A True Feminist Awakening or a Clever Marketing Move?
The 2024 return of the Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show brought plus-size models into the spotlight, aiming to capture attention through inclusivity and diversity. But here’s the question: is Victoria’s Secret advancing feminism, or merely using it as a strategy to revive sales?
Let’s take a closer look at the commercial logic behind this so-called “inclusive” show.
From “Sexy” to “Inclusive”
In 2024, Victoria’s Secret relaunched its iconic fashion show after a six-year hiatus, declaring its entrance into a “more inclusive era.” The event featured plus-size model Ashley Graham and transgender model Valentina Sampaio, with a focus on diversity and female empowerment. These moves were intended to distance the brand from its previously criticized, outdated image.
At first glance, this seems like a feminist win. However, contradictions emerge when we analyze the campaign’s underlying motivations. How do these proclaimed values of inclusivity and empowerment align with Victoria’s Secret’s commercial interests?
Feminism as a Marketing Tool
Victoria’s Secret’s rebranding effort can be explained through the concept of popular feminism, which integrates feminist ideals into mainstream culture through commodified narratives (Banet-Weiser, 2018). By promoting the idea that “every body can be sexy,” the brand seeks to align with societal demands for diversity while enhancing its market relevance.
- Cultural Connection: This narrative resonates with broader body positivity movements, enabling Victoria’s Secret to repair its cultural image.
- Strategic Advantage: These efforts also aim to attract consumers who shifted loyalty to inclusive competitors like Aerie and Savage X Fenty.
This is a calculated marketing move, leveraging feminist language to foster emotional connections with consumers while ultimately driving sales.
Empowerment or Consumption?
Victoria’s Secret’s approach reflects the logic of neoliberal feminism, which emphasizes individual empowerment through consumption while neglecting systemic inequalities (Gill, 2007).
The brand suggests that confidence and sexiness are achievable through their products. This commodifies empowerment, linking self-acceptance to consumer choices:
- Confidence Equals Consumption: Victoria’s Secret implies that by wearing its lingerie, women can feel empowered and beautiful, regardless of body type.
- Shifting the Blame: If confidence is lacking, the fault lies not in societal standards but in the individual’s failure to buy the right products.
This narrative not only individualizes empowerment but also diverts attention from deeper structural issues.
Who Defines “Sexy”?
Using Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, Victoria’s Secret’s rebranding appears less like a cultural revolution and more like a strategic adaptation.
We were treated to Paloma Elsesser and Ashley Graham’s angel debuts, but these gorgeous and well-loved models looked markedly different from their thinner peers. They were more covered up, wearing short dresses and body suits, compared to the string bikini underwear and bras of models like the Hadid sisters. The highlight of the night for me was seeing Graham’s uncovered thighs owning the runway, visible for the world to see — and something Graham herself has been advocating for for nearly 10 years. But, for a show that was positioned as more inclusive than the brand’s past, it felt like a gut punch that there were not just very, very few plus models, but that they weren’t given the same treatment when it was their time to shine.
Teen Vogue’s associate editor, Aiyana Ishmael
The brand broadens its definition of beauty by featuring plus-size and transgender models but avoids challenging the underlying standards of desirability, smoothness, and perfection (Gramsci, 1971).
This hegemonic update subtly reasserts Victoria’s Secret’s control over the definition of “sexy,” absorbing critical voices while leaving deeper power structures intact.
Performative Inclusivity: Real Change or Whitewashing?
Victoria’s Secret’s inclusivity also risks being perceived as performative diversity, a term that critiques symbolic gestures that fail to address systemic inequalities (Ahmed, 2012).
- Selective Diversity: The featured plus-size models conform to traditional beauty standards—symmetrical curves, polished looks, and glamour—leaving unconventional body types excluded.
- Crisis Management or Awakening?: This transformation coincides with declining sales, raising questions about whether it reflects genuine progress or calculated PR.
The Complex Relationship Between Feminism and Commercial Interests
Victoria’s Secret’s 2024 campaign borrows feminist language to reposition itself while continuing to uphold traditional aesthetics and market norms.
- Positive Impact: It fosters discussions about body diversity in mainstream fashion, creating space for more types of bodies.
- Problematic Simplification: Empowerment and diversity are reduced to marketable content, weakening feminism’s transformative potential (Zeisler, 2016). True feminism addresses systemic inequalities rather than commodifying individual empowerment.
Who Does Victoria’s Secret’s Inclusivity Truly Include?
Victoria’s Secret’s “feminist transformation” is both a step forward and a compromise. While it brings more diverse bodies into the spotlight, this diversity is curated under brand control, fitting a narrowly defined narrative of “appropriate” inclusivity.
As consumers, are we simply buying into this feminist narrative, trading empowerment for illusion? Feminism shouldn’t just be an accessory—it should drive genuine societal change. Victoria’s Secret may have started a new conversation, but the real transformation? That’s still a long way off.
Share your thoughts below, and Let’s discuss!