Victoria's Secret will always sell, because sex will always sell
Fashion editor Alexander Fury discusses the secret behind the American lingerie empire
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I've been thinking a lot about pants recently. Plenty of people are – and not just because they're something quick and easy to stuff into a Christmas stocking, the traditional autopilot Dad gift.
The pants focus of the moment comes from a rather more high-octane source, namely the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, which uprooted itself for the first time from continental North America to strut its bewinged, laced and lacy stuff in London's Earl's Court last Tuesday. VS – as it is colloquially known – unveiled its latest load of pants in a fashion show that takes the prize for the most-watched in the world. By some 500 million, in fact.
Doubtless they enjoy the spectacle, but how to justify an event like that, which racks up a price tag of about £9m annually? Because Victoria's Secret's outlay seems minute next to the £4.2bn it turns over.
Smalls are big business, not just for the multi-billion dollar Victoria's Secret types, but for those like Calvin Klein, who reconfigured the basic Y-front into an object of designer lust with the help of a few giant billboards and some racy crotch-shots. It's only a part of the business, but it's massive – they have stand-alone boutiques for the stuff.
When I interviewed Donatella Versace in January this year, she confessed that their underwear business was "'uge" – wink wink, nudge nudge. She's put her underwear out there time and time again – beaded bras at the couture, lace "him-gerie" at her winter 2013 menswear show. In January, she chopped the arses out of her trousers to better showcase bandana-printed pants, £110 a pop.
It's odd, the focus fashion puts on pants when, for most of us, underwear is precisely that – something to wear under your clothes. Something private. Something even a bit sacred. Then again, fashion's always been obsessed with the idea of sexiness, of undressing to impress.
Vivienne Westwood once said: "Fashion is about eventually being naked." Maybe so – and nothing reminds you of that more than a pair of pants. Probably because there isn't much to distract – even when they're accessorised with a pair of Angel's wings. Sex, it seems, will always sell.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments