The idea of a buy-one, give-one system seems like it’s a positive outlook on business. The concept of something along the lines of “for every one you buy, we’ll send one to a child in a developing country” seems like a helpful way to improve the quality of life in third-world countries. Little do most consumers know, it can actually be detrimental to the development of an impoverished community.
TOMS Shoes is one of those companies that has installed a buy-one, give-one system–so for every pair of shoes bought in America, a pair will be sent to a shoeless child in a third-world country. The problem with this, however, is that by sending these shoes, TOMS is undermining the local shoe market in the affected area. In the article “The Broken ‘Buy-One, Give-One” Model: 3 Ways to Save TOMS Shoes” by Cheryl Davenport, the problems with a buy-one, give-one system are discussed. Daventport states that “Toms isn’t designed to build the economies of developing countries. It’s designed to make western consumers feel good (Davenport).” These are only examples from one buy-one, give-one program that doesn’t benefit the people receiving the aid.
In 2006, a tsunami hit Indonesia and caused copious amounts of damage. As a response, the world sent rice to the affected areas–even though the rice market had not been affected whatsoever by the tsunami. We crippled the economy by competing with local rice farmers (Do Toms). The problem with these handouts is, instead of helping the developing area as a whole, we are helping individuals in the area, and combating the local economy.
Works Cited
Davenport, Cheryl. “The Broken “Buy-One, Give-One” Model: 3 Ways To Save Toms Shoes | Co.Exist | Ideas + Impact.” Co.Exist. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
“Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?” Mother Jones. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2014
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
“The idea of a buy-one, give-one system seems like it’s a positive outlook on business.”
#whereistheclaim #buy-oneget-one* #shortestsentenceiveeverread #hastag #hash #tag
Hey, Alex.
I’m dismayed you never asked for feedback on your essays all the way through the semester. You have some work to do to whip a portfolio into shape.
P1. Sentence 2 repeats Sentence 1, and both could be replaced by Sentence 3, and should be, since all S1 and S2 say is that BOGO only looks good but isn’t, which is contained in S3.
P2. Sentence 1 could easily be incorporated into P1, and should be, since P1 is just warmup for your real thesis that specifically TOMS gets the BOGO model wrong. (Will you be demonstrating with details the failures of other BOGO models? Where?)
Before you fix the broken model, you’d better be prepared to show us that there was a shoe-making economy to bust somewhere TOMS donates shoes.
We can easily dispute the relevance of Davenport’s claim. Did TOMS ever claim to be building a local economy? If not, why judge them on that standard?
P3. The rice to Indonesia example is strong but too easy. Of course the world sent food. It’s what the world does, reflexively, Water too, and medical supplies. Probably before the needs have been fully assessed. Rice can take weeks to arrive. There’s a big difference between responding to a natural disaster and a measured intervention into a non-emergency situation like the need for shoes. Maybe TOMS is worse. Maybe it’s not. But the example probably doesn’t prove what you want it to.
Grade recorded.
Improvable with revisions.