start ups and brand names, insights provided in your Video is worth admiring and the detailed analysis is very helpful in making a right decision, outstanding and keep it up, can’t wait to see more of this kind of videos 👍🏼
Thank you!!
I haven’t even finished this video completely but I have to say kudos to you! This is very well done, incredibly interesting, and a great data driven take. I really look forward to checking out the rest of your videos!
@@Dontwasteyourtimetravelling that is so kind of you to say, thank you so much!
Haven't watched the video yet but I absolutely love the channel's name!
@@jalengonel thank you!!
Victoria Secret is known for "Sexy Wear" and society don't view fat women as "Sexy". Thats why inclusivity didn't help Victoria Secret.
I think that inclusivity worked for Abercrombie is that was the “cool kids” brand for Millennials and younger Gen X (born 1977-1980). Now that these Millennials and younger Gen X are in their 30s and 40s, and 40% of Millennials are high mid-size (size 12-16) or plus-size, this was the opportunity to give these Millennials/younger Gen X a chance to go back to their childhood and FINALLY be one of the “cool kids”. The majority of today’s Abercrombie customers are Millennials and younger Gen X, so that’s their target audience. It worked because it played on that age group’s inner teenagers who dreamed of being able to wear Abercrombie.
Victoria’s Secret’s inclusivity didn’t work because like you said, it lacked authenticity. The VS modeling show was targeted at MEN, and their stores were targeted at women who wanted their men to think that they’re as sexy as the VS models. Other lingerie brands (like Fenty) were already size-inclusive, and they were targeting women who just wanted to feel sexy in their underwear for THEMSELVES, not to get a man’s approval. VS only went inclusive because they were getting their clocks cleaned by brands like Fenty and Aerie.
One name Rihanna, her Savage X Fenty line pulled women away from VS and they could never get that marketshare back.
This is the first video from your channel I've ever seen and I loved it! Excellent analysis! Instant subscribe.
That is so kind, thank you! I hope you enjoy the rest too :D
@@thedevilwearsdata Oh I am going on a total binge fest of your channel this weekend!
@@BeantownMrs yay! Thank you. I appreciate the love :’)
You guys are overhyping Abercrombie’s come back. They have been restructuring for almost a decade of course they were going to come back, but they’re not good yet. They are constantly being sued for under paying employees and other stuff
Basic business 101 is to understand your customer. Ideology, by definition, is exclusive and only attracted the fringe of society. Ask your customer and listen to your customer, but the key point is the business needs to go out to ask their customers. Responding to customer initiated feedback can be dangerous as once an ideology understands this they can manipulate this.
Abercrombie literally caused me trauma as a teen. I won’t let my daughter shop there. F them. They purposefully made a whole generation of girls feel awful about themselves
VS among my peer group, is seen as bad quality and bad sizes. I stopped buying VS in my early 20s and switched to True&Co for GOOD bras, and Aerie/Target for cheap bras. Also the death of the mall probably did a lot because I hardly ever see stand alone VS stores. No one goes to the mall anymore. Also the marketing for VS was always aimed at men, by the time they became more inclusive, women were sick of their shit.
For me VS being inclusive was too little too late. You never forget being told "we don't have anything for people of *your* size" by a VS rep. 🙃
just found the channel and Devil wears data is a great name
@@Jhonjhon-sk9eo thank you :)
Cause fat girls can finally be pretty but we're not ready for sexy. Also, the quality declined over all product categories at VS. It almost seemed intentional like "fine, take it then"
In a day and age where Fenty lingerie and Fenty runshows exist, why does Victorias Secret have to copycat that? Its not their brand, it never was and people who do still consume VS want to have it like it always has been.
Imo not everything has to be super inclusive and such, brands who are searching for a "luxurious" status dont do that because if everyone can have it, then it is not exclussive...
