Meet TOMS®. The love-child of brand and cause.

Meet TOMS.
®
The love-child of brand and cause.
A Case Study for Collaborative Research Methods
Keith Owens, Instructor, University of North Texas
May 7, 2012
DESIGN RESE ARCH CENT ER
Tim Woodring, MFA
Jeff Joiner, MFA
Holly Burroughs Cole, MFA
Rebeca Carranza, MA
1
Table of Contents
DESIGN RESE ARCH CENT ER
Introduction
The history, context and significance of TOMS
3
Framework and Methods
The how, what and why of our research endeavor
6
Literature Review
Relevant data from related fields
6
Questionnaire
The primary data and method of acquiring it
11
Charrettes
A look into our ideation sessions
15
Conclusion
The analysis and significance of our study
27
References
Standing on the shoulders of experts
28
Colophon
The case study goals and team behind the work
31
Appendix
Raw data returns
32
Tim Woodring, MFA
Jeff Joiner, MFA
Holly Burroughs Cole, MFA
Rebeca Carranza, MA
2
Over the last seven years, TOMS Shoes has gone from a
small startup company in Santa Monica to having given
away 1,000,000 shoes.1 Their cause-based, “One for One”
business model — in which a pair of shoes is given to a
child in need for every pair a consumer purchases — has
set the company apart in the fashion industry, the business
world and the charity sphere. Their shoes are now produced
in 3 countries and given away in 23.2 In light of TOMS’
observable success and differentiation in the market, a
question presents itself:
What is TOMS® Shoes really selling?
It’s a provocative question, and one that implies that the
company is selling something other than the product itself.3
While it’s well-known that TOMS sells simple, stylish canvas
shoes — the purchase of which includes an act of giving
from a for-profit company with a charitable cause — the
question suggests underlying facets embodied in the act of
purchasing which may give critical insight into the current
US consumer and their values.
By its nature, buying a pair of TOMS breaks the traditional
producer-to-consumer mold by including a third party — a
child in need. TOMS is, in effect, one part shoe seller and one
part shoe charity, and the purchase of the product in this
instance becomes an exchange experienced by the consumer
as both an act of giving and receiving. The product offered by
TOMS is clearly a multifaceted experience.
CONTEXT
The shift from marketing simple goods and services to a
highly constructed consumer experience is by no means
a new phenomenon. In their widely acclaimed book, The
Experience Economy, first published in 1999, Pine and Gilmore
begin the book with the reading line, “Goods and services are
no longer enough.”4 This bold statement was a proclamation
that relying solely on manufacturing goods and the delivery
of services was quickly losing appeal to the oversaturated US
1. As of September 2010. TOMS Giving Report, pp. 14.
2. Ibid.
3. Currently TOMS has a product line that extends far beyond their original TOMS Classic Shoe design that served as the companies launch product.
4. Pine, Joseph, and Gilmore James. “The Experience Economy.” Harvard Business Press, pp. 256.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
|
INTRODUCTION
PAGE
|
3
Every time you buy a pair of these canvas shoes they donate a pair to a child
in need in the third world. Of course, instead of buying a pair of shoes, a white
person could just donate the money they were going to use on shoes to the
TOMS charity and let two people in the third world get new shoes. But that’s
not a realistic possibility, not with summer right around the corner.”
— Clander, Stuff White People Like
consumer. In this new economic order, companies must now
shift to a more vibrant offering of staged experiences as a
distinct form of economic output.Identifying and staging
unique experiences, rather than simple goods or services,
becomes even more valuable in the current US consumer
market, which is oversaturated with largely undifferentiated
goods and services. In this type of system, experience
becomes a conduit by which a producer connects with the
consumer in a unique exchange of experiences.
The significance of experience is even more relevant today
than it was when Pine and Gilmore published their book. The
contrast of business success and failure became largely visible
as a result of the U.S. recession that began in December of
2007. Since then, leading experience innovators have drawn
attention to themselves due to their increased relevancy as
they ventured forward in a sluggish post-recession economy,
while more traditional business models seemed to wane or
even stagnate. It is on this economic stage that the TOMS
story is set.
TOMS SHOES STORY
Blake Mycoskie founded TOMS Shoes in 2006. A
entrepreneur from Arlington, Texas, he had already started
five companies prior to TOMS. Over the course of several
visits to Argentina, Mycoskie witnessed extreme poverty
and health conditions. One of these scenarios witnessed was
that of children without shoes. These experiences inspired
Mycoskie to develop a business model that would meet this
need with a unique, experience-based product. Under the
mantra, “One for One,” TOMS shoes would give one pair of
shoes to a child in need for every one pair sold. Considering
the place of origin in Argentina, Mycoskie saw potential
in the traditional “alpargata” shoe design (also known
in America as the espadrille), which the company would
leverage as the launch product marketed to a US consumer.5
SIGNIFICANCE
The significances of a case study of TOMS shoes are as
multifaceted as the shoe purchase experience.
There are practical implications to the market.
As a result of TOMS shoes becoming wildly popular,
particularly among younger US consumers, new startups
and established companies are going to market with similar
business models (such as BOBS, sold by the established
shoe brand Skechers). Studying the consumer values that
go into TOMS can provide critical information to companies
hoping to experience similar success. Moreover, because of
TOMS’ success with consumers between the age of 7 and
24 (a demographic that spends 172 billion dollar a year),
identifying emerging and underlying values that could
inform product formulation and consumer marketing would
be valuable across a range of industries looking to appeal to
this demographic. Furthermore, this study could prove to be
a significant reflexive index of consumer values for TOMS
and other “Buy-One-Give-One” (BOGO) companies as
similar products expand into new categories and industries.
5. Blake Mycoskie. Start Something that Matters. Random House Digital, 2011.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
4
US Adult Preference for Cause and Brand
80%
80% of US adults favored
brands with a good cause.
19%
19% of US adults said they would
switch to a more expensive
brand for a good cause.
There are ethical implications to corporations.
Inquiry into why and how the for-profit, cause-based
business model became valuable to consumers may have a
series of implications on the moral posture of US consumers.
Just how valuable is cause-branding to the US consumer? In
a recent study by Cone LLC, a Boston-based strategy and
communications firm, eighty percent of US adults surveyed
said they favored a brand that is associated with a “good
cause” over a standard product that is similar in price and
quality. The study also found that nineteen percent said they
would switch to a more expensive brand in order to support
a cause. It is important to consider the difference in the
quantitative impact (measurable outcomes) of a cause as well
as the perceived impact and significance (the individuallyassigned, culturally-weighted, rational and irrational, and
qualitative factors). In other words, consumers perception
of a company’s cause could be considered of greater market
equity than the results of the cause.#
As TOMS is a for-profit comapny and not publicly held, they
are not required to publish their financial reports. As such, it
is impossible to know exactly how profitable TOMS actually
is. The lack of transparency in TOMS business becomes even
more apparent when contrasted with that of the current
501c3 nonprofit model; though both are cause-based, the
501c3 nonprofit requires 100% publicly-held financial
reports, on top of a laundry list of other rigid restrictions
and parameters. There is no doubt that the for-profit model
affords companies increased flexibility and control of their
operations. But is a shift in charitable giving to for-profit
companies a positive change?
Blake Mycoskie responded to a similar line of inquiry in
an interview with startupnation.com, saying, “I created
TOMS as a for-profit business to ensure a sustainable way
of giving.” The juxtaposition of these modes of organization
could necessitate both a need for change in the present nonprofit regulations while simultaneously calling into question
the problems looming over a cause-based company with
closed books.
There are ethical implications to a global society.
Before consumers pat themselves on the back for their
charitable efforts, it may be beneficial to take a more critical
and holistic look of the significance of TOMS shoe-giving
model through a global lens. Surely no one would question
the benefit of a child “in need” receiving a free pair of shoes
that can protect their feet from injuries and soil-dwelling
parasites, but what exactly is the larger economic system in
which TOMS is operating? The company charges consumers
approximately $44 per pair, arriving at a highly-inflated price
point — but one that includes a unique consumer experience.
This choreographed exchange further demonstrates the
vastly unequal scale of global economic distribution; a world
in which it is possible for one person to spend $44 on a pair
of shoes, while another cannot afford shoes at all.
“If you give a kid shoes, they wear out or
they grow out of them, and then what do
they have? If you give the kid’s parents
a job, the whole family will always have
shoes.”
— Bethlehem Tilahun, SoleRebels
Saundra Schimmelpfennig, of the blog goodintents.org,
writes, “TOMS Shoes is a good marketing tool, but it’s not
a good aid. It’s quintessential “whites in shining armor.” It’s
doing things ‘for’ people, not ‘with’ people.”5 This dovetails
with an argument that is further developed by Dambisa
Moyo and Niall Fergeson, in their book Dead Aid, in which
they take on big-aid advocates like economist Jeffery Sachs
and U2 singer Bono for their charitable solutions to poverty
6. Saundra Schimmelpfennig. TOMS Shoes: Good martketing, Bad Aid. good intents.org, 2010.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
5
— when that solution is actually (according to Moyo) longterm economic development projects controlled by local
populations.7
Still others see TOMS and its inspired, cause-based business
model as a step toward greater public awareness of poverty.
