TOMS Shoes: Good Marketing – Bad Aid
Posted on October 25, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Despite all that I’ve written about the problems caused by donating goods overseas, the most frequent question I get from readers is what do I think about TOMS Shoes. I don’t know whether they’re uncertain because TOMS uses the Buy One Give One (BOGO) model instead donating used goods, or if it’s because TOMS has gotten such good PR for their program.
To answer everyone’s question, here’s how I feel. TOMS Shoes is a good marketing tool, but it’s not good aid. Here’s why:
- It’s quintessential Whites in Shining Armor.
- It’s doing things “for” people not “with” people.
- They allow people to pay to travel with the distribution trips as shoe fitters thereby promoting poverty tourism.
- They promote the “awareness raising” activity – One Day Without Shoes – which is really just a marketing ploy. I’ve launched a counter-campaign this year, A Day Without Dignity.
- They ship in goods for free that outcompete local goods, it’s a short-term solution that could create long-term problems.
- I challenge anyone to find a single country in the world where there are not shoes for sale in the marketplace. There are many better and cheaper ways to get shoes on the feet of the poor.
Unfortunately the launch of a copycat program by Sketchers called BOBS Shoes has set off a flurry of posts criticizing BOBS for their bad form in copying TOMS while praising TOMS. Now I have to admit TOMS has done a great job at marketing, they’re quite well known. But good marketing does not guarantee good aid.
It’s extremely frustrating to see so many organizations that advise donors or promote corporate social responsibility sing the praises of TOMS Shoes as though the strength of the marketing campaign is the only thing that’s important. It gives me very little hope that things will improve any time soon. Before anyone asks, the same criticism goes for all of these other shoe programs:
- BOBS
- Soles4Souls – Slate recently reported the CEO makes $500,000/ year
- Flipflops for Families
- 50,000 shoes – Project Haiti
If there were more BOGO programs where the shoes were actually made locally – creating local jobs – I’d be much more willing to get behind the program.
—
Update April 10, 2012: Anyone interested in this topic might want to click on the following two links.
TOMS Shoes: A closer look – a podcast by Tiny Spark investigates the history of TOMS and some of the controversy surrounding TOMS.
One for One? – a blog post by a missionary in Haiti that encounters donated TOMS shoes for sale on the open market in Haiti.
Update: Here is the video for A Day Without Dignity, a counter-campaign to TOMS’ One Day Without Shoes. There were more than 60 posts written in support of A Day Without Dignity, read all of them here.
Update: One of TOMS “local partners” is World Vision, which itself has been the focus of criticism from this blog and others for their use of gifts-in-kind. While this helps World Vision lower their overhead ratio, World Vision has not proven either the need or the impact of the gift-in-kind programs.
Update: I have had so many people write to either ask me where they should buy shoes or to tell me of a socially conscience shoe manufacturer that I’ve created a post to track the suggestions, Socially conscience shoes.
Update: It appears TOMS produces shoes in Ethiopia and China. See the comments below for more information on that. If you own a pair of TOMS, look to see which country they were made in.
—–
Guides by Good Intentions are Not Enough
Good Intentions’ Guide to Holiday Charitable Giving
—–
Other Posts on TOMS Shoes:
Shoes for Business: The unintended consequences of doing good – The Harvard Crimson
New blog post! Free of charge! – truths about elephants
A spectrum of social entrepreneurship: TOMS, Indego, and Henry Ford – Short Sentences
TOMS Shoes vs. Whole Foods – smorgasblurb
A tryst with TOMS – Aid Watch
Do You Cause More Harm than Good by Giving TOMS Shoes to the Poor? – Zacstravaganza!
