1. Do Toms Shoes Really Help People?

Background: Kiera Butler writes about the explosion that happened with the launch of TOMS Shoes. The growth of the buy-one, give-one model gives people a reason to buy something because of the “help” that it provides someone else. Giving people aid just because we’re told that they need aid defeats the purpose of giving. Unless it is experienced first hand, there is no way of really knowing that we are providing good to a developing country. The other argument that the article makes is the story of undermined local business’. By making shoes available, there is no opportunity to work with local business and find out what they need, to give them an opportunity to make money. The article closes with examples of companies that partner with local business to help grow the economy.

How I plan to use it: The idea of not knowing the cause being helped is a strong claim. People don’t generally think of where exactly their donation from TOMS is going–I know I didn’t. TOMS should give a more individual experience when selling shoes. Telling the consumer where exactly their donation is being sent along with the background like: size, population, economic situation. TOMS has a lot of wiggle room, being a company that means well and is so popular, so there should be more being done to increase philanthropic presence.

2. TOMS Shoes Rethinks its ‘buy-one, give-one’ Model of helping the needy.

Background: Joyce Hackel writes of the improvements that TOMS is making in their model. The topic of third world workers making shoes to provide for the western companies interested in TOMS is combated. TOMS is planning a factory in Haiti to make 100 jobs for the locals, but that plant would be in charge of making shoes for the surrounding area, but doesn’t specify if they would be donated, or for sale. TOMS Shoes stated that this factory would build a “responsible, sustainable” shoe market for the area around it but how is that possible if the whole purpose of TOMS is to give shoes to children in developing areas?

How I plan to use it: The idea presented is counterintuitive itself. Placing a factory in Haiti to build shoes and to build a shoe market, but not specifying what the factory would be making, and who it would be making for. This doesn’t go against my claim of training locals and using local resources to build local economies, because it is unclear what TOMS is planning and where the profit/shoes would be going.

3. Why I Hate TOMS Shoes

Background: Topher Hendricks writes an extreme argument, ending it by calling TOMS founder, Blake Mycoskie, a douche. TOMS targets middle to upperclass Americans with its facade of helping people in need. By making shoes that are so cheap, they’re priced to sell, donate, and profit massively for every shoe sold. TOMS also targets college kids by discounting the price of a bulk order, in which the profits are substantial. Once again, the argument of moving to locations within the developing countries, to not only build local economies, but save on shipping within the country and long term helping the environment because of less shipping.

How I plan to use it: While extreme, this article offers some really good claims. No, I don’t look at TOMS CEO, Blake Mycoskie, as a douche. But I do agree with the point made about environmental friendliness by being located in the area needing help. Like I said in the last argument, there is still a lot that needs to be clarified if TOMS is going to be located on-site. It’s obvious that TOMS Shoes makes a profit, and more of that money that they’re making should be put towards furthering their philanthropy.

4. Some Bad News About TOMS Shoes.

Background: John Favini makes three strong arguments against TOMS, concluding his statements with the idea of boycotting TOMS as a solutions. TOMS shoes are made to prevent health problems among children without shoes, primarily hookworm–a small parasite that digs into skin and causes health problems. The shoes, however, are thin-soled, canvas, light-weight shoes that wear out quickly; and need to be replaced sooner rather than later. The topic of off-site manufacturers is brought up again, explaining that sending shoes to children is only a temporary solution for this epidemic. “One startling example is a 2008 study that found that used clothing donations to Africa were responsible for a 50 percent reduction in employment in that sector between 1981 and 2000 on the continent (Favini).” The final argument made is that CEO, Blake Mycoskie, tends to favor evangelic groups to distribute the shoes. “”For example, the missionaries working for one giving partner, Bridge to Rwanda, distributed some 6,000 shoes to a number of students at schools in that nation. They gave to 50 schools within one Anglican diocese, only delivering TOMS to one school outside that Christian network (Favini).””

How I plan to use it: The claims given by Favini are the strongest I’ve read so far. The point about hookworm is the strongest, as it offers solutions to the serious health problem such as using the money that would go to making shoes to distribute, to eradicate the hookworm problem in a total of 13 years. The undermining local business claim is something heard before, but takes a new stand on it because of the study that it offers and push towards having manufacturers in the developing country. The moral problem faced with Mycoskie apparently favoring evangelical distribution groups is one that can be fixed with a personnel change or protest to add schools and local meeting-places to the distribution list.

