Models don't get paid for editorial work. Gisele, who was the biggest earner among the angels...was getting editorials and covers regularly that she wasn't getting paid for and she bothered to get out of bed because she was in demand. No one was interested in Adriana and Ale whose own high fashion careers have stalled before going commercial.
They might have had higher fees for campaigns but not by that much and we're certainly not talking VS numbers. Gisele had the goodwill and the support of practically every important editor, designer and photographer, her situation was/is in no way comparable to theirs or Chanel's.
I believe Adriana is still making the same amount of money at VS and yet, she has a presence in eds and campaigns now because there's an interest in her as a model more than there was before. It's not like she's suddenly desperate for money, she even switched agencies to get more high fashion work.
I agree with your points about editorials. Models, even at Gisele's level, do editorials for the exposure and to curry favor with photographers in hopes that when a campaign is being cast that the photographer will pick her or put in a good word for her. My comment about "not getting out of bed for just anyone," still applies, in addition to making concessions for directional designers, they do likewise for certain editors and photographers.
I was addressing your assertion that "once a model does VS they are "tainted" and their HF stock declines." When I quoted Alessandra and Adriana I was restating the names you used, but this aspect of the conversation is really more pertinent to Chanel, Doutzen, Karolina, Abbey Lee, Aminata, Maryna, Barbara Palvin and a few others. It really does not apply to Alessandra, Adriana, Candice, Miranda, Marisa or Heidi because their pre-VS presence in high fashion ranged from non-existent to smallish, so you can't say conclusively that they were shunned by high fashion because of their ties to VS. Now I would not be at all surprised if some photographer, designer or editor dinged some random, unknown model and said something like, "she is too Victoria's Secret" as a euphemism for "too sexy," "too girl next door," "not mysterious," "too sultry," "too commercial," "not edgy," "too pretty," "too smiley," etc., but that is very different from a real life situation involving a model like Chanel. Now I am not saying going forward that some decision-maker will not say, "No, I don't want Chanel Iman, she is too VS," but had the VS association not been part of their consciousness, the comment would be, "No, I don't want Chanel Iman, she is not edgy enough." And in the event that there are two or three decision-making goof balls that will shun a model for her VS ties, that is offset 100x over by the money and extra exposure that comes with VS. I am willing to bet that if Chanel continues on her current trajectory with VS (which is not a given), that in a couple of years from now, Chanel will have added to her high fashion resume, but rather than a bunch of "regular" high fashion gigs, it will be a few high profile / high quality gigs including covers, and you best believe that VS is a factor because it raises your profile, recognizability and dare I say commercialism which is not a bad thing.
At the end of the day, I have yet to see anything that supports that a model is tainted in the high fashion realm if she is associated with VS, yet there is considerable evidence that contradicts that supposition.
