Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
WTF is lesbian lingerie?

I think it's exactly the same as regular people lingerie.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I'd be really curious to see if there's been marketing studies to find out who pulls out their wallet and plunks down the money to actually buy these things; and why do they buy them. Because if the brand is failing, it could be they've been marketing to the wrong people with the wrong pitch.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I think the idea behind the old VS is that women want to conform themselves to be men's fantasies? Maybe women are just tired of spending their time and energy on that? And that that's the reason for the decline in the old VS demographic? Because it does seem like something has changed in the consumer demand. And if it's not the men ...

---

Quote:

---

There will be no shortage of women who want to look and be sexy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I think the idea behind the old VS is that women want to conform themselves to be men's fantasies? Maybe women are just tired of spending their time and energy on that? And that that's the reason for the decline in the old VS demographic? Because it does seem like something has changed in the consumer demand. And if it's not the men ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I had conjured that women wanted to look feminine, feel feminine, to appeal to the fantasy of A MAN, A specific man. Absent a specific man, then perhaps men generally.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

There will be no shortage of women who want to look and be sexy.

---

You mean, women who want to look and feel like a VS commercialized version of sexiness? Well, apparently there IS a shortage! And it's showing up in VS's bottom line!

Think back to before ... before the internet. Before TV. Before radio. Before books. Before written language. What did humans respond to as sexiness ... in order to sustain the human population?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Have you ever felt the need to alter yourself to appeal to women's fantasies? I'm just curious.

---

Quote:

---

VS Sales Worldwide from 2010 to 2020, in Millions of USD:
2010 5,520
2011 6,121
2012 6,574
2013 6,884
2014 7,207
2015 7,262
2016 7,781
2017 7,387
2018 7,375
2019 7,509
2020 5,413

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
I think the idea behind the old VS is that women want to conform themselves to be men's fantasies? Maybe women are just tired of spending their time and energy on that? And that that's the reason for the decline in the old VS demographic? Because it does seem like something has changed in the consumer demand. And if it's not the men ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I had conjured that women wanted to look feminine, feel feminine, to appeal to the fantasy of A MAN, A specific man. Absent a specific man, then perhaps men generally.

---

And ... why would women feel it's their job to appeal to the fantasies of A MAN, or men generally, instead of the other way around?

Have you ever felt the need to alter yourself to appeal to women's fantasies? I'm just curious.

---

Quote:

---

'Upon information and belief, the Wexners let Epstein use their home for liaisons with victims,' the suit alleges.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

So, to be clear, you would not feel the need to be a Micro-Touch Solo man, or any other marketed 'sexy' image.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
That was the point I was trying to introduce. When humans were hanging on by their collective fingernails many tens of thousands of years ago (and before that), it was important than men and women routinely find each other sexy, in order to create offspring. What's 'sexy' isn't limited to VS and this place and time, or to particular commercialized images.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Women are attracted to good-looking men, just like men are attracted to good-looking women.

But most women (that I know, anyway) have a height requirement for men. All 3 of the shorter-than-average men that I know had an extremely hard time finding a date, or a mate, altho they were all successful salary-wise. The (1) shorter-than average (Philippino) man that I know who married and stayed married basically had an arranged green card marriage with a Philippina. It was a successful marriage and they cared about each other, ut it was still arranged. The other short man that I know (2) was a fitness buff and quite socially adept, so I think his only disqualifier was his height. And not being plugged tightly into the Phlippino community (altho he was half Philippino) put the "imports" out of reach. The third was pudgy and a buffoon so there were MANY reasons why women might find him unattractive.

Men also prefer women to be shorter than they are, so it's more difficult for a tall women to find a date/mate than one of average height.

AFA men preferring Victoria's Secret models... one of the problems with ads and porn is that they set unrealistic expectations for how women look, what sex should be like etc. so I think there's too much conformity imposed on the both sexes by advertising agencies.

