Victoria's Secret has cast Brazilian model Valentina Sampaio, an openly transgender woman, for a catalog photo shoot. This announcement marks the first time Victoria's Secret has cast a transgender person for a catalog or brand campaign. Does this mean the lack of diversity and inclusion in the advertising industry is finally changing?
In the past, Victoria's Secret CMO, Ed Razek, has caught flack for expressing a lack of interest in casting transgender and plus-size models. The company recently announced that Mr. Razek was leaving the company, in part because of his problematic comments. Recently, the brand has received criticism for being old fashioned and out of touch. The Victoria's Secret has lost a significant market share to brands like Fashion Nova and Savage X Fenty. Recently, Karlie Kloss left Victoria's Secret because "The kind of message I want to send to young women around the world about what it means to be beautiful." The change in leadership and casting practices has been seen by many as overdue.
In 2017, Playboy cast the first-ever transgender cover model. On top of that, the brand's GAP and H&M have both created campaigns featuring LGBTQ models. So this move by Victoria's Secret could be seen as a catalyst for casting trends in the apparel advertising industry.
Lead photo by WestportWiki used under Creative Commons.
What this have to do with photography?
Playboy already posted some transgender model pic by photographer Brian Duffy.... but its different story
Back to Victoria's Secret dump move very dump move now they targeting what 1% of market then rest of man will recommend they wife's/girlfriends to buy other brands ...
for majority of man transgender women is massive turn-off ....
It has everything to do with photography.
Most of the images created by GWC's are of very YOUNG girls who are thin, etc etc etc.
Good idea to include the other 90% of the population that might not conform to the "usual".
It is about photography because it has to do with a photoshoot. If it was about a runway model it would not be an article.
Victoria's Secret Pink is actually apparel and not lingerie... So my guess is most women are buying it from themselves and not for a man.
"for majority of man transgender women is massive turn-off"
no one cares
Well i dont realy see how this related to photography.... then i opend fstoppers i expect to see articles about camers etc.. then i open news paper i expect to see all type of articles in diferent topics.... once again this is not news it was month ago .... and we discusing about women with cocks.... not cameras ..... or pictures same problem with Victoria's secret they had this problem for years brand without identity one of the reasons in failed in europe and now on the edge of bankruptcy.... but yeah good for LGBTQ ppl not for brand again men will look somewear else and this brand wasn't designed for women in first place ....
It seems you care...
It seems you care....
🙄
🧐
And sorry for the double post, wasn't by purpose...
"What this have to do with photography? ... for majority of man transgender women is massive turn-off ...."
There is a lot more to photography than the limited category of what men find arousing. Also, there are some interesting statistics that seem to be contrary to your claim.
About d*mn time....
Yup, yet another sellout to add to the growing list. People in the targeted demographic see this as a sign of equality, but everyone else sees it as the cash grab it really is. Nobody ever stopped LGBTQ people from shopping at Victoria's Secret or wearing their products.
"Nobody ever stopped LGBTQ people from shopping at Victoria's Secret or wearing their products."
Then what's wrong with the brand having a trans person in the catalog?
"cash grab" They are not authentic about what they are saying they are doing and for what reasons they are doing it. they are a corporation and will do what ever is necessary to make money. The same goes with all forms of media and consumables. Gillette is a prime example. They made those commercials demonizing men because it was popular at the time and it blew up in their faces. They demonized their customer base. Now they are pulling a full 180 on that campaign. They lost $8 BILLION dollars. With a capital "B". It's always about money when it comes to business.
VS has some credibility for this move. Trans people do buy there product. And let’s be honest woman don’t care about this the way men do. On the other hand Gillette belittled the majority of their customer base.
Literally every thing a company does is a cash grab unless they are donating money to some sort of cause but even then, they typically do so because it promotes the firm's "goodwill". As Martin just mentioned above my comment, Trans people shop there so why is it crazy that VS take the opportunity to include someone in that demo in their marketing materials?
Comparing this to Gillette is a reach because VS is being inclusive. Anyone triggered into boycotting is doing so out of prejudice. It's kinda silly that Gillette got people mad but that's a completely different topic and not relevant here.
You have the wrong Sampaio in the article image.
Thank you, and Sorry. I am fixing that.
I think FSTOPPERS is doing what they believe are right to bring clicks, but I think it is way too much LGBT propaganda for me.
This is newsworthy not propaganda. I did not give any opinions just facts and questions.
Au contraire. It is completely narrative driven. As far as newsworthy, that certainly is an opinion.
When you use the words "...lack of diversity and inclusion..." in a declarative statement; it is propaganda.
My partner is trans and both of us are not in the remotest bit impressed by this. Victoria's Secret works by selling raw sex appeal which this trans model is very much lacking. There are millions of hot trans women, why pick such a *meh* specimen? (Also, as somebody else said - the photo on Fstoppers is not the model in question, go look at the NYT article you link to for clarification).
Believe or not, I do not even understand what you are describing. But I am completely sure you feel more and more at home here in this world which makes me realize my home is somewhere else. I do not feel at home here.
Specimen? WTF
Let me direct your shrill self to the dictionary.
