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

1

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

Tim Woodring, MFA Jeff Joiner, MFAHolly Burroughs Cole, MFA Rebeca Carranza, MA

A Case Study for Collaborative Research MethodsKeith Owens, Instructor, University of North TexasMay 7, 2012

D E S I G N R E S E A R C H C E N T E R

2

IntroductionThe history, context and significance of TOMS

Framework and MethodsThe how, what and why of our research endeavor

Literature ReviewRelevant data from related fields

QuestionnaireThe primary data and method of acquiring it

CharrettesA look into our ideation sessions

ConclusionThe analysis and significance of our study ReferencesStanding on the shoulders of experts

ColophonThe case study goals and team behind the work

AppendixRaw data returns

3

6

6

11

15

27

28

31

32

Table of Contents

D E S I G N R E S E A R C H C E N T E R

Tim Woodring, MFA Jeff Joiner, MFAHolly Burroughs Cole, MFA Rebeca Carranza, MA

PAGE | 3TOMS CASE STUDY

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:

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.

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.

C O N T E X TThe 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

| INTRODUCTION


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.

T O M S S H O E S S T O R YBlake 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

S I G N I F I C A N C EThe 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.


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 individually-assigned, 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 non-profit 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.

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

“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

80% of US adults favored brands with a good cause.

80%19% of US adults said they would

switch to a more expensive brand for a good cause.

19%

US Adult Preference for Cause and Brand

6. Saundra Schimmelpfennig. TOMS Shoes: Good martketing, Bad Aid. good intents.org, 2010.


— when that solution is actually (according to Moyo) long-term 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

R E S E A R C H M E T H O D S A N D F R A M E W O R KIn 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 ReviewIn 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.

QuestionnaireOur 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.

H Y P O T H E S I S

TOMS is selling charity as fashion to the American public, and it’s working.

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, 20119. 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.


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 MarketTOMS 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 experience-based 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.

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

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 ApproachA 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 self-actualization. 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.

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

12. PewSocialTrends.org13. Cavett-Goodwin, 2007.14. Association for Humanistic Psychology, 2001.


Motives for Giving

Examples of Motive-Oriented Scenario Is the Motive Influenced by Internal or Environmental Factors?

MaslowLevel(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 (power-driven 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 (celebrity-focused 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 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.

-Internal -Esteem-Self-Actualization

-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-Self-Actualization

-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.


-Respect OF others-Morality

Genuine pity/guilt A heartbreaking animal abuse commercial encourages a man to donate money to his local animal shelter.


-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 (non-Americans)


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 GivingBy 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

Physiological

Self-actualization

Morality, creativity,

spontaneity, problem-solving, lack of prejudice,

acceptance of facts

Self esteem, con�dence,

achievement, respect of others, respect by others

Friendship, family, sexual intimacy

Security of: body, employment, resources, morality, family, health, property

Breathing, food, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, excretion

Safety

Love / belonging

Esteem

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 othersBy wearing the shoes, you display your philanthropy, gaining respect by others

Specific Needs Satisfied By Buying TOMS

15. Ipsos MORI and Charity Commission, 2010.16. Success Magazine, 2009.17. BBC, 2012.


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 very-well exist, but the gravity of the specific situation could be amplified to evoke more emotional responses.18

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

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.

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.

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.

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 GivingOur 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 goingThe 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 raisedBy 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 causeTOMS 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.


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 ThinkingAvoids 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 EffectBy 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 DeficitAddresses the Compassion Deficit because most Americans can empathize with having a need for shoes and feeling safer when your feet are protected.

Personal PrioritiesBy buying a pair of TOMS shoes you are still upholding your personal priorities by satisfying your own need for shoes.

T H E Q U E S T I O N N A I R EIn 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 short-answer 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:

36%30%

31%

18%21%

20%

13%12%12%

9%14%

19%

6%12%

N/A

Reasons for trusting a charity less than others 2010 2008 2006

Because I don’t know how they spend their money

Because I have heard bad stories about them

Because I don’t know them/havent heard of them

Because they use fundraising techniques I don’t like

Money lost through curruption/open to

abuse/doesn’t get to end cause

Source: Ipsos MORIBase: Respondents mentioning a charity/charity type — 2010 (409), 2008 (419), 2005 (214).


