iStock.com/Robert Way
June 23, 2025
Should Victoria’s Secret’s Board Be Replaced?
Victoria’s Secret & Co. is being targeted by two activist investors seeking to overhaul the retailer’s board.
The pressure comes as the lingerie retailer’s market valuation has collapsed to about $1.5 billion from the $6.5 billion it commanded after its 2021 split from Bath & Body Works.
Last week, Barington Capital Group, which has built a stake of more than 1% in the lingerie retailer, issued a letter to the Victoria’s Secret’s board that blamed the retailer’s struggles on high senior management turnover and a “lack of marketing and merchandising focus,” citing the re-launch of secondary brands like PINK and expansion into athleticwear as examples.
Also cited as a factor was an unclear vision. Barington added, “We believe that the company’s attempt to simultaneously embrace disparate cultural narratives has resulted in a diluted brand identity, while its core business — Victoria’s Secret’s leading bra and intimate apparel franchise — has suffered from seeming inattention and mismanagement.”
To recover, Victoria’s Secret should refocus on core categories like bras, launch “bold, exciting, and imaginative marketing campaigns” (including reintroducing the Angels campaign), accelerate growth in digital and international markets, and eliminate underperforming initiatives, according to Barington.
Barington further argued that leadership, including Hillary Super, current CEO and former CEO of intimates upstart Savage X Fenty, lacks the experience to lead a turnaround. Six of the nine current board members sat on the board during the company’s decline, and the remaining two independent directors “have limited experience successfully scaling large, global consumer businesses,” according to Barington.
Barrington wrote that the retailer “should consider replacing a majority — if not all — of the board with independent directors who bring relevant backgrounds, fresh perspectives, and a strong track record of value creation.”
In a separate letter sent to Victoria’s Secret’s board on June 9, BBRC International, which has a nearly 13% stake in the retailer and is led by Australian entrepreneur Brett Blundy, likewise wondered “why shouldn’t stockholders demand an immediate reconstitution of the board,” given the stock’s underperformance.
BBRC questioned the timing of share buybacks and the acquisition of Adore Me and specifically called for the ouster of board chair Donna James, who has been a director at Victoria’s Secret and, before that, parent company L Brands, for more than 20 years. Also questioned was why several executives have been replaced, but no board members have. BBRC said, “When will directors face the same performance-based consequences imposed on management?”
Victoria’s Secret, in the face of newer competition from Aerie, SKIMS, and Fenty, has been modernizing its approach by embracing more body-positive messages and inclusive sizing while bringing back the signature Fashion Show to revive some buzz. In its first quarter, comps were down 1% but exceeded expectations, with management indicating that a focus on newness and its PINK collection that targets teen girls and college-aged women is paying off.
Super said in a statement, “I am pleased with the strength the business demonstrated during the March and April timeframe, which included continued momentum in our powerhouse beauty business, ongoing strength in PINK apparel, and newness in sport and swim as we reclaim our position as a full lifestyle brand.”
Discussion Questions
Would Victoria’s Secret benefit from a board shake-up?
Should the retailer refocus on its flagship Victoria’s Secret brand and scale back investments in PINK, swimwear, and activewear?
Poll
Loading …BrainTrust
Neil Saunders
Managing Director, GlobalData
Brad Halverson
Principal, Clearbrand CX
Georganne Bender
Principal, KIZER & BENDER Speaking
Recent Discussions
More Discussions
How Can Retailers Crack the Gen Z ‘Riddle’?
Gen Z is becoming an increasingly important consumer demographic, but an elusive one to map. How…Does Bath & Body Works’ Scented Holiday Campaign Pass the Sniff Test?
Bath & Body Works is kicking off a new campaign with scent being at the fore…Which Tech Will Solve In-Store Inventory Woes?
Three major tech lineups are looking to solve retail inventory problems. Which is most suited?
Hillary Super has been in post for less than a year. Give her a chance to make changes and drive growth! I also see noting but carping from the activists. No real plans or strategies. Most of them just want to monetize for short term gain. That is not the way to run a retail business. This is a long term game!
As a rule, the phrase “activist investor” is one I loathe (“which has built a stake of more than 1% in the lingerie retailer” : there’s something wrong with a system that gives this financial chihuahua a(n outsized) voice); in this case, however, where there’s clearly underperformance, might it be an exception? But what confidence should we have that this group would have a better handle on the situation? Which is to say: just because Barington has identified a problem, why should we trust that they’ve also found the solution?
Exactly. You own around 1%. Pipe down and sit down!
Same thought: on a 1% level, or Activists with zero retail ownership experience. (How about taking your $billions and start your own company!).
