Justified Consumerism
My desire for this entire blog and everything I write here is to help us ask questions. So often, we go through life living a certain way and never asking if that way of life is best. What’s difficult is that sometimes, what’s best causes us to question some good things. That’s what I’m about to do. There are lots of good people and companies that fit into what I write below, but I think it’s important that we ask some questions.
From the moment I heard about Tom’s Shoes, I thought, “What a genius marketing tool!” Tom’s Shoes is a company (that’s quite alight). You can even say that they are a good company (that’s even better). Their business is selling shoes (also a fine pursuit).
Like Nike, Puma, Adidas and every other shoe company, Tom’s exists in the marketplace. They have to think about price points, buyer’s motives and their customer base. And they compete against shoe brands whose advertising budgets are millions of dollars. The traditional message of advertising is “your life is incomplete without our product. Buy it, and your life will be better.”
But as expendable income decreases and the buying public continues to to become more skeptical toward the messages of advertising, a new advertising message has begun to rear its head. Rather than saying “your life is incomplete without our product,” companies have held a proverbial gun to the heads of the world’s poor and said, “buy or we’ll shoot,” or on a less extreme scale, “THEIR lives are incomplete without our product.”
The positive results for the companies are numerous.
1. Consumers once again feel good about buying.
There is a false altruism attached to the purchasing of a product. Therefore, consumers can forego the internal dilemma of shopping addictions and consumer responsibility.
2. A consumer transaction is viewed as a charitable donation
When the dollar amount attached to a consumer transaction is viewed as a charitable donation, there is no need for a sense of thrift. Thus, a very low cost item can be sold at a high profit margin.
3. Free labor
When your business is viewed as charity, the employees of your for-profit company become willing volunteers. You sell a pair of shoes, you give a pair away, and you don’t cut into the bottom line with the pesky process of employee compensation.
4. Free advertising and entrance into previously closed doors.
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of organizations all over the world who allow for-profit companies access to their members and meetings in order to sell their products. More than that, these organizations and members often times are mobilized as massive street teams and marketing forces in their cities and on the internet.
Now, all that said, some consumption is necessary. We would not survive without it. Therefore, isn’t it good to purchase from companies that are, at least, socially aware, and often socially active? Yes.
So, in no way am I decrying the existence of companies like Tom’s Shoes. In fact, I have several friends that I support in their endeavors as socially conscious business men. I buy their products and am thankful for their desire to serve the under-resourced.
BUT, it’s important that we ask these questions. It’s important that we always think about our motives and our responsibilities before buying. And it’s important that, when we buy, we know what we are buying and who we’re buying from.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
This is great cole. In order to answer your final question, the crucial question for me personally is why I trust the ethics of certain companies more than others. Sometimes the answer is simply that they have a killer marketing campaign, and if they can market well, then gosh they must be able to maintain an ethical production chain… A totally illogical deduction, but one I make none-the-less. Perhaps part of it is I just want to trust them so I don't have to question my impulse to purchase their products and support that production chain.
If you look at any major shoe-maker's website, they ALL say 'we ensure fair labor practices and fair wages according to the local laws, etc. etc.' – but in the reality of global economics, they can do very little to monitor what is going on day-to-day. (usually we're talking only annual inspections, plus the occasional 'PR visit' – That includes TOMS: http://www.tomsshoes.com/content.asp?tid=295). As far as I know, companies also can't magically raise the wages of workers to a fair level, unless they actually own the factory. I have a hard time believing that there is a factory in China totally dedicated to TOMS – there just isn't enough demand to justify it. This is why most factories produce a variety of brands/products on a contract-to-contract basis. Factories are owned by locals, not by TOMS or company XYZ. The locals pay their workers the minimum wage (which, in china is NOT a proper living wage, and usually forces workers to live in tightly packed the dormitories – sending money home to their families). They work the maximum hours allowed by law, if not WAY beyond that (since labor law enforcement is not a major priority in china – lets not kid ourselves here). Perhaps they even want to and need to, since it means the difference between food or no food for their family back home.
I'm not trying to whine here – I'm certain most factory workers in china would rather HAVE the job than not have it – otherwise they would quit. It means survival, at the very least. I'm also not saying that boycotting shoes is going to solve the problem. But you're right cole – the questions have to be asked. Here is the ironic circumstance I've been questioning through all this – Do all the children of TOMS factory workers have shoes on their feet? What a terrible thought, but what an honest question!! Another tough one is: if America were truly consuming at the rate that God would have us consume (hypothetically speaking), what would happen to the global economy? Would it not crash and put many people out of jobs?
Hmmm… this debate could go on for a while
My friend, Nathen, sent me a link to this article from in the economist talking about Pepsi, Coke and Chase Bank all using the same methods to sell their products.
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayS...
Great post Cole, and great thoughts Keith. And holla to Nathen for the link.
I could not agree more on the effects that, maybe what we could call "compassionumerism" or what the increasingly powerful and growing trend of defining the link between for-profit and non-profit enterprise is creating in the consumer mind. I would argue that the far greater impact, having a far greater harm, is moving people into thinking they can do the things they would like to do (e.g. buy clothes, run a marathon, eat a bowl of chicken noodle soup) and have a great impact on society at the same time, meanwhile giving no investment. I believe this is creating a ultimate trend in thinking "it's not my problem, someone else can handle it" and eventually making a far greater divide between individuals, people groups and humanity as a whole.
The positive argument for this very recent trend is that, almost no American, or westernized person, is still in the dark that countries, cities and people in "other places" are in need. I think what's happening now is a full-scaled attack on "What should we do?"
So far, we haven't gotten the answer right.
