- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Decline of Victoria's Secret
Posted on 1/13/23 at 9:53 am
Posted on 1/13/23 at 9:53 am
The Federalist of all places, defending Victoria's Secret's implosion.
Victoria's Secret used to be known for selling pretty sexuality. It was sex wrapped in lace and while men got really excited about it, because duh, women also liked it. Women like being sexy and pretty, despite what the short hair angry lesbians tell everyone.
VS's problems started happening when they shifted to selling comfort. Yoga pants and flannel nightgowns. Who in the world wants to buy a $70 flannel nightgown? You can get that at Walmart for a third the price. Stupid.
If you know anything about The Federalist, it's basically run by cucks (Meaghan McCain's husband being one) and conservative feminist women. The kind who think the 80's was the pinnacle of conservatism because that was the age they grew up. Who think marriage is about equal authority and obedience means making all the decisions.
It should come as no surprise that the author looks like the type of woman who would make her husband carry her purse in public and who only has missionary sex in the dark on Wednesday:
VS went down because they sold out their brand. They did so for the left, first with yoga pants, now with complete garbage. It is a true axiom: Get woke, go broke.
quote:
After Victoria’s Secret’s stock price plummeted last week and CEO Amy Hauk announced her departure after just eight months at the lingerie brand, conservative critics were quick to diagnose the company’s failures as a classic case of “go woke, go broke.”
It’s an easy, albeit lazy, argument to make considering the brand’s recent shift to “inclusive” models and the cancellation of their iconic “Angels” fashion show, but it ignores broader challenges across the retail industry, especially issues faced by brands with a long-held association with the now nearly extinct shopping malls.
Victoria's Secret used to be known for selling pretty sexuality. It was sex wrapped in lace and while men got really excited about it, because duh, women also liked it. Women like being sexy and pretty, despite what the short hair angry lesbians tell everyone.
VS's problems started happening when they shifted to selling comfort. Yoga pants and flannel nightgowns. Who in the world wants to buy a $70 flannel nightgown? You can get that at Walmart for a third the price. Stupid.
If you know anything about The Federalist, it's basically run by cucks (Meaghan McCain's husband being one) and conservative feminist women. The kind who think the 80's was the pinnacle of conservatism because that was the age they grew up. Who think marriage is about equal authority and obedience means making all the decisions.
It should come as no surprise that the author looks like the type of woman who would make her husband carry her purse in public and who only has missionary sex in the dark on Wednesday:
VS went down because they sold out their brand. They did so for the left, first with yoga pants, now with complete garbage. It is a true axiom: Get woke, go broke.
30
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:05 am to squid_hunt
Available for comment
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:05 am to squid_hunt
quote:
went down because they sold out their brand.
Correct.
Gee...I wonder what happened?
To this:
Was watching a scene form Mad Men with my wife last weekend and Don said something to a client that fit here. Paraphrasing, Victoria's Secret used to be a great mirror. Women would look at the magazines and webpage and see themselves in their lingerie. Men, who were huge customers, did the same...picturing their wives/girlfriends in them. Now? Men are turned off by the models in most cases so they can't picture their women in the clothes, and women despite all their grousing about "seeing themselves" in clothing really don't want to see that because it makes them see themselves in a bad light. Instead of, "If I buy that I'm going to look as hot as her!" It becomes, "Am I going to look like that in this?!?"
I used to buy stuff form there all the time for my wife. I haven't for years now, because the experience is awful.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:09 am to VoxDawg
Her song helped people realize that VS was a garbage company and people stopped buying their products. It isn't the new marketing that killed them. It was their old marketing in a shifting culture.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:09 am to GeauxTigerTM
For you young bucks, VS was gold back in the day. Delivered free to the house. An older guy I worked with years ago used to reminisce about the early days when they didn’t airbrush out the nipple and bush.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:15 am to GeauxTigerTM
Tyra Banks was SO fine. 
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:16 am to squid_hunt
quote:
VS went down because they sold out their brand.
Also (and I think this is actually the bigger issue), the quality of their product went downhill. Quickly. And instead of improving it, they went hard woke as a band-aid.
I use my own wife as an example. When we were dating/first married (circa '08 - '13 or so), VS was basically the holy grail. But they started to lag in quality, and my wife became less enamored with them and took her business elsewhere. She's not into politics much either way, so she didn't give a damn about their marketing, just comfort.
