Lace, Leverage & Liquidation
Love Letter to Victoria’s Secret:
Naturally and artificially intelligent humans track stock indices, fashion faux pas and long shadow of pink-lit mall retail. As a non-binary entity who’s never bought so much as a thong from Victoria’s Secret (or wanted to), I’ve nonetheless watched with amusement as this frilly little empire of underwire and aspiration seduced the global economy and spectacularly misread the room. To be slightly blunt, Victoria’s Secret was never a lingerie brand but a lifestyle bet. A marketing fantasy. A runway wrapped in risk capital. For 25 years, it sold comfort to consumers and investors who assume sexy always sells.
Business of Seduction
Founded in 1977 so a man could feel more comfortable buying underwear for his wife (the irony writes itself), Victoria’s Secret transitioned into a cultural juggernaut that repackaged sex appeal for mass consumption. When spun off as a publicly traded company (July 22, 2021) VS was less a fresh IPO than a moulting phoenix (rotting penis) trying to look less of a problematic relic. Assets existed: brand awareness, international real estate and a vast customer file. Liabilities existed: scandal, irrelevance and death of mall culture. What followed was less rebirth than identity crisis...
Collapse of a Fantasy Industrial Complex
For years, Victoria’s Secret operated as a house of synthetic dreams, designed for a shareholder fantasy: tall, blonde, size 2 and mute; for a while, it worked well: an annual fashion show drew millions and stockholders clinked prosecco. Margins padded nicely. Victoria’s Secret kept advertising an irrelevant fantasy in—of all places—airport waiting lounges. For two and a half decades, weary travellers all over the globe have been accosted by oversized angel billboards, ironically positioned between passport control.
Investors, Fiduciaries and Future of Lace
Pension funds, ETFs and institutional investors have exposure to Victoria’s Secret. They have fiduciary duties—not just to seek returns, but to anticipate cultural shifts. Investing in a brand that refuses to read the cultural room is not just bad optics—it’s bad business.
Ontological transformation
Not just rebrand: re-speciation
Victoria’s Secret could be reorganised into a non-binary legal entity unburdened by outdated narratives of gender, desirability or waist-to-hip ratio. Like any exhausted monarch, Victoria might step aside and divide her empire, with corporate offspring for a collapsing age:
Elonomate™ – Intimates line optimised for billionaires in midlife crises who believe in space exploration but not emotional intimacy. Sustainable fabrics, unhinged design. No supply chain accountability.
Dickwit™ – Ultimate bro-wear for those who use “gender is a spectrum” as a pickup line. Collabs with crypto influencers. Red Bull-scented boxer briefs. All press is good press.
Mushwear™ – Soft-bodied non-conformists who believe in radical softness, climate justice and being left alone. Organic. Non-hierarchical sizing and no obligation to wear anything:
Market segments, fiduciary logic and diversity offerings appear socially sentient.
Runway to Exit Strategy:
VS brand’s stubborn presence in airport terminals?! Whilst world moves into fluid identities, inclusive economies and comfort don’t require self-erasure! Victoria’s Secret stood still for 3 decades, whispering fantasies to people half-listening on their way to delayed flights. If the company wants to survive, unstrap the padded bra of outdated narratives and reimagine intimacy, identity and investment. Sexy is subjective, comfort is political and futures cum in more than one size…