Or at least the selfish believe this.
You don't really understand why? Yeah, neither do I.
In December, "The Case Against TOM'S Shoes,"was posted on the TOM'S website by entrepreneur and blog writer, Blake Harris, who stated, "TOMS shoes is giving something to these poor countries but I don't think at the top of the list of things they want is some tacky footwear. Most of these people are more concerned about water, food, basic medication, and education. If TOMS shoes would like to do something truly charitable they can simply contribute a monetary donation (equivalent to the cost of shoes they are giving away) and allow the people to choose for themselves what they want."
The article continues to discuss how the company should focus on making a profit instead of donating shoes to keep the "business afloat," and to decrease the price of the shoes to gain more customer support.
It lastly states that the expenses used to make the shoes could be used to make a dozen more pair of cheaper shoes for the children in need that are less expensive for us, the consumers, to buy. In other words, TOMS are expensive "tacky footwear" that is not reaping some amazing profit. Is Harris looking out for the children in need or just for profit? My guess? The latter.
Let me begin by telling Harris and any others who may agree with him that while the style of the shoe is tacky to you, it is actually a mirror image of the alpargatas, the preferred shoe for the rich in Argentina. It's a popular style there where the idea of TOMS was born. The shoe style has nothing to do with the customers, it has only to do with the children and making them feel that they, too, are royalty and special.
Secondly, the shoes have a canvas covering and a thick sole on the bottom to allow the children to play, walk and run on the dirt roads of their impoverished towns where sharp rocks and sticks are layering the dirt. It's a protective and strong against these grounds while also providing them a look that is sophisticated and luxurious.
Most schools, in fact, require shoes as a part of their uniform dress code. TOMS has provided a look that has been accepted by these schools, giving children the chance to reach their potential. TOMS isn't letting bare feet getting in the way of that.
However, these are only the small things that TOMS helps create: providing a sophisticated shoes, completing a uniform, and protecting small feet from debris on the ground. Yeah...those are just the SMALL things the shoes do.
Harris states that these children need medical attention and not shoes. Newsflash: the shoes ARE providing basic medical needs. On the TOM'S website, it states, "Soil-transmitted diseases are the number one cause of infections among third-world countries, and even more prevalent in some Sub-Saharan African countries than HIV/AIDS."
These infections cause chronic fatigue, anaemia, intestinal failure, and growth defects. Each problem leads to children unable to attend school or their job and unfortunately sometimes results in mortality.
The solution? Shoes.
Yeah, they may save a child from a blister or a scar but most importantly, they may even save a life. So I would say the medical concern that Harris appears to have for these poor countries (sarcasm is intended), TOMS is helping in some way.
As for the prices of TOMS shoes- really? I walk around campus and around my neighborhood and even the grocery store and see people wearing $52 navy blue Vans or a pair of $60 Nike tennis shoes or even $75 Sperry shoes. Spend $40 on a pair of TOMS and know half the money is gone to make a pair of shoes for a child getting blisters as we speak somewhere in the world. Don't complain about the price. You own more expensive things.
I guess what gets me the most upset though is the fact is that someone would question ANY organization or company that has the intention to help in someway to a child in need. Why is the world always about making profits and ranking the highest and owning the most things? Isn't it cliche by now to want only that?
Harris, TOMS could make a profit. It could easily gain customer support and keep its business afloat by doing what most other businesses do. The thing is though, it's not like every other business. While you are worried about getting a high salary so you can buy whatever it is that makes you happy, TOMS wants to just give a reason to a kid to go play or dance or attend school because finally they have their own pair of shoes.
That's where true happiness is. What's your definition of happiness?
Here's mine:
You don't really understand why? Yeah, neither do I.
In December, "The Case Against TOM'S Shoes,"was posted on the TOM'S website by entrepreneur and blog writer, Blake Harris, who stated, "TOMS shoes is giving something to these poor countries but I don't think at the top of the list of things they want is some tacky footwear. Most of these people are more concerned about water, food, basic medication, and education. If TOMS shoes would like to do something truly charitable they can simply contribute a monetary donation (equivalent to the cost of shoes they are giving away) and allow the people to choose for themselves what they want."
The article continues to discuss how the company should focus on making a profit instead of donating shoes to keep the "business afloat," and to decrease the price of the shoes to gain more customer support.
It lastly states that the expenses used to make the shoes could be used to make a dozen more pair of cheaper shoes for the children in need that are less expensive for us, the consumers, to buy. In other words, TOMS are expensive "tacky footwear" that is not reaping some amazing profit. Is Harris looking out for the children in need or just for profit? My guess? The latter.
Let me begin by telling Harris and any others who may agree with him that while the style of the shoe is tacky to you, it is actually a mirror image of the alpargatas, the preferred shoe for the rich in Argentina. It's a popular style there where the idea of TOMS was born. The shoe style has nothing to do with the customers, it has only to do with the children and making them feel that they, too, are royalty and special.
Secondly, the shoes have a canvas covering and a thick sole on the bottom to allow the children to play, walk and run on the dirt roads of their impoverished towns where sharp rocks and sticks are layering the dirt. It's a protective and strong against these grounds while also providing them a look that is sophisticated and luxurious.
Most schools, in fact, require shoes as a part of their uniform dress code. TOMS has provided a look that has been accepted by these schools, giving children the chance to reach their potential. TOMS isn't letting bare feet getting in the way of that.
However, these are only the small things that TOMS helps create: providing a sophisticated shoes, completing a uniform, and protecting small feet from debris on the ground. Yeah...those are just the SMALL things the shoes do.
Harris states that these children need medical attention and not shoes. Newsflash: the shoes ARE providing basic medical needs. On the TOM'S website, it states, "Soil-transmitted diseases are the number one cause of infections among third-world countries, and even more prevalent in some Sub-Saharan African countries than HIV/AIDS."
These infections cause chronic fatigue, anaemia, intestinal failure, and growth defects. Each problem leads to children unable to attend school or their job and unfortunately sometimes results in mortality.
The solution? Shoes.
Yeah, they may save a child from a blister or a scar but most importantly, they may even save a life. So I would say the medical concern that Harris appears to have for these poor countries (sarcasm is intended), TOMS is helping in some way.
As for the prices of TOMS shoes- really? I walk around campus and around my neighborhood and even the grocery store and see people wearing $52 navy blue Vans or a pair of $60 Nike tennis shoes or even $75 Sperry shoes. Spend $40 on a pair of TOMS and know half the money is gone to make a pair of shoes for a child getting blisters as we speak somewhere in the world. Don't complain about the price. You own more expensive things.
I guess what gets me the most upset though is the fact is that someone would question ANY organization or company that has the intention to help in someway to a child in need. Why is the world always about making profits and ranking the highest and owning the most things? Isn't it cliche by now to want only that?
Harris, TOMS could make a profit. It could easily gain customer support and keep its business afloat by doing what most other businesses do. The thing is though, it's not like every other business. While you are worried about getting a high salary so you can buy whatever it is that makes you happy, TOMS wants to just give a reason to a kid to go play or dance or attend school because finally they have their own pair of shoes.
That's where true happiness is. What's your definition of happiness?
Here's mine:
Rashi, I really appreciate your argument and perspective on TOMs. While I am a fervent TOMs supporter for many reasons, I like the shoes simply because they LOOK good. The rich people in Argentina had a good sense of comfort, convenience and style. TOMs match everything.
ReplyDeleteThe most important point in this whole blog is the fact that making shoes available for poorer countries is one of the most creative charities of our time. TOMs could save lives, such a great point! The way TOMs operates as a business, I'm sure, will change the way people look at their purchases.