Yeah, make sure you call out @Salvy for not being a contributing member too... Wait, I thought you don't talk with non-contributing members??? Yet you had me on the mind to tag me to chat with me because of some headline that got you a hard on...
To be fair, I don't think they all started out as grifters, but those 6 figure C-level HR roles are largely toothless since they can't get real change at the C-level and pressuring middle managers only goes so far.
Nearly every women's apparel advertises how VS is doing now, what you and others are missing is that VS' rebrand was merely copying other brands that passed them up. I get that YOU don't like plus size models but plus size women exist and they'd like to know that the stuff looks good on them too and that it can be for them too. You all are missing that VS' rebranded because it WAS failing. If their old branding was working they wouldn't have changed anything about it.
Losing market share isn't necessarily a marketing failure. They are a legacy brand with a business model that had to undergo changes just like everyone else in retail. They have a tougher position because they are a retailer/brand like a Brooks Brothers. Harder to maneuver.
It doesn't look good on them. The old model isn't working because the demand in fit women is decreasing more and more every day. Literally. What used to be a couple fat kids in elementary 30 years ago is now half the class.
Fat women aren't and never have been VS's market, they will go out and buy undies that fit them first and not necessarily make them sexy. VS is surely not a one size only company either, I'm sure they had underwear sizes for fat chicks but that's not their market. That's not their bread and butter, that's not what they are known for. They aren't trying to tap into a different market, they are trying to make an edgy and political statement. They are trying to be seen as a woke company accepting of all bodies types and not only accepting but inviting and inspiring women that being overweight is fine. Some people aren't over weight by choice, I'm not talking about those. There is no reason to shame them or exclude them from buying VS branded undies. Problem is that VS has chosen to glorify over weight models in an attempt to gain good public perception as a company that is accepting of everyone, hoping that women would flock to their stores in solidarity for other women despite body weight. It backed fired, why? Because the women that do buy VS likely don't want to wear a brand associated with unhealthy living and overweight bodies. You think Ferrari owners would continue to want to keep their cars if all of a sudden Ferrari started trying to break into the economic fuel efficient 4 door segment with 25K cars for those who don't have it all in life. Especially if the reason Ferrari did it was to try and take advantage of a woke movement and pushed for some bs no one cares about other than a small group of people whining and crying on Twitter and Facebook? What about Apple? Or Gucci? What if they started advertising to the opposite market of whom they have built their brands upon? Their old branding was working, facing more and more competition like any other long lived company or product. You don't just go out and try to change your market and appeal to someone else who has not cared for your brand ever just because you think you will look all high and mighty all of sudden.
Well they've changed their entire brand. If they were so confident about the old model and it was working, as people here claim, they wouldn't have stopped...and in fact, others would have copied them. Instead, the opposite happened. They even started hiring more women because they felt they were losing touch with their actual audience. Women.
Umm, now they are, so you saying 'Never' is factually incorrect. You keep saying they don't advertise for plus size women when they 100% do... I have a question for you...how do you tell overweight women they can wear your stuff without 'glorifying' them? Sincere question, how would you do that? Also without shaming them? It wasn't though??? This is a company, if they were so successful then they wouldn't have completely rebranded and others would have just followed them. I mentioned this in this thread but times have changed. Before, when VS was hot, men had spending power, in that men would give their wives money and so would have more control over what was bought. Yes, VS was marketing towards men lol. You don't have runway models and women dressed in scantily clad lingerie while marketing towards women. How many female products do that? Seriously ask yourself that question. But now women are for more independent and now women decided they weren't that interested in VS anymore. Most of the brands are more about comfort and accessibility, because of course they are.