Positive: Generally positive about the shoePositive - 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”).

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 non-functional.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

107

3 40

66 4

10

17

19 33

8

23

23

14

62

Positive/o

utlier

Positive/t

rendy

Negati

ve

Positive/s

tyle

Negati

ve/tren

dy

Negati

ve/char

ity

Positive/c

harity

Negati

ve/styl

e

Negati

ve/outli

er

Responses fromall age groups

Males Females

Male

Own TOMS

Do notown TOMS

Female

(41)(9)

(6) (45)


Positive

2 1 2 10

10 0 1

0

9 2 4 4

0

41 2 2 1

Positive/o

utlier

Positive/t

rendy

Negati

ve

Positive/s

tyle

Negati

ve/tren

dy

Negati

ve/char

ity

Positive/c

harity

Negati

ve/styl

e

Negati

ve/outli

er

Responses from27-30 year olds

Males Females

Positive

2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

21

7 712

2

63

2 10

Positive/o

utlier

Positive/t

rendy

Negati

ve

Positive/s

tyle

Negati

ve/tren

dy

Negati

ve/char

ity

Positive/c

harity

Negati

ve/styl

e

Negati

ve/outli

er


Males Females

Positive

2 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

13

52

72

8 61 2

0

Positive/o

utlier

Positive/t

rendy

Negati

ve

Positive/s

tyle

Negati

ve/tren

dy

Negati

ve/char

ity

Positive/c

harity

Negati

ve/styl

e

Negati

ve/outli

er


Males Females

Positive

4 30 1

03 3 1 0 0

101 5 5 2 4 4

1 1 0

Positive/o

utlier

Positive/t

rendy

Negati

ve

Positive/s

tyle

Negati

ve/tren

dy

Negati

ve/char

ity

Positive/c

harity

Negati

ve/styl

e

Negati

ve/outli

er


Males Females

Positive

0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0

7

21 5

2 1 0 0 0 1

Positive/o

utlier

Positive/t

rendy

Negati

ve

Positive/s

tyle

Negati

ve/tren

dy

Negati

ve/char

ity

Positive/c

harity

Negati

ve/styl

e

Negati

ve/outli

er

Responses from40+ year olds

Males Females


Analysis of Questionnaire ResultsOverall, 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 18-22 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.

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.


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.

Charette 1


Participant 1:

Eccentric

Confident

Kooky

Self-absorbed

Out of touch

Independent

Eccentric

Artistic

Loser

Friendly

Kind

Grandmotherly

Sloppy

Sophomoric

Adolescent

Self-absorbed

Proud

Entitled

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Participant 2:

Sloppy

Short

Famous

Fashionable

Clean

Sharp

Smart

Dapper

Granny

Happy

Caring

Young

Hip

Fun

Diva

$

Latin

Participant 3:

Talented

Egotistical

Old

Self absorbed

Fashionable

Odd

Self conscious

Peacock

Traditional

Helpful

Conservative

Bro

Dude

Metro

Hateful

Tart

Self-centered

Participant 4:

Funny

Interesting

Distinguished

Gross

“Trina”

Stuck up

Trendy

Brave

Unconcerned

Sweet

Lively

Giving

Lazy

Irresponsible

Douchey

Physically fit

Stuck up

Fashionable

Participant 5:

Formal

Old

Old fashioned

Fashion

Trendy

Colorful

Handsome

Hippie

Fashion

Harmony

Kind

Old

Sport-man

Fashion

Casual

Formal

Dressing up

Sexual

Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Celebrities


Participant 1:

Eccentric

Artistic

Proud

Out of touch

Proud

Entitled

Trendy

Sloppy

Poser

Eccentric

Overt

Bold

Insecure

Made-up

Trendy

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

Participant 2:

Clean

polished

Hipster

Rushed

Short

Confused

Hip

Confident

Ego

High-maintenance

Bug eyed

Confident

Feminine

Young

Happy

Participant 3:

Sloppy

Self confident

Urban

Ugh

Ugh

Ugh

Edgy

Confident

Overt

Punk

Kid

Wizzer (?)

