Some thoughts on Toms...

I wanted to make a post on some thoughts on TOMs and its business model, because there are many mixed reviews available on the internet. Many high profile newspapers, blogs, and student websites have talked about the "uniqueness" of the TOMS one for one philosophy. This post is going to be slightly long, but I want to post a few articles because I think they will be good sources for our presentation. Here is what people are saying:

From the Seattle Pacific Falcon: http://www.thefalcononline.com/article.php?id=6589

Though purchasing TOMS makes a positive impact, it doesn't equate to making a direct donation. Buying the shoes purely for philanthropy is a waste of money because the amount you spend doesn't go straight to relieving global poverty. A pair of TOMS cost anywhere from $44 to $98, and while exact manufacturing figures are unavailable, Sustainable Business Design praises the shoe's low manufacturing cost and retail prices, which allow for both donation purposes and company profit.

Buying TOMS isn't a bad thing; purchasing a pair of these shoes does more good than buying a pair of Converse. But all too often, a pair of TOMS shoes are merely a symbol to the public that their owner is a charitable person.

"If people see TOMS on your feet, they initially think you're a do-gooder," said sophomore Natalie Evans. The social message that transmits by wearing TOMS can become alluring to a potential customer, but it is important to discern the difference between giving to charity and buying TOMS.

The concept behind TOMS is a commendable social and marketing tool. As a for-profit business, it's not necessary for TOMS Shoes to donate to charity, and such innovation and giving on behalf of a company is admirable. Nevertheless, TOMS built its empire using social justice to attract its customers. Consumers must be aware of this before making their purchase.

The TOMS Shoe Model: Meaning or Marketing? http://www.good.is/post/the-toms-shoe-model-meaning-or-marketing/

This all sounds great, but upon further examination, I’m honestly not so sure. It seems to me that $160 (the cost of the two items) spent another way could do far more good than some shoes and a pair of specs. For instance, other organizations dedicated to providing glasses to the developing world have managed to drop the cost as low as $19 a pair. The $95 you’d use to buy a pair from Warby Parker could send more than four pairs to the developing world. Which leads me to this question: In supporting brands like TOMS, are we really trying to do good? Or are we just buying stuff that comes with a case of the warm-and-fuzzies?

In talking to some friends about this, many expressed the viewpoint that doing good isn’t the primary motivation for buying from these companies; instead, it’s a bonus. They contend that the people who buy these products wouldn’t be inclined to simply donate the amount, so they need to be given something in return. I’m not sure I agree. The people who support brands like TOMS are, on the whole, the same people who read this site—socially conscious individuals who want to do their part to make the world a better place to live in. Aren’t these precisely the people who would be most likely to donate?

Of course, there are other, more complex layers to this debate. As Carolina Vallejo has asked with her Design for the First World project: Who the heck are we to decide what other people need most? I’m not saying that shoes or glasses aren’t of value to any particular group of people. But are they more valuable than a new school, or clean water, or livestock, or pharmaceuticals? The truth is, I don’t know. And while I think that TOMS's Blake Mycoskie and those like him are doing fantastic things, I worry that someone who buys a pair of TOMS will consider their job done. They’ll feel good about their $50 shoe purchase, knowing they’ve just given a pair to a child in need when a donation of half that amount could have possibly helped that child in substantially more impactful ways.

The questions don’t stop there with buy-one, give-one products, either. Are these products environmentally friendly? Are they biodegradable? What’s the footprint of the manufacturing process? Who makes them and under what conditions? Are we somehow doing harm in one area in order to do good somewhere else? In short: What’s the net-net of my fancy new glasses?

Please don’t get me wrong: I applaud the efforts of these companies in adding a humanitarian component to their business. I, myself, am the proud owner of a pair of TOMS. I’m just saying that as with most things, the buy-one, give-one phenomenon isn’t quite as simple as it seems on the surface.

The logical stance is that doing some good is better than doing nothing. I’m just wondering how much good we’re actually doing. I’m curious, for those of you who have bought any buy-one, give-one products: Was the company’s mission your motivation or simply an added bonus? Did you consider donating to a cause instead of—or in addition to—your purchase? What’s your take on these sorts of organizations? I’m not sure there’s a right answer here, but I think the questions are at least worth asking. It might be the only way to find out if we’re really doing good, or if we’re just trying to make ourselves feel like we are. 

Are TOMS Shoes all they're cracked up to be? http://thegreenists.com/clothes/are-toms-shoes-all-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/8266 

I ordered my first pair of trendy TOMS shoes about a year ago, a pair of the classic style made from burlap. Even though I know some people wouldn’t agree with me, I like the simple, loafer look of them. Plus, TOMS sells some vegan styles and promises to ‘use earth- and animal-friendly materials whenever possible.’ The kicker about these kicks, of course, is that for every pair of shoes purchased, TOMS gives a free pair to a child in a need somewhere in the world. When I received my shoes, I was struck by how comfortable they were on top of all the other benefits. 

Are they too good to be true?

I started to wonder that after the burlap started to unwravel around the soles after just two weeks of wear. For $54 a pair, I expect my shoes to last far longer than two weeks, and how green can they be and how useful are they to children in developing countries if they’re falling apart that quickly? I did what I do anytime I have questions like this, I turned to The Google to see if others had asked and answered similar questions. What I found were mixed reactions.

Many have complained about the shoes quickly falling apart and have the quality of a $5 pair of shoes. Others have questioned TOMS manufacturing standards, though according to the company’s website TOMS ‘requires that the factories operate under sound labor conditions, pay fair wages and follow local labor standards.’

What piqued my interested the most were discussions about whether TOMS practice of giving shoes to children in developing countries did more harm than good. It’s easy to think: free shoes for those who need them = good, but do offering free shoes undermine local merchants and shoemakers who are trying to make their own living wage? Do they do too much to encourage a cycle of dependancy? Would TOMS’ efforts mean more if they offered support to shoemakers and sellers in developing areas rather than giving shoes away for free?

I can’t say I have answers for these questions, and it may be impossible to come up with any without a significant amount of research or time spent engaging the company itself (and it’s privately held, so good luck with that!) I do like to make well-informed decisions about green products and giving, though.

http://momblebee.com/blog/2010/04/12/toms-shoes-the-big-business-of-being-good/

It’s a marketing thing, really. He’s doing some good, helping people, making a nice profit, and making consumers feel good by knowing they are helping shoeless children, and in turn doing some serious brand building. It is a win-win situation for everyone as long as the consumer doesn’t mind footing the bill for what Toms markets to be their own generosity. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with a business making a profit at all, and donating goods or services to the needy is absolutely a good thing, but Toms should acknowledge their consumers more directly as partners in their business model and in their generosity, rather than taking the sole credit for the giving. Blake does refer to himself as the Chief Shoe Giver, but it’s Toms’ consumers who are making the sacrifice out of their wallets, not him.

http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/a-day-without-dignity

This link is a list of a bunch of articles pertaining to the Day Without Dignity video I posted a while ago. Very interesting stuff, talks about alternative ways to help rather than handing out shoes, problems that people have with Toms, etc.