Victoria's Secret already brought in more diversity over the last few years, so I don't think they need to constantly reinforce it. Sometimes the culture overcorrects and brands start trying too hard, and that's when it feels like bullsh*t. If they keep casting different looks and different women without making a big announcement about it every time, that's enough. Diversity shouldn't feel like a marketing strategy, it should feel normal. Otherwise it turns into forced inclusion, which is an awkward place to be. I don't think the body positivity movement fading from the spotlight means the message suddenly doesn't matter. The point already got across; message delivered. We don't need to talk about something nonstop for it to stay relevant. They've already shown more variety in bodies and looks, so now it's just about consistency, and seeing whether it was performative. As for the male gaze, I don't think it's this evil thing people make it out to be. Men are visual. It's biology, it's instinct, it's literally evolution. And in fashion, it's more often than not gay men making the decisions anyway, which is still a male gaze, only from a different lens. There's a place for both. Victoria's Secret was built around a specific aesthetic that people recognized instantly. If they veer too far away from that, they'll lose the "iconic" factor. Every great brand has a signature. It was "unattainable beauty." Sometimes unattainable beauty is the point, especially in lingerie. Not being able to replicate it is part of the fantasy. You can only call it empowerment when you're serving the very people you're claiming to want to reach, which is women, your target audience. When we're satisfied with the results on ourselves, and the products complement a range of sizes and shapes, that's when it becomes tangible. That's what sticks. Everything else is marketing.
Victoria's Secret isn't just rebranding after years of outdated ideals, it needs to overcome the silently bad radioactive reputation from hyper-sexualizing women, slow burn out of cultural irrelevance, and the long shadow of Epstein's reach into the brand's modeling ecosystem, that have left wet cigar wrapper stains all over the white suede couch. But other companies have made comebacks when they hit similar bottoms: Abercrombie shedded its cool kids only' elitism / Look policy etc; Gucci recovered from a blackface scandal with quick action; even Uber course-corrected with cultural overhauls. For Victoria's Secret, true modernization though will require more than a reorg or quick admission of guilt, or a few policy changes: It means redefining and shifting its entire legacy. If you want to know how hard that is: Call Hugh Hefner, circa 2000.
I grew up with Victoria's Secret as the 'pretty store'. It was the place a girl could feel like a model, and it was the place her man would dress her to his taste. The target audience was the 'male gaze,' and because women desired it, we bought from the secret, the delicious secret. Today, beauty standards have been challenged as love has crossed cultural, racial, and other lines. Thick girls are called juicy, and voluptuous, curvy girls are not considered fat. Men's desires have evolved with the empowerment movement, as beauty standards were challenged and women embraced their natural curls, no matter how kinky, and bigger butts became a thing worth getting surgery to achieve. As women redefined beauty, men redefined desire. Victoria's Secret needs to decide who their market is - the man with the desire, or the woman who will wear their gear. Marketing wins when the target audience is clear. If Victoria's Secret is targeting the male gaze, he will spend to make his fantasy his reality. If the target is a female, speak to her confidence and her desire to love what she sees in the mirror, as women are less concerned about what men think and are very invested in how they feel about themselves. That is how the brand evolves. It needs to understand the avatar it is selling to, and there cannot be a one-ad-campaign-fits-all approach.