TOMS Shoes: out-competing local entrepreneurs since 2006 – Short Sentences
Toms Shoes not the right fit - The Point Weekly
Blog posts specifically about shoe donations
Enough with the shoes donations - Good Intentions are Not Enough
What IS it with the SHOES? – Tales from the Hood
Donating shoes and other aid fads - Good Intentions are Not Enough
Nobody wants your old shoes: How not to help in Haiti - AidWatch guest post by Alanna Shaikh
We’re shocked to discover Jessica Simpson doesn’t read our blog - AidWatch on the 50,000 shoe project
Three bad ideas for helping Haiti – Blood and Milk
Blog posts about in-kind donations in general
The problem with giving free food to hungry people – Good Intentions are Not Enough
6 questions you should ask before donating goods overseas – Good Intentions are Not Enough
The worst in-kind donations – Good Intentions are Not Enough
Good donorship and some early lessons learned from the earthquake response in Haiti – guest post on Good Intentions are not enough
Haiti: Help with money, not stuff – Global Post
Guidelines for appropriate International Disaster Donations – Center of International Disaster Information (CIDI)
« It Gets Better – A meme that I can get behind • A response to Kristof’s DIY aid article »
[...] And, as I also applaud Lalia and the Digital Mom Blog for doing, they note that Soles4Souls, the nonprofit beneficiary of the campaign, donates millions of shoes to children in need and does great things (well, almost everyone. One of my favorite bloggers, Saundra Schimmelpfennig, noted in her comments on Lalia’s post that giving free clothes to developing countries ruins their local economies, and that’s a damn good point. She also wrote a blog post about it today on her blog). [...]
I could not agree any more. I myself wrote an extensive ditty about this same phenomenon.
http://zacstravaganza.blogspot.com/2010/10/does-toms-cause-more-harm-than-good-by.html
Zac,
That’s quite the thorough post you’ve written. I recommend it for anyone wanting to better understand the diseases caused by walking barefoot and the possible range of solutions.
I’m not 100% sure, but I do believe that TOMS does make an effort to produce shoes in countries where they give shoes away. The ratio might not be perfect, but I’m pretty sure they make an effort to create jobs making shoes.
Houston,
@ithorpe also brought up this same issue on twitter this morning. He was under the impression that they made shoes in Ethiopia.
Unfortunately, these questions are extremely hard to answer because the information is not readily available on TOMS website. I did find this link http://www.toms.com/how-we-give which lists their local partners. Seems most of the partners just help with shoe distribution and perhaps education on the benefits of shoes but not in the actual production of the shoes.
Their guiding principle #3 is – “‘Do no harm’. Even in very poor countries, some local shops sell shoes. We work with our partners to ensure that the children receiving our shoes truly could not afford to purchase them on their own, to minimize the negative impact on the local shoe-selling economy.” That doesn’t sound like they’re producing them locally, nor does it sound like they’re purchasing them locally.
The possible exception might be in Ethiopia where they appear to be working with a local organization to produce leather shoes. From their website under partner organizations “Podo treatment programs in Ethiopia, where children of podo patients are at high risk for developing the disease themselves” and from an interview with Tom “Specifically, now we have a factory in Ethiopia helping create special leather boots for kids so they don’t get this disease.” It’s unclear whether this is actually something that TOMS shoes runs or if they simply provide some funding (what percentage ?) for the program. There’s not enough information available to get a clear picture.
If TOMS shoes is helping to strengthen local shoe manufacturing jobs and businesses that would be good to know about and good for them to include in their advertising as so many other companies are jumping onto the BOGO bandwagon based on TOMS success.
Saundra,
The Ethiopia project was the example I was thinking of, but I can’t speak for the rest of the projects. I like this particular project because they are addressing an area with a shoe specific problem and hopefully, producing the majority of their shoes for it in country.
TOMs do make shoes in Ethiopia (among other locations), although it’s true that its not very obvious from their own website.
That said I think Zac’s post gives a pretty thorough analysis of their activities which while well intentioned (aren’t they all) and perhaps more thought through than some similar projects by others, are still ultimately flawed.
The broader issue of whether if or how you can effectively combine commerce and philanthropy and be successful at both (or if it is possible without trading off one for another from time to time) is an interesting one though that I think can be hotly debated, but not conclusively answered, at least yet.
Speaking of going barefoot, I’d love to know what people think of “Every Human Has Rights” awareness raising campaign for Human Rights Day on 10 December encouraging people to “Lose Your Shoes” and go barefoot around the block! (more at http://loseyourshoes.org/)
Matt,
It seems extremely pointless to me. What actual knowledge or awareness is that supposed to create? I walk around barefoot outside quite a bit and have even gone around the block a time or two and it hasn’t increased my awareness of human rights. For more on this topic see my posts Another Questionable Awareness Raising Campaign http://goodintents.org/media-and-charitable-advertising/questionable-awareness-raising and What Color is Your Bra? http://goodintents.org/media-and-charitable-advertising/what-color-is-your-bra
*heavy sigh*
Saundra, I could not agree more. And yet I sense that solid, aid and development thinking and logic are slowly but surely losing this one. “Aid” and “make the world a better place” and a million variants thereof are essentially a brand being slapped on to anything and everything. CSR has essentially become code for “do incrementally less harm.”