“ identified a problem”… same ones that have been going on for decades.
They can change the Board or CEO every year… BUT if they cant change the Consumer, then end game is the same.
In my view, VS has taken back their old image… and embraces as much of the 1990’s supermodel as they can get away with.
Whether the brand truly had intent to be the voice of modern women… that is not clear, and frankly does not seem to matter. VS built their original “lane” very definitively.
Would be interesting to see plans from the Activists… 3yr, 5yr, 8yr plans?
Can they see farther than 2 quarters? Maybe 50th anniv year (2027) could be the end.
Not every company is built to handle 50+ years of societal change. The company is based on discretionary spend, so the Consumer does matter!
By refocusing on its flagship Victoria’s Secret brand, the retailer may be able to strengthen its core identity and attract its traditional customer base. In addition to enhancing brand loyalty, this strategic move may increase sales through a more concentrated marketing effort. Moreover, it allows the company to allocate resources more efficiently, thus potentially improving the quality of the product and the customer experience.
Next point – our Woke society needs to take a half step back and come to grips with the reality that in the retail world, not everything can be for everybody, nor can every brand make money while focusing with inclusivity. Victoria Secret tried to be politically correct by offering its brand and sizes to customers who don’t “fit” the original business model. (Pun intended.) The overweight manikins in the store are unappealing to the brand’s core customer, and the inventory has been cut back for the core customer, in order to make room for the newer untraditional market.
The object of any business is to make good marketing decisions that maximize profitability. Erosion of a brand image is unprofitable.
From my experience merchandising intimates at Kohl’s, there was and is plenty of evidence that average women’s sizes are larger than they used to be. (That goes for shoe sizes, dress sizes and — yes — bra sizes.) Trying to appeal to a broader audience than the idealized VS body image from the 90’s doesn’t make the strategy “woke.” (And what defines an “overweight” mannequin?)
Sadly, being “overweight” in the fashion world starts at a size 8. And that’s just ridiculous.
Come on, David. Victoria’s Secret needed to wake up. Watch the documentary Victoria’s Secret: Angels and Demons and then comment. Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner aside, it was time for VS to be more inclusive because its customers come in all shapes and sizes. Let’s hope it doesn’t go back to what it was: soft p*rn aimed at men.
I agree entirely. VS fell out of favor because it stopped reflecting the values of women and providing what they want. Aerie, which is very inclusive, has had phenomenal growth and has stolen so much share from VS. This isn’t about being woke – it’s about understanding and responding to the customer.
You guys are better people than I am. I find it very hard to comment on this statement politely
I really try to be tolerant of other people’s views, but sadly, it’s hard to do so with yours. I don’t like “woke” as a dirty word and guess what..I’m fat. How dare you imply thats “political correctness?” From the look of your profile photo, you have some experience with the husky size range. Give the women a break, huh?
David, you raise an important question about brand focus, but you’re misdiagnosing the core issue. The challenge isn’t that Victoria’s Secret became ‘too inclusive’ – it’s that they pivoted without authentic brand evolution or operational excellence.
Look at the competitive landscape: Aerie didn’t just win with inclusivity messaging – they won with better product, authentic brand voice, and operational execution. SKIMS succeeded by understanding that today’s intimate apparel customer wants both aspiration AND accessibility.
The notion of returning to a narrow ‘core customer’ strategy ignores fundamental market shifts. Even consumers who fit the traditional VS aesthetic now expect brands to reflect broader values. The question isn’t whether to be inclusive – it’s how to build inclusive brand positioning that feels authentic rather than reactive.
Victoria’s Secret’s real strategic imperative is brand coherence: creating a compelling vision that serves diverse customers without diluting what made the brand distinctive. That’s a merchandising and marketing execution challenge, not an argument for returning to exclusionary targeting.
“Victoria’s Secret’s real strategic imperative is brand coherence”
Even since the return of the Angeles & the runway special… the brand message is a multi level mashup.
–Their site is promotional/ price/value centered. [“From $16.99 or $19.99”].
–Their visual isn’t up to speed with functionality of today. When you select a size to view, the photo images dont’ narrow to that size range… Women still have unease of the brand “not being for them”
–The higher level (implied) quality… was gained through tie-ups with other brands. I’d guess so they could be dropped faster if didn’t gain traction.
E.g. website dropdown of “FEATURED”
The size inclusivity on website may never match up to VS marketing message. Unless they purposely narrow target the larger sizes, in order to play safe with their original audience. Is that truly possible in social media age?… imagery, ads, events… it all gets discussed.