---

Quote:

---

What women "should" look like over the millenia has changed and changed and changed, just as what men "should" look like. Back in prehistory, when the human population was clinging by its fingernails to existence, fecundity was worshipped (women being the rate-limiting step in reproduction: A process can only proceed as quickly as the rate of its slowest step.)

Apparently in Mohenjo-Daro, physical beauty was worshipped (until leprosy,parasites, and all of the disfiguring ailments of long-term habitation w/o sewage treatment reared its ugly head)




In Sparta women were meant to be physically fit


Ancient Etruscan women were co-equal with men



Plump.


Thin.


Pale. Fit ... it varies all over the place.

The one invariant is that "beauty" seems to be defined as UPPER CLASS. If youdidn't have to work the fields, your feet could be bound. If you were slavig away in the sun for meager sustenance, beauty was plump and pale.

Now that poor people work indoors and eat junk food, beauty is tan and lean. And of course it helps if you can devote hours ... days ... years ... to dieting, exercising, makeup, beauty scrubs, implants, hair pieces etc etc. because women who DON'T WORK and who DON'T HAVE CHILDREN have all the time in the world to devote to ... their looks.

Airbrushing helps, too.

Kate Winslet, before and after



How things change!

Anyway, back to advertising: While there have always been standards of beauty (and they've almosst always been attached to the upper class) as a society we have NEVER been swamped so relentlessly by images of what we're supposed to buy and how we're supposed to look/have fun/have sex.

I find Victoria's Secret to be stultifying, and prefer my undies to be comfortable and pratical because I'm a hard-working woman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
So, to be clear, you would not feel the need to be a Micro-Touch Solo man, or any other marketed 'sexy' image.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nope.

I put no effort into being sexy. I just am because of the choices that I make in life. It's a bi-product of my current lifestyle.

I certainly wasn't sexy when I was 50 lbs overweight and drinking a tanker of Icehouse in a year in between binge-watching so many shows on Netflix that I ran out of good ones and was really watching a lot of garbage, but after I cleaned up and got back into shape, and cut gluten out of my diet, and had an extremely physical job for a few years, and learned a lot of things on my own about how to build and fix things... much of that ability and those tools drawn from my pre-drinking days, I'm sexy just by doing me.


Now, is there some sort of "universal" ideal of sexiness for a man and woman?

Of course not.

A woman who looks at the Micro Touch Solo man and creams her jeans probably isn't going to find my current long hair and (meticulously groomed) lumberjack beard sexy. That's fine with me. I'm not doing it for her. And I'm also not doing it for the ones who do find it sexy. I'm doing it for me.

But there are underlying factors of sexiness that are almost universal. Being born with a naturally attractive face is nice, but not everyone can win the genetic lottery.

---

Quote:

---

(Admittedly, despite my good looks, I am what would be considered slightly less than average height for a male in the 2020's, which studies say would cause anywhere from 60 to 80% of women to scroll right past me on dating apps without looking any deeper into my profile. You can't win 'em all).

There are other things you can do to increase your attractiveness to others. Physical fitness is a large one. Incorporating the effort to become physically fit into an activity you enjoy rather than going to the gym and obsessively counting calories every day can make it a fairly easy one too.

---

Quote:

---

Fat, is not sexy.

---

Quote:

---

Fat is not a "virtue" that should be taught to young people. They should not be told that it's okay to be lazy and have horrible eating habits. Fat is one of the largest visible indicators to everyone around you that you make poor choices and you are unhealthy because of them.

---

Quote:

---

Not every man finds traditional VS models attractive. For many years, one of the sexiest women on the planet, Kate Upton, was denied being on the VS lineup because she was too "fat".


I think that was the biggest problem that VS had. Their entire model lineup for decades was 100% filled with nearly impossible levels of skinniness. Some of the models may have naturally had the metabolism to keep that shape, but many of them likely did not, and probably did resort to drugs or eating disorders to keep their high paying jobs.


But what's happening right here, right now is an extreme over-correction that is going to kill the brand.

---

Quote:

---

Instead of scrambling to appease the ACTUALLY fat pink haired twitter weirdos in 2021, they should have just let Kate Upton in their lineup and not tell everybody she was fat when they had the chance.

