Kim Kardashian has been planning to launch a shapewear brand for over a decade, and June 25th was the day that Kimono—her chosen name—would see the light of day.

It never would. Soon after launch, her fans, followers and detractors started a 72-hour, category five social media hurricane—#KimOhNo was trending—that demanded the brand’s name change to something that wasn’t appropriating Japenese culture. Kim’s attempt to trademark the name, which has since been abandoned, didn’t help.

On July 1st, less than a week later, after standing behind the name she realized the fight was not winnable nor worth it. She announced that she would change the name of the brand, which meant redesigning its logo and website and somehow getting the brand name off of all of the inventory she had already bought. Sure, it’s surprising that someone with Kim’s resources—a full legal team and an in-house, family-only communications firm—would make such a glaring error, one that derailed a potentially impactful and lucrative concept. But Kim’s global platform, and the reach that comes with it, puts her—rightfully—under a microscope, something other brands named Kimono (plenty of which exist) don’t deal with.

At the end of August, almost two months later, Kim announced she would rename the brand SKIMS. It launched on September 10th with body-sculpting shapewear, to be followed by “bikini briefs, thongs, molded-wired bras, elastic no-wire bras, waist trainers, bodysuits, tank tops, thermal leggings, and more,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Everything comes in nine colors, ranging in size from 00 to 20, priced between $22 to $98, undercutting Spanx and offering a larger and more consistent size range.

A day after launch, products started to sell out, an often automatic occurrence in today’s hype-fueled landscape. Kim took to Instagram to say that “our teams are working overtime to get everything restocked ASAP and my goal is to get our business to a point where we can make my shapewear and essential underwear items available and accessible always.” While the Kardiashans are known to employ artificial scarcity across many of their product lines—Kylie is the chief offender with her skincare line, which warrants the opposite of a scarcity-driven model; Kanye has had mixed results throttling supply of Yeezy while chasing demand—there is reason to believe that Kim and her investors (more on this later) want these products in stock as much as possible. The goal should be getting customers to rebuild their wardrobe with and around SKIMS’ products, and the only way to do that is if products are in stock. The more affordable price point is also only permissible on the condition that customers purchase frequently and in large quantities. If customers could only afford or find one piece in the collection, it would defeat the purpose.

The Kardashians have monetized their existence since early on, with Kim leading the way. While she has been a party to endless collaborations and sponsorships for years, the launch of KKW Beauty, KKW Fragrance and now SKIMS has marked the beginning of her fully-owned empire. Kim’s beauty and fragrance lines were opportunistic: a big audience plus the internet plus the ease of making good-enough product equals tens of millions of dollars in revenue and profit, even though Kylie has objectively run laps around her with hundreds of millions in revenue and profit. Kim had unlimited access to every makeup, skincare and fragrance product on the market. While she might argue KKW Beauty and KKW Fragrance fill a gap that she discovered because of her unfettered access to everything on the market, KKW products were never going to be best-in-class, mostly because there was no reason for them to be—it wasn’t the point. The marketing message is more along the lines of “buy this just because.”

SKIMS seems different. The messaging derives from Kim’s decade-long quest to find the products, sizes and colors she ended up creating, and her endless wardrobe changes truly means she has tried it all and was still unfulfilled. Is the ultimate goal of SKIMS to make money? Sure. But she can solve a valid problem at the same time.

The presence of outside investors—Imaginary Ventures’ Natalie Massanet and Nick Brown; Andrew Rosen; Irving Place Capital; the team behind Good American—is a first for one of her majority-owned brands. This speaks to the opportunity and the seriousness of the operation, since Kim does not need their capital. (Again, it’s surprising that KimonoGate happened with all of these brains around the table.)

With Victoria’s Secret tanking, Spanx feeling stale, Rihanna’s Savage x Fenty finding its groove and ThirdLove and its ilk charging ahead, there is a real opportunity for SKIMS to be Kim’s most important and defining brand, which, paradoxically, is more separated from her namesake than any of her other ventures. It’s plausible that she has been paying attention to some of the hard lessons Kylie has learned from naming her brands after herself and relying on her own distribution channel, which, as you’ve read about previously, severely limits the acquisition opportunities down the road. But SKIMS is distant enough and in a market dynamic enough that it could lead to a big outcome.

Even so, there is plenty to execute on before that, since the brand is only a few weeks old. However, it’s clear that SKIMS is the most important Kim-related brand to watch. It’s also proof that #KimOhNo was all the more avoidable, even if the highly-negative press made many more people aware of the brand earlier than anyone anticipated. But, as Kim knows all too well, the world today has a very short memory.