In his blog Where Am I Wearing?, Kelsey Timmerman writes,
“The problem isn’t shoelessness. The problem is poverty... If
a person who slips on a pair of TOMS stops for a moment
to think about that level of poverty, it can only lead to good
things. I always say, Step #1 is getting people to give a shit.”8
HYPOTHESIS
TOMS is selling charity as fashion to the
American public, and it’s working.
RESEARCH METHODS AND FRAMEWORK
In approaching the study of the TOMS shoes for-profit
charity model described, our group used formative research
methods to help define the research question and clarify the
validity of our hypothesis.9 The choice of methods was based
on several factors including: the nature of the project as an
“in-class” assignment over a single semester which limited
the scale of the research that could be completed in the time
frame, the resources available to us in a university setting,
and the chosen topic itself.10 These factors led us to utilize
a small scale, web-based questionnaire and a literature
review. The questionnaire allowed us to gain insight into
the opinions and desires of the target audience while the
literature review provided necessary expert information on
the psychological factors that influence and motivate people
to participate in charity, as well as the factors that influence
people’s internal and external needs for self-gratification.
Literature Review
In order to frame and inform our investigation into
consumers’ participation in the “philanthropic experience”
provided by TOMS for-profit charity, our team chose to
investigate the psychological and humanistic reasons for why
people participate or don’t participate in charitable giving.
The resultant literature review suggested new connections
between theories and phenomenons within our research,11
providing specific examples of how TOMS is lowering
the identified barriers that prevent charitable giving and
thus allowing the “philanthropic experience” to occur. The
literature provides the foundation for the focus of the case
study by operationalizing the prior research of experts into
an approachable viewpoint of the psychological motivations
of the charitable consumer, which our hypothesis and
research question sought to examine more closely.
Questionnaire
Our target audience for the questionnaire was the TOMS
demographic, which includes individuals between the age of
10 and 30, sometimes known as Millennials, Echo Boomers,
or Generation Y. This demographic represents the largest
consumer group in the history of the United States.
7. Dambisa Moyo and Niall Ferguson. Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.
8. Kelsey Timmerman. “The Problem with TOMS Shoes and its Critics.” WhereAmIWearing.com, 2011
9. Jenn O’Grady and Ken Visocky. A Designer’s Research Manual. Rockport Publishers, 2009.
10. Catherine Rossman and Gretchen Marshall. Designing Qualitiative Research. Sage Publications, 2011.
11. Rossman, 2011.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
6
Companies that stage experiences... increase the price of their offerings
much faster than the rate of inflation because consumers value experiences
more highly.” — Joseph Pine, The Experience Economy
Generation Y is characterized as:
• Technologically literate and “connected” to the internet
• Having an extremely high degree of global brand
awareness
• Indulged by their parents
• Less driven by “monetary goals” and have a moderately high
degree of awareness of social and environmental issues
• Having a “sense of adventure”
• Knowing what they want, when they want it, and how to
get it.12
A N A LY S I S
Context — American Consumer Market
TOMS shoes, as a for-profit charity that exists within the
current American consumer market, is characterized by
consumers’ demand for transparency, corporate social
responsibility, and a perceived affinity for experiencebased products.
Transparency — American consumers want to know how
their money is used and how organizations or businesses
that they support operate ethically within a social and
political sphere.
Experience-based products — American consumers seem to be
increasingly attracted to products that elicit a set of effects
on the user, including:
• Delight of the senses (an aesthetic experience)
• Attachment of meaning to product (an experience of
meaning)
• Feelings and emotions (a psychological or emotional
experience)14
Humanistic Psychology Approach
A humanistic approach in psychology stresses that the
motivations for an action may be influenced by internal or
environmental (external) factors, but that action is always
an attempt to satisfy our innate (internal) desire for selfactualization. In keeping with the humanistic philosophy,
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs illustrates the
various levels of needs that an individual must fulfill in order
to reach self-actualization. The specific needs that comprise
these levels serve as the motivations for our actions, and
in the case of our investigation, the levels also point to the
specific motivations for participating or not participating in
charitable giving.
Corporate Social Responsibility — Consumers are interested
in supporting businesses who “contribute to sustainable
economic development by working with employees, their
families, the local community and society at large to
improve their lives in ways that are good for business and
for development.”13
12. PewSocialTrends.org
13. Cavett-Goodwin, 2007.
14. Association for Humanistic Psychology, 2001.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
7
Motives for Giving
Examples of Motive-Oriented Scenario
Is the Motive Influenced
by Internal or
Environmental Factors?
Maslow
Level(s) Being
Satisfied
Specific Need(s) Being Met
Within Maslow Level
Gain social recognition and
preferential treatment in a group
or society (CST-Costly Signaling
Theory)
A university alumni has his name displayed on
a plaque on campus and gets press-box access
at sporting events as a result of a million-dollar
donation to his alma mater.
-Internal
-Environmental (specific
group or society in
general)
-Esteem
-Self-esteem
-Confidence
-Achievement
-Respect BY others
Display of existing power
(maintain social inequality for self
benefit)
An individual upholds his high economic status by
donating 3 million dollars to a charity.
-Internal
-Environmental (powerdriven society)
-Esteem
-Self-esteem
-Confidence
-Achievement
-Respect BY others
Acquire fame (high-profile giving)
Multiple, national news programs and celebrity talk
shows interview a family who donated 3-million
dollars to a random charity.
-Internal
-Environmental (celebrityfocused society)
-Esteem
-Achievement
-Respect BY others
Users immediate circle is giving
A college student contributes money to a charity
because multiple people in her student organization
have given money to that charity.
-Internal
-Environmental
(immediate social circle)
-Esteem
-Self-esteem
-Confidence
-Achievement
-Respect BY others
Embody positive qualities that
underlie the altruistic act, such
as generosity, resource control,
trustworthiness, and good social
skillsR
A woman believes a man to be kind and trustworthy
and agrees to go on a date with him, only after
hearing about his generous contribution to a charity
for abused women.
-Internal
-Environmental
(philanthropic society)
-Safety
-Love/Belonging
-Esteem
-Security of employment or
resources (exhibits skill and
reliability) -Friendship
-Family
-Sexual intimacy (exhibits
honesty and social skills)
-Self –esteem
-Confidence
-Respect BY others
Detached, special interest in a
cause
A man donates money to a charity supporting
-Internal
education in a third-world country because he
is intrigued to learn that only a small percent of
children in that country ever step foot in a classroom.
-Esteem
-SelfActualization
-Respect OF others
-Morality
-Problem solving
Predisposed, special interest in a
cause
A woman donates money to a charity for the children
of a particular country because her childhood best
friend was an immigrant from that country.
-Internal
-Environmental (social
circumstances that
previously introduced the
cause)
-Esteem
-SelfActualization
-Respect OF others
-Respect BY others
-Morality
-Problem Solving
Personal empathy towards cause
A man donates money to a cancer-research charity
because he is a cancer survivor.
-Internal
-Esteem
-SelfActualization
-Respect OF others
-Morality
Genuine pity/guilt
A heartbreaking animal abuse commercial encourages
a man to donate money to his local animal shelter.
-Internal
-Esteem
-SelfActualization
-Respect OF others
-Morality
-Lack of prejudice
Personal service-benefits
facilitated by the cause
A woman makes a significant donation to her church
for an expansion project because she would have a
new classroom to teach her Sunday School classes.
-Internal
-Environmental (society
in which cause and donor
exist)
-Safety
-Esteem
-Security of resources
-Self-esteem
-Achievement
-Respect BY others (also
benefiting from services)
Service-benefits facilitated by the
cause for friends or family
A man donates money to the school his children
attend.
-Internal
-Environmental (society
in which affect friends or
family live)
-Love/Belonging
-Esteem
-Friendship
-Family
-Achievement
-Respect OF others
-Respect BY others
Promote American tradition of
philanthropy
While at an international, medical conference abroad,
an American doctor donates a large sum of money to
a research fund without being prompted.
