Tom's Shows Their True Colors

Longboard

Longboard

Chapter Presidents
May 13, 2010
3,051
2,131
113
#1
#2
Did anyone here ever consider

Did anyone here ever consider any of Tom's Shoes to be 'minimalist'? I've never seen a shoe by this company that wasn't a modern-day footbinder. Who's "Tom"? No one.
 
#3
Never considered toms to be

Never considered toms to be min shoe. Intresting how others did. Not sure how one would reach that conclusion looking at the shoe.

Intresting also how one would dislike them so much, but post links directing people to the site. Folks should not waste time on this company, and certainly not promote them by posting links to the site.

Why would anyone around here want to check out the new wedges as you put it ? I think your wasting your time on marketing a miserable company. Though the company probably likes you OP as you are giving them more exposure.

To each his own........
 
#4
I knew the founder's name was

I knew the founder's name was Blake, and not Tom, but until I looked it up just now I never realized "Tom" is short for "tomorrow".

Compared to most shoes the typical Tom's model is rather minimalist, with zero drop and a relativly thin flexible sole.

I've never tried one on, but thery look roomy compared to a Nike or somethong like that.

Even Merrell "barerfoot " shoes like the trail glove are cut pretty tight in the forefoot, my son HATES his for that reason.





EDIT: I like the Merrell company, and believe that the new Sonic is a good shoe possibly for me to try for winter.

Merrell's barefoot guru is one of the three people responsible for turning me into a runner.

I think Tom's is a fraud, exploiting third world children for their own profit while tricking innocent purchasers into feeling good and charitable.
 
#5
I can see where some of their

I can see where some of their shoes could be considered minimal for daily living, surely not the wedges, but I don't think they will be sending the wedges as part of their charity offerings; let's hope not anyway.

Shock, turning a blind eye to the "opponent" will only serve to promote that opponent, as they will be left to do whatever they wish, however they wish, unchecked. Pointing out their flaws will either damage them or prompt them to improve.

The more heat/exposure on this subject, the better for humanity; we only improve ourselves when we learn what our positives and negatives are.
 
#6
shock.absorber

shock.absorber said:
Intresting also how one would dislike them so much, but post links directing people to the site. Folks should not waste time on this company, and certainly not promote them by posting links to the site.Why would anyone around here want to check out the new wedges as you put it ? I think your wasting your time on marketing a miserable company. Though the company probably likes you OP as you are giving them more exposure.
Click to expand...

My guess is that I have exposed them for being out for profit while tricking people into thinking they are do-gooders to many people over the past few years. I hope you are not right, I would hate to think my net effect was to stimulate profits for them while at the same time damaging third world communities.

Too many people have thanked me for pointing out the misguided thinking of shoe charities including Tom's supposed attempt for me to worry that your theory might be correct. BUT, I will keep an open mind to it and try to be sure to never let a post of mine including a reference to Tom's fail to include enough comments totaly dissing them.
 
#7
This thread was started by

This thread was started by one of our members August 26. After I pointed out the problem with Tom's he still likes the shoes, but will probably add that negative aspect to any of his future ravings about the product.

Right BG?

http://barefootrunners.org/forum-topic/toms-shoes
 
#8
     Maybe I'm missing

Maybe I'm missing something but If I buy a pair of $58 shoes from Tom's that are comparable to other $58 shoes and they send a pair of shoes to a needy child because of my purchase who loses?

1)I still got shoes

2)I paid a price that is comparible to other shoes

3)a pair is sent to a needy child



Should I buy my shoes elsewhere just because this is just a marketing ploy? Are we to believe that children in third world countries are not benefiting AT ALL from these shoes? Are they really better off barefoot at all times? How about the schools that require they wear shoes. Do they wear the "family" pair that doesn't fit or do they wear a pair that they received because I bought shoes I likes from Tom's?

If they don't really send the shoes, that would be bad, probably even criminal; but since they do and their prices aren't half bad, why shoudn't one feel good about buying these shoes?
 