Urban

Cool

Distant

Participant 4:

Goofy

Unconcerned

Wealthy

Trashy

Irresponsible

Wasteful

Trendy

Wealthy

Relaxed /comfortable

Unique

Interesting

Funny

Young

Naive

Spirited

Participant 5:

Too harmony

(white)

Red

Sharp

Gang-style

Casual

Crazy

Clear

Too high

(the shoes)

Man-style

Cool

Handsome

Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Celebrities


Participant 1:

Trendy

Sloppy

Humble

Glamorous

Independent

Self-assured

Made up

Posed

Modeled

Huble

Self-assured

Authentic

Made-up

Posed

Modeled

Authentic

Real

Casual

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

Participant 2:

Thug life

Hip

Cold

Hippey

Stoned

Clueless

Confident

Rugged

Serious

Homely

Mom

Average

Hipster

Cold

Smart

Neighbor

Friendly

Fun

Participant 3:

Urban

Cool

Distant

Pizazz

Confident

Self aware

Bejeweled

Betatted

Bespoke

Normal

Suburban

3 kids

Peacock

Hipster

Tacky

City girl

Happy

Clueless

Participant 4:

Homey

Thrifty

Artistic

Trendy

Outgoing

Powerful

Dark

Soulful

Musical

Simple

Easy

Small-minded

Intentional

Brave

Thrifty

Free-spirited

Easy

Fun

Participant 5:

Casual

Cold

Too dark

Sharp

Hip-hop

Too complex

Casual

Normal

Fashion

Gay man

Cool

Formal

Student-style

Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Strangers


Participant 1:

Functional

Set in his ways

Plain

Bohemian

Sloppy

Free-spirited

Sloppy

Lazy

Don’t-care

Out of touch

Dumpy

Real

Rebellious

Insecure

Overt

7)

8)

9)

10)

11)

Participant 2:

Smart

Seasoned

Lonely

Confident

Ego

High maintenance

Broke down

Thug life

Confused

Unfashionable

Dork

Virgin

Goth

Touch

Hate

Participant 3:

Wise

Knowledgeable

Old

Young

Carefree

Clueless

Exposed

Stupid

No no no

Ugly

Makes me laugh

A hoot

Vampirella

Lost

Found

Participant 4:

Reasonable

Thrifty

Concerned

Careless

Outgoing

Spontaneous

Unfortunate

Irresponsible

Ignorant

Simple

Thrifty

Forgiving

Anarchy

Rebellion

Fearful

Participant 5:

Scholar-style

Formal

Relax

Sexual

Pretty

Young

Strange

Gay man

Cool

Out-fashion

Working-feel

Conservative

Strange

Confused

Charette 1 / Fashion-based perceptions / Strangers


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.

Charrette 2


Rebeca Caranza, MA Holly Burroughs, MFA Tim Woodring, MFA Jeff Joiner, MFA

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.

Charrette Prompt Introduction

©2012 Design Research Channel. All rights reserved. Keep your paws off.

Description:

Marketing plan

Projected manufacturing cost: $ Projected retail cost: $


Product description:

Product sketches:

Product type: Shirt Product category: Essential

Product description:

Product sketches:

Product type: Toothpaste Product category: Non-essential

Projected manufacturing cost: $ Projected retail cost: $


Charette 2 / Worksheets

Prompt sheet (introduction to the assignment)

Sample worksheet for “essential” products

Marketing plan worksheet

Sample worksheet for “non-essential” products


Participant 1

The big idea: “NewThrift,” a line of of fashionable, vintage-styled (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.

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



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.



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).



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.

Winner: Participant 3


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.

Conclusion


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/s11266-010-9132-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-attitudes-towards-hiv-february-2011-final-report.pdf.

“MILLENNIALS: A PortrAit of GenerAtion next.” http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf

(Summarized web link)

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/giving-report. 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.

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).

References


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.

Colophon:

Rebeca Carranza | MARebeca 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 | MFAHolly 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 | MFAAfter 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 | MFATim 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.