I dont think inclusivity is the issue either. These brands have some similarities but its really comparing apples to oranges. Abercrombie was able to rebrand its styles to suit gen z’s changing taste. VS wasn’t. Adding inclusive body sizes to a brand that is still based around openly performing to the male gaze isn’t going to make it suddenly appealing to younger audiences. They hate that shit
Myself and many other small chested women were told we don’t have anything for you in the 2000s. Pretty exclusionary, they’ve never been cool to fashion girlies , it’s like a secret 😂 girls did not advertise it a Victoria secret bra was the best fit for them .
Not every company can/needs to be specialized in plus sizes, it depends on their branding and what they can do well, if they can’t figure out how to bring their brand into plus clothing and still keep their quality, it’s not going to go well. It’s ok for some brands to have niches sometimes. Just like how Torrid is exclusive to straight sizes, nothing wrong with that, it’s just their brand and their specialty.
I remember going to VS for the first time in my life with my girlfriend last month, and it was SO disappointing. All our life we had heard it was sexy and glamorous, but when we went there... It didn't have anything we wanted. Nothing looked pretty enough, or sexy, or glamorous. We couldn't have cared less about the inclusion: they just didn't have nice lingerie.
Interesting video. Though I thought your logo was OwO 😂
@@Emelineeeeeee LOL I’ll need to get a better font 😂
VS also used prison labor which was not a good look while Abercrombie at least says they don’t
The difference is that Victorias main market is not women, its us, their boyfriends😂
@6:05: "... models with rare proportions..." That's always been a big part of the professional modeling industry - formal measurements and a lean, voluptuous and sculpted hourglass shape. I'm thankful people in the industry have PUBLICLY ADMITTED to THIS FACT!! Having these physical attributes IRL made you objectively sexy/beautiful in the eyes of others. They were considered special.
As long as the models were healthy and DIDN'T have eating disorders, I don't see why they had to change the representatives of an ICONIC lingerie/fragrance/gym apparel company!!
I never liked Abercrombie - thought their style was preppy.
@elisabeth4342 No, current model proportions have only been fashionable since the early 90s. Before that classical figures close to average weight were preferred models, and before that very petite slightly plump set glamour standards. Tall and slim was viewed as ugly a century back. Society literally flips to the opposite ideal on a whim and forgets what they thought before. Kinda stupid.
I think VS prior to the rebrand sold a fantasy and since their rebrand that fantasy is loss for a lot of people.
The thing with VS is that the nice things were always a small size while the normal to bigger sizes made you look bad or worse
sometimes inclusivity is not the answer
I also feel, Abercrombie is a good product in general. VS lingerie is dated and boring looking. It’s giving leg avenue
Omg you're back
It seems like they must be listening to feedback, because in the past few weeks I have seen several items coming through that appear to be higher quality material/assembly - they are carrying jackets and heavier indigo dyed denim that are a nice step up. Also liking the cropped fit tops for men, more please.
I feel like either evolving the angels to include conventionally pretty but curvy people OR going for a revolutionary Devils or Phoenixes line could have worked better. Or if they wanted to age with their audience maybe a seperate comfort line without sacrificing that core iconic demographic
Love this channel name, subscribed
Thank you! I hope you enjoy the content too :)
VS forgets that you can be glam while being inclusive.
Bud Light didn't have to completely shut itself off from all LGBTQ+ marketing. They could have stood by Dylan and simply pointed out how they have supported the community since the 90's. For example, most of the rainbow cans were from 2-4 years before the controversy started. In contrast, Nike's sales soared after partnering with Colin Kaepernick in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and it was because they didn't back down after conservatives revolted. So what happened with Dylan was a complete marketing fail for Bud Light all around after doing so well literally until last year.
Great video; hope you post more often.
@@royissnuffles thank you!! I am trying to 😩 I have another one coming up soon!