---

Quote:

---

PICTURED: Kate Upton. Not Fat. (But also, Kate Upton. Not Entirely a Product of Nature. See Kate Upton breast augmentation or enhancement.)

---

Quote:

---

And the bottom line is, if VS is going to make the changes that they're talking about making, they're no longer in the lingerie business. They're making comfortable clothing and undergarments, some of which might be moderately sexy, for the overweight population.

---

Quote:

---

Like I said before. That's they're prerogative. But they're not going to change any minds by doing it.

---

Quote:

---

They're just going to leave a void behind that somebody else is going to come around to fill.

---

Quote:

---

And if the new direction VS takes from here ends up losing them more money while losing their existing clientele, the new CEO will ultimately be fired.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

---

Quote:

---

... numerous epidemiological studies have shown that among people who have heart disease those who are overweight or obese tend to have a better prognosis than those who are leaner. (And) There is increasing evidence suggesting that fitness may in fact play a stronger role in survival than "fatness," Lavie said.
For example, a 2014 meta-analysis published in the journal Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases found that fitness was more important than fatness when it came to long-term mortality. The researchers found that fit people, whether they were a normal weight, overweight or obese, all had similar survival rates (long term mortality), whereas unfit people (no matter if they were normal weight or not) were twice as likely to die.

---

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
Women are attracted to good-looking men, just like men are attracted to good-looking women.
But most women (that I know, anyway) have a height requirement for men. All 3 of the shorter-than-average men that I know had an extremely hard time finding a date, or a mate, altho they were all successful salary-wise. The (1) shorter-than average (Philippino) man that I know who married and stayed married basically had an arranged green card marriage with a Philippina. It was a successful marriage and they cared about each other, ut it was still arranged. The other short man that I know (2) was a fitness buff and quite socially adept, so I think his only disqualifier was his height. And not being plugged tightly into the Phlippino community (altho he was half Philippino) put the "imports" out of reach. The third was pudgy and a buffoon so there were MANY reasons why women might find him unattractive.

Men also prefer women to be shorter than they are, so it's more difficult for a tall women to find a date/mate than one of average height.

AFA men preferring Victoria's Secret models... one of the problems with ads and porn is that they set unrealistic expectations for how women look, what sex should be like etc. so I think there's too much conformity imposed on the both sexes by advertising agencies.

JSF: Logic Failure. Your small viewpoint of your metrosexual life group is showing.

---

Quote:

---

JSF: Men don't really care what women think.

---

Quote:

---

JSF: Women are more likely to be attracted to men who stand on their own, don't cave to namby pamby nancy boy soyboy mentalities. The ads you must be watching are trying to capture the aura of the real men who women are attracted to, who are not posing, (or virtue signaling), and who do not tweeze their eyebrows.
The weak-minded males who are adoring of women who do nothing but nag or blather-spout about their delusions are not the preeminent specimens of strong gene pool.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

SIGNYM:
Women are attracted to good-looking men, just like men are attracted to good-looking women.
But most women (that I know, anyway) have a height requirement for men. All 3 of the shorter-than-average men that I know had an extremely hard time finding a date, or a mate, altho they were all successful salary-wise.

Men also prefer women to be shorter than they are, so it's more difficult for a tall women to find a date/mate than one of average height.

---

---

Quote:

---

but I'm under the impression that men believe that "size [length] matters" when it comes to penises. which BTW is not entirely true: Many women enjoy circumference more than length, but that's prolly more than you needed or wanted to know. So back to the general statement: Ads and porn create unrealistic expectations between the sexes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
So, to be clear, you would not feel the need to be a Micro-Touch Solo man, or any other marketed 'sexy' image.

---

First of all I want to thank you for a long and detailed reply. I interpolated a few comments below.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nope.

I put no effort into being sexy. I just am because of the choices that I make in life. It's a bi-product of my current lifestyle.