AGE OWN NOT OWN

POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY

POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER

NEGATIVE NEGATIVE - TRENDY

NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

18 - 22 FEMALE

MALE

23 - 26 FEMALE

MALE

27 - 30 FEMALE

MALE

31 - 40 FEMALE

MALE

41 + FEMALE

MALE

9 9 3 2 4 2 0 0 0 0 0

9 4 2 0 3 0 8 6 1 2 0

2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 12 2 6 7 0 1 0 1 0 0

12 9 5 1 5 2 5 3 1 1 0

3 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 5 1 2 2 0 4 1 2 2 1

2 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

9 7 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 3 0 1 1 2 4 4 1 1 0

2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5 2 1 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 0

5 4 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

7 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

FEMALES MALES OWN DO NOT OWN POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY

POSITIVE - STYLE POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

BASE TOTALS 87 21 50 58 73 25 22 39 8 31 19 7 8 2

AGE GROUP GENDER POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY POSITIVE - STYLE POSITIVE - CHARITY POSITIVE - OUTLIER NEGATIVE NEGATIVE - TRENDY NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE - CHARITY NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

18 - 22 FEMALE

MALE

23 - 26 FEMALE

MALE

27 - 30 FEMALE

MALE

31 - 40 FEMALE

MALE

41 + FEMALE

MALE

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

2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0

9 2 4 4 0 4 1 2 2 1

2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0

10 1 5 5 2 4 4 1 1 0

4 3 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 0

7 2 1 5 2 1 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

Breakdown: age, gender, own/don’t own, category/subcategory

Breakdown: age group, gender, category/subcategory

Base totals

Appendix: Raw data


TIME STAMP F M OWN NOT OWN

WHY OWN WHEN THINK OF OTHERS WHO WEAR TOMS AGE POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY

POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

Mar 20, 2012 11:56 AM

Mar 20, 2012 12:07 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:08 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:32 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:41 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:43 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:27 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:59 PM

Mar 20, 2012 9:00 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:01 PM

Mar 20, 2012 1:27 PM

Mar 20, 2012 8:35 PM

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.

2010 18-22 1 1

1 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

1 1 they're cute 2009 18-22 1 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

1 1 They are cute and comfortable! 2011 18-22 1 1

1 1 They are simple shoes and comfortable.

2010 18-22 1 1

1 1 They were in style at the time and seemed comfy.

2009 18-22 1 1 1

1 1 I think they are really ugly but it is for a good cause.

18-22 1 1 1 1

1 1 They must be trendy 18-22 1 1 1 1

1 1 Donation, service for the community, Delta Gamma

18-22 1 1

Age Groups POSITIVE POSITIVE - TRENDY POSITIVE - STYLE POSITIVE - CHARITY POSITIVE - OUTLIER NEGATIVE NEGATIVE - TRENDY NEGATIVE - STYLE NEGATIVE - CHARITY NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

18 - 22

23 - 26

27 - 30

31 - 40

41+

15 7 2 8 2 8 6 1 2 0

25 9 8 14 2 8 5 2 1 0

12 3 6 6 0 6 1 2 4 1

14 4 5 6 2 7 7 2 1 0

7 2 1 5 2 2 0 0 0 1

OWN DO NOT Total POSITIVEPOSITIVE - TRENDY POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER NEGATIVE

NEGATIVE - TRENDY NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

FEMALES

MALES

41 45 86 60 17 19 33 8 23 14 6 6 2

9 6 15 10 7 3 4 0 6 4 1 1 0

BREAKDOWN BY GENDER AND CATEGORY/SUBCATEGORY

Breakdown by gender and category /sub-category

Raw data returns

Breakdown by age and category /subcategory

Appendix: Raw data




POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

Mar 21, 2012 6:08 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:15 PMMar 20, 2012 12:45 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:48 PMMar 20, 2012 3:21 PMMar 21, 2012 11:32 AM

Mar 21, 2012 12:50 PMMar 20, 2012 12:21 PM

Mar 21, 2012 7:22 PM

Mar 20, 2012 10:06 AM

Mar 20, 2012 10:32 AM

Mar 20, 2012 11:01 AMMar 20, 2012 11:41 AM

Mar 20, 2012 11:57 AM

Mar 20, 2012 12:59 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:44 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:21 PM

Mar 20, 2012 5:27 PMMar 20, 2012 7:46 PM

1 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 1

1 1 They are following a trend. 18-22 1 11 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

1 1 sell out 18-22 1 11 1 Hipster. 18-22 1 11 1 I usually think that they are just going along

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.

