"SEXY." The capital letters blared at me from the window of Victoria's Secret in Pioneer Place here in Portland. Next to the clean lovely windows of the Apple store, I felt I almost had to shield my eyes, to protect me from the glare. The mannequin dressed in a red bustier seemed more Elvira than Rebecca Romijn, the sweet face of Victoria's Secret when I was a loyal customer in my early 20s.

I'm not the only one turned off by the company's recent focus on sexy above all else. In rather shocking statements during this morning's Limited Brands Inc. (NYSE: LTD) analyst call, Victoria's Secret CEO Sharen Turney said the company has "gotten too much off our heritage" and was "too sexy," no longer the ideal "ultra-feminine."

With black lacquer and shocking pink decor, the "s" word thrown around like neon signs in a red-light district, and rather unsubtle displays, this isn't my mother's Victoria's Secret.

A column (subscription required) in today's Wall Street Journal looks at an interesting question that has received more attention from the world of academia lately: How do men and women invest differently, and who invests better?

A few general truths: women tend to be much more cautious as investors, while men are overconfident (Big surprise?) and brash, more willing to take substantial risks. Thus, men tend to devote a larger chunk of their portfolios to equities, while women prefer a big concentration of bonds.

Men also tend to trade more frequently, highly confident in their ability to outsmart the market. In this regard, women are more rational.

The jury is still out on who's a better investor -- Men hurt themselves with over trading, but make up some of it with a willingness to invest in stocks. In 2005, Merrill Lynch found that women are better investors. A British study reached similar conclusions.

The field of behavioral finance and neuroeconomics is a fascinating one, focusing on tricks our brains play on us that make us bad investors. Check out Jason Zweig's book Your Money & Your Brain.

Britney Spears, it turns out, won't be posing for Playboy -- she's reconsidering the idea with her rather imperfect post-baby body, and according to the National Ledger, she's now only worth $400,000 to Hugh Hefner. She won't take less than seven figures (note she was offered $2 million several years ago). Even with her clothes on, however, everyone's favorite has-been is still making cash over the barrelhead.

Nope, it won't go into her kids' college fund; she's not making the money. Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), and just about every company that covers the entertainment industry is making money just for the idea. It may have been a mistake for Vanessa Hudgens to let a nude photo of herself bounce around the internet, but it's hardly a blow to Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS), for whom she stars in movie after movie after teen musical movie. In fact, she's the biggest search term on the internet today.

It's not about sex or nudity or retouched photos: it's about Googling for them. Your two- and three-word search phrases (even the misspelled ones) may not take you to NSFW web sites. But they're working overtime for the companies who serve up the content. If you're reading this post right now? You're making money for Time Warner, just looking at those ads. The amazing fact about media: sex sells, even when no one's having any.

Last week on BloggingStocks, I wrote about Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (NYSE: PLA)'s foray into social networking, and wondered whether it would help the company to launch itself out of the doldrums.

Michael Schneider of www.barrelomoney.com left a comment to let me know that he thinks the company is already launching itself out of the doldrums:

Playboy, in our view has already started a substantial turnaround that has set the company of the right course. they have added many new sources of revenue and have strengthened the brand. Recent results are telling as many print media companies are floundering and competitors like New frontier turned in weak results.

But the stock isn't showing evidence of this turnaround -- which is good. If the company really is turning itself around, the stock could present an opportunity for investors.

Now we have the latest evidence of Playboy moving in a new direction: It's opening a store in London, establishing a presence that has been missing there for the past 25 years. Playboy is also looking at opening a casino in London.

There's been a lot of evidence lately that Playboy is at least trying to reinvent itself and become relevant again. If you think it has a chance, you may want to look at buying the stock.

The New York Times (permalink) describes a Trojan condoms commercial that was rejected by both CBS and Fox:

IN a commercial for Trojan condoms that has its premiere tonight, women in a bar are surrounded by anthropomorphized, cellphone-toting pigs. One shuffles to the men's room, where, after procuring a condom from a vending machine, he is transformed into a head-turner in his 20s. When he returns to the bar, a fetching blond who had been indifferent now smiles at him invitingly.

