The Broken “Buy-One, Give-One” Model: 3 Ways To Save TOMS Shoes

98121314 Hannah Ho

Keywords

 shoes, charity, business, economics, poverty

Summary 

On the eve of TOMS “One Day Without Shoes” campaign, Davenport evaluates Tom’s buy-one-give-one charity model—donating shoes to barefoot children—and its practical economic effects in developing countries and in the company itself.

First, Davenport points out that this kind of charitable gifts cannot really help solve the complex problems of those countries in poverty, but deprives local businesses of the chance of success and the communities the lasting economic development.

Second, Davenport argues that the feel-good charity model will surely fail in time due to the customers’ fickleness, and bring problems to the company's long-term sustainability.

Davenport subsequently puts forward three challenges to participants of the campaign: to make the poor capable of permanent improvement of their lives, and to create a solution of daily needs rather than covering their bare feet. Finally, Davenport provides a business model of Oliberte Shoes for TOMS to follow.

In sum, Davenport looks forward to a TOMS that not only donate shoes but also construct the infrastructure and health facilities for those it tries to help. In addition, Davenport insist that the advocacy day is meaningless. 

   

Criticism

The arguments of Davenport seem quite right at first glance. TOMS is one of the charitable gifts givers who hurt the economies of developing countries. Furthermore, TOMS is too shortsighted to have developed the feel good value proposition instead of a sustainable business model. It sounds reasonable for Davenport to give suggestions to TOMS since TOMS is unaware of the damage and crisis.

However, with another look at these assertions, one would find that Davenport is self-contradictory in her evaluation and suggestions for TOMS. She first criticized the Toms as self-interested and lack of vision, then, ironically, he expected the Toms to be a deliverer to the developing countries. This kind of tasks are tremendous work that belong to the UN and numerous other NGOs around the world. In her third challenge to TOMS, Davenport criticized that the “One Day Without Shoes” was only a marketing campaign that TOMS used to shine itself. Davenport surprisingly put forward another brand, Oliberte Shoes, to contend how Oliberte contributed to the economic boost in developing countries. Davenport deliberately gave a specific example for her third suggestion—unlike the general principles she supplied in the first and second suggestions. This unexpected example and the self-contradictory attitude of Davenport made her stance questionable.

According to Coase Theorem, which was theorized by Ronald Coase, the Nobel Laureate in Economics of 1991, the developing countries should reject these nominally helpful, but essentially perilous charitable gifts. For what they gain will be much less than what they lose. Nevertheless, what should people deal with all the charity gifts? What should TOMS and its customers do with their desire to feel good? Is the “One Day Without Shoes” campaign really meaningless? In my opinion, the charity gifts can be dispatched through NGO or UN, or in the form of financial support. As for the advocacy day, it will be meaningful, as it puts TOMS customers, “ in one’s shoes,” enabling them to sympathize with the poor more. 

Reference
Coase theorem. Wikipedia.
科斯定理 維基百科