-Internal
-Environmental
(American society)
-Esteem
-Self-esteem
-Confidence
-Achievement
-Respect OF others (fellow
country men)
-Respect BY others (nonAmericans)
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
8
Specific Needs Satisfied
By Buying TOMS
Self-actualization
Esteem
Morality,
creativity,
spontaneity,
problem-solving,
lack of prejudice,
acceptance of facts
Self esteem,
confidence,
achievement,
respect of others,
respect by others
Identifying the need to do good for others because it’s the
right thing to do
Helping others makes you feel good about yourself
By providing shoes for a child in need, you show respect of others
By wearing the shoes, you display your philanthropy, gaining
respect by others
Friendship, family, sexual intimacy
Love / belonging
Security of: body, employment, resources,
morality, family, health, property
Safety
Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion
Physiological
The information we gathered has led us to believe that, as
supported by the humanistic approach to psychology, most
of the motivations for participating in charitable giving
are internally driven, specifically by the desire to satisfy
a need in the “Esteem” level of Maslow’s Hierarchy. It is
also important to note that these internal motivations are
rarely disconnected from the influence of environmental
(external) factors, most clearly illustrated by the recurrent
presence of the need for “respect BY others” in our data. The
reasons, or motives, for giving to charity that we identified
suggested that overall, people are concerned with respecting
themselves as an individual and having others, for the most
part in their immediate social network, appreciate them as
well.
Reasons for NOT Participating In Charitable Giving
By conducting research into the act of giving to charity and
of charities in general, we found that a great deal of the
available information did not focus on why or how people
were giving, but rather why they weren’t. The abundance
of information that expressed reluctance towards giving
mainly suggested that there is a lack of trust in the charities
themselves.15 The following is a list of identified reasons for
not giving that directly reflects the skepticism people feel
toward charity organizations:
Uncertainty about where funds are really going — “Consumers
are now conscious about where they put their dollars,”16
therefore they won’t take the risk of donating money
without knowing exactly how the money is used. Also, even
if a donor knows how the money will be put to use, there
is still the concern about whether a high-enough portion
of the funds is actually used for the cause, rather than
administration costs.
Concern about how the funds are raised — If donors consider
a charity’s fundraising methods to be unethical they will
refrain from giving. Fundraising could be considered to be
dishonorable if: the charity misrepresents the actual work it
is doing; the charity is dishonest about how the money will
be used; gifts are accepted from sources that are known to
be “ethically dubious”;17 or fundraisers are over-persistent or
threatening.
Fear that need was exaggerated or fabricated — Donors want
to make sure that they are giving money to an existing and
15. Ipsos MORI and Charity Commission, 2010.
16. Success Magazine, 2009.
17. BBC, 2012.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
9
worthy cause. With today’s advanced technology, images
and documents can be easily falsified to support a fictitious
cause. There is also instances in which a cause could verywell exist, but the gravity of the specific situation could be
amplified to evoke more emotional responses.18
Futility Thinking23 — Individuals are inclined to believe
that their small contribution will hardly make any kind of
significant difference for a large-scale cause. Money is more
likely to be donated towards a cause that aims to help a small
group of people or an individual.
Fear that a charity will place conditions on the distribution of
raised funds — The general public likes to think that the
money they donate to a charity will be distributed to the
advertised cause without any strings attached. For the most
part, charities follow through with providing aid to the
causes they endorse, but in some instances, unbeknownst to
donors, a charity may place conditions on the group in need
before dispensing the raised money.19
Bystander Effect24 — People are more likely to give, or help
in any way, if they witness people around them doing it.
Therefore, it is less probable that an individual will donate
money to a cause if nobody around them is giving.
Concern that a charity helps alleviate a problem, but not the
cause — An individual may be reluctant to give money to
a charity because the donation goes towards alleviating a
specific problem for the moment, but it doesn’t change the
political, cultural or social environment that is generating
the problem to begin with.20
Concern that charitable giving sustains social inequality
— Rather than reducing social inequality in welfare
achievement, philanthropy may worsen it.21 The poor are
becoming increasingly dependent on the services and goods
that charities provide and consequently they are more likely
to stay in their current economic situations. Also, as people
continue to give to charities and receive tax cuts, there is less
revenue that the state has available for social projects. “Many
social entrepreneurs and philanthropists of today believe
that the best way to create sustainable change is through
education and job creation,”22 rather than charitable giving.
Through our research we were also able to identify reasons
for not giving that are reflections of the human psyche
in general and are disconnected from the lack of trust in
charitable organizations.
Compassion Deficit25 — People are unable to personally
identify with those in need.
Personal priorities26 — People prioritize their own needs and
well-being above the need of others.
How TOMS Facilitates and Overcomes Skepticism Toward
Charitable Giving
Our research suggested that TOMS facilitates charitable
giving by satisfying self-actualization and esteem needs and
by lowering barriers that keep people from participating in
charitable giving. It also uncovered insights into how the
company overcomes skepticism by mitigating:
Uncertainty about where funds are really going
The purchase of a pair of shoes results in the giving of that
exact, tangible object which means you know exactly what is
being done with your money.
Concern about how the funds are raised
By being a for-profit charity, TOMS does away with any
concern regarding unethical fundraising methods.
Concern that a charity helps alleviate a problem, but not the cause
TOMS is targeting a specific problem (children not having
shoes) and the cause (poverty). TOMS has recognized that
aside from making a child healthier, owning a pair of shoes
18. Cordery, 2011.
19. BBC, 2012.
20. BBC, 2012.
21. Dasgupta and Kanbur, 2009.
22. Spaulding, Fernandez and Swayda, 2011.
23. Singer, 2009.
24. Ibid.
25. Warner, 2010.
26. Ibid.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
10
Reasons for trusting a charity less than others
2010
Because I don’t know how they
spend their money
36%
18%
21%
20%
13%
12%
12%
Because I don’t know
them/havent heard of them
Because they use fundraising
techniques I don’t like
9%
6%
14%
19%
12%
N/A
Base: Respondents mentioning a charity/charity type — 2010 (409), 2008 (419), 2005 (214).
provides a child with an opportunity to be educated because
many countries require students to wear shoes in order to
attend school. Creating a more educated generation can lead
to stronger leaders that can internally tackle poverty issues.
Futility Thinking
Avoids futility thinking because consumers know their
purchase will result in putting shoes on an individual. The
pair of shoes will make a difference in the life of the specific
individual who receives shoes thanks to you.
Bystander Effect
By selling a product that can be worn and displayed,
TOMS provides a way for people to witness how others are
participating in the charity by wearing the shoes, and are
motivated to do the same.
Compassion Deficit
Addresses the Compassion Deficit because most Americans
can empathize with having a need for shoes and feeling safer
when your feet are protected.
Personal Priorities
By buying a pair of TOMS shoes you are still upholding your
personal priorities by satisfying your own need for shoes.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
2006
30%
31%
Because I have heard bad stories
about them
Money lost through
curruption/open to
abuse/doesn’t get to end cause
2008
Source: Ipsos MORI
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
In order to reach our target demographic, we utilized a
sampling of our own peers and other college students
via a web-based questionnaire disseminated through our
respective emails and Facebook accounts. No personal
information was taken; the answers were logged only with
a timestamp to maintain the anonymity of the participants.
The questions posed included participants’ age group, their
gender, whether or not they owned a pair of TOMS shoes
(and if so, what year they purchased them), and a shortanswer section where the participants could respond freely
to the questions of, “Why did you buy your TOMS shoes?”
and “When you see someone wearing TOMS shoes, what
does that make you think of them?” This method of inquiry
allowed for both quantitative and qualitative data for use
in the exploratory inquiry into the TOMS shoes consumer
experience.
The participants responses to the short-answer questions
(“Why did you buy your TOMS shoes?” and “When you see
someone wearing TOMS shoes, what does that make you
think of them?”) were grouped into two basic categories of
positive and negative with four more specific subcategories
beneath each of them. Those categories were:
PAGE
|
11
Negative: Generally negative about the shoe.
Negative - Trendy: Negative in a manner that assigns disdain
to the transient nature of “fashion” and relates that to the
shoe.
Negative - Style: Negative in a manner that assigns a more
critical assessment of the design of the shoe as poor or nonfunctional.
Negative - Charity: Negative in a manner that questions the
charity element of the TOMS model or the motivations of
the wearer in relation to the charity element.
Negative - Outlier: Generally negative but again does not fit
into either of the three major sub-categories (ex: Ugly.).
Positive: Generally positive about the shoe
Positive - Trendy: Positive in a manner that appreciates the
transient nature of “fashion” and relates that to the shoe.
Positive - Style: Positive in a manner that assigns more
longevity and a “classic” nature to the shoe’s appearance.
Positive - Charity: Positive in a manner that appreciates the
charity element of the TOMS model.
Positive - Outlier: Generally positive but does not fit into
either of the three major sub-categories (ex: stated WHERE
they purchased the shoe they “liked”).