Interesting. In a letter to Trojan, Fox wrote that "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."

Here's what I don't understand: Isn't anyone who uses a condom for health-related issues also interested in pregnancy prevention. Is the line of thinking really "Gee. I'd like to get pregnant with this guy I don't really know, but he could have STDs." And while people can have all kinds of reasons for using condoms, even in a committed relationship, isn't the purpose of condoms for health-related issues relevant mostly for casual encounters? I guess I don't understand the distinction that FOX is making.

Maybe I'm just perplexed because this sense of traditional morality is coming from the network that wanted to run a special on how O.J. Simpson would have killed his wife and her friend, if he did.

According to USA Today, amateur pornographers armed with little more than a webcam and a computer are giving the major players in the adult entertainment industry, like New Frontier Media (NASDAQ: NOOF) and Playboy (NYSE: PLA) a run for their money.

Sales and rentals of adult DVDs have plummeted in recent years, and now sites like PornoTube.com and YouPorn.com (such clever names ... not) are allowing consumers to download user-generated content to their computers, and even cell phones ... for free in most cases.

While the big porn companies have been pretty quick to move onto the internet, replacing DVD sales, you have to wonder how much user-generated content will hurt their sales. Is Playboy delivering a product that much better than some of the amateurs on PornoTube? I wouldn't know because I'm a good boy.

Shares of Playboy and New Frontier have performed poorly over the past few years, and you have to wonder: How much does branding really matter in an industry that is now flooded with free content?

The market doesn't appear to be giving Playboy a lot of credit for the brand it's been building for the past 54 years: The stocks trades with a market cap of $365 million, which is about 1 times sales. If the brand does still have value, it could be ripe for a buyout -- but only if that's what Hef wants.

Mega-trendy retailer Limited Brands (NYSE: LTD) announced the sale today of its Express Stores unit to private equity firm Golden Gate Capital, and in the same breath said it was evaluating the options for its Limited Stores segment -- the brand the company derives its name from. Despite the surface inscrutability of this decision (why sell the company's titular brands, the ones that are growing in gross profit while the company's other units are slipping bigtime?), it's one that analysts have been predicting for a while given that CEO Leslie Wexner has been hyping his Victoria's Secret unit as a "megabrand" upon which Limited's future prospects would hinge. Both Victoria's Secret and soap-and-lotion retailer Bath & Body Works, he insists, depend on products whose sales are more predictable than those of clothing.

While that's certainly true, it's also true that the profit margins for the cheap, trendy clothing sold by the company's Express and Limited stores are growing while the rest of the company's brands are falling. Today the company announced that it is revising its outlook for Q1 2007 downward significantly due to poorer-than-expected sales and merchandise margins at Victoria's Secret. After slashing the outlook from 25-28 cents a share to 12-14 cents a share, the stock was down significantly, $1.23 or 4.5% to $26.18, although after-market trading shows some nice recovery.

Perhaps the prediction isn't so easy, but the fact remains that the profit margins and same-store sales growth is a lot better on lemongrass- and magnolia-scented lotion than tank tops and skinny jeans. While Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works regularly record operating profit in the 20-30% range, a good quarter for Express and Limited stores hovers between 5% and 6%. Lingerie is sexy, and soap is way, way sexier -- and Limited Brands has picked this clean, sweet-smelling horse to ride for now.

As of February 3, 2007, Limited had 658 Express stores and 260 Limited stores; 1,326 stores in the Victoria's Secret unit (which includes the La Senza brand); and 1,546 Bath & Body Works stores.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, recently accused of running a prostitution ring serving Washington's elite, is upset about her stocks. After the government froze her assets, Reuters reports that she pleaded with a federal judge to let her sell her 5,000 shares of Dolby Laboratories Inc. (NYSE: DLB), citing valuation concerns: "I believe it's reached its peak. I don't want it to waste away."

