Tempers flared. Shots were fired. People got hurt. Okay, okay, yesterday’s action was more of the virtual/internet variety. But still, it was heated.
TOMS Shoes – One Day Without Shoes
TOMS Shoes, who I’ve written about before, is a for-profit shoe company founded by Blake Mycoskie whose business and marketing hinges on donating large amounts of shoes to poor people, celebrated yesterday its One Day Without Shoes campaign. To raise awareness about poverty, they encouraged people to go barefoot on April 5…at work, school, home.
Mycoskie described about ODWS in the Huffington Post:
Most people don’t even realize how many children in developing countries grow up barefoot and all the risks, infections and diseases they endure. For most of us, modern shoes our so comfortable and accessible, we all but forget about our feet, but they are a source of constant focus for others. I wanted everyone to personally understand the impact of shoes, and the difference they can make, so we thought, “Why don’t we get a taste of what these kids go through every day?”
Yesterday, TOMS highlighted many participants on their online vwall:
- Mavis E shows her support for One Day Without Shoes
Katie kicks back in support of TOMS
2nd graders at Bear River Charter School made posters and wore signs on their shirts to raise awareness for One Day Without Shoes. They are raising money throughout the month of April to send to Tom’s to help buy shoes for other children.
Others included: Heather Morris from Glee, Charlese Theron, Matisyahu, Philadelphia Eagles Cheerleaders, and a host of other celebrities.
Response – A Day Without Dignity
TOMS shoes has been criticized for its model of giving shoes to poor people – for unintended consequences on local economies, for not addressing a significant problem (education, jobs, health, infrastructure), and for the underlying philosophy being perpetuated: poor people can’t take care of themselves without our charity.
Many in the international development community criticized TOMS for its One Day Without Shoes campaign, and Good Intentions Are Not Enough (org dedicated to helping donors make good funding decisions) organized its own awareness campaign for the same day: A Day Without Dignity.
A Day Without Dignity is a counter-campaign to TOMS Shoes A Day Without Shoes “awareness raising campaign” (commercial). On or around April 5th – the same date as A Day Without Shoes – we’re asking aid workers, the diaspora, and people from areas that receive shoe drops and other forms of charity to speak up in blogs, on twitter, or at school. – GIANE
Yesterday, April 5, was D(ignity)-day. People took to the streets, Twitter, Facebook, blogs, Youtube, etc…to criticize One Day Without Shoes:
- Vivek from Aidwatch goes barefoot on broadway (includes gross feet pics)
- TMS Ruge from Uganda: ”Why has it become so easy for people to start feel-good campaigns that no one asked for? There are a thousand things this village needs and nowhere on the list are t-shirts and shoes…”
- Hands Wide Open: ”Christians love TOMS shoes. I mean, who wouldn’t really love a company where you buy a pair of shoes and then they donate a pair of shoes to a poor kid in a third world country? It is like winning the trifecta for Christians…”
- Wanderlust: ”TOMS, I get that shoes are your thing. If you’re really serious about wanting to provide footwear to the world’s barefoot children, try looking at a totally different form of investment. Instead of donating a pair of shoes for each pair purchased, take the cash equivalent of that donation (the production cost of the shoe plus the shipping/handling/storage/distribution costs) and instead sink that into local shoe manufacture.”
Visit A Day Without Dignity for more links to articles, photos, videos.
My Take
Look, raising awareness and giving stuff is easy. It means I can “do something” with little/no knowledge of the situation, little time involved, and without asking any questions. Which is exactly why it doesn’t work.
Not only does it not work, it is based on an incorrect materialistic worldview: that a person’s value is based on his or her access to material goods. Just because I might have more money than someone in Africa doesn’t mean they need me to tell them what they want. It’s wrong logically, and morally. All people are endowed by their Creator with worth, rights, abilities, potential. Even if you don’t believe in God, I hope you believe that people have intrinsic worth, not dependent on how much stuff they have. Materialism maintains a strong cultural hold in the West, one that needs to be continually exposed and challenged.