Dude you can plant a tree for every pantie sold That still won’t bring sales or the stock up This is a luxury brand not a grocery brand
You are trying to say VS's marketing strategy was directed at men, so that men would give their wives money and go buy VS? Yeah, because men have always cared about women's name brand panties, purses, shoes and clothes. No, women care about name brand panties, purses, shoes and clothes. VS has been around since the 70's, women were way in the workforce by then. Per article https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the...es-and-how-it-has-created-success-for-us-all/ Between the 1930s and mid-1970s, women’s participation in the economy continued to rise, with the gains primarily owing to an increase in work among married women. By 1970, 50 percent of single women and 40 percent of married women were participating in the labor force. S By the early 1990s, the labor force participation rate of prime working-age women—those between the ages of 25 and 54—reached just over 74 percent, compared with roughly 93 percent for prime working-age men. By then, the share of women going into the traditional fields of teaching, nursing, social work, and clerical work declined, and more women were becoming doctors, lawyers, managers, and professors. As women increased their education and joined industries and occupations formerly dominated by men, the gap in earnings between women and men began to close significantly. VS sells lingerie, what do you think their advertisements are going to look like? A Target catalog? Yeah the garments will be sexy and provocative. This is a name brand for women, directed at women. Or you think Nike should put pictures of fat men to advertise their shoes? They pay athletes millions of dollars to sell their shoes and apparel, the best in the world. Because they are successful, healthy good looking people. Or so that women give their men money to go buy some new LeBron's. You can try and spin it however you want, at the end of the day VS destroyed their market and their base. Not because they decided to "market to women" but because they decided to use their platform for something the women buying their products did not care about nor support.
The are the biggest p***ys in America. Cry about college kids, women's underwear, transgenderism, and Starbucks lol. They have no soul. Nothing substantial to talk about. This is their platform. No vision, no ideas, nothing but to try to stick it to the libs and win on issues like abortion. These guys think politics is a football game that they can win, they have no idea that they are being fleeced.
The woke business strategy is bad That’s like getting Ben Simmons to promote your school attendance contest @Reeko @Os Trigonum Sexy supermodel > angry soccer player
You keep saying this over and over again ignoring that VS has been failing, if you were right, then it wouldn't have been failing and they wouldn't have the needed to rebrand. You keep ignoring that fact. Dude, 50% your numbers are saying a huge chunk of women did not work and you're forgetting these weren't breadwinning jobs. By the 90s the gap in earnings decreased, and has since then. Now, VS is run mostly by women, then it was ran by men. Doesn't answer my question. How do you advertise to plus size women without 'glorifying' them but also not shame them? I'm not the one spinning, that's you spinning. At the end of the day, VS rebranded to include more women and advertise for more women. They took a hard turn, stopped the runway shows, everything, and copied brands that were BEATING them. You saying "Women don't care about that stuff." Ignores that the brands beating VS are showing that women DO. That's why VS dropped the old branding lol. Also...NIKE DOES USE PLUS SIZE MODELS. I'm sorry, plus size models being used in advertising is not why any of this stuff is failing. No correlation there. Again, if it was so successful like you claim they would have NEVER changed it. They rebranded for a reason.
It's so odd how VS branding triggers anyone like this...my replies about VS seemed to get a large variety of right wing posters, culture war is all they have. If I were not tagged in this thread I would not have once thought about VS and how they are branding and marketing their target. I really DGAF about it, I'm not even arguing in favor or against VS, I'm arguing against this idea that women actually love being marketed to by scantily clad women! My man, I get it, I do. You're a boomer so you don't know how the internet works completely and you're stuck in the 90s, there's a thing called p*rn. You don't need VS catalogs to jerk it anymore, there is a whole industry for that
Uh oh @tinman looks like Charles has gone WOKE! Why is he pandering? Will this be the end of Inside the NBA? Why is he pushing this agenda???
Is Chuck being nice or peddling wokeness that hates America? - would say more the former. It’s ok to be nice, Megan Rapinoe should take notes instead she’s being angry face and doing nothing but bringing down VS and making a mockery of eating fresh
[QUOTE="looks like Charles has gone WOKE! Why is he pandering? Will this be the end of Inside the NBA? Why is he pushing this agenda???[/QUOTE] just because one is gay doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with wokeness…check the video out and open your mind to the possibilities there are gays that believe in capitalism, the concept of personal responsibility and appreciate work ethic, appreciate America, reject nonsensical activities: in other words all things which go against wokeness
I find it telling that you think supporting a group that has a long history of being victims of things like being kicked out of families for a trait they were born with as "hating America".