Amazing work on this video. Immediately subscribed!🎉❤
@@Schokobon111 thank you!! ❤️
this video was so well done that I have to sub
@@futurehofer1564 aw thank you for your sub 😊
Majority comes down to corporate identity. VS was and to a degree still is centered around sexual often male fantasy and spectacle, A&F was more skinny hot people and loud overly perfumed dark stores. A&F in that sense is way more accessible and has much more room to adjust. VS on the other hand was/is very locked into their position, so it’s much harder to pivot and more likely to offend the preexisting customer base that want to buy into fantasy not a more sober reality.
Not every brand does well with inclusivity (depending on the execution obviously) and from a marketing perspective, VS should have probably doubled down on the exclusivity, because sudden inclusivity just absolutely did not play to their strengths or customers. It just comes off as insincere at that point and changing people’s associations and expectations of a brand takes time.
"While it may not seem obvious at first, there are subtle differences between the two companies" I mean not to be a contratian but one sells clothing to teenagers using the cool teen factor, and the other sells sexy lingerie using unattainable but aspirational supermodels, that alone is a pretty obvious key difference
@@JemimaDoesASMR I meant subtle differences in their new/inclusive branding strategies!
I remember a neighborhood couple fight at this apartment where the woman was angry at her boyfriend for buying her lingerie from Victoria Secret. Her issue with it, that she was screaming, was not because he bought it but because he compared her to those plus size 'models' from them. Thus, she infer to this as him saying that she is fat and ugly like those 'models' when she really isn't close to that, even without makeup; she was not slender either just average curvy build and a good face. I believe what really happened is that girlfriend already turned away from the brand but her boyfriend didn't knew and paid the price for his ignorance.
VS reacted too slow. The buyers dictate the trends and not the brands. The brands just can anticipate and jump on the trend wagon to capitalise of that. When the trend was inclusivity VS remained rigid and lost many customers. Now with the rise of more feminine and traditional styles for women they are again behind, when they could have incorporate this style perfectly because it has been their style all along. It would have felt more natural and authentic. They are responding way too slow to trend changes.
There are brands who shape trends and brands who can only follow. VS seems to be in the second category and they’re doing a bad job at it.
Respect to AF. They don't give AF.
Very well explained!!!
@@lancesamaria8130 thank you! 🙏🏻
I’ll never understand thr A&f turn around . It was considered so uncool to wear it at my hs in the 2000s . It was only popular in all white schools and shit, absolutely clowned on and only the racist white kids wore that shit , I wouldn’t have been caught dead in Abercrombie
I only ever heard about it through some song, but otherwise nobody I knew or went to school with even mentioned it. Maybe because my school was more than half Asian? Idk how popular it is with Asian Americans.
I think it was more popular in the suburban areas with majority white people. If the place was more diverse I don't think people gave a crap
Not only that, but the designs and quality seemed way too overpriced, to me at least.
Because you weren't one of the cool kids?
Nah it was a big deal where I grew up(California). All the cool kids wore it, it also meant you were rich. I do agree it was for the white kids though
I mean I always thought it was because their quality was trash, their sizing is literally a satire of itself, and the price is nonsensical. I literally get an skin reaction to their clothes the couple times I tried to buy them. Even after I washed them three times, even when I idiotically went back and bought different clothes from a different Victoria's secret, still the contact dermatitis what's the internet it says might be because they literally soak their clothes in a formaldehyde derivative when they ship it across the ocean. And you can imagine the stuff Victoria's secret sells is not where you want to have that kind of reaction.
I think Abercrombie just started focusing on clothes that were nice to wear at decent prices. Can't argue with quality tbh
Great analysis 👍🏻 🎉
One question is that there is no point in just bringing inclusion to the catwalks and campaigns. We need larger sizes in stores. Some brands work with inclusion in campaigns, but this is not reflected in the products offered.
because victorias secret was marketed to people who wanted to look sexy. men bought for their special other and women to attract a man
Just now, I went on Victoria's Secret's website. Even now, when they're supposedly more "inclusive" you can't get a bra with a cup size bigger than a DDD/F online. So many retailers online offer a wider range of sizes now. That certainly isn't helping VS.