That said, it’s not unfixable. TOMS, there are many ways for you to really make a difference. Invest in and share your expertise with local shoe businesses, leading to sustainable jobs. Donate some of your profits to support educational institutions, leading to more opportunities. These are things that people want, and promote their dignity. If you’re not willing to do that, please drop your current marketing approach which oversells your impact, encourages self-absorbed charity, and is an affront to the dignity of the materially poor.
What do you think about TOMS? How can we fight the temptation to make our charity about us?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
We’re all guilt ridden, so we’re looking for the easiest way to assuage our guilt. Yes, most of the time it’s more about us. We “do for others as we would want them to do for us” without realizing that we’re assuming others want the same material things rather than the intangible inner things.
Great post Marsh. While I agree with most of your thoughts and the article, I think your thoughts at the end are going a little too far. You mention that the philosophy “is based on an incorrect materialistic worldview: that a person’s value is based on his or her access to material goods”"
I’m not sure I see that in TOMS or other groups like them. Granted I disagree with their whole business plan and agree with the need to support the local shoe makers in a sustainable way, but does the philosophy really revolves around intrinsic self worth? I would think it’s more misguided aid…
You know a lot more about this subject than I do, so please correct me if I’m wrong here. I just see this issue one of negative aid (kind of oxymoronic), but not a devaluation of people’s intrinsic value.
Abrazo fuerte,
Benjamín
Thanks for the pushback Ben. Perhaps I was a tad extreme, but I do think the TOMS method reveals a materialistic bias and unintentionally undermines their value.
Maybe not: Peoples value = their stuff. But definitely: Solution to people’s problems = give them stuff.
Marshall, excellent post. I too would love to see TOMS support local shoe makers and local economies in a sustainable way. The ol’ adage “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”.
The questions around values are very important — “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to sell fish and he eats steak.” So even the values question(s) – will potentially evolve over time.
“Teach a man to sell fish and he eats steak.” That’s great! Hadn’t heard that twist before.
How ’bout this one: “Teach a man to manage a team of fish salesmen; and he feeds his family steak.”
Good thoughts, Marshall. I guess my question is not only the value of just giving things away, but where do the shoes come from? Most are made in China in working conditions that we would all agree are less than desirable. To me, this is helping the poor on the backs of the poor, and I don’t see how this is helping. We are a world that clamors for the cheapest everything – whether we’re buying it for ourselves or giving it away – and that comes at a price.
Good point Amy. I totally agree that the way a business conducts its normal operations is just as important, if not more important, than how successful its charitable activities are. This includes how it treats employees, customers, suppliers, the environment, and other stakeholders.
Your point about helping the poor on the backs of the poor raises an interesting question: What’s the difference between providing jobs for the poor and taking advantage of the poor? I’d be interested to hear where you see that line should be drawn.
Wow, Marshall! I didn’t know anybody else used logic these days! You were pretty much spot on! The only thing I might say in defense of TOMS is that they are not trying to force materialism on the poor of the world, but that they are simply solving a legitimate health problem so that people can live long enough to get an education. Again, just being the Devil’s advocate. Great post!
Thanks Nathan. Let me clarify – I don’t think that TOMS is intentionally trying to force any worldview, materialist or other, on anyone. They are trying to help. Unfortunately, good intentions are not enough. Unintentional as it may be, their aid method does communicate a materialistic message to recipients: Even though you didn’t ask for it, you need our stuff. Similarly to customers: They need our stuff.
The poor need opportunities, knowledge, expertise, access to capital, and many other things…but in-kind donations of shoes and t-shirts?
Also, I respectfully challenge the idea that TOMS is solving any problem beyond immediate shoelessness. Are lack of shoes really the root cause of lack of educational opportunities? Or disease? If TOMS really cares about those issues, they would have far more impact donating their proceeds to organizations dedicated to those endeavors.
My desire is not to deride TOMS shoes, but to encourage us to think more critically about how we “help”.
{ 4 trackbacks }