This is another reason to avoid high-turnover investing and stick with index funds for the long-term: If you are indicted on charges of running a ring of call-girls, the government could freeze your assets and not allow you to continue trading actively.

Another thing sex has in common with investing: Most people think they can be above average but the vast majority will have to settle for average or below-average performance -- no matter how much they spend on products that will supposedly enhance their performance.

In December, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE:WMT) fired its advertising chief, Julie Roehm, for having an inappropriate affair, accepting gifts from suppliers, and extending business trips to spend more time with Sean Womack, a married Wal-Mart VP, at the company's expense. Now, this is exciting stuff.

Ms. Roehm sued the company for wrongful termination and the company counter-sued [subscription required] her for "using company-paid travel to conduct a torrid affair with a junior executive, of accepting meals and liquor from companies competing for its business, and pursuing a job with one bidder, Interpublic Group of Cos.' DraftFCB."

According to one email (released by Mr. Womack's wife!), Womack wrote, "I feel the need to be inside of your head if I cannot be near you." Ms. Roehm replied, "I think about us together all the time." Eek. She was an advertising executive. You'd think she could have come up with something more creative. Perhaps this explains Wal-Mart's inability to attract the more upscale demographic that Target Corp. (NYSE:TGT) is successfully reaching.

There's a hot topic getting a lot of attention over on Autoblog so I thought I would mention it here. It would seem that The Girls of Geneva have created quite a stir over there and the readers are eating it up. It comes as no surprise that auto manufacturers, when displaying their wares, continue to use the most basic of human instincts -- our sexual drive -- to draw attention to their merchandise. Still, a few folks with clouded reasoning find the practice distasteful. I, for one, have always deemed it to be intelligent marketing practice.

The association between transportation and sexual satisfaction is as old as the wheel itself. In fact, it's older, but that's beyond the scope of my current mention. The concept encompasses two specific human drives. One is the desire to get somewhere and the other is the desire to "get some." Would it be confusing then, to anyone, that the two concepts would be agelessly coupled in joint appeal? Get somewhere and get some -- its truth has sent hungering souls crisscrossing the planet. Who in their right mind would deny it as the most powerful of marketing ploys?

Of course, the exploitation of human beings for any purpose is dubious when accomplished without their consent, but if Lacey and Bambi and Tawny should choose to make their livings pointing at cars while wearing filmy dresses, who am I to say that they're doing anything wrong?

The airline industry, oh, it's plagued with problems right now. I'm sure you could help me list them: overcrowding on airplanes, passengers left to suffer overflowed toilets on the tarmac, unappealing food, no food at all. Delays, record financial losses, union woes, price pressures. Yep. The airline industry has issues.

But why focus on the real problems when you can make such a wide public statement that shows your commitment to AIDS prevention? I know, what? Qantas Airways Limited (ASX:QAN) terminated the flight attendant who, reportedly, had sex with actor Ralph Fiennes in an airplane bathroom. Ironically, he was on his way to Mumbai to deliver a speech about AIDS -- bloggers are reporting salaciously that he committed AIDS prevention no-no No. 1 (though I don't know how anyone can be sure about his prophylactic use or lack thereof).

In any case, a high-profile tabloidy encounter between a beautiful flight attendant and a sex symbol of an actor should be the airline industry's least concern.

Here's a hot tip: always try dialing the phone numbers you're advertising before hitting the presses. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (ADR) (NYSE:HMC), well, they're the learn-ees of this valuable business lesson.

In late 2005 and 2006, the motor company included a toll-free government hotline in manuals for Honda Fits and Honda motorcycles, representing some 26,000 manuals. It wasn't until August that someone realized the "800" and "877" had become confused. Instead of a government official picking up the phone at the other end of the supposed hotline, a spicy recording of a woman's voice cajoles callers to talk for only 99 cents a minute...

Copy editors everywhere were laughing up a storm, and Business 2.0 gave the incident the great honor of making the magazine's list for dumbest moments in business.