Can you quantify (in USA or N.Amer. population) that what you see as
a minority (“customers who don’t “fit” the original business model… of 1970’s-80s)
is not actually on par –or majority– in 2025?
1990’s supermodels are inherent physical anomalies. (a deviation from what is standard). It is not politics, for women to want apparel that fits themselves & makes them feel good. Apparel for themselves, and if they want to share. And does not shame them for being standard.
The more VS clings to marketing of specialty wear/uncomfortable for all day… the more they lose volume share & consumer brand sentiment.
Thus, their reason to expand PINK & athleisure (& bring back swim) … the need for volume of “everyday stuff”.
“Erosion of a brand image is unprofitable”…. enter those who helped erode the prior VS image: Aerie, ThirdLove, CUUP, et al.. Helping return women’s apparel to women.
And also Adore Me brand… which VS bought (2023), to sell items of more crossover appeal (from sexy, to cute/fun/younger, to everyday).
VS. considers Adore Me a long-term growth driver….but Adore Me pulls in $ from dept stores, wholesale, Walmart & Amazon.
By this acquisition, VS MGMT knew that the “”customers who don’t “fit” the original business model” are INDEED good for revenue.
Examining the competitive landscape, there has been a wholesale transfer of market capitalization from an incumbent that failed to evolve to nimbler competitors who understood cultural shifts. The activists have a compelling point about performance and accountability. In addition to their usual fiduciary responsibilities, retail boards also have a duty to maintain brand coherence and stewardship, guide value creation during generational shifts in consumer preferences, and ensure strategic positioning.
The board inherited a brand built on a specific fantasy that became culturally problematic. As the “new” CEO, Hilary Super deserves more runway, and Q1 performance beat expectations. However, she needs directors who understand the emotional and cultural dimensions of consumer brands, not just financial metrics. Keep in mind that six of nine current board members oversaw the massive market cap erosion to its competitors. The board’s apparent inability to move with the cultural speed required for today’s modern retail brands suggests they may have been the wrong composition for the ongoing transformation from the start.
What a waste of energy. Good heavens
It may just be that Victoria’s Secret is the kind of company and product best operated privately off the markets, away from the thousands of opinions of investors, media and various groups. Everyone feels strongly about some aspect of it. A CEO and her leadership team don’t need such distractions and arm-chair quarterbacking.
I dont happen to see the Activists wanting to buy it out, to own and fix it.
The financial and brand keep clashing. But maybe that’s where the 1% stock ownership level comes in feeling comfy in the demand. The brand is still at crossroads & borderline societal lightning rod.
Does the Activist care if it eventually burns to the ground (after they get out)?
In recent years, the Victoria’s Secret brand positioning swung from serving men’s jiggly Angel fantasies to serving women’s desire for representation, diversity and comfort. The activist investors seem to want to restore the core essence of sauciness. But will women buy their vision?
To regain focus and relevance, Victoria’s Secret probably needs to replace some of its board members. Based on my retail experience, the company has exhibited a lack of accountability at the board level, suffered from inconsistent marketing, and lost sight of its core categories. It needs to refocus on bras and intimates, hire retail-savvy executives, and execute clearly across digital and physical platforms in order to bounce back. In a competitive market, the brand runs the risk of continuing to deteriorate if there is no strategic shift at the top. My experience in retail strategy and merchandising has shown me that leadership change is frequently required when a brand loses focus, performs poorly on a regular basis, and is unable to adjust to changes in the market. Stronger accountability, contemporary brand-building viewpoints, and retail-specific experience could all be brought to the table by a redesigned board. To contend with consumer-focused, nimble brands such as Aerie and SKIMS. For the shake-up to be successful, it must be strategic rather than merely symbolic, and it must be led by executives who are aware of the retail environment of today, consumer expectations, and the operational execution required to revive a legacy brand. Until the core brand is strong, Victoria’s Secret should reduce its investments in PINK, swimwear, and activewear and instead focus on its flagship bras and intimates. Prior to branching out into secondary lines, concentrating on the primary category will help to establish brand identity, increase inventory and marketing efficiency, and foster customer loyalty.
Agree: “For the shake-up to be successful, it must be strategic rather than merely symbolic”
SKIMS will soon be top of mind with NIKE marketing. May or may not categorically be the same, but that fan base will explore/discover cross category.
Re: Investment
Are the activists willing to forgo some the the stock buybacks? ($10.02 Mil is just the start this year)
If $ investment were decreased in PINK, how would market share vs Aerie go? [2026 is 20th anniv yr of Aerie. I doubt they will take their foot off marketing]
The “flagship of intimates” is the biggest lightning rod.
North America is huge market, so the branding needs to be solidified, no matter what the $ investment level.