Male
Female
Own TOMS
(9)
(41)
Do not
own TOMS
(6)
(45)
Responses from
all age groups
19
33
23
23
6
1
ou
y
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
r it
2
0
tli
er
4
ch
a
ou
ve
/
iti
6
yl
e
tli
er
y
Po
sit
i
ve
/
ch
a
r it
yl
e
ve
/s
t
iti
ve
/
iti
Po
s
Po
s
tr
en
dy
ve
iti
Po
s
0
14
6
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
tr
en
dy
4
3
TOMS C A SE STUDY
8
Ne
ga
tiv
e
7
Po
s
10
Ne
ga
t iv
e/
17
Ne
ga
t iv
e/
st
Males Females
PAGE
|
12
TOMS C A SE STUDY
0
1
0
0
y
ou
tli
er
r it
yl
e
0
tli
er
ou
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
ch
a
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
yl
e
r it
y
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
ou
tli
er
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
ch
a
0
t li
er
ou
1
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
y
2
Ne
ga
t iv
e/
r it
ch
a
yl
e
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
st
6
t li
er
0
2
ou
0
y
1
r it
4
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
0
1
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
0
1
y
1
0
r it
1
3
3
ch
a
4
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
ch
a
3
st
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
st
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
tr
en
dy
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
2
4
yl
e
2
1
st
0
1
tr
en
dy
6
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
0
tr
en
dy
4
1
yl
e
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e
iti
ve
/o
ut
lie
r
y
8
st
5
2
0
Ne
ga
t iv
e/
5
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
7
tr
en
dy
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
Po
s
r it
yl
e
7
Ne
ga
t iv
e/
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
0
2
Ne
ga
tiv
e/
tr
en
dy
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e
1
Ne
ga
tiv
e
tli
er
ou
tli
er
ve
/
iti
y
iti
ve
/c
ha
iti
ve
/s
t
0
Ne
ga
tiv
e
tli
er
ou
ve
/
iti
Po
s
r it
Po
s
Po
s
1
Ne
ga
t iv
e
r
lie
1
ut
0
ou
1
ve
/
5
iti
y
1
ve
/o
0
Po
s
r it
4
Po
s
y
ch
a
ve
/
iti
Po
s
1
iti
2
2
Po
s
7
r it
1
y
2
ch
a
2
ch
a
1
ve
/
iti
Po
s
1
ve
/
yl
e
7
r it
iti
Po
s
yl
e
ve
/s
t
iti
Po
s
0
ve
/c
ha
yl
e
st
ve
/
iti
ve
/t
re
nd
y
5
Po
sit
i
0
st
3
ve
/
10
yl
e
0
iti
9
st
4
Po
s
2
iti
tr
en
dy
ve
/
2
Po
s
tr
en
dy
iti
ve
2
ve
/
Males Females
ve
/
Po
s
Po
s
2
iti
Males Females
tr
en
dy
Males Females
ve
/
iti
Po
s
iti
ve
Po
s
Males Females
tr
en
dy
iti
Po
s
ve
iti
Po
s
Responses from
23-26 year olds
ve
/
iti
Po
s
ve
iti
Po
s
Males Females
Po
s
iti
Po
s
ve
Po
sit
i
Responses from
18-22 year olds
13
2
0
1
2
1
0
0
21
12
0
0
Responses from
27-30 year olds
0
1
Responses from
31-40 year olds
0
0
Responses from
40+ year olds
0
1
PAGE
|
13
Analysis of Questionnaire Results
Overall, TOMS shoes were seen in a generally positive
manner by the majority of respondents of any age or gender
(73 out of 108). Even more to the benefit of the hypothesis
of this case study, the majority of positive feelings in the
sub-categories was held by the charity aspect of TOMS shoes
(39 of those 73). The next highest level of positive response
was for the “trendy” aspect of TOMS shoes, relating to their
fashion status as something of a fad. However, that number
and the sub-category that relates to a more classic notion of
fashion and one that will last through a short span of time
was a mere 3 answers lower (25 to 22 responses).
There is also a strong correlation to TOMS appeal and age
group/gender, the majority of TOMS owners being in the 1822 and 23-26 age groups and female. This idea is supported
by many market researchers working today. “Baby boomers
have long been the most important generation to marketers
because there are so many and they have so much money.
Now, new research shows Generation Y — those born from
1982 to 2000 — are showing clout with car, clothing and
other retail sales that surpass all previous generations.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
Online marketing expert Kelly Mooney will release findings
at a National Retail Federation conference Wednesday
showing the 13- to 21-year-olds in the group influence 81%
of their families’ apparel purchases and 52% of car choices.
Mooney says that at 82 million people, Gen Y is the most
influential generation for retailers because it is bigger than
the baby boomers and its members have spending power
and strong opinions at an earlier age.”#
We believe that these responses, being so strongly in
favor of TOMS shoes, the charity model they use, and the
appearance of the shoe (whether it may be due to a “fad”
or a style that’s “here to stay”) provides ample evidence to
support our presumption from the outset of this case study
that TOMS is successfully selling a charity item as fashion
and satisfying a human need to not only help others but to
be visually accepted and part of a group in order to fulfill our
internal needs.
PAGE
|
14
Charette 1
On March 7, 2012, we conducted an ideation prototyping session to test the theory that
Americans seem to base their opinions of others solely on that person’s choice of clothing.
In Part One, charette participants were shown eleven images of random celebrities,
followed by eleven images of random strangers. As each image was shown, each participant
wrote down three short descriptions of the person shown, based solely on their clothing.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
15
Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Celebrities
1)
2)
Participant 1:
Participant 2:
Participant 3:
Participant 4:
Participant 5:
Eccentric
Sloppy
Talented
Funny
Formal
Confident
Short
Egotistical
Interesting
Old
Kooky
Famous
Old
Distinguished
Old fashioned
Self-absorbed
Fashionable
Self absorbed
Gross
Fashion
Out of touch
Clean
Fashionable
“Trina”
Trendy
Stuck up
Colorful
Independent
3)
4)
5)
6)
TOMS C A SE STUDY
Eccentric
Sharp
Odd
Trendy
Handsome
Artistic
Smart
Self conscious
Brave
Hippie
Loser
Dapper
Peacock
Unconcerned
Fashion
Friendly
Granny
Traditional
Sweet
Harmony
Kind
Happy
Helpful
Lively
Kind
Grandmotherly
Caring
Conservative
Giving
Old
Sloppy
Young
Bro
Lazy
Sport-man
Sophomoric
Hip
Dude
Irresponsible
Fashion
Adolescent
Fun
Metro
Douchey
Casual
Self-absorbed
Diva
Hateful
Physically fit
Formal
Proud
$
Tart
Stuck up
Dressing up
Entitled
Latin
Self-centered
Fashionable
Sexual
PAGE
|
16
Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Celebrities
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
TOMS C A SE STUDY
Participant 1:
Participant 2:
Participant 3:
Participant 4:
Participant 5:
Eccentric
Clean
Sloppy
Goofy
Too harmony
Artistic
polished
Self confident
Unconcerned
(white)
Proud
Hipster
Urban
Wealthy
Out of touch
Rushed
Ugh
Trashy
Red
Proud
Short
Ugh
Irresponsible
Sharp
Entitled
Confused
Ugh
Wasteful
Trendy
Hip
Edgy
Trendy
Gang-style
Sloppy
Confident
Confident
Wealthy
Casual
Poser
Ego
Overt
Relaxed /
comfortable
Eccentric
High-maintenance
Punk
Unique
Crazy
Overt
Bug eyed
Kid
Interesting
Clear
Bold
Confident
Wizzer (?)
Funny
Too high
(the shoes)
Insecure
Feminine
Urban
Young
Man-style
Made-up
Young
Cool
Naive
Cool
Trendy
Happy
Distant
Spirited
Handsome
PAGE
|
17
Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Strangers
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
TOMS C A SE STUDY
Participant 1:
Participant 2:
Participant 3:
Participant 4:
Participant 5:
Trendy
Thug life
Urban
Homey
Casual
Sloppy
Hip
Cool
Thrifty
Cold
Humble
Cold
Distant
Artistic
Too dark
Glamorous
Hippey
Pizazz
Trendy
Sharp
Independent
Stoned
Confident
Outgoing
Self-assured
Clueless
Self aware
Powerful
Made up
Confident
Bejeweled
Dark
Hip-hop
Posed
Rugged
Betatted
Soulful
Too complex
Modeled
Serious
Bespoke
Musical
Huble
Homely
Normal
Simple
Casual
Self-assured
Mom
Suburban
Easy
Normal
Authentic
Average
3 kids
Small-minded
Made-up
Hipster
Peacock
Intentional
Fashion
Posed
Cold
Hipster
Brave
Gay man
Modeled
Smart
Tacky
Thrifty
Cool
Authentic
Neighbor
City girl
Free-spirited
Formal
Real
Friendly
Happy
Easy
Student-style
Casual
Fun
Clueless
Fun
PAGE
|
18
Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Strangers
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
TOMS C A SE STUDY
Participant 1:
Participant 2:
Participant 3:
Participant 4:
Participant 5:
Functional
Smart
Wise
Reasonable
Scholar-style
Set in his ways
Seasoned
Knowledgeable
Thrifty
Formal
Plain
Lonely
Old
Concerned
Relax
Bohemian
Confident
Young
Careless
Sexual
Sloppy
Ego
Carefree
Outgoing
Pretty
Free-spirited
High maintenance Clueless
Spontaneous
Young
Sloppy
Broke down
Exposed
Unfortunate
Strange
Lazy
Thug life
Stupid
Irresponsible
Gay man
Don’t-care
Confused
No no no
Ignorant
Cool
Out of touch
Unfashionable
Ugly
Simple
Out-fashion
Dumpy
Dork
Makes me laugh
Thrifty
Working-feel
Real
Virgin
A hoot
Forgiving
Conservative
Rebellious
Goth
Vampirella
Anarchy
Strange
Insecure
Touch
Lost
Rebellion
Confused
Overt
Hate
Found
Fearful
PAGE
|
19
Charrette 2
Our second ideation session, held three weeks later, was based on a fictional
reality show/contest called “The Startup.” Participants were asked to create a
new product business model based on a “buy-one-give-one” philosophy. A range
of product types, labeled as either “essential” or “non-essential,” were suggested.