18-22 1 1

1 1 I don't think anything 18-221 1 They were trendy, and everyone talked

about how comfortable they are.2010 18-22 1 1

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 1 I like how they look, they support a good cause, they are comfortable, they are more useful than flats and cuter than tennis shoes

2008 23-26 1 1 1

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

1 1 I liked how they looked. 2007 23-26 1 11 1 I met Blake when I was photographing

one of his events and he convinced me to buy some to help people in need.

2011 23-26 1 1

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 1 1

1 1 The quality is really amazing and I'm in full support of what their company stands for.

2010 23-26 1 1 1

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

1 1 The company platform is a good cause, and I heard they were extremely comfortable.

2008 23-26 1 1

1 1 cause everybody else has them 2011 23-26 1 11 1 Because they were cute! 2010 23-26 1 1

Appendix: Raw data




POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

Mar 20, 2012 11:47 PM

Mar 21, 2012 10:40 AM

Mar 21, 2012 10:59 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:07 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:26 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:41 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:46 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:52 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:02 PMMar 20, 2012 4:25 PM

Mar 20, 2012 10:10 PM

Mar 21, 2012 4:00 PM

Mar 20, 2012 9:28 AMMar 20, 2012 11:43 AMMar 20, 2012 1:24 PM

Mar 19, 2012 12:44 PM

Mar 20, 2012 9:54 AM

Mar 20, 2012 11:21 AM

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 1

1 1 I own two pairs. Both were given to me as gifts.

2011 23-26

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

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 1 1

1 1 They like comfortable shoes, they have enough money to pay for them, they may or may not care about being charitable.

23-26 1 1

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

1 1 Nothing really. It is a style, like any other 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.

23-26 1 1 1 1

1 1 That I want a pair 23-26 1 11 1 I don't really think anything. They aren't my

style, but they're popular now and I see them everywhere.

23-26 1 1

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 1

1 1 they have some extra money and they care either about fashion/fads, helping people or both

23-26 1 1 1

1 1 Trendy, 23-26 1 11 1 they are into fads 23-26 1 11 1 Slacktivism and fallen arches. They look

really uncomfortable and ugly. I'd rather have cute shoes that make a difference.

23-26 1 1

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 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 1 1

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 1 1 1

1 1 TOMS website 2007 23-26

Appendix: Raw data




POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

Mar 20, 2012 2:55 PM


Mar 20, 2012 11:19 AM

Mar 20, 2012 11:28 AM


Mar 20, 2012 9:57 AMMar 20, 2012 9:59 AMMar 20, 2012 12:14 PM

Mar 20, 2012 5:49 PM

Mar 20, 2012 9:25 AMMar 20, 2012 2:11 PM

Mar 20, 2012 9:31 AM

Mar 20, 2012 1:42 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:06 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:18 PM

1 1 Prolly a hippie, vegetarian, someone flaunting their charity, generous, idealistic, well intentioned

23-26 1 1

1 1 those are cool, but not for me. 23-26 1 11 1 They're SO trendy 23-26 1 1

1 1 Bought them because I needed some comfortable, casual shoes to wear with skinny jeans, and I like the style & look of Toms

2011 27-30 1 1

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 1

1 1 Because it was "trendy" and they were comfortable and sparkly! :)

2011 27-30 1 1

1 1 For the cause...one for one. 2008 27-30 1 11 1 Whole Earth Provision in Houston 2011 27-301 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 1

1 1 They probably care about causes. 27-30 1 11 1 I assume they are environmentally friendly. 27-30 1 11 1 That they paid too much for a pair of shoes.

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.