Even woke women like good quality intimates at competitive price points. Regardless of how much they may post otherwise on social media. That's what sank VS--they basically pulled a Kodak on themselves. Now they have to reinvent their whole brand, or truly become a relic of a bygone era.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:16 am to squid_hunt
quote:
It should come as no surprise that the author looks like the type of woman who would make her husband carry her purse in public and who only has missionary sex in the dark on Wednesday:
She looks pretty and like she'd be fun to me. It wouldn't surprise me if youve never had a sub 200 lb girl yourself and you have no idea what an adventurous girl is truly like
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:18 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
a sub 200 lb girl..... an adventurous girl ...
Why not both?
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:19 am to squid_hunt
quote:
It was sex wrapped in lace and while men got really excited about it, because duh, women also liked it.
I guess I'm in the minority but I never bought anything for my wife from there because I never liked lacy, frilly, flowery lingerie. Didn't find it sexy at all.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:21 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
She looks pretty and like she'd be fun to me. It wouldn't surprise me if youve never had a sub 200 lb girl yourself and you have no idea what an adventurous girl is truly like
She looks bland. And you'd be wrong.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:21 am to Zach
quote:
I never bought anything for my wife from there because I never liked lacy, frilly, flowery lingerie. Didn't find it sexy at all.
Dude, they've always had more than the floral/lacy stuff
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:22 am to squid_hunt
I think trying to attribute VS’s collapse to just one thing is a bad take. The reality is nuanced.
VS didn’t just fall victim to the same macro-economic trends that are hurting all in-person retail, particularly brands associated with indoor shopping malls,
they’re not just hurting from reductions in quality attempting to maintain competitive prices amid rising shipping and material costs,
and they’re not just hurting from “woke” branding decisions that pivoted away from being an affordable luxury brand that sold sex to a premium comfort brand that sold neither.
VS’s collapse is macro-economic trends catching up to a poorly led company that made lots of mistakes to tank their brand.
VS still has incredibly strong name recognition as a brand, so a come-back is still very possible with the right marketing vision and the right business strategy. They need to get back to marketing themselves as a luxury brand that sells sex AND they need to deliver on comfort and luxury in their products.
VS didn’t just fall victim to the same macro-economic trends that are hurting all in-person retail, particularly brands associated with indoor shopping malls,
they’re not just hurting from reductions in quality attempting to maintain competitive prices amid rising shipping and material costs,
and they’re not just hurting from “woke” branding decisions that pivoted away from being an affordable luxury brand that sold sex to a premium comfort brand that sold neither.
VS’s collapse is macro-economic trends catching up to a poorly led company that made lots of mistakes to tank their brand.
VS still has incredibly strong name recognition as a brand, so a come-back is still very possible with the right marketing vision and the right business strategy. They need to get back to marketing themselves as a luxury brand that sells sex AND they need to deliver on comfort and luxury in their products.
This post was edited on 1/13/23 at 10:25 am
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:23 am to Zach
That's cause you are probably a closet gay.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:23 am to AggieDub14
quote:
It isn't the new marketing that killed them. It was their old marketing in a shifting culture.
quote:
AggieDub14
Leave it to an Aggie to gay up a thread...
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:23 am to Zach
quote:
guess I'm in the minority but I never bought anything for my wife from there because I never liked lacy, frilly, flowery lingerie. Didn't find it sexy at all.
I'm fine with that. Takes all kinds, but there was obviously a market.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:24 am to Zach
quote:
I guess I'm in the minority but I never bought anything for my wife from there because I never liked lacy, frilly, flowery lingerie. Didn't find it sexy at all.
I've always been a fan of the button down and panties look.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:25 am to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
the quality of their product went downhill. Quickly.
Also 100% true.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:25 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
It wouldn't surprise me if youve never had a sub 200 lb girl yourself and you have no idea what an adventurous girl is truly like
This, from a clown who’s whole posting history spells I-N-C-E-L.
Posted on 1/13/23 at 10:26 am to squid_hunt
quote:Eh, there's some good content at The Federalist, and I like Sean Davis, the co-founder, Emily Jashinski, Mollie Hemingway, and the dude that does all the border stuff. I do agree about Mrs McCain's husband though. Dude has plumped up since they got married and is an GOPe shill. It's hilarious to hear him talk about the McCains and his marriage into that family. It's clear he believes he is now political royalty, like a Kennedy or something. He's a loser.
If you know anything about The Federalist, it's basically run by cucks (Meaghan McCain's husband being one) and conservative feminist women. The kind who think the 80's was the pinnacle of conservatism because that was the age they grew up. Who think marriage is about equal authority and obedience means making all the decisions.
Page 1 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News