At the end of the session, each participant presented ideas to a panel of “judges”
(session leaders as well as other participants), who chose a winner based on
projected product demand as well as potential benefit to the greater good.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
20
Charette 2 / Worksheets
Charrette Prompt
Introduction
Rebeca Caranza, MA
Holly Burroughs, MFA
Tim Woodring, MFA
Jeff Joiner, MFA
Marketing plan
Description:
You are now a participant on the Design Research Channel’s hit reality TV
show The Startup. The show is a contest in which you’ll compete against your
classmates to create and present a concept for a new startup company to a
board of investors. The board will judge the series of presentations and pick and
fund the startup of one participant’s concept.
Startup parameters:
This week’s episode is a special feature that focuses solely on startup companies
that operate a buy one give one business model. As such, your company and
product must incorporate this into its business model. During this episode’s
filming, you will be given specific time increments to work on specific tasks for
your startup concept. The DRC Wolverine crew will inform you of the time per
task and give you any materials or instructions you may need to complete them.
Plan your time and tasks accordingly.
The schedule:
Choosing a product category and intitial concepting — 10 minutes
(5 minute break / consultation)
Planning how you would market your product — 15 minutes
(5 minute break / consultation)
Creating a design prototype of your product — 15 minutes
(5 minute break / consultation)
Creating a presentation page — 10 minutes
(5 minute break)
Presenting your product to The Startup Investors — 5 minutes
Buy one give one parameters:
Companies that incorporate a buy one give one model into their product do not
always give away the exact product that they are selling, but your product can
be an exact giveaway. Instead, many companies give away comparable items
to their actual consumer product. For example, a company that sells a pair of
sunglasses can give away a service that gives away corrective eyecare. Who
and how you give away your product is up to you, but make sure you’re able
to clearly communicate the buy/give model, both to the investors, and when
marketing to your customers.
Prompt sheet (introduction to the assignment)
Product type:
Shirt
Product category:
Essential
©2012 Design Research Channel. All rights reserved. Keep your paws off.
Marketing plan worksheet
Product type:
Toothpaste
Product description:
Product description:
Product sketches:
Product sketches:
Projected manufacturing cost: $
Projected retail cost: $
©2012 Design Research Channel. All rights reserved. Keep your paws off.
Sample worksheet for “essential” products
TOMS C A SE STUDY
Product category:
Projected manufacturing cost: $
Non-essential
Projected retail cost: $
©2012 Design Research Channel. All rights reserved. Keep your paws off.
Sample worksheet for “non-essential” products
PAGE
|
21
Charette 2 / Proposals
Participant 1
The big idea: “NewThrift,” a line of of fashionable, vintagestyled (1960s-70s) shirts made from new materials, but sold
in thrift stores. Shirts would feature a small but noticeable
label so that viewers can easily recognize that it’s a NewThrift
item.
Philanthropic benefit: Profits would go toward providing
educational opportunites and supplies for thrift store
employees, many of whom are unskilled labor workers.
Target: Trend-conscious 15-25 year olds who like vintage
clothing, but have trouble finding styles they like in their
sizes (due to many vintage items being one-of-a-kind).
Marketing: Popular bands, whose fans are mostly in the
target market, would be given NewThrift shirts to wear
on stage and at large outdoor festivals such as South by
Southwest in Austin, TX. Bands would “plug” the charity
during performances.
Cost per item: Production: $6.50. Retail: $34.50. Profit: $28.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
22
Charette 2 / Proposals
Participant 2
The big idea: A high-quality, “2-in-1,” coat featuring a light,
water-resistant outer shell with a warm inner lining that can
be zipped out, essentially providing the wearer with both a
light jacket and a medium-weight winter coat.
Philanthropic benefit: For every item sold, $30 would be sent
to food banks in the region where the coat was sold, with the
goal of providing at least two hot, “home-cooked” meals to
the hungry and homeless.
Target: Professional adults with HHI of $100,000+.
Marketing: Not mentioned.
Cost per item: Production: $75. Retail: $225. Profit: $150.
Pieces can be purchased separately for $100 (outer shell/
jacket) or $125 (inner lining). Items would be sold online, to
reduce storefront costs
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
23
Charette 2 / Proposals
Participant 3
The big idea: Fashionable, customizable sunglasses with
a wide range of color and style combinations, which can
be configured and purchased on the company’s website.
Relatively low cost would encourage target to purchase
multiple pairs.
Philanthropic benefit: Profits would go toward funding
educational programs and supplies such as computers in
Mexico. Videos showing these programs in action (as well
as the happy benefactors) would be uploaded to a video page
on the company’s website so that purchasers can “see their
money at work.”
Target: 15-30 year olds with a non-conformist, “we’re the
99%” attitude.
Marketing: Social media campaign. Concept would be based
on the popular 80s song, “My future’s so bright, I gotta wear
shades,” to highlight the educational advancement angle.
Cost per item: Production: $7. Retail: $22. Profit: $15.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
24
Charette 2 / Proposals
Participant 4
The product: A line of inexpensive soaps, shampoos,
toothpaste and hand sanitizers. Wide variety of product
offerings provides business flexibility and reduced chance of
failure.
Philanthropic benefit: A direct “buy-one-give-one” model.
For every item purchased, the buyer can choose to donate
the same item or another from the product line to people in
areas without easy access to these items. Fills a “basic human
right/need” in areas where toiletries and/or clean water,
which most people take for granted, are hard to come by.
Target: Everyone (these types of items are used on a daily
basis by most people in civilized countries around the world).
Marketing: Not specified.
Cost per item: Assumed minimal (not specifically discussed).
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
25
Winner: Participant 3
When the judges votes were tallied, Participant 3 received the most votes, followed by
participants 4, 1, and 2. In post-voting discussion, the reasons for choosing #3 were:
• Estimated low production cost
• Estimated low retail cost
• Perceived positive consumer feedback, based on the ability to see the results of their
philanthropy in “real time,” via the videos on the website.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
26
Conclusion
Our team set out to examine the TOMS for-profit, charity-based business
model in order to better understand its place within consumer behavior. We also
wished to explore whether this model could be mimicked successfully by another
entity, by leveraging the meaningful data we gleaned from our literature
review and small-scale questionnaire data and charette results.
We found that TOMS is likely filling a human need for self-actualization, as
well as overcoming barriers to charitable giving in the mind of the U.S. consumer.
The questionnaire results support that conclusion, with the majority of
respondents showing positive opinions about the shoe, its fashion appeal and
the charity model attached to the purchase experience.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
27
References:
Association For Humanistic Psychology. Humanistic Psychology Overview. Association For Humanistic
Psychology, 2001. http://www.ahpweb.org/aboutahp/whatis.html. Accessed May 6, 2012.
BBC. Ethics Guide: Arguments Against Charity. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/charity/against_1.
shtml. Accessed April 8, 2012.
Bereczkei, Tamas, Bela Birkas and Zsuzsanna Kerekes. “Altruism Towards Strangers In Need: Costly
Signaling In An Industrial Society.” Evolution and Human Behavior 31, no. 2 (2010): 95-103.
DOI:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.07.004
Cavett-Goodwin, David. Making the Case for Corporate Social Responsibility. Cultural Shifts, December
4, 2007. http://culturalshifts.com/archives/181. Accessed May 1, 2012.
Cordery, Carolyn. “Charity Transgressions, Trust and Accountability.” Voluntas: International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 22, no. 2 (2011): 197-213. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-0109132-x.
Dasgupta, Indraneel and Ravi Kanbur. “Does Philanthropy Reduce Inequality?” The Journal of
Economic Inequality 9, no. 1 (2009): 1-21. DOI: 10.1007/s10888-009-9123-6
Desmet, Pieter and Paul Hekkert. Framework of Product Experience. International Journal of Design,
November 1, 2007. http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/66/15. Accessed May
6, 2012.
Dobers, P. and Strannegard, L. (2005) Design, Lifestyles and Sustainability. Aesthetic Consumption in a
World of Abundance. Business Strategy and the Environment (14) p. 324-336.