I certainly wasn't sexy when I was 50 lbs overweight and drinking a tanker of Icehouse in a year in between binge-watching so many shows on Netflix that I ran out of good ones and was really watching a lot of garbage, but after I cleaned up and got back into shape, and cut gluten out of my diet, and had an extremely physical job for a few years, and learned a lot of things on my own about how to build and fix things... much of that ability and those tools drawn from my pre-drinking days, I'm sexy just by doing me.


Now, is there some sort of "universal" ideal of sexiness for a man and woman?

Of course not.

A woman who looks at the Micro Touch Solo man and creams her jeans probably isn't going to find my current long hair and (meticulously groomed) lumberjack beard sexy. That's fine with me. I'm not doing it for her. And I'm also not doing it for the ones who do find it sexy. I'm doing it for me.

But there are underlying factors of sexiness that are almost universal. Being born with a naturally attractive face is nice, but not everyone can win the genetic lottery.

---

Which begs the question as to what makes an attractive face. For Inuit, a very round and broad face was considered the height of beauty. Why a round face instead of a long slender one? There doesn't seem to be a genetic survival value to it, so maybe it's because they told themselves so. Maybe it had to do with rarity. When it comes to good looks, peoples often prize what's rare and exotic. Blond straight hair in a planet full of (dominant genetic) brunettes, many with (dominant genetic) kinky or wavy hair, is often more prized.

Quote:

---

(Admittedly, despite my good looks, I am what would be considered slightly less than average height for a male in the 2020's, which studies say would cause anywhere from 60 to 80% of women to scroll right past me on dating apps without looking any deeper into my profile. You can't win 'em all).

There are other things you can do to increase your attractiveness to others. Physical fitness is a large one. Incorporating the effort to become physically fit into an activity you enjoy rather than going to the gym and obsessively counting calories every day can make it a fairly easy one too.

---

'Physical fitness as attractive' isn't a world-wide, millennial-long standard, it's mostly a modern one. The Spartans prized physical fitness in both men and women; the Athenians, not so much. The Wodaabe tribe still favors male beauty (tallness, and white teeth and eyes) where women choose based on looks, over fitness. The Ethiopian Bodi tribe still favors really really fat men over fitness. Hawaiians favored fat people of both sexes, because it meant you were eating pig, which was reserved for VIPs, instead of the common fish and poi diet. It also meant you were eating enough calories to keep ahead of endemic tapeworm - not that they realized that the slimness of the commoners was due to parasites, they just knew that slenderness was common, and fatness was not. As recently as 100 years ago the western world favored plump women with fair skin and a weak (not a whole lot of muscle) build, because, as Signy pointed out, it was an indication of status. As a woman, you weren't doing hard physical labor all day, every day, in the fields, in the hot skin-leathering sun, on poor rations.

Quote:

---

Fat, is not sexy.

---

So an absolutist statement like this, as if it was some kind of genetic human truth, is not congruent with reality. It's just true of some places and some times.

Quote:

---

Fat is not a "virtue" that should be taught to young people. They should not be told that it's okay to be lazy and have horrible eating habits. Fat is one of the largest visible indicators to everyone around you that you make poor choices and you are unhealthy because of them.

---

Fat is partly a result of our food manufacturing system, as I've indicated elsewhere. Even our pets suffer from it. Even bears scavenging on city dumps and human food suffer from it. Even science points to manufactured food as being highly addictive. And 'fatness' might not even be the driver of poor health as much as lack of activity. The jury's still out on that.

So, again, I just want to point out - based on evidence - that your ideas, while true in some places and some times, aren't the universals truths.

Quote:

---

Not every man finds traditional VS models attractive. For many years, one of the sexiest women on the planet, Kate Upton, was denied being on the VS lineup because she was too "fat".


I think that was the biggest problem that VS had. Their entire model lineup for decades was 100% filled with nearly impossible levels of skinniness. Some of the models may have naturally had the metabolism to keep that shape, but many of them likely did not, and probably did resort to drugs or eating disorders to keep their high paying jobs.


