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 »
I learn a lot from this blog, it has really affected my thinking about how I donate and fundraise. But here’s the thing: I really like toms shoes. Originally I bought them because I liked the philanthropic aspect, but leaving that aside, they are pretty, they are comfortable, they last forever, and they are reasonably priced. So should I not buy them? Do you consider it actively harmful to buy these shoes, as opposed to buying other brands of shoes?
Katha,
Very good question and one I had to mull over for a while.
While their shoe drops are pretty questionable and can potentially negatively affect the local economy, so can a lot of business practices. I don’t know TOMS business practices well enough to comment on them. But say for instance you buy shoes from a company that paid unfair wages, had bad environmental practices, or had people evicted from their land to build their factories. All of these can have negative impacts on the economy and health of the local people as well. In the age of businesses using philanthropic activities as marketing campaigns, we tend to forget that companies could have a much greater impact on society by instead adopting equitable and environmentally sound business practices. If every company in the US provided health care to all its workers – or supported a nationalized health care system – we’d have millions of more people receiving timely health care. Imagine the impact if every company provided quality childcare or free public transportation passes to their workers. In my own area we have some of the worst air pollution in the US, there a dozens of red alert days each year where children and the ill should not be outside. A mining company is finally going to switch to natural gas and it’s predicted that that switch will be equivalent of removing 1/10 of the vehicles from the highway. Which shows how much their business practices were contributing to our air pollution and related health problems.
If you want to have the most positive impact with your purchasing dollar, I’d look for companies that are socially responsible both here and abroad and avoid those that are just “Red Washing” (named after Project RED) their work.
The simple answer to your question is go ahead and buy TOMS shoes, but opt out of their BOGO system if possible.
[...] has before we make a financial contribution, we seem to say one thing and yet do another. We get blinded both by great advertising and by fame, yet we state that we understand the responsibility of donating. When we donate, we are [...]
Googling Tom shoes lead me to this site and I find the conversation facinating. I have spent many years evaluating develpment projects and I found Gisela’s mentioned “happiness of the kids” an important point. If one can quantify the “happiness of 1 million kids”, what would be it’s economic value be to society? Why is creating jobs for the local economy neccessarily better than the value of happiness? Why do people focus so much on the economics for sustainable development when there are environmental and social dimensions that are equally necessary? There is repeated mention of good intentions are not enough but i would suggest that all good intentions are so necessary and until someone comes up with a very specific and operational alternative (and i repeat, specific and operational) then Tom’s is part of the good enough for now solution. Certainly, they are not worst than OECD countries, the world bank, the UN and the millions of NGOs who spend billions of dollars yearly on aid.
Do you not think these children would be happier if their parents had work selling or making shoes. And children in the U.S. are extremely happy to get toys in their Happy Meals. Does this mean it’s the best food for them to be eating? Everyone is happy to receive free stuff. It’s hardly an argument for good development practices.
This is an interesting discussion. Of course TOMS Shoes could do better – I don’t think that is a point of contention. At the same time you have to be realistic, giving one pair of shoes away for every pair sold is a huge undertaking, and like the viral marketing they use, this is viral giving! It spreads too fast for any company to realistically have the time to develop partnerships, plan and build factories in third world countries. I am not defending these guys, and do love the comment that givers might be gaining a “conscience benefit” with the actual delivery being secondary. In terms of volunteers paying to help hand out the shoes, if people want to spend two weeks understanding others less fortunate, then it’s for them.
Keep the discussion going!!
[...] Improvement: First, though fabulously intended, I’m in the choir of skeptics about the impact of distributing free shoes to poor kids. In short, giving away free [...]
[...] “TOMS Shoes: Good Marketing — Bad Aid,” Good Intentions are Not Enough [...]
I have to agree with the writer of this article. On the surface what Toms are doing seems a worthwhile cause, but it does not solve the fundamental problem of why these kids have not got shoes in the first place. Could it be because their parents have no work or work that pays too little. If so the better long term solution would be for Toms shoes to set up a factory in these areas and use a co-operative business model so it can guarantee a greater wage for the employees. The ‘well made long lasting shoes’ should also be affordable to the local population of that area.
If they carry on with the BOGO model, yes the kids will have shoes but they still won’t be able to go school, because their parents won’t have the money. They now become dependent of companies like Toms for everything instead of being free and in control of their own destiny.
I’m sure Toms have a good heart but they need to be honest and ask themselves if this model is really solving social problems in a long term way. They are not the only company that does this ‘Feel Goodz’ flip flops is another company that just uses marketing as a ploy.
We live in an age where ‘selective sourcing’ is all the rage – companies have an attitude that they only want to do things they are good at. this means they will look for lowest cost providers who have to take on the responsibility of building factories, staff management while TOM’s shoes is just interested in getting a quality product (their definition of quality). It is sad the old companies that had a passion from development, to manufacturing to sales are dying off – because it is those companies that really can make a difference.
I couldn’t agree with you more!! Especially the marketing ploy, so so true.
