Victoria has a new secret: Victoria’s Secret Runway show 2024

Sasha Andresier

A minute countdown flashes against a backdrop of New York City and like the calling in of a new year, a new generation of Victoria’s Secret Angels are initiated into the world of pink carpets, glittering spectacle and high stress runways. To be an Angel is to be an artefact of the billion-dollar brand– the success of which has rested for years on venerating the ideal female form and generating supermodels who fluently encapsulate this ideal. To be a VS angel is to possess and perpetuate the impossible. This year’s chosen few are not like their predecessors however. After a thirty year legacy and a six year hiatus, the angel role has evolved to be so much more than the stereotypically perfect group from years gone by. This is not to underestimate the extremely high standards of modelling that were displayed this year, but rather my curiosity lies in the brand’s new found advocacy for the inclusion of all body types which they so sorely lacked before. 

VS has burdened itself with the dual objectives of evolving while remaining the same.

The caption to the show’s YouTube livestream reads, ‘The Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is BACK and will reflect who we are today, plus everything you know and love’. For many, the news of the runway show’s return is akin to the return of the prodigal daughter. Nonetheless, many simply, and rightly so, are reluctant to trust evangelising about body image from a brand that has famously failed to prioritise diversity of bodies for the past three decades. VS has burdened itself with the dual objectives of evolving while remaining the same. My examination is thus to answer in which ways VS succeeds in reforming their image to fulfil 2024 standards and in which ways they have stumbled on the runway.

Ultimately the endeavour to not isolate their audience comes with an inevitable restriction on the spectacle they can achieve with the show

Some changes made by VS are uncompromisingly good ideas. For example, while it was to some people’s disappointment, the absence of the Fantasy Bra reads well for the new image of the brand. The Fantasy Bra is a famed piece of lingerie exhibitionism- a bejewelled bra designed each year to demonstrate the true extravagance and luxury of the brand. And of course, it is made to cost no less than 1 million dollars. Its absence this year, while noticeable, is true to a society facing a cost of living crisis and is perhaps one of the more tactful decisions made by the brand this year. Thus it becomes clear that the brand has developed some awareness of the wants of a customer who is unlikely to look favourably on a company that needlessly flaunts their excess wealth. They seem to be appealing to a much more balanced target demographic- a group that look slightly closer to the general population. 

In lieu of over 42 million US households being cost burdened as of 2022, the general American population has earned the right to question what brands are actually advocating for the common person. The issue arises as VS must attempt to navigate a market troubled by affording housing let alone the luxury of lingerie and yet still through this show perform their beloved “fantasy” and provide their audience with an escapism of sorts. Ultimately the endeavour to not isolate their audience comes with an inevitable restriction on the spectacle they can achieve with the show. The discord in ‘what [we] know and love’ from the brand and what can be reasonably achieved without backlash is perhaps the greatest difficulty for VS.

When disabled bodies are kept absent from these spheres of performative beauty and sexiness, the implication runs that such bodies do not possess these features.

Some people contend against this argument however as there has been large outcry for a return to form. The heralded glamour, mystique, and yes, exclusivity is sorely missed by many. Criticism comes from voices on X (formerly known as Twitter) who ask of the inclusivity, ‘what customer segment does this appeal to?’ or more plainly say ‘I hate it here’. In 2018 former Marketing Chief Ed Razek was criticised for suggesting that transgender and plus-sized women do not fit into the Victoria’s Secret fantasy. While this year’s show is a direct reaction to Razek’s comments- featuring two transgender and multiple “plus-size” models, it seems there is still a hole in the VS definition of “inclusive”. It has been noted that many disabled models were featured on the pre-show pink carpet but not included in the runway performance, leading me to question whether the ideal Victoria’s Secret Angel has anything in common with the 12.4% of female Americans who are disabled. 

When disabled bodies are kept absent from these spheres of performative beauty and sexiness, the implication runs that such bodies do not possess these features. Who is considered sexy is compromised when a brand of such proportions keeps these bodies in absentia from their image. The brand prefaces their runway by imploring that the show ‘will reflect who we are today’ highlighting their move towards inclusivity but falls flat if who they are today remains exclusive to certain body types and abilities. The Angel is not an all-encompassing role, and simply cannot reflect a large portion of the population. The comments made by Razek unfortunately pervade and the sorry attempts to rectify this only prove that the brand has a long way to go.

The question of which customers this inclusive approach appeals to must challenge the assumption that the show is made for the exclusivist male audience who reach for the catalogue as sexual amusement and not a celebration of female empowerment

Razek’s comments lend themselves to a tentative debate of who this show is actually marketed towards. The male gaze is inextricable from how many desire the show to look- not as an advertisement to women of all body types in seeing how the product suits them but as a production of male heterosexual fantasy. The body put at the forefront is stereotypically beautiful, thin, cisgender and able-bodied. The question of which customers this inclusive approach appeals to must challenge the assumption that the show is made for the exclusivist male audience who reach for the catalogue as sexual amusement and not a celebration of female empowerment. To ‘hate’ the reformed show on the basis of its new found diversity is to forget the importance of expanding sexiness to include all those who desire its attribution and not merely a select few who attain the stereotypical beauty standards. By discarding and counteracting the comments of the previous Marketing Chief VS sheds its old ideals of fantasy and exclusivity and opens its arms to a far superior image of femininity and sexiness. As Harper Bazaar’s Dani Mahler puts it the show is simply more fun when it is inclusive.

Sasha Andresier