The Secret to Victoria's Success
Lingerie brand sheds sexy image, but at what cost?
Roy Raymond founded Victoria's Secret in 1977. Never again would men tiptoe nervously around racks of female intimates while saleswomen snickered. They were now part of the action.
Five years later he sold the company to The Limited (LTD), which ran with the vision and rapidly expanded the store nationwide. Leveraging existing business and booming catalogue sales, Victoria's Secret became the country's largest lingerie retailer by the early 1990s.
A thought leader in marketing sex appeal, the line has recently come under fire for its increasingly provocative image. Critics contend Victoria's Secret has abandoned its more modest roots. Last week Sharen Turney, The Limited's CEO, said, "I feel so strongly about us getting back to our heritage and really thinking in terms of ultra feminine and not just the word sexy, and becoming much more relevant to our customer."
The Limited's stock has performed choppily over the last 18 years, and has recently taken a beating along with other consumer discretionary names. To understand the gyrations, one could pore over earnings reports and cash flow statements, but why bother?
At Minyanville, we've been actively trading the name using a far more reliable strategy: Catalogue Back Issue Cover Analysis, commonly referred to by the acronym CBICA. CBICA is endorsed by 87% of single men who read the Victoria's Secret catalogue to ascertain, ummm, the esoteric difference between boy shorts and thongs.
CBICA reveals that each pivot point in the stock's trajectory over 18 years -- shown below -- is the result of catalogue cover selection, not economic conditions. And CBICA is irrefutable.
The 1989 holiday catalogue featured a model clad in a dark green bath robe, strategically sliding off her left shoulder. A clear CBICA buy signal. Speculators added fuel to the rally and rumors spread that the robe would slip further in the next quarter. Investors waited with baited breath while the stock moved higher in expectation of more skin.
Hopes for robe slippage were dashed as a rogue Victoria's Secret executive opted for a conservative holiday offering. The stock spent most of the 90s in a narrow trading range as investors questioned management's ability to successfully mix Santa with sex.
In the late 90s, CBICA tipped off savvy investors to the influence of French supermodel Laetitia Casta. Casta spent years as the catalogue's centerpiece, and in 1999 her country asked her to pose for the bust of Marianne, an allegorical symbol of the French Republic. The Limited peaked at over $28 per share, up almost 300% from the days of Christmas at your grandmother's.
The run was short-lived, however, as a major blunder in 2002 sent the stock reeling once again. Wall Street blames the recession for weak results, but CBICA says otherwise. Victoria's Secret brought in model Alessandra Ambrosio, but made the tragic mistake of dressing her in jeans and a puffy white blouse. No skin, no sales.
The middle of the decade saw a strong run in shares of The Limited, and again analysts attributed the gains to things like a strong economy, earnings growth and unprecedented home equity withdrawals. Wrong again, Wall Street. Bras, not balance sheets, became more transparent.
But The Limited took it too far. Recession? Credit Crunch? No, consumers took one look at this damsel in hot pink and gave Victoria's Secret the cold shoulder, proving there really can be too much of a good thing.
Back to The Future?
The image overhaul won't come easy, as the migration away from sexy could alienate the brand's newer, younger demographic. Although this reversion towards modesty is commendable, we would urge the company to consider the CBICA's findings, and not to overreact.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opin=
=3D =3D3D ion about the performance of securities and financial markets by =
the wr=3D iter=3D3D s whose articles appear on the site. The views expresse=
d by the wri=3D ters are=3D3D not necessarily the views of Minyanville Medi=
a, Inc. or members=3D of its man=3D3D agement. Nothing contained on the web=
site is intended to con=3D stitute a recom=3D3D mendation or advice address=
ed to an individual investor =3D or category of inve=3D3D stors to purchase=
, sell or hold any security, or to =3D take any action with re=3D3D spect t=
o the prospective movement of the securit=3D ies markets or to solicit t=3D=
3D he purchase or sale of any security. Any inv=3D estment decisions must b=
e made =3D3D by the reader either individually or in =3D consultation with =
his or her invest=3D3D ment professional. Minyanville write=3D rs and staff=
may trade or hold position=3D3D s in securities that are discuss=3D ed in =
articles appearing on the website. Wr=3D3D iters of articles are requir=3D =
ed to disclose whether they have a position in =3D3D any stock or fund disc=
us=3D sed in an article, but are not permitted to disclos=3D3D e the size o=
r direct=3D ion of the position. Nothing on this website is intende=3D3D d =
to solicit bus=3D iness of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Mi=
ny=3D3D anville mana=3D gement and staff as well as contributing writers wi=
ll not respo=3D3D nd to em=3D ails or other communications requesting inves=
Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Daily Recap Newsletter