I really want to stand up for these for profit companies that have a philanthropic interest. Two things strike me as important however. The first is that the way in which a company intervenes must actually be an effective and productive way to promote the local health, economy, society etc. From the posts and info available, it sounds like toms is not doing that. I will also add that trying to “know” how to have the best influence is unclear. The second issue is that having profitable companies do this kind of work will create a market where consumers will be donating to an organization that needs to do the most good w/ the least cost because not doing so is, bad for business. I think it will be interesting to see if market demand enforces the companies that are most successful in the philanthropy.
I understand and agree with most of the arguments being made regarding TOMS. There are many not for profit organizations, and micro-financing companies geared towards stimulating the economies of impoverished companies, and creating jobs. It is true that these organizations are only short-term solutions to larger problems, and measures are being taken by other businesses to fix this. However, that doesn’t change the fact that there are children in need NOW. Im sure that these shoes are bring incredible joy to these children and their families, keeping them from contracting disease and infection and improving their standard of living. These shoes are not ruining the world. People need to view these impoverished areas as individuals with hearts, not just a clump of people who need to figure it out for themselves.
I think TOMS is a great profit-driven organization, with a great business model and a higher purpose. If people are going to buy shoes for themselves they might as well kill two birds with one stone and get another pair for someone else at the same time.
Epap,
That still doesn’t answer the question of why TOMS doesn’t just buy shoes locally. That would get them to the children NOW and make them just as happy while also helping the local economy. They’re choosing the model that best for their own advertising.
What about the design of the shoes? Isn’t that taken from the Argentine alpargata form factor that’s been used for generations? It seems in poor taste to take a design, market it to elites, and then undercut local economies by infusing them with free product. I would also assume that TOMS also has intellectual property rights now–in a traditional shoe design taken from indigenous farmers.
It’s not a problem that TOMS isn’t perfect; what’s troubling is that its efforts actually work AGAINST its stated aims.
[...] Like many many many others, I’ve explained why I’m not a fan of TOMS’ one-for-one charity model. My feelings about TOMS’ model mostly stem not from the practical effects of their shoe dropping — it possibly crowds out local shoe producers and vendors — but from the way their stuff-dumping reinforces Whites in Shining Armor and White Man’s Burden stereotypes. Employing people in lieu of giving them handouts seems like a more dignifying and sustainable way to help them. [...]
I’m going to have to side with Epap. TOMS is addressing a problem which is happening NOW. There are millions of people who are shoeless due to their lack of income to afford such a necessary article of clothing, and by giving them these shoes they can rest easier knowing that themselves and their families will not be contracting diseases. I do agree that TOMS should be producing shoes locally but you’re not quite grasping the concept of what it actually takes to open a business in foreign 3rd world countries. You need money, materials, contracts, etc. to even start a business let alone in a poverty ridden area. Opening up a factory in Ethiopia is an incredible accomplishment and I’m sure its the first of many. Right now TOMS has ease of access to materials and the use of their current factories so opening up a factory/business in 3rd world countries is not only difficult but there is also the chance that it may flop. I have seen what it takes to start a business and for being only 4 years old TOMS is doing a fantastic job. Previous statements claimed that TOMS is hurting the places that they’re trying to help…HOW?! I was unaware that giving shoes to those who can’t afford them is a taboo action. You can’t open a factory in every village that needs help. Saundra said “That still doesn’t answer the question of why TOMS doesn’t just buy shoes locally. That would get them to the children NOW and make them just as happy while also helping the local economy. They’re choosing the model that best for their own advertising.” Well, TOMS IS A BUSINESS! They are making change with the products that THEY can easily produce and in mass quantity. Local business cannot compete with the speed or efficiency of them. Also, it would not be helping the local economy.. it would be helping the business owners.
Yes, TOMS can be doing a better job but that will all come in time. They can also be helping out locally in a more efficient manner which I don’t see will be an immediate change. Im sure than in a year or two TOMS will find a course of action which works, but in the mean time they are helping how they can by producing materials in their own factories before taking the chance and outsourcing.
Dear IHateToms, why not stand up for your opinion by using your actual name and email address? The majority of people writing in to defend TOMS have used either a fake name or a fake email address. It calls motives into question.
So you’re saying that TOMS is doing what’s best for themselves. And I’d agree, they’re definitely looking out for their own best interest and then reaping the benefits of being able to claim they’re saving the world as well. Not good enough. And they’re perpetuating the Whites in Shining Armor- handing out stuff is the solution to the world’s problems – model. And I will repeat that they could be purchasing locally made shoes. By not doing so they are not supporting the local economy and thereby not increasing the chances that these kids’ parents could actually get a job and buy shoes for their own kids.
It’s very questionable aid at best, and they get all sorts of free advertising out of it.
I am very new to your blog & the ideas in it. I’ve found it very eye opening over the past couple of weeks and am still trying to figure out how to translate what I’ve learned from you into practice.
I’ve never heard of TOMS Shoes or this campaign, so I had no plans to participate in it, but if I were and then read this post, what would should I do instead? Would it be better to donate the amount I would’ve spent on shoes to a local organization based in an area that needs help? Maybe to an organization that is training people to get jobs to buy their own shoes, or something like that?
