Branded impact models: beyond one-for-one

I've been openly critical of the One-for-one model, and the originator of the concept, American shoe brand Toms' for some time (and I am not alone). After seeing large quantities of donated clothing destroy the local textile and tailoring market during my graduation research in Mali in 2005, I became deeply suspicious of the free donation of large quantities of goods into a developing market. Though well-intentioned, the donations undermine local economies and do not contribute any sustainable solution to the root causes that are behind the systematic issues these countries face.

That is why I loved the article by Leigh Buchanan, editor at large of Inc. Magazine, on the second act of Blake Mycoskie, the founder of Toms' shoes. The article, 'What is next for Toms', thoughtfully traces Mycoskies’ journey as an entrepreneur and philanthropist, the criticism of the giving model and how the company has reworked its impact model. Tom's has started producing products locally in order to benefit the economies it wants to serve, has established a Social Entrepreneurship Fund and is tweaking its donation model. 

What’s next for Toms, the $400 million for-profit built on Karmic Capital?

When he founded Toms, Blake Mycoskie reinvented the idea of a company that does well while doing good. So what's next for him? Doing that again. By Leigh Buchanan, editor-at-large, Inc. magazine @LeighEBuchanan

Though my skepticism has not wavered on reading the article, it is fascinating to get an insight into the thinking of the founder of the highly popular company and an overview of the effects of its success on other businesses. In my branding practice, the popularity of the model has become a nuisance, with people knocking on our door who want to create a one-for-one company based on products ranging from body care products to workshops because they see Toms' success. Some of the concepts would be hilarious if they were not so tragically misinformed. 

Therefore, I was happy to read in the Inc.com article about how many of the companies following the One-for-One model saw the criticism of the Toms model and have now also adapted their approach. Miscoots, which previously donated a pair of socks to a homeless person for every pair sold, is now helping the transitioning homeless (well-found phrase!)  by providing them with jobs in the production and shipping line of the socks. Humble Brush, a biodegradable toothbrush, now also trains dental and dental hygiene students to care for underserved populations.

In times of clickbait headlines and the rehashing of existing content, Leigh Buchanan's in-depth reporting gave me food for thought as well as the comfort of knowing that there are still people out there who believe content should, uhhmm... have actual content. 

Previous
Previous

how to define your vision and mission

Next
Next

Mission, vision values: the genius behind the cliché