Eikenberry, Angela M. “Philanthropy and Governance.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 28, no. 4,
(2006): 586-592. https://libproxy­.library­.unt­.edu:2307/login­?url=http://libproxy­.library­.unt­.edu:2175/
pqdweb­?did=1187567471­&sid=3­&Fmt=3­&clientId=87­&RQT=309­&VName=PQD.
Ipsos MORI and Charity Commission. Public Trust and Confidence in Charities. UK, Ipsos MORI, 2010.
http://www.morinorth.com/DownloadPublication/1407_sri-charities-ipsos-mori-public-attitudestowards-hiv-february-2011-final-report.pdf.
“MILLENNIALS: A PortrAit of GenerAtion next.” http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennialsconfident-connected-open-to-change.pdf
(Summarized web link)
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
28
References
Moyo, Dambisa, and Ferguson, Naill. “Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better
Way for Africa.” Macmillan, 2010, pp. 208.
Mycoskie, Blake. Start Something That Matters. Random House Digital, Inc., 2011. pp. 224.
O’Grady, Jenn and Ken Visocky. A Designer’s Research Manual. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers,
2009.
Pine, Joseph, and Gilmore James. The Experience Economy. Harvard Business Press, 2011, pp. 256.
Rossman, Catherine Marshall and Gretchen B. Designing Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2011.
Schimmelpfennig, Saundra. TOMS Shoes: Good Marketing – Bad Aid. Good Intentions Are Not Enough,
October 25, 2010. http://goodintents.org/in-kind-donations/toms-shoes. Accessed May 3, 2011.
Shpancer, Noam. On the Pitfalls of Charity. Psychology Today, October 5, 2010. http://www.
psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-therapy/201010/the-pitfalls-charity. Accessed April 8, 2012.
Singer, Peter. The Science Behind Our Generosity. The Daily Beast, Feb 27, 2009. http://www.
thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/27/the-science-behind-our-generosity.html. Accessed April 8,
2012.
Six Gifts to Guarantee a White Christmas, December 15, 2010 http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.
com/2010/12/15/six-gifts-to-guarantee-a-white-christmas/
Accessed April 11, 2012.
Spaulding, Alicja, Stephanie Fernandez and Jennifer Sawayda. TOMS: One for One Movement.
University of New Mexico, 2011. danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu/pdf/TOMS%20Case.pdf. Accessed April
13, 2012.
SUCCESS Magazine. The Business of Giving: TOMS shoes. SUCCESS Magazine, September 30, 2009.
http://www.success.com/articles/852-the-business-of-giving-toms-shoes. Accessed April 8, 2012.
Timmerman, Kelsey. The Problem with TOMS Shoes & Its Critics. WhereAmIWearing.com, April 6,
2011. http://whereamiwearing.com/2011/04/06/toms-shoes/ Accessed February 27, 2011.
TOMS Shoes. Giving Report. Published by TOMS Shoes. Available at http://www.toms.com/givingreport. Accessed on March 23, 2012.
Warner, Judith. The Charitable-Giving Divide. The New York Times, August 20, 2010.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22FOB-wwln-t.html?_r=2. Accessed April 8, 2012.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
29
References
Weiner, A., and J. Solomon. “Historical Overview of Philanthropy and Aging.” Generations 31, no. 2
(July 1, 2007): 12-16. http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2176/ (accessed May 7, 2012).
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
30
Colophon:
This case study has three principal goals:
Goal 1. To provide student teams with an opportunity to systematically frame; critically
understand; create solution spaces for; invent and measure the success of unique solutions
to change resistant problems.
Goal 2. To provide student teams with the opportunity to embody their discovery, ideation
and solutions process in ways that make them understandable, compelling and actionable.
Goal 3. To provide student teams with an opportunity combine their diverse skills in ways
that yield more innovative and effective research and solution focused outcomes.
Rebeca Carranza | MA
Rebeca is the architecture school graduate and self-proclaimed psychology aficionado
of the group. Her knowledge of experience-based and complex-system design,
mixed with her passion for analyzing all aspects of the human psyche also brings a
fresh perspective to the Design-Innovation Studies Graduate Program at UNT.
Specialty: Analysis of the American consumer market, psychological analysis and
literature review
Holly Burroughs Cole | MFA
Holly comes from a background of kinetic sculpture and political science, bringing
a unique perspective of creativity and social sciences to the Design Innovation
program at UNT where she is now seeking an MFA.
Specialty: Questionnaire (data collection, documentation, and analysis), research
framework, editing, proofreading.
Jeff Joiner | MFA
After working as an art director and creative director for agencies from the deepest
parts of the south to the shallowest parts of L.A., Jeff returned to his alma mater,
where he is a full time MFA student and teaching fellow, while sill somehow
managing to work part-time for his company, Rocketlab Creative .
Specialty: Design, layout, content writing, brainstorming, chart-making, editing,
proofreading.
Tim Woodring | MFA
Tim works as an art director at a Dallas-based advertising agency. A true agnostic
designer, he designs for web, print, systems, or mobile. Currently enrolled in an
MFA in Design program that concentrates on innovation through design, Tim’s
passion lies in the transformative ability of design to empower transformation.
Specialty: Design, layout, content writing, brainstorming, charette preparation,
chart-making, bow-tying.
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
31
Appendix: Raw data
Base totals
FEMALES MALES OWN DO NOT OWN POSITIVE POSITIVE TRENDY
BASE TOTALS
87
21
50
58
73
POSITIVE - STYLE POSITIVE CHARITY
25
22
POSITIVE OUTLIER
39
NEGATIVE NEGATIVE TRENDY
8
31
NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE CHARITY
19
7
NEGATIVE - OUTLIER
8
2
Breakdown: age, gender, own/don’t own, category/subcategory
AGE
OWN
18 - 22 FEMALE
NOT POSITIVE POSITIVE OWN
TRENDY
9
9
MALE
2
0
23 - 26 FEMALE
13
12
MALE
3
0
27 - 30 FEMALE
5
7
MALE
2
0
31 - 40 FEMALE
9
10
MALE
2
5
41 +
FEMALE
5
MALE
0
7
1
POSITIVE STYLE
POSITIVE CHARITY
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE NEGATIVE TRENDY
NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE CHARITY
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
9
3
2
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
3
0
8
6
1
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
2
6
7
0
1
0
1
0
0
9
5
1
5
2
5
3
1
1
0
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
1
2
2
0
4
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
1
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
3
3
1
0
0
4
1
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Breakdown: age group, gender, category/subcategory
AGE GROUP GENDER POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY POSITIVE - STYLE POSITIVE - CHARITY POSITIVE - OUTLIER NEGATIVE NEGATIVE - TRENDY NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE - CHARITY NEGATIVE - OUTLIER
18 - 22
FEMALE
13
5
2
7
2
8
6
1
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
7
7
12
2
6
3
2
1
0
MALE
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
FEMALE
9
2
4
4
0
4
1
2
2
1
MALE
2
1
2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
10
1
5
5
2
4
4
1
1
0
MALE
4
3
0
1
0
3
3
1
0
0
FEMALE
7
2
1
5
2
1
0
0
0
1
MALE
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
MALE
23 - 26
27 - 30
31 - 40
41 +
FEMALE
FEMALE
TOMS C A SE STUDY
PAGE
|
32
Appendix: Raw data
Breakdown by age and category /subcategory
Age Groups POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY POSITIVE - STYLE POSITIVE - CHARITY POSITIVE - OUTLIER NEGATIVE NEGATIVE - TRENDY NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE - CHARITY NEGATIVE - OUTLIER
18 - 22
15
7
2
8
2
8
6
1
2
0
23 - 26
25
9
8
14
2
8
5
2
1
0
27 - 30
12
3
6
6
0
6
1
2
4
1
31 - 40
14
4
5
6
2
7
7
2
1
0
7
2
1
5
2
2
0
0
0
1
41+
Breakdown by gender and category /sub-category
POSITIVE -
POSITIVE -
BREAKDOWN BYOWN
GENDER
AND
CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY
DO NOT Total
POSITIVE
TRENDY
POSITIVE - STYLE CHARITY
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE NEGATIVE TRENDY
NEGATIVE NEGATIVE - STYLE CHARITY
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
FEMALES
41
45
86
60
17
19
33
8
23
14
6
6
2
MALES
9
6
15
10
7
3
4
0
6
4
1
1
0
Raw data returns
TIME STAMP
F
Mar 20, 2012 11:56 AM
M
OWN NOT
OWN
WHY OWN
WHEN
1
1
"They're comfortable and go with
everything and I don't have to wear
socks."That's a quote from my 20 y-o
daughter for whom I've bought several
pairs of TOMS.
Mar 20, 2012 12:07 PM
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:08 PM
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:32 PM
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:41 PM
Mar 20, 2012 2:43 PM
AGE
POSITIVE
2010
18-22
1
I thought they were really cute, and
when I tried them on I thought they
were very comfortable. And when I
saw the "one-for-one" I got so excited
and had to have a pair
2008
18-22
1
1
1
they're cute
2009
18-22
1
1
1
Comfy and a good cause.
