Overview of Victoria’s Secret
Founded in 1977 in San Francisco, USA, Victoria’s secret is undoubtedly the largest lingerie retailer in the United States. With pioneering designs and a wide variety, Victoria’s secret, an organization established by Roy Raymond, has emerged as the pace setter in as far as lingerie and women wear is concerned (Valdivia, 2000). The organization had an annual turnover of USD 6.12 billion in the year 2012, with a net profit of one billion dollars. The organization is prominently associated with fashion shows, powerful promotions and catalog marketing. The organization has 1000 outlets across the United States.
Overview of Frederick’s of Hollywood
Frederick Mellinger, the man behind the idea of the push up bra founded the organization in the year 1947 in California, USA. The organization, which has 122 locations across the states, is associated with sexiness in women. The organization emphasizes in making sexy and seductive lingerie for women (Rose, 2004). The organization has 438 employees, and sells such things as lingerie, panties, bras and women’s clothing in the United States. The organization headquartered in Hollywood and is known for underwear meant for such occasions as Valentine’s Day.
Comparing the two stores
Whether there is a difference between the two stores is arguable. The reason why this remains a matter of debate is because, the two organizations are as different as they are similar. What this means is that the two organizations deal in the same types of products, with differences being in the messages borne by such products, and consequently the perception of the customers – both men and women – on the goods sold by the two stores. The difference also comes in the extent to which the organizations carry out their business functions. Speaking of business functions, Victoria’s secret markets its products more intensively that Fredericks of Hollywood. This is essentially because, besides using catalogs, Victoria’s secret prominently uses fashion shows and promotions to advertise its products. Additionally, the organization has invested extensively in e-commerce, a concept that is in line with the internationalization of business.
Unlike Victoria’s Secret, Fredericks of Hollywood has not invested much into marketing. In point of fact, the organization has only invested in catalogs and websites, as well as social media. Perhaps this is the explanation why the organization has not expanded its operations as has Victoria’s Secret. Speaking of variety and diversification, VS is ahead of FH. This is evidenced by the fact that, besides selling lingerie and other associated products, the organization sells fragrances and other beauty products. On the contrary, FH stocks lingerie and other forms of women’s clothing. When it comes to occasions, especially those occasions associated with romantic escapades, FH is far much ahead of VS. Speaking of events and occasions, FH would definitely be the store to visit a day prior to Valentine’s Day (Valdivia, 2000). On the contrary, VS is associated with all time clothing, such as panties and lingerie for everyday use. This difference mainly comes as a result of the actuality that FH emphasizes seduction and sexy looks.
Another difference is seen in the target market of either firm. Apparently, VS is a place where a mother will be comfortable going to in the company of her daughter. This is because the stores stock clothing that is sufficiently conservative respectful and of high quality. This means that VS targets customers from all age brackets. On the contrary, FH shops are not the kind of shops where mother and daughter can comfortably go shopping for lingerie. The outlets are prominently characterized by sexy and seductive lingerie that is appealing to young couples visiting the shops. The shop mainly targets couples that are classified as being sexually active and seek ultra-sexy looks. Essentially, therefore, VS emphasizes quality and comfort, while FH emphasizes looks and seduction.
Research carried out among consumers indicated that VS focused on the perception of the prospective wear of the clothing. On the contrary, FH focused on the perception of the wearer’s partner. This makes the targeting strategy of FH more complicated than that of VS because, typically, it is expected that more the number of men that love sexy lingerie that will visit the shop is higher than the number of men visiting VS (Steele, 2010). The strategy of VS is based on versatility, while that of FH is based on sex. Another difference between the two stores is seen in the range of colors adopted by their products. As a matter of research, VS designers seem obsessed with bright colors usually associated with women. Such colors as pink, light blue, yellow and the like, define the shades of VS. This gives the store an extreme feminine outlook. On the contrary, FH embraces all types of colors, ranging from the dark ones to the bright colors. This is to cater for the ever changing consumer preferences. For instance, currently, women are gradually shifting to darker colors. For this reason, FH becomes a better option, especially for older couples, who find such colors as pink as being too girlish.
Apparently, the two stores convey different messages about female sexuality. While people have generally argued that the two stores have the same messages, critical analysis reveals that there is a difference in the types of messages conveyed. Why? The difference in the messages is simply founded in the fact that the stores have different perceptions in mind when designing the stores. In evaluating the exact messages sent by the stores, VS sends a message that emphasizes the fact that female sexuality is associated with bright colors. The interpretation is therefore that the female sexuality goes well with a good mood since such colors as pink signify a bright mood (Rose, 2004). One thing worth noting is the reality that the sexuality of females, as per VS is one that espouses comfort and respect. The messages sent by VS on female sexuality can be summarized as: women are can be sexy and attractive in decent underwear. Analysis reveals that the messages sent by FH are different and tend to objectify female sexuality. FH products aim at enticing the woman’s partner and not appealing to the woman. Thus brings out female sexuality as an object for male satisfaction (Larson, 2010). The messages sent by FH can be summarized as; female sexuality is about seduction and sexiness.
Despite the aforementioned differences, there are some plain similarities between the two stores. One among the similarities is the reality that both organizations deal in lingerie. They stock similar products such as panties, bras, lingerie and women’s evening dresses. Additionally, the two organizations’ target groups fall within the female category of consumers. Another similarity is that the prices of the organizations are quite similar, and fall within the same bracket (Larson, 2010). Notably, the stores are similar in the products they sell, but are differentiated by the extent to which they carry out their business functions, and the messages they send to the consumer.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is clear from the foregoing that Victoria’s Secret and Fredrick’s of Hollywood are as similar as they are different. The most notable difference is the actuality that they emphasize different messages and target their customers differently. For instance, while Fredrick’s bases its selling strength on sex, Victoria’s strongest selling points are quality and comfort. Additionally, Victoria’s Secret seeks to work with the perception of the wear of the garments. On the contrary, Fredrick’s of Hollywood targets the perception of the partner of the wearer of the lingerie. The messages conveyed on sexuality are considerably different in the sense that VS messages emphasize the fact that women’s sexuality should be associated with respect and elegance. On the contrary, FH’s messages tend to objectify the female sexuality by laying emphasis on seduction and sexiness. Overall, the differences between the two stores are minor, but have significant impact in terms of target market.
References
Larson, C. U. (2010). Persuasion: Reception and responsibility. Boston, Mass: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Rose, L. (2004). How to change your sex: A lighthearted look at the hardest thing you'll ever do. Morrisville, NC: Lulu Press.
Steele, V. (2010). The Berg companion to fashion. Oxford: Berg.
Valdivia, A. N. (2000). A Latina in the land of Hollywood and other essays on media culture. Tucson, Ariz: Univ. of Arizona Press.
