"One
for one" is the motto used by the retail company Toms to promote its
shoes. It is the idea that a pair of shoes will be given to an impoverished
child with every purchase, and part of the profit made from eyewear purchases will
also be used to save or restore the eyesight of people in developing countries.
This is one type of an emerging business model that includes charity as a method
for profit and marketing. I am sure most GPP students are familiar with this
idea. Currently, Toms gives shoes to more than 60 countries. The location
chosen is driven by the needs of its Giving Partners. Toms works closely with
them to add new communities and countries where shoes will have the greatest
impact. I am not particularly against this effort and model that Toms
initiates; as a matter of fact, Toms’ shoes are my favourite kinds for daily
wear. The shoes are simple, comfortable and stylish, and I have already bought
two pairs for myself. According to Toms’ notion of “one for one”, this means
that I have directly given two pairs of shoes to those in need in another part
of the world. Am I, and should I be, proud of myself because I have given a
pair of shoes to a child to protect his/her feet from cuts, infections and
diseases? That child can also go to school since shoes are often required for
school attendance in many countries. Still, honestly, I am not gratified of
this purchase simply because it does not holistically capture the need of a
sacrifice of the privileged to help people who are marginalized. Though it is impossible to quantify, one can argue that people are buying the shoes for themselves more than the purpose of buying it for others. It is just another form of individualism where there is always something in it for "me". The idea
behind “one for one” is basically manifesting the concept of “exchange value”
over “use value,” but in doing so, the idea of “exchange value” is blurred
because the result seems to be a win-win situation, and the concept of “use
value” is highlighted in terms of the impact it will bring with every purchase.
I am really ambivalent towards this
model of the win-win situation. It seems empowering and hopeful since both
group are winners (the consumers get their pairs of shoes and know that they
did something good with their purchases) and the children who receive the shoes
are also winners (though one can argue there are just compensated losers masked
as winners). However, this new emerging do-good emerging market is simply not
enough and harmful as critiques may argue. It is also interesting to know that “TOMS”
is derived from “Shoes for TOMorrow” and its signature design comes from
Argentine traditional Alpargata (Espadrilles), which can trace its origin as peasant
footwear. I find this reflection critical and needs to be discussed or at least acknowledged.
Here is a video
from Toms' "One Day Without Shoes" campaign as part of its one for one movement:
In relation to Duraipah et. al “Degrees of Participation”, where does this movement situates itself? Anyone of you who participated willing to share your reflection on this campaign?
The video showed a map of areas in the United States that had people participating in the campaign. I thought it was interesting how most of the action was taken place in either to west or east coast and there was the midwest were there didn't seem to be any participant.
ReplyDeleteI think this reveal how opinions and actions on poverty is different across the United States. In California and especially the Bay Area, there is awareness about poverty and global poverty. However, if you go to Idaho or Oklahoma, I think the sense of urgency about global poverty is not the same.
I understand your sentiment about the questionability of how this win-win situation is not necessarily that. I agree that we as consumers are the real winners at the end of the day getting to leave the store with a pair of trendy new shoes. Also, I do think that if consumers of Toms shoes walk away with a feeling of content and a chip on our shoulder as though we have gone out of our way to help an individual in poverty would be giving ourselves undue credit. This business model or aid model, however you view it, is growing exponentially in recent years and the efforts by companies like Toms are impressive. I think companies or organizations that push forward with this "one for me and one for you" tactic can only help bring awareness and spur on other business/ aid models for the future. Recently Toms has put two of my acquaintances small businesses under their wing. Toms has partnered with these two businesses, both of which are similarly framed around the same volunteerism and aid to the impoverished with their One-For-One Give Back Program model with every purchase of their products. While, the efforts does not solve poverty completely, I think this do-go market is still a step in the right direction for those creating these businesses when they could just as well keep all the profits rather than using some of their profits toward aid. In contrast, in terms of the efforts of the consumer I agree that the purchase of One-For-One Give Back Program model products is not enough on our part to count as our aid efforts.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to bounce back on Thoa's comment...I agree that it is interesting how purchases are mostly made on the west and east coast. However, I don't think it's only do to different opinions regarding poverty alleviation methods. The midwest may have a higher percent of poor Americans than urban cities throughout the US, who cannot afford to buy a $40-$60 pair of shoes made of just thin cloth. This is an example of the power relationship between those who can "help" the global poor and those who cannot. The same is for fair trade products...Although poor American may value that their products be made ethically, they do not have the financial means to do so. Only more affluent, or middle-class Americans, can participate in this movement...which is a form of exclusion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think another interesting point to research where these shoes are made and under what conditions. It would be ironic if TOMS are supposed to help the poor, but the shoes are a product of sweatshop conditions or worker exploitation.
I agree with everything you're saying, but I also think you're forgetting a third "win" in this situation--that of the company of TOMS itself, and their boom in business because of the image that they're a charitable company that donates shoes to poor children in developing countries. I completely agree with you on the "there's something in it for me" model that operates here on all fronts.
ReplyDeleteI also have issues with this video, because it's glorifying the troubles caused by lack of shoes in developing countries. In countries like the US, or at least in the scenes depicted by the video, the battle of walking barefoot seems to be on nice grassy grounds or on nicely paved city sidewalks--whereas the reality is that children in third-world countries risk getting tetanus or worms or who knows what else everyday by walking on insect-infested dirt and rock-laden grounds. Frankly, that sucks a lot more than the video is even touching upon. I understand that the video is supposed to promote the positive emotions driving us to buy shoes from them for a good cause, but it would have personally been more effective if they had realistic interviews of people who complained how difficult it is to go all day without shoes, not smile and happily advertise for TOMS.