2009
18-22
1
1
1
1
Zumiez
2011
18-22
1
1
1
1
Support their mission
2010
18-22
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:27 PM
1
1
They are cute and comfortable!
2011
18-22
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:59 PM
1
1
They are simple shoes and
comfortable.
2010
18-22
1
Mar 20, 2012 9:00 PM
1
1
They were in style at the time and
seemed comfy.
2009
18-22
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:01 PM
1
1
I think they are really ugly but it is for a
good cause.
18-22
1
Mar 20, 2012 1:27 PM
1
1
They must be trendy
18-22
1
Mar 20, 2012 8:35 PM
1
1
Donation, service for the community, Delta
Gamma
18-22
1
TOMS C A SE STUDY
THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS
POSITIVE TRENDY
POSITIVE STYLE
POSITIVE CHARITY
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE TRENDY
NEGATIVE STYLE
NEGATIVE CHARITY
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PAGE
|
33
Appendix: Raw data
TIME STAMP
F
Mar 21, 2012 6:08 PM
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:15 PM
Mar 20, 2012 12:45 PM
Mar 20, 2012 2:48 PM
M
OWN NOT
OWN
WHY OWN
WHEN
THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS
AGE
POSITIVE
POSITIVE TRENDY
POSITIVE STYLE
POSITIVE CHARITY
1
I initially thought the movement was cool
and thus put people who wear TOMS in a
positive light, but my opinion changed
when I tried a pair of TOMS on. The shoes
are of poor quality. I came to realize that
people who wear TOMS only want to
appear a certain way. I think these people
care more about appearing concerned for
charity causes more than anything else.
18-22
1
1
1
1
They are following a trend.
18-22
1
1
1
1
They are into trends and kind of a hipster.
Also somewhat rich or well off because
they can afford shoes that are flimsy and
going to break within the next year. One
step above lazy (they look like house
slippers) or laid back because the shoes
are effortless like slip ons and are so plain
they could match anything. I don't think
they are buying them more because TOMS
donates shoes, but just because it's
popular. They are into comfort more than
style–like crocs.
18-22
1
1
1
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE TRENDY
1
1
1
sell out
18-22
1
1
1
1
Hipster.
18-22
1
1
Mar 21, 2012 11:32 AM
1
1
I usually think that they are just going along 18-22
with a popular trend. While buying the
shoes do help poor children get shoes, I
don't believe that is the reason most people
buy their shoes. The nation was swept up
in the TOMS trend and people are just
going with the flow.
1
1
Mar 21, 2012 12:50 PM
1
I don't think anything
1
1
They were trendy, and everyone talked
about how comfortable they are.
2010
18-22
1
1
Mar 21, 2012 7:22 PM
1
1
I ultimately bought them for myself.
Not caring about the philanthropic side
of my purchase until much later
2009
18-22
1
1
1
1
I like how they look, they support a
2008
good cause, they are comfortable, they
are more useful than flats and cuter
than tennis shoes
23-26
1
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 10:32 AM
1
1
b/c they match anything I wear and
they are flats ..and bonus - purchasing
some give back to kiddos.
2011
23-26
1
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:01 AM
1
1
I liked how they looked.
2007
23-26
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:41 AM
1
1
I met Blake when I was photographing 2011
one of his events and he convinced me
to buy some to help people in need.
23-26
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:57 AM
1
1
i really have no idea. versatility of
product? or perhaps the fact that i can
wear them anywhere and not really
worry about getting them dirty since
they're canvas. they seem like a
disposable shoe....a very expensive,
disposable shoe.
2009
23-26
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:59 PM
1
1
The quality is really amazing and I'm in
full support of what their company
stands for.
2010
23-26
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:44 PM
1
1
In 2008, I heard about Blake and that
he was trying to give shoes to children
in need.
2008
23-26
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:21 PM
1
1
The company platform is a good
2008
cause, and I heard they were extremely
comfortable.
23-26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cause everybody else has them
2011
23-26
1
1
1
1
Because they were cute!
2010
23-26
1
1
TOMS C A SE STUDY
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 10:06 AM
Mar 20, 2012 7:46 PM
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
18-22
Mar 20, 2012 12:21 PM
Mar 20, 2012 5:27 PM
NEGATIVE CHARITY
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:21 PM
1
NEGATIVE STYLE
1
1
PAGE
|
34
Appendix: Raw data
TIME STAMP
F
Mar 20, 2012 11:47 PM
Mar 21, 2012 10:40 AM
M
OWN NOT
OWN
WHY OWN
WHEN
THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS
AGE
POSITIVE
1
1
I was attracted to the variety of styles
of shoes they have as well as the
variety in color choices. For me, I
appreciate versatility and I believe
Toms can be dressed up or down for
whatever occasion. I also like how the
classic Toms (my first pair) look on
feet, it's flattering, slimming even.
2007
23-26
1
1
1
1
I love their style, and I only like to wear
comfortable shoes. Knowing that they
also give one pair to a child in need
was not only the icing on the cake, but
made the cake!
2010
23-26
1
1
Mar 21, 2012 10:59 PM
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:07 PM
1
1
That they are trendy, and perhaps
interested in making sure their buying
power is used for the greater good. Also,
that they have a greater amount of
disposable income than I do.
23-26
1
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:26 PM
1
1
Mostly that they are on the bandwagon but
they are helping a good cause but you
don't know if they know that or if they are
just doing it because they, the shoes, are
popular
23-26
1
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:41 PM
1
1
They like comfortable shoes, they have
23-26
enough money to pay for them, they may or
may not care about being charitable.
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:46 PM
1
1
I like that the shoes represent caring for the
less fortunate. That makes them popular.
The message they send.
23-26
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:52 PM
1
1
Nothing really. It is a style, like any other
23-26
shoe. I do not think better of them for
buying them. Other brands of shoes
donate, just as Toms, and people can make
a difference without buying shoes.
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:02 PM
I own two pairs. Both were given to me 2011
as gifts.
POSITIVE TRENDY
1
That I want a pair
23-26
1
1
1
I don't really think anything. They aren't my 23-26
style, but they're popular now and I see
them everywhere.
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 10:10 PM
1
1
If I happen to notice their shoes, I usually
notice if I like the shoes or not first, then or
at the same time notice if they are Toms.
I'm more like "Oh, cute shoes" or not so
cute and I might think "That's nice" but I'm
not really judging the person wearing them.
23-26
1
1
Mar 21, 2012 4:00 PM
1
1
they have some extra money and they care
either about fashion/fads, helping people or
both
23-26
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 1:24 PM
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE TRENDY
1
1
1
NEGATIVE CHARITY
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
1
1
1
1
1
1
Trendy,
23-26
1
1
1
1
they are into fads
23-26
1
1
1
1
Slacktivism and fallen arches. They look
really uncomfortable and ugly. I'd rather
have cute shoes that make a difference.
23-26
1
Trend follower usually. Some people
wearing TOMS do it to support the TOMS
cause, but I think most individuals buy
TOMS due to the fact that everyone else
has TOMS. You know, "if you drive a bus
off a cliff with enough people on it, more
are sure to follow."
23-26
1
1
Mar 19, 2012 12:44 PM
1
1
First pair was because they looked
comfy and my wife (girlfriend at the
time) was obsessed with TOMS®.
Second pair i got married in.
2010
Mar 20, 2012 9:54 AM
1
1
Because they look good, they are
comfortable, and they provide a child
from an impoverished country an
opportunity to have their own pair of
shoes.
2008
23-26
Mar 20, 2012 11:21 AM
1
1
TOMS website
2007
23-26
TOMS C A SE STUDY
NEGATIVE STYLE
1
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:43 AM
POSITIVE CHARITY
23-26
Mar 20, 2012 4:25 PM
Mar 20, 2012 9:28 AM
POSITIVE STYLE
1
1
1
1
1
1
PAGE
|
35
Appendix: Raw data
TIME STAMP
F
Mar 20, 2012 2:55 PM
M
OWN NOT
OWN
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:49 PM
WHEN
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 4:40 PM
WHY OWN
1
1
1
THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS
AGE
POSITIVE
Prolly a hippie, vegetarian, someone
flaunting their charity, generous, idealistic,
well intentioned
23-26
1
those are cool, but not for me.
23-26
1
They're SO trendy
23-26
POSITIVE TRENDY
POSITIVE STYLE
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE TRENDY
1
1
NEGATIVE STYLE
1
Bought them because I needed some
2011
comfortable, casual shoes to wear with
skinny jeans, and I like the style & look
of Toms
27-30
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:19 AM
1
1
They were a gift, but I like them
because they are comfortable, light,
pretty and because another person
gets a pair out of the deal too :)
2008
27-30
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:28 AM
1
1
Because it was "trendy" and they were
comfortable and sparkly! :)
2011
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:46 PM
1
1
For the cause...one for one.