And the shoes… I’m genuinely baffled at the proliferation of specifically shoes-focused organizations and GIK schemes out there. It’s like the world of philanthropy has one humungous foot fetish. #philanthropyfootfetish.
*heavy sigh*
Saundra – sorry to clutter your comments thread…
I’m pleased that you linked to my post about “What is it with the SHOES?”, but I actually think the response to orgs like TOMS and GIK matching schemes comes better from this one: http://talesfromethehood.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/why-does-this-have-to-be-so-hard/
Aid is (or should be) about helping the poor in the most logical, most efficient ways possible. TOMS is about shoes. Maybe the poor get helped, sort of, as an add-on. But at the end of the day, TOMS is about selling SHOES. I just don’t see that it’s a whole lot deeper than that.
Houston is right; for podoconiosis prevention in Ethiopia, TOMS have proceeded cautiously. They work through partner organizations that will deliver education as well as shoes ‘Smart Shoes’ to children at high risk of podo, they’ve decreased the number of shoe drops (6 big white 4WDs and 18 ‘farenj’ does create a stir in rural Ethiopia even before shoes come into the picture), and have taken over a factory in Addis Ababa so that Ethiopians are employed to make shoes (foam, not canvas – better for preventing podoconiosis), and have put in place (and paid for) delivery and evaluation infrastructure. The families receiving shoes have been assessed by local NGOs as unable to buy shoes, so at least now the programs are not undermining local markets. The hope is that children who grow up without podoconiosis will both value shoes and be able to buy them, thus creating a market in future. This is information is difficult to glean from the TOMS website, but (as someone working alongside one of the partner organizations) I’ve watched the process unfold on the ground.
[...] some reason, this seems to happen a lot with shoes — see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for more commentary. What should be sent and what shouldn’t? Here’s a [...]
who can help to addriss podo problem it is only Toms I have seen IN Ethiopia Planning in new plase Debre Markos
Wow, I can’t believe somebody finally took on “the golden child”.
Couldn’t agree more.
J I’m stealing some of your lines for twitter
(poolparty)
I am comfortable dealing with criticism about TOMS Shoes, because I understand that it’s a fantastic company that’s worth people’s purchases. I will respond to your post.
TOMS does have great marketing, because it’s a business. But it’s a new kind of business, a social enterprise, and that means that marketing doesn’t just serve the purpose of bringing in increased profits – it also means that effective marketing drives more social good.
TOMS Shoes has given away 1,000,000 pairs of shoes. That’s an astonishing number.
There are a few more points that I need to respond to:
“They allow people to pay to travel with the distribution trips as shoe fitters thereby promoting poverty tourism.”
When people see and experience extreme poverty, their lives and perspectives change. After visiting Peru and Bolivia, and interacting with people who made $20 for three weeks labor, I received a perspective on life that has culminated in a burning desire to help people and the world. That’s significant.
My best friend worked for a social enterprise called Encountour. They flew kids down to Guatemala for alternative spring breaks. Instead of Cancun partying they built homes for the poor. Is that poverty tourism? That’s awakening a social conscience, and an understanding of the need to help the impoverished in the third world, that is crucial to fostering global perspectives. People that would have been investment bankers now are picking careers to improve the world because of Encountour.
“They ship in goods for free that outcompete local goods, it’s a short-term solution that could create long-term problems.”
When I was in Bolivia I saw a row of shoe-repair stands. They had an entire section of the town just for repairing shoes, because people could not afford to purchase new ones. If the market was doing its job in these third world countries and adequately supplying shoes, then there wouldn’t be all these kids in bare-feet. I have faith TOMS strategically chooses shoe drop locations to poor regions where there is a serious need. I recommend contacting the company, doing some due diligence to back this up, and then reporting back here with another blog post.
