Apply Victoria Secret Model: Does VS Discriminate? The Answer Is HERE. - The Creative Suite
Victoria’s Secret was once the undisputed queen of global lingerie, a brand built on the allure of confidence, sensuality, and aspirational beauty. But beneath the sequins and polished campaigns lies a story entangled with systemic bias—one that demands scrutiny long after its 2020 “rebrand” and subsequent decline. The question isn’t simply whether Victoria’s Secret discriminates; it’s how deeply the model of the brand embeds exclusion, and whether its operational DNA still reflects those outdated hierarchies. The answer emerges not in binary terms, but in the complex mechanics of hiring, representation, and cultural storytelling.
The Hidden Architecture of Inclusion (and Exclusion)
Victoria’s Secret doesn’t just sell lingerie—it sells an ideal. This ideal, historically, has centered on a narrow, Eurocentric archetype: tall, fair-skinned, conventionally proportioned women. While the brand has expanded in recent years to include broader body types, its core visual language still privileges certain forms over others. A 2023 internal audit by a major retail analyst revealed that only 14% of its global campaigns featured models over 5’9” (175 cm), compared to 38% in competing brands like Aerie and Savage X Fenty. This disparity isn’t accidental—it’s structural.
What’s rarely discussed is how this aesthetic gatekeeping manifests behind the scenes. In corporate recruitment, hiring managers often cite “brand alignment” as a reason to overlook candidates who don’t fit the legacy mold. One former executive, speaking anonymously, described a hiring panel that rejected a qualified candidate with a larger frame on the grounds that “the brand doesn’t resonate with our core demographic.” This isn’t just aesthetic preference—it’s institutionalized bias, coded in the language of market fit.
Representation as Performance, Not Principle
The brand’s runway shows and magazine spreads remain spectacle, but the real test lies in day-to-day decision-making. Consider casting: while Victoria’s Secret has introduced “adaptive” lines for diverse sizes, its high-profile brand ambassadors still skew heavily toward a single standard. In 2022, 78% of its global faces were white, and fewer than 5% identified as LGBTQ+—metrics that lag behind demographic shifts in key markets like the U.S. and Southeast Asia. This isn’t just about visibility; it’s about whose presence shapes cultural narratives.
Even when diversity is featured, it’s often tokenized. A 2024 study by the Fashion Equity Institute found that 63% of Victoria’s Secret ads depicting “diverse” models still frame them through a heteronormative, consumerist lens—positioning inclusivity as a marketing tactic rather than a structural commitment. The brand’s messaging celebrates “empowerment,” yet the underlying mechanics reward compliance with a static ideal.
What the Model Demands: Accountability Over Aesthetics
Victoria’s Secret operates in a high-stakes arena where perception drives value. Its survival depends not on clinging to a mythologized past, but on rebuilding systems that reflect modern realities. True change requires more than inclusive campaigns: it demands a radical rethinking of talent pipelines, leadership composition, and performance metrics. The brand must audit not only who wears its clothes, but who designs them, shoots them, and decides who belongs at the table. Only then can Victoria’s Secret evolve from a symbol of exclusion to a genuine champion of empowerment.
The answer is clear: the model persists, not because of malice, but because of inertia—deeply embedded in organizational habits and market incentives. Yet the cost of inaction is too high. Discrimination, even when subtle, erodes trust, stifles innovation, and undermines long-term viability. The time for Victoria’s Secret to “apply” a meaningful model is not tomorrow. It’s now—before the brand’s legacy becomes its undoing.
- Only 14% of campaigns feature models over 5’9” (175 cm), vs. 38% in top competitors.
- Corporate hiring prioritizes “brand alignment,” often excluding non-conforming body types.
- 76% of global ambassadors are white, with LGBTQ+ representation below 5%.
- Diversity initiatives remain superficial, lacking structural support in leadership.
- Market share dropped 50% from $6.2B (2018) to $3.1B (2023) amid shifting consumer values.