5.  The Broken “Buy-One Give-One” Model: 3 Ways to Save TOMS Shoes

Background: Cheryl Davenport claims that when TOMS was founded, it was founded on a “feel good” idea, instead of an actual, long term economical solution. Mycoskie saw that children didn’t have shoes so he decided to make shoes, disregarding the possible health and hunger problems. “Toms isn’t designed to build the economies of developing countries. It’s designed to make western consumers feel good (Davenport).” On top of that claim, Davenport explains how TOMS is in jeopardy of going out of style. With other companies copying the model of the shoe–like Sketchers’ “BOBS”–TOMS needs to focus on new shoes to sell, instead of new marketing strategies.

How I plan to use it: There are a lot of good points made in this article surrounding the idea that TOMS isn’t paying attention to the changing western world. TOMS are, in fact, being copied style-wise and are in great danger of going out of style, which would stop the profit flow, which would prevent the people expecting free shoes from getting free shoes. There is also the idea that, like I keep saying, TOMS should change their business model from donating shoes to building jobs, which would solve the problems that Mycoskie unintentionally ignored: hunger, money, health.

6. The Business of Giving TOMS Shoes 

Background: Mike Zimmerman focuses on the incredibly successful business-model of “philanthropic capitalism.” The plus sides to TOMS corporation: work-morale will never be a problem, the next stages are working with fashion figure-heads on new models and editions (i.e. Dave Matthews Band), and the feel-good sensation given to a consumer after buying a pair of TOMS.

How I plan to use it: This article focuses on the positive standpoints around TOMS. There are a lot of really good quotes from Blake Mycoskie, that make the audience know that he doesn’t mean harm, which will be good to clarify that I AM NOT AGAINST TOMS SHOES, THEY JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT OF HELP. I agree with the article in how good of a business model TOMS does have–for a profitable company instead of a charity.

7. One For One Movement – A Pair Of New Shoes Is Given To A Child In Need With Every Pair Purchased 

Background: Straight from TOMS.com, this is the official mission statement and plans for TOMS shoes. The three pillars to why TOMS gives, are health, education, and confidence. By receiving shoes, children are protected from bacteria that can cause harmful sickness. Most schools in the developing countries require shoes to get in, so by giving shoes, they are indirectly giving children an education. Confidence, while not a measurable objective, wearing shoes is hoped to give children confidence to be an active part of their community.

How I plan to use it: Having the official statement from TOMS shoes is necessary, so there are two sides to the story. The website also offers the model that the children are receiving in the third world and can be criticized. The website also give the names of the countries that shoes have been distributed in.

8. The Problem with TOMS Shoes Charity Model

Background: Gina-Marie Cheeseman offers the “teach a man to fish” proverb. Arguing that teaching adults in developing countries to build and sell shoes, instead of giving shoes to children. Giving adults jobs, solves problems related to buying food, clothes, and shelter. Cheeseman offers a solution by referring a Canadian company, based in Africa named Olibrerte. Oliberte has people working in Africa making shoes for western countries. So employment is raised, local economies grow, and people are able to provide for their family by using local resources.

How I Plan to use it: The company Oliberte provides a model that TOMS should focus on implementing or at least incorporating in their corporation. Like stated earlier, TOMS is trying to take a similar approach in Haiti, but lacks direction and clarification. Working on a solution should be what TOMS is focusing on. A better way to increase economic states of developing countries.

9. TOMS Eyewear Launches “Summer of Sight” Campaign to Help Save and Restore Sight to 100,000 People in Need. 

Background: TOMS Shoes teamed up with SEVA Foundation to deliver eyesight to people in developing worlds. Every pair of frames and sunglasses bought through TOMS, the gift of sight is given to people. Either prescription glasses, sight-saving surgeries, or medical treatment.

How I Plan to use it: TOMS has expanded their business to more than just shoes, and this cause is more of a helpful charity than shoes that will wear out within the year. I fully support this campaign and plan on dedicating a part of my essay to commending this extension of a company that has potential to changing the world.

10. 7 Worst International Aid Ideas

Background: The article makes similar claims to the rest of the articles, criticizing the fact that the shoes are not built in Africa, but it does state that the shoes are built in China, where it’s cheaper to make the shoes because of labor laws, and once again criticizes TOMS for not providing work for people that need work.

How I plan to use it: This article provides a lot of other examples of really bad buy-one, give-one programs that are a lot worse than the TOMS model.