“I challenge anyone to find a single country in the world where there are not shoes for sale in the marketplace. There are many better and cheaper ways to get shoes on the feet of the poor.”
This is short-sighted. I visited Israel and saw bedouin children in barefeet. It’s common. Poverty is common. Don’t undermine or ignore the very real plight of the 2.5 billion people living on $2 a day or less in making your point.
Best regards,
Auren Kaplan
Blog Manager, Cause Integration, a Causecast blog
http://causeintegration.com
http://causecast.org
Auren,
Throughout this advertisement for TOMS shoes you just wrote you failed to mention that your company, Causecast, actually makes money through facilitating donations to Friends of TOMS http://www.causecast.org/nonprofit/friends-toms which is the “shoe drop volunteer program” for TOMS shoes. You clearly have a vested interest in people liking TOMS shoes and paying to go on these shoe drop trips.
This is not the first time your organization has failed to be perfectly clear about it’s money making connection to nonprofits. This also happened in the early days with the Huffington Post Impact section for which your organization is the editor. There were documented instances of positive stories about charities in the Huffington Post that did not inform the reader that the featured charity was a customer of Causecast. There were also embedded links taking readers to your website to donate to that charity. For more on that read http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/03/huffington-post-outsources-section-to-online-fundraising-organization/ Since the report has come out there have been changes made to Impact, but there are still some very serious issues with the quality and accuracy of content in that section, which I and other aid bloggers have complained about.
The defense you’ve provided here of TOMS shoes shows how little your organization understands good aid practices. You may understand business, but good business practices are not the same as good aid practices. Good marketing is just that, good marketing. It’s not a guarantee that the social venture is doing more good than harm.
Just because 1,000,000 shoes were delivered does not mean this was the best way to help. Do you honestly think that TOMS shoes is giving out shoes in countries where there are no shoes for sale? You state that shoes are too expensive for local people to purchase, yet TOMS shoes could have afforded to purchase them. This would have put money into the local economy and created more jobs so that more people could afford to buy shoes for their own children. Not having goods in the market place and not having the money to purchase them are two completely different problems with different solutions.
From the comments in this comment stream, TOMS shoes may be following a few good aid practices, but they’re not the ones you mentioned in your argument. And it is very clear that TOMS shoes needs to be far more transparent in how their business operates. Donors/customers should not have to just have “faith” that they’re doing the right thing.
As far as increasing awareness, swooping in as Whites in Shining Armor may make people aware of poverty but does little to create a real understanding of the issues. What the participant is likely to walk away with – as apparently you have – is that the solution to the problem is as simple as shipping over more goods or constructing more buildings. Having more people drop their careers and dedicate themselves to “improve the world” won’t help if they’re ill informed on the issues and are unaware of standards and best practices.
From what I’ve seen of your organization, I’m not convinced that Causecast understands or cares about good aid practices. And your repeated failure to disclose your business relationships with the charities you promote calls into question your business practices as well.
I’m not American and have no idea who Tom Shoes are but I’m interested in the argument about shipping goods in. How do you do you feel about school books being sent to poorer countries or christmas toys
It’s the same issue. It’s just that shoes somehow are the darling of the hour.
http://goodintents.org/core-posts/donating-goods-overseas
http://goodintents.org/disaster/donating-medicine-after-disasters
http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/four-reasons-to-not-donate-baby-formula-overseas
http://goodintents.org/common-aid-problems/the-worst-in-kind-donations
Why is it so hard for people to see that, like much foreign aid, the TOMS model is predicated on needs and intentions of donors — not recipients?
http://shortsentences.org/2010/03/16/toms-shoes-out-competing-local-entrepreneurs-since-2006/
I’m currently living in South Africa. After spending some time here it’s obvious that donations will never get to the heart of the real issues. How is a family supposed to function if the parents aren’t providing, and the children aren’t going to school? I think if you want to be a business that goes out of your way then you should offer needy people employment. That’s real sustainable change. That’s why I started 94.
[...] that makes perfect sense to donors, but which might not be highly prioritized by those receiving. Recent criticisms of TOMS Shoes and other “buy one, give one” programs raise important issues. If TOMS Shoes are being sourced [...]
[...] that makes perfect sense to donors, but which might not be highly prioritized by those receiving. Recent criticisms of TOMS Shoes and other “buy one, give one” programs raise important issues. If TOMS Shoes are being sourced [...]
