How Victoria’s Secret Missed the Mark on Inclusivity

Victoria’s Secret's inclusivity blunders have become a talking point in fashion circles and on social media alike. Once the undisputed king of lingerie advertising, the brand now wrestles with criticism that its campaigns feel dated, its size range feels exclusive, and its attempts at diversity often look token‑driven. The fallout isn’t just about optics; it’s reshaping how the company sells bras, builds loyalty, and competes with newer, body‑positive rivals.

Victoria’s Secret’s Inclusivity Blunders: What Went Wrong

For years, the brand built its identity around the “Angel” fantasy—a glossy, ultra‑slim aesthetic that rarely reflected the everyday shopper. In 2018, the “Perfect Body” campaign sparked a firestorm when the tagline suggested that only a certain silhouette could be truly attractive. Critics pointed out that the ads featured models who all fell within a narrow size range (US 0‑4), reinforcing an unrealistic standard.

When the backlash grew louder, the company promised change. Yet, the first steps felt half‑hearted. The 2019 fashion show, once a televised extravaganza, was canceled, and the brand introduced a few plus‑size and transgender models. While those moves were welcomed, many observers noted that the overall casting remained heavily weighted toward the traditional “Angel” look, leaving the broader message muddled.

Key Missteps in Retrospect

• Size exclusion: Even after expanding its size range to include up to US 24, the majority of runway pieces and marketing material still showcased smaller sizes.
• Token diversity: Hiring a handful of LGBTQ+ and plus‑size models without integrating them into the core narrative felt more like a check‑box than a genuine shift.
• Delayed response: The brand’s silence during the early years of the body‑positivity movement allowed competitors like Aerie and Savage X Fenty to capture the conversation.
• Inconsistent messaging: Press releases praised inclusion, yet the visual language of campaigns lagged, creating a credibility gap.

These errors aren’t unique to Victoria’s Secret; many legacy brands have stumbled when trying to rewrite decades‑old identities. However, the brand’s high profile means each misstep is amplified, and the stakes are high.

Consumer Backlash and Its Ripple Effects

Social media users quickly turned the brand’s missteps into memes and petitions, demanding a broader representation of bodies, ages, and identities. A notable petition in 2020 gathered over 150,000 signatures, urging the company to adopt a truly inclusive size chart and to stop using the “Angel” label altogether. While the petition never forced a policy change, it signaled a shift in consumer expectations.

Sales figures mirrored the sentiment. After the 2018 campaign, the company reported a modest dip in quarterly revenue, and analysts noted that younger shoppers—especially Gen Z—were gravitating toward rivals that celebrated real bodies. The decline prompted a change in leadership, with a new chief marketing officer hired in 2021 to steer the brand toward a more contemporary narrative.

Steps Toward Redemption

In recent years, Victoria’s Secret has taken concrete steps that suggest a more sincere approach. The brand now showcases a broader range of models in its catalog, from curvy to athletic, and has partnered with influencers who champion body positivity. Moreover, the company announced a partnership with a leading plus‑size designer to co‑create a capsule collection, aiming to prove that style and comfort can coexist at any size.

Perhaps the most telling change is the removal of the “Angel” moniker from its core branding. By shifting to “Victoria’s Secret Lingerie,” the label distances itself from the hyper‑sexualized image that once defined it. While some longtime fans miss the old fantasy, many new customers appreciate the brand’s willingness to evolve.

What the Industry Can Learn

Victoria’s Secret’s journey offers a cautionary tale for any heritage brand facing cultural change. First, authenticity matters more than a single diverse face; inclusivity should be woven into every touchpoint—from product design to advertising copy. Second, timing is critical; waiting until criticism reaches a fever pitch can damage trust beyond repair. Finally, transparent communication—admitting past missteps and outlining clear, measurable goals—helps rebuild credibility.

Brands that succeed are those that listen actively, act consistently, and measure impact honestly. The rise of inclusive marketing isn’t a passing trend; it reflects a broader societal shift toward representation that respects the diversity of real consumers.

FAQ

Q: Has Victoria’s Secret officially stopped using the “Angel” branding?

A: Yes. In 2021 the company rebranded its main line as “Victoria’s Secret Lingerie,” moving away from the “Angel” title that had become synonymous with an exclusive aesthetic.

Q: Are plus‑size options now a permanent part of Victoria’s Secret’s collection?

A: The brand now carries sizes up to US 24 across most categories, and it regularly promotes plus‑size models in its lookbooks. While the range has expanded, critics note that the depth of styles at higher sizes still lags behind the selection for smaller sizes.

Q: How does Victoria’s Secret’s approach compare with competitors like Aerie?

A: Aerie pioneered unretouched, body‑positive campaigns years earlier, building trust with younger shoppers. Victoria’s Secret is catching up, but analysts observe that Aerie’s consistent messaging still gives it a stronger reputation for genuine inclusivity.