Hi all,
I personally have mixed feelings about this entry and I have been flirting with the idea of writing a blog on this issue myself. First of all, I own three pairs of TOMS, I know many people who work for TOMS and I would rather wear those shoes than a shoe that only degrades the environment ANY day of the week.
But, I do have problems with for-profit companies manipulating our heartstrings in an effort to get our business. As an employee of Invisible Children I am eternally grateful for Chase Bank's donation of $1 million to our work with their online facebook competition. However, I hope and pray that no business will ever hold a donation over our head like Chase did ever again. Invisible Children BARELY won that race and we did it at the expense of putting all of our other work on hold. We felt manipulative as we begged our support base and friends to vote for us. We burned bridges. We upset people. I personally offended my friends in the process.
We were also pitted again other incredible charities and it's virtually impossible to not demonize your competition in a race like that. I am ashamed of the anger and hateful emotions we felt towards the other wonderful charities in the process of that competition.
We invested THOUSANDS of dollars and human resource hours into trying to win that race. If we had not won, we would have been in a worse-off place as a small charity and our ability to serve those who need it most in Uganda. This shows how HARD we worked to win that money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3w3dG9L6xk
Currently, some of my best friends are in the exact same spot as us at LiNK this weekend trying to win $250,000 from Pepsi (which, you should vote for LiNK by the way at http://www.refresheverything.com/link) They are in 4th place and if they finish in the top two by tomorrow they'll win that money. They are frantic. They are spamming everyone they know. They will be heartbroken if they don't win. And they are distracted from their primary goal of SERVING PEOPLE in North Korea.
When the President of Chase presented Invisible Children with the "faux check" (we have yet to receive the real money), she boasted of how pleased Chase was with this process and promised for future competitions like theirs to arise in the future. We all rolled our eyes and prayed that we would never be in the situation to have to beg for votes like that ever again.
My opinion is that I'm grateful for Chase's donation, but I'm ashamed of the anger that the entire process brought up in those most closely involved. I think that the real winner here is corporate America. They look like angels for donating this money and they get a ton of free advertising on the backs of tired non-profits employees and volunteers. They also get tax deduction for the donations so not only are they NOT losing money for the donation, but they're gaining money with all the free advertising. The losing charities are too distracted by the possibility of winning the money that they so desperately need that they are further under-resourced to do their jobs as a non-profit properly. Anyone on our staff would agree that we just wish that Chase would have recognized our work at Invisible Children as amazing and awarded us based on their belief in our mission.
Ok, that's my soapbox. Cole, THANK YOU for voting for Invisible Children. I SAW that you did that and it means the world to me. Americans, please continue to use your time and money to support organizations and businesses that are ethical and operate as Christ would call them to operate. Corporate America, please stop riding on the back of struggling non-profits as you dangle funding in front of their nose. I believe that you may be doing more damage than good to the overall charity community.
Thanks for bearing your heart a bit here. This is intense stuff, and it's definitely a multi-multi-layered discussion. I'm really excited everything came through for you guys to get that money, and can't wait to see what happens with it!
Ha! We're really excited to put it to work too… When we get the check. In the meantime, we've already begun implementing $100,000 to well-building projects in Haiti in conjunction with Charity:Water. These posts show what we're doing on the ground right now in Haiti. We hope that other groups will donate to this cause bringing the Haiti water-relief effort to a $1 million budget.
http://blog.invisiblechildren.com/?p=5203
http://blog.invisiblechildren.com/?p=5309
thanks again for your support. You've seen us grow a TON as an organization over the years and I hope you're impressed with the ways we've matured from our beginning stages.
Still love your blog. Keep it up.
Hi, an interesting post, and yes we should all think carefully of how our consumerism can lead to good, and then maybe curbing our consumerism too as we can.
I've been recently introduced to Oliberte, a shoe company run by a fellow Canadian from Oakville, Ontario. This is a for-profit company promoting jobs, pride, growth and drect advancement in Africa (Eritrea, Liberia, Ethiopia). Like Tom's they sell shoes, but in this case high quality shoes aimed specifically at the north American/European markets. With a higher price tag. The price point is related to quality of shoe product, and is not directly realted to charity of "social impact" as such. Straight business.
Their idea of "social good" is to create long-term sustainable jobs in Africa. I love the concept, and it's straight-forwards no-charity approach… I'd be interested in hearing what you think of their approach.
IN many ways similar to Tom's, but the goals are quite different. Oliberte strives to have Africans create items WE need and want and willing to pay a premium for. Like any business.
( I believe there is a place for both models of course,)
If you have a chance, peek at oliberte.com and I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Hey Vince. Thanks for contributing to the conversation.
Oliberte is a great idea… and let me clarify that I think TOMS is a great idea too. The issue here isn't to defame TOMS or companies like it. It's to point out the potential pitfalls from a consumer perspective.
The same potential issue of justified consumerism exists here as it does with TOMS… "Oh, man, I can go buy those shoes without thinking because the money supports people in Africa."
Nothing wrong with buying shoes. Nothing wrong with supporting people in Africa. Nothing wrong with doing them at the same time. I'm excited that consumers are being presented with the choice of companies that care about laborers and the poor of the world. Wonderful! But let's not allow that to make us more obsessed consumers. That's all. Thoughts?
i love this post.
i was always skeptical about TOMS and im a freak about knowing where my good are made and how. after researching a bit i found that they were made in factories. understandable in order to keep up with the market demand but i think its a bit iffy when they don't look to local people/shoe makers and employ them and use the local materials. its a lot to ask, of a for profit company but im sure a lot more sustainable for the people who are getting the shoes and for the communities who need it the most.
who wouldn't want sustainability unless their bottom line was simply profit?
Leave your response!
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Most Viewed