2008
27-30
1
1
1
Whole Earth Provision in Houston
2011
Mar 20, 2012 9:42 AM
1
1
I like their shoes. I don't necessarily have
an opinion of them outside of that (at least
not because of their TOMS).
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 9:57 AM
1
1
1
1
1
1
27-30
1
They probably care about causes.
27-30
1
1
I assume they are environmentally friendly.
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:14 PM
1
1
That they paid too much for a pair of shoes. 27-30
Don't get me wrong, I really like them, they
are cute and probably very comfy and if I
weren't broke I'd probably have a pair. But
instead I got a pair of bobs by sketcher for
half the price.
1
Mar 20, 2012 5:49 PM
1
1
Honestly I think they are mostly buying into
the trend. They are fairly cute but not for
the price. It's a nice idea that a pair is
donated when you buy them but I question
how much of the price of the shoe goes
towards funding the charity facet of the
company? You could buy several pairs of
comparable quality shoes for the price of
TOMS and then donate them yourself to
Goodwill or the Salvation Army or some
other organization.
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 9:25 AM
1
1
they prefer comfort over fashion
27-30
1
1
1
1
I think they've wasted their money and are
27-30
probably more concerned with appearing to
be charitable or progressive than they are
with the comfort or aesthetic appeal of the
shoes themselves.
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:11 PM
Mar 20, 2012 9:31 AM
1
1
Because they are comfortable,
particularly the Cordones. Because of
Buy a Pair, Give a Pair.
2011
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 1:42 PM
1
1
I think the thing that drove me to buy
2009
them was the style. They were
different, and looked comfortable, easy
to toss on, and not flip flops. The idea
behind the company is compelling too,
but I wouldn't have purchased them if I
didn't like the style.
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:06 PM
1
1
Cool shoes. I hope they bought it because
the shoes look good and not because they
sent a pair to a poor country. $50 could
have bought several sturdy pairs of shoes
locally in said country.
27-30
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:18 PM
1
1
Nothing whatsoever. I don't know what
TOMS shoes are.
27-30
TOMS C A SE STUDY
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 9:59 AM
NEGATIVE CHARITY
1
Mar 20, 2012 9:36 AM
Mar 20, 2012 12:09 PM
POSITIVE CHARITY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PAGE
|
36
Appendix: Raw data
TIME STAMP
F
Mar 20, 2012 9:16 PM
M
OWN NOT
OWN
1
WHY OWN
WHEN
1
THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS
AGE
Makes me wonder why they didn't buy a
pair of Bob's form Sketchers since Bobs
are cheaper, they have the same/similar
style, and Bobs employ the same feelgood-about-yourself-cause-you'recontributing-to-charity sales tactic.
27-30
POSITIVE
POSITIVE TRENDY
POSITIVE STYLE
1
1
I noticed a friend wearing a pair of the
wedge-style and I thought they were
much cuter than the "original" style
2011
31-40
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:56 AM
1
1
I like the simplicity of the design and
it's a good cause
2010
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 1:25 PM
1
1
Because they were comfortable and
casual.
2012
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 2:25 PM
1
1
2009
Of course they are cute and
comfortable, but my main reason is the
One for One principle. By buying
something I'm going to use anyway,
I'm helping a child who needs help.
31-40
1
Mar 20, 2012 7:11 PM
1
1
I liked the way they look and the One
for One was a sweet BONUS!
2010
31-40
1
Mar 20, 2012 7:53 PM
1
1
Because I like them
2012
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 10:19 PM
1
1
My friend told me about them when I
said 'Cool shoes'. When I learned that
they gave a pair away to needy kiddos
for every pair they sell it made them
even cooler. So I eventually bought
some when I had the funds for new
shoes.
2011
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:03 PM
1
1
TOMS store online
2012
31-40
1
1
Neiman Marcus
2012
31-40
Mar 20, 2012 11:48 AM
1
1
I do not recognize Toms shoes in public but 31-40
I have shopped the website a few times. I
like Toms, just haven't bought any yet.
1
Mar 20, 2012 1:29 PM
1
1
I think it's cool that they bought them. I
assume they got them at least in part
because of altruistic reasons.
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 5:00 PM
NEGATIVE TRENDY
1
1
1
1
1
Comfy classic
31-40
1
That they are quick to follow trends.
31-40
1
1
That they are trend followers. I also think
31-40
that they bought the shoes to make them
feel good about themselves. They probably
bought them b/c they want to be do
gooders w/o making any effort.
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:42 PM
1
1
That they have paid an entirely too large
amount of money for a pair of shoes that
look to have been made with Ace
bandages. That they're just following a
trend.
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 1:57 PM
1
1
I think they must be a hipster because this
is who my teenage son tells me wears
TOMS. I saw a lady wearing a glittery pair
of TOMS mules this weekend, and I was
surprised because I thought they were all
more unisex than that.
31-40
Mar 20, 2012 3:40 PM
1
1
I didn't know what they were before he
came to campus last year, but now I just
tend to notice them. I don't really think
anything of those who wear them.
31-40
1
1
1
1
they care about trends
31-40
1
They are hipsters and trying to look cool.
31-40
TOMS C A SE STUDY
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
1
1
1
NEGATIVE CHARITY
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 6:23 PM
NEGATIVE STYLE
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:47 PM
1
NEGATIVE
Mar 20, 2012 12:23 PM
Mar 20, 2012 9:55 AM
1
POSITIVE OUTLIER
1
Mar 20, 2012 11:48 AM
Mar 20, 2012 12:31 PM
POSITIVE CHARITY
1
1
1
1
PAGE
|
37
Appendix: Raw data
TIME STAMP
F
M
OWN NOT
OWN
WHY OWN
WHEN
1
1
They were actually given to me by a
friend. But if he hadn't, I probably
would have eventually bought a pair
online. Like most people, I probably
would have bought a pair because of
the way they look and how they
became a trend to have a pair. But
lately, the insole has come out and
they aren't great to wear - so I
probably won't buy another pair :)
2009
Mar 20, 2012 1:34 PM
1
1
Because they were fashionable cool at
the time, & easy to wear
2011
Mar 20, 2012 2:11 PM
1
1
pretty cool, like the idea that they send an
extra pair to less fortunate... admirable.
Mar 20, 2012 3:50 PM
1
1
umm a few things, before i actually take
the time to remember to NOT judge them, i
think "man, if they knew the owner was a
coke snorting ego maniac i wonder if they
would still wear them"...then i think " they
do look comfy"...then i think.."are these
really still popular?...then i think...."all the
smelly feet"....then i think..."should i get
some?"......then i think...."i think they sell
them at walgreens now?....which is why i
might buy them.....then i think...."dont
Judge david".
Mar 20, 2012 9:29 AM
THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS
AGE
POSITIVE
POSITIVE TRENDY
31-40
1
1
31-40
1
1
31-40
1
31-40
1
POSITIVE STYLE
POSITIVE CHARITY
POSITIVE OUTLIER
NEGATIVE
NEGATIVE TRENDY
1
1
1
1
Hipsters. And they have terrible taste in
shoes. TOMS are ugly.
31-40
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 4:08 PM
1
1
They're a hipster
31-40
1
1
I am unfamiliar with that brand.
31-40
Mar 20, 2012 11:32 AM
1
1
1
1
They seemed functional, and all
purpose. The fact that they seemed to
be a good cause helped my decision
too.
2010
41+
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:09 PM
1
1
My daughter told me I needed some.
Very comfortable.
2012
41+
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:57 PM
1
1
For the most part they're cute and I
like the buy one-give one philosophy.
2010
41+
1
Mar 21, 2012 11:15 AM
1
1
I like the idea that I am helping a
disadvantaged person when I indulge.
Plus they are cute, super fun and
comfy.
2009
41+
1
1
1
Whole Food Market
2011
Mar 20, 2012 11:32 AM
1
1
Casual, laid-back... (sloppy, if they're not
careful how they wear them)
41+
1
Mar 20, 2012 3:31 PM
1
1
They are into philanthropy.
41+
1
1
1
Style and care about others. Also wonder if
they are the vegan or regular. As I can not
tell the difference
41+
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:28 PM
Mar 20, 2012 5:22 PM
Mar 20, 2012 8:24 PM
Mar 21, 2012 9:10 PM
Mar 20, 2012 2:25 PM
1
1
no opinion.
41+
1
1
I really don't know what kind of shoes they
are
41+
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
nothing really
41+
1
Well, if they look like the real thing, "(R)"- I
wonder why they didn't just save some
money and get the cheaper versions.
41+
1
1
grow up!
41+
1
TOMS C A SE STUDY
1
1
1
1
NEGATIVE OUTLIER
41+
Mar 20, 2012 2:50 PM
Mar 20, 2012 5:11 PM
NEGATIVE CHARITY
1
1
Mar 20, 2012 12:23 PM
Mar 20, 2012 4:49 PM
NEGATIVE STYLE
1
PAGE
|
38