27-30 1 1 1 1

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 1 1 1 1

1 1 they prefer comfort over fashion 27-30 1 11 1 I think they've wasted their money and are

probably more concerned with appearing to be charitable or progressive than they are with the comfort or aesthetic appeal of the shoes themselves.

27-30 1 1 1

1 1 Because they are comfortable, particularly the Cordones. Because of Buy a Pair, Give a Pair.

2011 27-30 1 1

1 1 I think the thing that drove me to buy 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.

2009 27-30 1 1 1 1

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 1 1 1

1 1 Nothing whatsoever. I don't know what TOMS shoes are.

27-30

Appendix: Raw data




POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

Mar 20, 2012 9:16 PM

Mar 20, 2012 11:48 AM

Mar 20, 2012 11:56 AM

Mar 20, 2012 1:25 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:25 PM

Mar 20, 2012 7:11 PM

Mar 20, 2012 7:53 PMMar 20, 2012 10:19 PM


Mar 20, 2012 1:29 PM

Mar 20, 2012 5:00 PMMar 20, 2012 9:55 AMMar 20, 2012 12:23 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:42 PM

Mar 20, 2012 1:57 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:40 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:47 PMMar 20, 2012 6:23 PM

1 1 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 feel-good-about-yourself-cause-you're-contributing-to-charity sales tactic.

27-30 1 1

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

1 1 I like the simplicity of the design and it's a good cause

2010 31-40 1 1 1

1 1 Because they were comfortable and casual.

2012 31-40 1 1

1 1 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.

2009 31-40 1 1

1 1 I liked the way they look and the One for One was a sweet BONUS!

2010 31-40 1 1 1

1 1 Because I like them 2012 31-40 1 11 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 1

1 1 TOMS store online 2012 31-401 1 Neiman Marcus 2012 31-401 1 I do not recognize Toms shoes in public but

I have shopped the website a few times. I like Toms, just haven't bought any yet.

31-40 1 1

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

1 1 Comfy classic 31-40 1 1 11 1 That they are quick to follow trends. 31-40 1 11 1 That they are trend followers. I also think

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.

31-40 1 1 1

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 1

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

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 they care about trends 31-401 1 They are hipsters and trying to look cool. 31-40 1 1

Appendix: Raw data




POSITIVE - STYLE

POSITIVE - CHARITY

POSITIVE - OUTLIER


NEGATIVE - STYLE

NEGATIVE - CHARITY

NEGATIVE - OUTLIER

Mar 20, 2012 9:29 AM

Mar 20, 2012 1:34 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:11 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:50 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:23 PM


Mar 20, 2012 12:09 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:57 PM

Mar 21, 2012 11:15 AM

Mar 20, 2012 11:32 AMMar 20, 2012 2:50 PM

Mar 20, 2012 3:31 PMMar 20, 2012 5:11 PM

Mar 20, 2012 12:28 PMMar 20, 2012 5:22 PM

Mar 20, 2012 8:24 PMMar 21, 2012 9:10 PM

Mar 20, 2012 2:25 PM

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 31-40 1 1

1 1 Because they were fashionable cool at the time, & easy to wear

2011 31-40 1 1

1 1 pretty cool, like the idea that they send an extra pair to less fortunate... admirable.

31-40 1 1

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".

31-40 1 1 1 1

1 1 Hipsters. And they have terrible taste in shoes. TOMS are ugly.

31-40 1 1 1

1 1 They're a hipster 31-40 1 11 1 I am unfamiliar with that brand. 31-40

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 1

1 1 My daughter told me I needed some. Very comfortable.

2012 41+ 1 1

1 1 For the most part they're cute and I like the buy one-give one philosophy.

2010 41+ 1 1

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

1 1 Whole Food Market 2011 41+1 1 Casual, laid-back... (sloppy, if they're not

careful how they wear them)41+ 1 1

1 1 They are into philanthropy. 41+ 1 11 1 Style and care about others. Also wonder if

they are the vegan or regular. As I can not tell the difference

41+ 1 1 1 1

1 1 no opinion. 41+1 1 I really don't know what kind of shoes they

are41+

1 1 nothing really 41+1 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

1 1 grow up! 41+ 1

Appendix: Raw data

Documents

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