But what's happening right here, right now is an extreme over-correction that is going to kill the brand.

---

The brand was already dying. They may be killing the VS brand 'patient' with what they hope are resuscitative measures, but it's a reaction to the problem of slipping market share. The change in consumer preference was already on them.

Quote:

---

Instead of scrambling to appease the ACTUALLY fat pink haired twitter weirdos in 2021, they should have just let Kate Upton in their lineup and not tell everybody she was fat when they had the chance.

---

Quote:

---

PICTURED: Kate Upton. Not Fat. (But also, Kate Upton. Not Entirely a Product of Nature. See Kate Upton breast augmentation or enhancement.)

---

But - it's not fatness that's the issue. Women buy the vast majority of VS products. And while the whole line of thinking that women will buy whatever crap is appealing to men may have worked for a few decades, that thinking has changed especially in the 18-49 demographic that spends the most money. Women today want ease of wearing, comfort, and value. And they don't feel the need to compare themselves to the modern winners of the genetic lottery in terms of facial structure, skin color, height, proportions, etc. That thinking seems like it's coming to an end - where women try to fit a male fantasy.

Quote:

---

And the bottom line is, if VS is going to make the changes that they're talking about making, they're no longer in the lingerie business. They're making comfortable clothing and undergarments, some of which might be moderately sexy, for the overweight population.

---

Then maybe the lingerie business is a severely shrinking category is the US.

Quote:

---

Like I said before. That's they're prerogative. But they're not going to change any minds by doing it.

---

I think VS is trying to figure out how to catch up to minds that are already changed. The slipping market share has been going on for quite some time.

Quote:

---

They're just going to leave a void behind that somebody else is going to come around to fill.

---

Uhm, they were muscled off their perch by competition that's more in tune with the demographic. There is no void at this point.

Quote:

---

And if the new direction VS takes from here ends up losing them more money while losing their existing clientele, the new CEO will ultimately be fired.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
So, to be clear, you would not feel the need to be a Micro-Touch Solo man, or any other marketed 'sexy' image.

---

First of all I want to thank you for a long and detailed reply. I interpolated a few comments below.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Nope.

I put no effort into being sexy. I just am because of the choices that I make in life. It's a bi-product of my current lifestyle.

I certainly wasn't sexy when I was 50 lbs overweight and drinking a tanker of Icehouse in a year in between binge-watching so many shows on Netflix that I ran out of good ones and was really watching a lot of garbage, but after I cleaned up and got back into shape, and cut gluten out of my diet, and had an extremely physical job for a few years, and learned a lot of things on my own about how to build and fix things... much of that ability and those tools drawn from my pre-drinking days, I'm sexy just by doing me.


Now, is there some sort of "universal" ideal of sexiness for a man and woman?

Of course not.

A woman who looks at the Micro Touch Solo man and creams her jeans probably isn't going to find my current long hair and (meticulously groomed) lumberjack beard sexy. That's fine with me. I'm not doing it for her. And I'm also not doing it for the ones who do find it sexy. I'm doing it for me.

But there are underlying factors of sexiness that are almost universal. Being born with a naturally attractive face is nice, but not everyone can win the genetic lottery.

---

Which begs the question as to what makes an attractive face. For Inuit, a very round and broad face was considered the height of beauty. Why a round face instead of a long slender one? There doesn't seem to be a genetic survival value to it, so maybe it's because they told themselves so. Maybe it had to do with rarity. When it comes to good looks, peoples often prize what's rare and exotic. Blond straight hair in a planet full of (dominant genetic) brunettes, many with (dominant genetic) kinky or wavy hair, is often more prized.

Quote:

---

(Admittedly, despite my good looks, I am what would be considered slightly less than average height for a male in the 2020's, which studies say would cause anywhere from 60 to 80% of women to scroll right past me on dating apps without looking any deeper into my profile. You can't win 'em all).

There are other things you can do to increase your attractiveness to others. Physical fitness is a large one. Incorporating the effort to become physically fit into an activity you enjoy rather than going to the gym and obsessively counting calories every day can make it a fairly easy one too.