Everyone else has made the hotline/HOTline jokes, so I'll spare you. Just remember the word to the wise: always check those numbers!

In an area where good coffee is ubiquitous, how does one business stand apart from another? A diverse selection of low-fat bran muffins? Not for me. Free Norah Jones CD samplers? Nope. Sheer, baby-doll negligees with thigh-high boots? Sold.

According to The Seattle Times, along the cluttered roadsides of Seattle's commuter towns, drive-through espresso bars are going to creative lengths to attract business, well, male business at least. These caffeinated joints feature "bodacious" baristas offering not just double macchiatos with almond biscotti, but "flirty service and revealing outfits" (including lingerie and "fetish" ensembles) at establishments with names such as Moka Girls, Bikini Espresso and Natté Latté.

While drive-throughs have long been part of Starbucks Corp (NASDAQ:SBUX)'s business, many independent espresso stands popped up after the state's smoking ban went into effect a year ago. Says Lori Bowden, owner of Tukwila, Washington's Cowgirls Espresso stand, owners of bars, casinos and convenience-stores at that time began renting parking lot spots to espresso stands. And while the debate rages over who started the whole Red Light District element, no one argues that the Git-R-Done nation -- who might never have entered a Starbucks -- are now frequenting their establishments many times a day.

Offended local businesses have set up surveillance but no laws have been broken, as private parts -- including buttocks -- are always covered. Says Bowden, in spite of customer requests "there will be no 'Thong Thursdays.'"

B. Brandon Barker is the author of Operation EMU

Julie Roehm contradicted everything that Sam Walton ever held dear, and her hiring a year ago had many Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE:WMT) observers scratching their heads. Famous for her racy, attention-getting antics -- like her "Lingerie Bowl" in which models clad in underthings played 'football' -- Roehm never seemed the right sort for Wal-Mart. She was fast cars, sex and rock-and-roll to Wal-Mart's Buicks, family values and Barry Manilow. In fact, her transformation of the shareholder meeting from boring to off-Broadway was a spectacle to behold (and, it seems, had old-line Wal-Mart executives "groaning," according to the New York Times.

[Recent Julie Roehm news:
Wal-Mart should bring Julie Roehm back -- May 27, 2007
Julie Roehm claims Lee Scott violated ethics -- May 25, 2007
Julie Roehm says Wal-Mart charges invalid -- March 29, 2007
Wal-Mart countersues Julie Roehm -- March 20, 2007]

Now she's been ousted, amid allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, and the advertising agency she chose -- DraftFCB of Chicago -- is unceremoniously dismissed before it even began work on the huge account.

How was this ever supposed to work? I have to ask. Wal-Mart executives, even Sam himself, were always told to sleep two to a room while travelling on business, and select the cheapest available lodging. The company has strict "fraternization" rules so that any relationship between colleagues is inappropriate. [While it's not said outright in anything I've read, it seems that Julie Roehm has been read-between-the-lines accused of sleeping with Sean Womack, a member of the marketing staff at a lower rank than Roehm. It doesn't shock me. People who work together sleep together, it's happened everywhere I've ever collected a paycheck.]

Wal-Mart is so not Julie Roehm.

The headline everywhere 'round the blogosphere today: "beef is sexy." McDonald's Corporation (NYSE:MCD) is making waves not only with its slap-the-forehead realization that its customers want to eat breakfast food after 10:30 a.m., but also with its ad campaign in China.

Evidently, these ads, they show how sexy McDonald's hamburgers are.

Even though the "Where's the beef?" ad campaign from the 80s was decidedly un-sexy, I think I can speak for all of America when I say: MCD, you are not the first one ever to make the connection between beef and sex. Isn't beef tenderloin the most oft-ordered entree on Valentine's Day? And correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't certain members of the male population equated their, um, male member with this favorite of all red meats?

McDonald's is, it seems, discovering the obvious. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'd say that any management team deserves adulation for giving the people what they want.

Especially when it's sex.