It is not-so-secret that 2020 seems to mark the decline of one of the most iconic and ubiquitous underwear brands in the world. Victoria’s Secret (VS), a historically-profitable lingerie brand that has expanded to beauty and cosmetics, has been making headlines for the past year, and hardly for its profit or success. The brand’s value has been decreasing year-on-year by about 13.5 percent; the New York Times collected numerous allegations of hostile work environments and sexual harassment allegations throughout the company’s leadership; and the pinnacle of VS advertising, the annual Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, a glitzy, glamorous, “fantasy” vision of womanhood (in the words of former CEO Ed Razek) was canceled this year. It was announced in February 2020 that the brand’s parent company, L Brands, was planning to sell VS to a private equity firm. It seems, therefore, that Victoria’s Secret has fallen. 

What led to the demise of this retail giant? Critics of the brand have pointed to many factors: the shift away from shopping-mall culture, the locus of the brand’s growth, or perhaps the ties between L Brands CEO Leslie Wexner and sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein. However, by looking at the rise of newer, competitive underwear brands, we can see that there is one crucial aspect of Victoria’s Secret’s presence that is rendering it more and more obsolete by the day –– its advertising. Victoria’s Secret has always used its ad campaigns to project what it thought viewers would see as the ‘ideal woman.’ The women in its photographs, and in its famous and long-anticipated fashion show, subscribe to the body type that would seem to intimidate women, and project the oversexualized imagery that would appeal to men –– some bra collections are entitled Very Sexy, or Dream Angels. Famous VS Fashion Show segments featured a thoroughly homogenous thin woman (with underwhelming racial representation), muscular in the right places and with flowing locks, parading in heels and flimsy underwear. It is worth noting that comfort and flexibility, two paramount features of underwear as an intimate garment, are largely lost from VS’s marketing. All this seems to indicate one devastating point: underwear’s purpose is to seduce, to pleasure. If you don’t fit this paradigm of femininity, the brand’s image seems to imply that you are simply wasting your time.

In an era where mental health is being vehemently destigmatized, and greater cultural awareness is placed on body image, mental disorders and the dangers of media marketing for young girls and women in particular, it is hardly surprising that VS finds itself outdated. There has been a large cultural shift away from restrictive normative ideals, particularly targeted at women. Teen sensations like Ariana Grande and Selena Gomez regularly speak out about their struggles with mental health. Billie Eilish, one of the most successful teenagers right now, has been transparent about suffering from depression, saying she was “going to have a breakdown.” Social media has begun to evolve too (though it is important not to stay too optimistic): Instagram, a key proponent of triggering imagery and idealized ‘highlight reels’ of user’s lives projected into the virtual world, has experienced a decline and is proposing to get rid of the ‘Likes’ feature. Tech, it seems, is evolving, and underwear brands are too. 

Businesses selling underwear confront one of the most universal influences on a young person’s self-perception: bodies. By portraying diversity in the ages, body types, genders, races, and abilities engaging with the underwear, brands like Rihanna brainchild Savage X Fenty or the fledgling social-media-savvy Parade invite rather than exclude. Young women are encouraged to celebrate their differences, rather than discard them; to be empowered by imperfections, not afraid of them. Images of women, regardless of their physical differences and diversities, are all allowed to be powerful, to be celebrated, through the wearing of the product. These ad campaigns might once have been thought of as discouraging, but now, they are well on their way to becoming the norm. The challenges to brands like Victoria’s Secret can only be seen as a response to a greater focus on mental health, on feeling empowered, and on wanting to instill in consumers this sense of uplift. 

Moreover, these female-owned businesses are showing a greater awareness of the underwear’s physical relationship to the wearer, namely comfort. The fabrics themselves, while being a new source of both comfort and aesthetic appeal, are also a key aspect of a final sphere of business appeal: sustainability. It is worth noting that, according to DiversityInc.com, of the prominent leadership roles at Victoria’s Secret, 80% are men. It is not surprising, therefore, that the company’s ethos focuses more on aesthetic and sex appeal than it does on comfort. It’s clear that the bras sold, on the whole, are not meant to be comfortable, but rather are meant to seduce. However, with the rise in popularity of athleisure couture — the “fashion sneaker,” for example — comfort is becoming an increasingly important aspect of fashion. It is this more personal focus, on feeling good rather than looking good, that has translated into the underwear industry. Newer brand Parade advertises a fabric called RePlay, specifically developed for the brand, and has been widely praised by customers. Many are raving about the Parade's simple look and simple feel; one reviewer speaks for many when she says, “It’s like we are wearing nothing!”

The advertising campaigns of these brands, and many others that have shifted towards a more diverse marketing strategy, are extremely effective. The “Diversity Factor” is not only an ethical power move, it is also just great business. It seems unlikely, therefore, that portraying an idealized vision of womanhood is any longer an appealing strategy to consumers. Rather than buying a product that symbolizes an unattainable yet unfathomably desirable ideal, consumers are becoming drawn by companies that represent their bodies and celebrate them, rather than invalidating them.