Thanks for taking a do-gooding organization to task. How dare they not do everything perfectly.
Eric,
I’m not asking for perfect. But they could and should do much better than they currently are.
Interesting perspective and much needed. I am an american living in southern Africa with my wife and 3 kids. The harm being done by well intended organizations like TOMS is incalculable. I appreciate your first critiques regarding “whites in shining armor”, poverty tourism, and the marketing ploy…but they are not nearly as important as the issue of sending free goods to countries that have local markets or doing things “for” and not “with” people. It’s the same nonsense as the hunger programs that send containers of rice and beans to countries that produce the same.
Auren, don’t take the critiques personally. TOMS is a great company with GREAT people running it and working for the company. Bottom line is the practice of giving away shoes in developing countries isn’t a great idea. If TOMS only sent shoes to disaster torn countries on the heals (no pun intended) of natural or political disasters I would be a HUGE fan of the endeavors, but when they send shoes to developing economies they undermine those local economies…period. This shouldn’t even be a point of consideration. The organization I work with has done its share of great and not-so-great development over the years. One example of horrible development has been our chicken rearing programs. In the past we have “empowered” locals to begin chicken rearing initiatives to subsidizing the food needs of their feeding programs for orphans and vulnerable children as well as to generate revenue for their local school programs. On the surface this seemed like a good idea. The result was the local market for chickens was negatively impacted by the 300 chickens that our initiatives were adding to the market every 6 weeks. If our local partners were selling these chickens at market prices it would not have been an issue, but because their 300 chickens were subsidized by us they were able to offer them at a 20% discount to the actual market price of chickens. This 20% reduction was not voluntary on the part of our local partners but because they had not developed a market for the 300 chickens they were raising they were forced to discount them through the local market price. Result: Local proprietors have had to discount their unsubsidized chickens and thereby risk the sustainability of their self funded chicken ventures, our local partners suck at rearing chickens (high mortality, poor work ethic of staff, etc…) but were enabled to continue because we subsidized the mayhem. Net/Net our intentions were great but our program was less than optimal.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I don’t get paid by goodintents, toms shoes, or any other website or blog or aid program, I just found this site last night and am very excited to explore.
Dan, thanks for adding your comments. I will disagree with you on sending shoes after a disaster. There are LOTS of issues with donated goods after a disaster clogging ports, being unevenly distributed, and outcompeting people trying to rebuild their businesses. After a disaster is actually one of the worst times to send over donated goods, unfortunately.
Arrrgghh! People are trying to help people again! If it’s not the best way to help than it shouldn’t be done!
Hello Argh,
I checked out your email address and you may want to include your name with your comments in the future. I did not start this blog because I want to complain about people trying to help, I started it because I spent years on the ground tracking aid and saw the results of good intentions but poor practices. If a project fails, we can pack up and go home, and sometimes we won’t even know it failed. But it’s the people we were trying to help that pay for our mistakes. Good intentions are not enough.
Hi, honestly.. I understand and know people have different point of views and I respect yours, but I definitely don’t agree with you. I get the feeling that most not everyone who wrote comments and who wrote the blog is somehow judging and feels like toms is a mistake, and that instead of helping, its hurting the people they are supposed to help. I believe it’s quiet the opposite. They’re obviously not perfect, NO ONE is, it’s been just 4 years since they started, and then have donated over 1,000,000 shoes that have given happiness to many kids; that I think you guys are forgetting. I’ve purchased their shoes, and last year I walked barefoot around campus, and I did realized how hard it is not to have shoes. I thank God, that there are companies like that, it shows people who still care about others and want this place to improve. @ Argh, you said “People are trying to help people again! If it’s not the best way to help than it shouldn’t be done!” …really? so instead of trying, should we just sit and watch how others suffer? I don’t think so, even if its not the best way, they are trying.. and their intentions are the best.
Remember, don’t LOOK for the evil/bad or greedy side of people, because we all have it, instead focus on the positive and good, otherwise.. we’ll never change and we’ll all be disappointed , and like Ghandi said “Be the change you want to see in the world”
God bless you guys! :]
Gisela,
I understand your frustrations, but Good Intentions are Not Enough. I wish they were.