---

'Physical fitness as attractive' isn't a world-wide, millennial-long standard, it's mostly a modern one. The Spartans prized physical fitness in both men and women; the Athenians, not so much. The Wodaabe tribe still favors male beauty (tallness, and white teeth and eyes) where women choose based on looks, over fitness. The Ethiopian Bodi tribe still favors really really fat men over fitness. Hawaiians favored fat people of both sexes, because it meant you were eating pig, which was reserved for VIPs, instead of the common fish and poi diet. It also meant you were eating enough calories to keep ahead of endemic tapeworm - not that they realized that the slimness of the commoners was due to parasites, they just knew that slenderness was common, and fatness was not. As recently as 100 years ago the western world favored plump women with fair skin and a weak (not a whole lot of muscle) build, because, as Signy pointed out, it was an indication of status. As a woman, you weren't doing hard physical labor all day, every day, in the fields, in the hot skin-leathering sun, on poor rations.

Quote:

---

Fat, is not sexy.

---

So an absolutist statement like this, as if it was some kind of genetic human truth, is not congruent with reality. It's just true of some places and some times.

Quote:

---

Fat is not a "virtue" that should be taught to young people. They should not be told that it's okay to be lazy and have horrible eating habits. Fat is one of the largest visible indicators to everyone around you that you make poor choices and you are unhealthy because of them.

---

Fat is partly a result of our food manufacturing system, as I've indicated elsewhere. Even our pets suffer from it. Even bears scavenging on city dumps and human food suffer from it. Even science points to manufactured food as being highly addictive. And 'fatness' might not even be the driver of poor health as much as lack of activity. The jury's still out on that.

So, again, I just want to point out - based on evidence - that your ideas, while true in some places and some times, aren't the universals truths.

Quote:

---

Not every man finds traditional VS models attractive. For many years, one of the sexiest women on the planet, Kate Upton, was denied being on the VS lineup because she was too "fat".


I think that was the biggest problem that VS had. Their entire model lineup for decades was 100% filled with nearly impossible levels of skinniness. Some of the models may have naturally had the metabolism to keep that shape, but many of them likely did not, and probably did resort to drugs or eating disorders to keep their high paying jobs.


But what's happening right here, right now is an extreme over-correction that is going to kill the brand.

---

The brand was already dying. They may be killing the VS brand 'patient' with what they hope are resuscitative measures, but it's a reaction to the problem of slipping market share. The change in consumer preference was already on them.

Quote:

---

Instead of scrambling to appease the ACTUALLY fat pink haired twitter weirdos in 2021, they should have just let Kate Upton in their lineup and not tell everybody she was fat when they had the chance.

---

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

PICTURED: Kate Upton. Not Fat. (But also, Kate Upton. Not Entirely a Product of Nature. See Kate Upton breast augmentation or enhancement.)

---

But - it's not fatness that's the issue. Women buy the vast majority of VS products. And while the whole line of thinking that women will buy whatever crap is appealing to men may have worked for a few decades, that thinking has changed especially in the 18-49 demographic that spends the most money. Women today want ease of wearing, comfort, and value. And they don't feel the need to compare themselves to the modern winners of the genetic lottery in terms of facial structure, skin color, height, proportions, etc. That thinking seems like it's coming to an end - where women try to fit a male fantasy.

Quote:

---

And the bottom line is, if VS is going to make the changes that they're talking about making, they're no longer in the lingerie business. They're making comfortable clothing and undergarments, some of which might be moderately sexy, for the overweight population.

---

Then maybe the lingerie business is a severely shrinking category is the US.

Quote:

---

Like I said before. That's they're prerogative. But they're not going to change any minds by doing it.

---

I think VS is trying to figure out how to catch up to minds that are already changed. The slipping market share has been going on for quite some time.

Quote:

---

They're just going to leave a void behind that somebody else is going to come around to fill.

---

Uhm, they were muscled off their perch by competition that's more in tune with the demographic. There is no void at this point.

