3 ms·

Toms Shoes are terrible quality. I do not suggest buying them. It took some time for me to admit to myself that I was tricked by a sly marketing campaign. The

Toms Shoes are terrible quality. I do not suggest buying them. It took some time for me to admit to myself that I was tricked by a sly marketing campaign. The founder Blake Mycoskie also got caught partnering up with the American group Focus On the Family which sponsors all sorts of anti-gay legislation in Africa. He said that he didn't know all of the awful things they do, which I find really hard to believe. People like a story that let's them shop and make them feel like they are making a difference in the world. I read his book, Start Something That Matters, and found it to be full of bullshit marketing speak. http://jezebel.com/5819435/why-is-toms-partnering-with-an-anti+gay-anti+choice-group http://jezebel.com/5819435/why-is-toms-partnering-with-an-an... Edit: Just to expand a bit. They have a term called "One-for-One" which I absolutely hate. It basically says that if you buy a pair of shoes, a pair of shoes will be given to a kid in need. The problem with it is that these shoes are made for a couple of dollars. They make it so you perceive that they are spending $50 on the pair of shoes that they give to the child. When in fact these shoes are being made for a few dollars. Seriously. Just check them out on Alibaba. They are the exact same things, just minus the Toms logo. If they really wanted to make a difference they could give 9 or 10 pairs of shoes away for each pair of shoes you buy. This is a for-profit business, and I don't have a problem with that, what I do have a problem is their sleezy marketing. They are shameless. http://alibaba.com/countrysearch/AR/espadrilles.html http://alibaba.com/countrysearch/AR/espadrilles.html

dkrich 13y ago
I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. Many companies that we all shop from regularly have huge, ridiculous markups that can be justified in only one way: we are willing to pay the price asked. By doing the good deed of donating just one measly pair of $2 marginal cost shoes to a child in need they are somehow misleading you with clever marketing? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree it is a marketing play, otherwise it would be operated as a non-profit. Had they never offered up free shoes, this article wouldn't have been written and you wouldn't be vilifying them. Nike has huge profit margins, as does Apple and just about every cosmetic brand you know of, and yet where is the disdain for their greedy tactics? Oh wait, they never offered to give anything away so let's give them a pass.
- falk 13y ago
  This doesn't negate the fact that Toms makes a shitty product that fall apart easily, especially in the 3rd world. Have they never offered free shoes we wouldn't be talking about them. They make it seem like they are giving away a pair of shoes worth $50, when they are really just spending a couple of dollars on a marketing expense. I bet they pass the cost of giving away a "free" pair of shoes onto their customer. I can't speak for OP, but I have no disdain for Apple or Nike in terms of their markup because they are not masquerading as some sort of quasi-charity that is supposedly helping people in need. Also, they make good products.
  - dkrich 13y ago
    This doesn't negate the fact that Toms makes a shitty product that fall apart easily, especially in the 3rd world. This actually isn't a fact, it's an opinion. After all, what makes something a "shitty product?" If we are measuring value based solely on build quality, I have to tell you that most designer shirts you pay $70+ for in the mall fail this test, while polyester shirts that go for $14.99 at Wal-Mart will probably last you most of your adult life. While we're at it, try sprinkling a few drops of water on your MacBook keyboard then take it to your local Apple store and see how much they stand by their build quality when it is determined that you will need a new logic board in your $1400 computer. Quality is a subjective matter. Who can say that somebody who feels good about their purchase of some horribly made shoes shouldn't if they like the way look and the way those shoes make them feel when they take them out of the box and put them on?
efkztw 13y ago
Your point, and this article, reminds me of this story I read on HN couple days ago. http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/07/want_to_raise_prices_tell_a_be.html http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/07/want_to_raise_prices_tell_a_...

dkrich 13y ago

I'm going to have to call bullshit on this. Many companies that we all shop from regularly have huge, ridiculous markups that can be justified in only one way: we are willing to pay the price asked. By doing the good deed of donating just one measly pair of $2 marginal cost shoes to a child in need they are somehow misleading you with clever marketing? Don't get me wrong, I totally agree it is a marketing play, otherwise it would be operated as a non-profit. Had they never offered up free shoes, this article wouldn't have been written and you wouldn't be vilifying them. Nike has huge profit margins, as does Apple and just about every cosmetic brand you know of, and yet where is the disdain for their greedy tactics? Oh wait, they never offered to give anything away so let's give them a pass.

falk 13y ago
This doesn't negate the fact that Toms makes a shitty product that fall apart easily, especially in the 3rd world. Have they never offered free shoes we wouldn't be talking about them. They make it seem like they are giving away a pair of shoes worth $50, when they are really just spending a couple of dollars on a marketing expense. I bet they pass the cost of giving away a "free" pair of shoes onto their customer. I can't speak for OP, but I have no disdain for Apple or Nike in terms of their markup because they are not masquerading as some sort of quasi-charity that is supposedly helping people in need. Also, they make good products.
- dkrich 13y ago
  This doesn't negate the fact that Toms makes a shitty product that fall apart easily, especially in the 3rd world. This actually isn't a fact, it's an opinion. After all, what makes something a "shitty product?" If we are measuring value based solely on build quality, I have to tell you that most designer shirts you pay $70+ for in the mall fail this test, while polyester shirts that go for $14.99 at Wal-Mart will probably last you most of your adult life. While we're at it, try sprinkling a few drops of water on your MacBook keyboard then take it to your local Apple store and see how much they stand by their build quality when it is determined that you will need a new logic board in your $1400 computer. Quality is a subjective matter. Who can say that somebody who feels good about their purchase of some horribly made shoes shouldn't if they like the way look and the way those shoes make them feel when they take them out of the box and put them on?

efkztw 13y ago

Your point, and this article, reminds me of this story I read on HN couple days ago. http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/07/want_to_raise_prices_tell_a_be.html http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/07/want_to_raise_prices_tell_a_...