The meaning of specimen is "person".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specimen
So I looked at the model in questions IG and TBH I can't tell the difference between her and any other of the models VS typically uses. Thin and exotic looking. It kind of begs the question WTF the point is. Do trans women not identify with CIS women? Only other trans? What if some trans person see an ad with the new Trans model but doesn't know the model is trans?
I realize a lot of it is just about the message it sends and providing opportunities and all but still a tad perplexing. Good luck VS. I am sure your transparent pandering will yield double digit sales growth!
You bring up a lot of good points. I think the bigger question is does VS move beyond typical beauty standards.
Anything for a headline I guess.
Typical beauty standards are VS' bread and butter, so I wouldn't expect much movement on that.
This is not a pipe and he is not a woman. The term 'transgender woman' is an oxymoron that is only intended to obscure what is real and what is not.
The odd thing to me is that Transgender women want to be recognised as 'real' women. To the point where they have issues with feminist groups who do not include them (trying to suppress discussing issues such as having periods and childbirth, things which are unique to 'real' women). Which begs the question, why then go and identify as a 'transgender' woman?
Knew this article would bring the bigots out in full force as soon as I read the title
If you don't like something, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO READ IT OR SHARE YOUR DUMBASS OPINIONS
Yeah great. Happy for all concerned.
Vicky isn't that good at holding onto her secrets, is she.
Next.
Seems like a cynical tactic to try and regain market share. Brands that never cared about trans rights are now crusaders for them? Please.
I think minority groups would be wise to be very careful about how quickly they jump into bed with these brands in the hope it is going to hep their cause because it is entirely possible that when you are no longer the cause of the moment that they can score points off of you will be left high and dry.
"Recently, Karlie Kloss left Victoria's Secret because "The kind of message I want to send to young women around the world about what it means to be beautiful."
Oh really? How long did it take to come to that enlightened conclusion? After you made a dump truck full of money out of being beautiful? There is obviously something very ugly here.
Because everyone has very strong opinions on this issue, I wanted to ask a few follow up questions. If you were presented with the opportunity to shoot a high profile trans person for a publication, and you were going to be paid well, enabled to do really quality work, gain potential for future work, would you do it? If it makes you uncomfortable or goes against your personal beliefs, would you be able to set that aside for your career?
That is a great question.
Would I photograph a transgender person? Absolutely.
Would I photograph an overweight, older, white male? Absolutely.
Would I photograph Donald Trump? Not a chance.
Like everyone else, photographers are confronted with the tensions of moral decisions. Speaking for myself; career or personal gain would not be a factor in the decision.
I would not photograph.
Martin Van Londen seriously? the minute I read this article I felt this is more personal, then rather have something to do with photography. It wrong place for this type of articles like I said in my previews posts. You wound't go to kids party and start skinny dip in swimming pool in front of other guests? Will be wrong place wrong time same with this. Same idea you brows Tinder for girls and once in the while transgender women comes up. First reaction you pist off coz they have different section for transgender for ppl who interested in to this wrong place wrong time.
Answer your question: I will shoot as long I'm paid for it I done in the past don't see any problem there ...
So which part of your earlier comment regarding your personal opinions about the sexual attractiveness of trans women was appropriate?
Just saying you seem to be getting on a high and mighty soapbox regarding the actions of other, yet refuse to look at your own actions.
on my first post my personal opinion are more best regarding brand not people. Was talking about business NOT people.
What comes to my photography and my photography business I personally don't care what kind of sexuality my models are.
Just read again my comments!!!
every time someone says no to LGBTQ+ community looks like they burst in to tears no one likes us.... STOP the DRAMA... and get down to the real world .....
If you were presented with the opportunity to shoot a high profile trans person for a publication...
Already done so, multiple times, for different publications even.
If it makes you uncomfortable or goes against your personal beliefs, would you be able to set that aside for your career?
Doesn't make me uncomfortable to photograph transgender people in the slightest, but photographing an known advocate against the equal rights of trans people would make me feel very uncomfortable.
So would I photograph a prominent anti-trans figure for my career?
Honestly haven't given it much thought because I highly doubt they would hire a photographer who happens to be transgender.
So maybe a better question is, photogrph Fred Phelps for a big pay check and open doors.
Only 40 comments..(by 3:35 ET)? I was expecting much more.
fStoppers now are becoming 'People' tabloid news magazine. It has little to do with photography and a lot to do with 'lets-get-more-SEO-to-our-blog'.
If they had some photo examples (with permission of course), spoke about the challenges the photographers had, which I am sure they did, etc. That would be worthy of the blog. This article is just well, nothing really.
Good for VC. Can we now go back to actual photography?
Ad exposure articles. Good for business.
In a word: yuck!
Why are we forced to know about the sex lives and parts "down there" of people we don't know?
Fully agree as I saw another article on here just yesterday also. Maybe they are looking for affirmation but they won't get it from me.
Pandering to the 0.05% of the population.
Having been "the first" and "the only" many times in many places during the 60s and 70s, I'll tell you that there isn't real progress until nobody notices it anymore.