TOMS markets its shoes well.
When I first heard about TOMS shoes, which gives a pair of shoes away with every purchase, I remember thinking two things: 1) “Wow, that’s a really creative idea and those shoes are hip!” and 2) “Does giving away free shoes really help? Is this an efficient way to meet a need? What about local shoemakers and salesmen – doesn’t this threaten their livelihood?”
NYU econ grad student Vivek Nemana’s echos these thoughts much more eloquently in an AidWatch blog post:
We buy TOMS Shoes or Fair Trade chocolate or poverty-fighting water bottles because we genuinely want to help. But in the frenzy of do-gooder consumption we stop thinking all the way through. We fail to ask how our money will help, and we overlook how our good deeds might actually do harm. We forget that what we want to do for others might not be the same as what they really need.
It’s too convenient to hand our credit cards to businesses that promise to do good; making a real difference also requires information, accountability and careful consideration. We talk extensively on this blog about NGO accountability. Shouldn’t customers ask the same of their favorite social entrepreneurs?
Read the whole thing here. Especially if you’re wearing your TOMS right now.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Great post Marsh. Something I’ve thought about myself, and glad you posted this link! Love all the updates.
Te amo pana
There is a “law of unintended consequences” that is alive and well.
To play devil’s advocate on your second question, shouldn’t we want the benefit of a lower-cost product (free shoes) which would in turn allow the shoemakers and shoesalesmen to pursue bigger and better dreams and create more wealth? Does the Candlemaker’s Petition apply?
Good question, hadn’t thought of it that way. 2 follow-ups:
1) The TOMS shoes aren’t lower in cost. They’re lower in price (free) to recipients because they are subsidized (privately and voluntarily) by the people who paid $50 for their pair. It’s a built in donation of $25 to put shoes on people’s feet. But if providing shoes is your goal, your $25 could go a lot further if you bought local shoes at $2 a pair, for example.
2) The bigger issue is that giving anything away for free erodes the incentive for people in a community to solve their own problems (through their own work, entrepreneurship, etc). So the shoemakers and salesmen tend not to start a new business, but rather wait for the next shipment of north american charity to arrive. Read this blog post for some first-hand examples: http://zacstravaganza.blogspot.com/2010/10/does-toms-cause-more-harm-than-good-by.html
TOMS has teamed up with World Vision. In each country, World Vision volunteers/workers are mostly, if not all, indigenous. They are also an org that helps those in poverty help themselves rather than just “helping” and hurting the poor in the meanwhile. Not sure what that will look like in this instance but it sure makes me a bit more hopeful/less skeptical about TOMS.
http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/about/20101020-2010-TOMS-Shoes-World-Vision-Partnership
{ 3 trackbacks }