@BSK,
One way to help local economies is to participate in Kiva. They provide a way for individuals (like me) to donate small amounts of money as micro-loans to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Check them out at http://www.kiva.org.
I’ve written about microfinance as well. Here are my two posts on the topic:
http://goodintents.org/microfinance/four-questions-funding-a-microfinance-project
http://goodintents.org/microfinance/what-is-microfinance
[...] TOMS Shoes: Good Marketing – Bad Aid [...]
Good on you all for not blindly falling into feel-good giving/purchasing and giving it real thought. Please excuse me as I play devil’s advocate, I’ll try to write out a more well-thought out post later but just a quick note on one point:
I believe TOMS started out using only local manufacturers, for the reasons described above (and ad nauseum elsewhere)[citation needed, I'm pretty sure it's been asked in questions on the guy's speaking tours many times]. However demand has skyrocketed, and local artisans aren’t really able to deal with (i’m assuming based on the fact they’re stocked at major retailers nation-wide) hundreds of thousands of orders a day. When TOMS has to keep up with a “one for one” model and sales are growing faster than production capability they would have to turn to larger production facilities, especially if they want to have effective quality-control to ensure they are in fact giving a consistent, quality item. One could argue they could create factories in the locales but that is opening a much larger can of worms especially given shaky infrastructure, international business law, unstable governments, etc. Besides, they started gifting shoes for health reasons, not economic development, this is way out of their core competency – probably why they partner with existing education/health operations and don’t start their own.
This still does not address the question of why they don’t just purchase shoes available in the local market place. Or they could even hand out chits which people can use to purchase whatever type of shoe they prefer. It doesn’t matter that economic development was not their focus, what they are doing still has an impact on the local economy.
Saundra, I am using my real email address. You’re so against this company blaming them and such, but I can’t seem to figure out why. You’re not writing them letters or contacting the press. You are sitting behind your computer wasting time and achieving nothing. I know that if I actively supported or protested something I would take the initiative to actually do something. Last I checked TOMS slogan is not “Buy a pair and we’ll save the world and purchase goods from 3rd world countries.” They are using the resources available to them in an attempt to provide kids with shoes. You can make the same argument against the Salvation Army, and other closely related companies. The idea behind it is to donate clothe to the less fortunate. You don’t see complaints that they’re not helping to benefit Americas less fortunate by building up their communities and restoring the nations infrastructure. TOMS is not a world health organization; they are a shoe company. As Jimmy stated they started this for HEALTH reasons, not economic improvement(as of right now). TOMS also states “A village of [HEALTHY], educated children have a better chance of [improving the future of their entire community.]” Also “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.] ” As I previously stated, which you can’t seem to understand, starting a company in a 3rd world country is not as easy as it sounds. It’s a 3rd world country because all the companies which are developed there, fail. Another thing to mention is that TOMS has their own resources readily available where they can easily produce shoes oppose to buying from another company which cannot keep up with production rates nor compose a quality shoe to distribute. Saundra, If you want to save the world then join the peace core instead of trolling against a company with good intentions.
So your parents named you IHateTOMS, seems like a rather cruel thing to do to a young boy or girl. Sounds like you’re rather connected or attached to the company and to their model of doing business. Which I repeat, is a business model. Handing out their own shoes is what’s best for their business. It is not smart aid, which is something you can’t seem to understand.
If you read my blog regularly, you’d know that I do take on other organizations for handing out stuff, so TOMS Shoes is not alone in receiving criticism for this questionable practice.
And quite frankly, I don’t have to contact the press. Many newspaper and radio reporters either follow me on twitter or subscribe to this blog.
Finally, good intentions are not enough.
In truth I actually found myself agreeing more with IHateToms moreso than with the opinions you shared. I’m sure you’re angry but your responses were rather harsh towards the person considering how tactfully the posts were made. I’ve seen some pretty awful and petty things said on the internet but the discussion here is pretty well thought out so far. Please don’t lesson this by saying things like “So your parents named you IHateTOMS, seems like a rather cruel thing to do to a young boy or girl.”
In truth, I’m not sure how to feel about this whole thing. Part of me just wants to go barefoot for the heck of going barefoot, to raise my OWN awareness. Should I ignore this altogether? Should I go barefoot but not give money to TOMs? I’m just putting this out there as mostly rhetorical questions.
Ok folks, I’m closing the comments on this post.
“It’s a 3rd world country because all the companies which are developed there, fail.”
That is an incredible insight. I’ll have to remember that as I’m going shopping over the weekend in this here third world country. I’ll be sure to ask at all the businesses I remember from last time I was here 3 years ago, how they’ve managed to trick everyone into thinking they’re successful and long-standing businesses. They must all be owned and run by Americans not Kenyans I guess.
[...] As you may have guessed, Saundra is not a big fan of TOMS Shoes, or of most donated goods as a form of aid. For a much more detailed and lengthy discussion on this issue, go here. [...]
[...] una discusión más detallada y extensa sobre este tema, ver aquí. La discusión en general apunta a señalar la ingenuidad de ciertos enfoques de lucha contra la [...]