Quote:

---

And if the new direction VS takes from here ends up losing them more money while losing their existing clientele, the new CEO will ultimately be fired.

---

---

QUOTED POST: June 19, 2021

UPDATE: July 14, 2022

Oh baby! Victoria's Secret was riding high after they fired all the (expensive) talent and replaced
them with fat girls, washed up soccer player leftist propagandists and trannies, topping out
at $74.77 per share on August 13th of 2021 .

$26.80 today.

OPPS!

They just fired 160 managers, to save $40 Million. You read that right... Their average
management salary is a quarter of a million bucks... Well earned, I'm sure, since they're
running the company into the ground.

Their sales slipped 5.4% last quarter, and that comes off of a yearly decline of 8% in sales the
year prior.

It doesn't appear they've learned their lesson yet.

School is in session.

P.S. I told you so.

---

Quote:

---

Ahead of the separation, Victoria’s Secret announced a new board, mostly populated by women, a new women-focused approach that highlights empowerment and diversity, and a brand ambassador panel, VS Collective, that includes U.S. soccer player Megan Rapinoe; actor, producer and author Priyanka Chopra Jonas; and Paloma Elsesser, a model and body-positive advocate.

...

MKM calls Victoria’s Secret a “compelling value” that has assets including a strong executive team and an omnichannel structure that works to its benefit. Analysts rate the company’s shares buy with an $88 price target.

Analysts are equally upbeat about Bath & Body Works.

“Now having spun off Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works is a standalone company with industry-leading margins and market share, a robust growth trajectory, category tailwinds and a flexible supply chain,” Wells Fargo wrote in a separate Bath & Body Works note.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK (June 19th, 2021):

And the bottom line is, if VS is going to make the changes that they're talking about making, they're no longer in the lingerie business. They're making comfortable clothing and undergarments, some of which might be moderately sexy, for the overweight population.

Like I said before. That's they're prerogative. But they're not going to change any minds by doing it. They're just going to leave a void behind that somebody else is going to come around to fill. And if the new direction VS takes from here ends up losing them more money while losing their existing clientele, the new CEO will ultimately be fired.

--------------------------------------------------

Give me liberty or just come shoot me in my house. I'm so over this ridiculous reality.

---

Quote:

---

Victoria’s Secret is bringing sexy back.

The U.S. lingerie chain said that it will focus on expanding its swim, sport and apparel offerings after a drop in sales the last two years following its woke, feminist makeover.

The company launched a rebranding effort two years ago to promote inclusivity. It featured lesbian soccer star Megan Rapinoe, transgender model Valentina Sampaio and other spokesmodels.

Reviews were favourable at the time, but it did not translate to increased sales.
Victoria’s Secret is projecting revenue of $6.2 billion this year, down 5% from 2022 and well below the $7.5 billion from 2020.

At a presentation to investors in New York last week, the company said it was shifting gears to increase sales.

“Sexiness can be inclusive,” said Greg Unis, brand president of Victoria’s Secret and Pink, according to CNN editorial partner Business of Fashion. “Sexiness can celebrate the diverse experiences of our customers and that’s what we’re focused on.”

The financial drain the body-positive marketing was causing has forced the fashion chain to bring its runway shows back, in which it will blend sexiness with more inclusive initiatives.

Hailey Bieber and Emily Ratajkowski have been featured in more recent campaigns along with plus-size models Paloma Elsesser and Ali Tate-Cutler.

“Despite everyone’s best endeavours, it’s not been enough to carry the day,” said chief executive Martin Waters.

---

Quote:

---

Another company that put Megan Rapinoe at the center of its marketing is failing … miserably.

It’s been a bad year for marketing executives who chose to go woke in their messaging, and you can add Victoria’s Secret to that list.

By the sounds of it, the women’s lingerie company took such a revenue hit from its “inclusive” new direction that they’re strongly pivoting away from it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Heard News report that VS stock lost 25%.

Shockers.

Is it because Libtard wymmin soccer beat Canada on a submerged field?

---