#9
I struggle with this too,

I struggle with this too, Ram, as I've said before. Maybe TOM's is misguided. Perhaps their intentions are good. But from what I understand is we may be doing more harm here than good by contributing in this way. Read Board's posts above and the one he linked to. To the contrary, it has been proven that shoes were very much needed in an underdeveloped area, as they protected people from serious health issues they were having from volcanic rocks/ash. So there is a place for this, but it should only be directed where it's needed and by a company who is not trying to profit from it. Check out this link from the Society for Barefoot Living (Podoconiosis - By Bob Neinast ): http://societyforbarefootliving.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/podoconiosis/
 
#10
  I think it's the "trying to

I think it's the "trying to profit from it" part that confuses me. If they provide a product at a cost that is comparable to other companies but in turn they are providing for underprivilaged children where's the harm? If they have good sales and are able to make these contributions good for them. Does everyone research every company they buy from to see what charitable work they do? If they disagree with how they donate do they boycott the company?



I'm sure you can find just as much research that says the childres DO benefit from the shoes. The blog that is in the link admits that some schools require shoes but says it's not a good rule. But it IS a rule which the children have to follow, we can't change the rule but we can offer a kid a $3 pair of shoes so he can get an education.



I think my main problem with the comapy is that there are plenty of kids in the US that could use a pair of shoes too. Or do they have to be barefoot also?
 
#11
I happen to believe that all

I happen to believe that all children in the world, no matter where they are born, deserve to live with shelther, protection, nourishment, understanding, and love.

I think the complaint people have about TOM's is that they are "pretending" to care when in fact they are just using this charity program of theirs as a way of promoting themselves and therefore expanding their business which increases their profits.

The jury is still out for me on this company's charity and other shoe charities as well. It's something I have struggled with for a long time now. I am still open to learning and reading what I can about this subject.

The point of these conversations is not about conforming but about understanding and change. Doing nothing is negative and brings about no positive change.

There are rules in existence today that say kids must wear shoes in order to go to school, even in the "developed" nations, but having these conversations and putting the heat on in certain situations can and will bring positive change to those rules, although it will take some time. (I would rather see a rule that says children are only allowed to wear healthy footwear to school than just any footwear to school. I mean come on. If we really care, let's protect their feet with something healthy or let them be barefoot where it is safe to do so.)
 
#12
In areas that require shoes

In areas that require shoes to be worn to school shoe charities are doing damage.

(I'm going with sentence list just for Ram)

The stupid third world shoe rule is being re-enforced by the charity instead of challenged, and the majority of the poorer kids still remain shoeless so school-less. despite charitable efforts.

A whole new social class is created, and kids are even stealing the nice new shoes from others.

When they outgrow them, they continue wearing them because of the status they have achieved.

I am a free-market believer, and love the capitalist system. Blake should be commended for figuring out a way to produce and market shoes and make himself rich in the process.

BUT, he is harming those third world communities.

Giving the second pair to shoeless kids in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Philly, etc. for winter protection would be a charitable gesture. It just does'nt have the same "feel good" factor as the destructive practice of giving them to those poor third world kids.

Also, I don't believe Blake REALIZES the damage he is doing, so I don't hold it against him personaly.

Those of us that HAVE done the research owe it to the barefoot kids in those countries to try to change things.

Blake won't change a good thing that's going for him, BUT, if his customers demand that the shoes be given to cold weather poor kids and at the same time efforts be made to change the school shoe rules in the third world HE WILL!

THAT'S the beauty of the free market. If a certain % of his customers really buy these because of the charity thing, then we can educate them to see that a slight adjustment needs to be made in order to make the effort truly charitable.

We show them the facts, they demand better from Tom's, and Blake complies.

THAT'S the REAL win-win Ram!
 
#13
   Thanks for the list of

Thanks for the list of sentences Longboard! I got a little remincent tear in my eye!



You make good points, I haven't done the research and I'm sure you have, so I conceed that there is a better way to do this. I totally agree with the cold weather poor kids, I think they are forgotten sometimes because, like you said, it doesn't have the "feel good factor".
 
#14
That's what I like about you,

That's what I like about you, Ram. You always lighten the mood.
 
#15
Longboard wrote:This thread

Longboard said:
This thread was started by one of our members August 26. After I pointed out the problem with Tom's he still likes the shoes, but will probably add that negative aspect to any of his future ravings about the product.

Right BG?

http://barefootrunners.org/forum-topic/toms-shoes
Click to expand...



True, but I have to admit I love their shoe. It's a perfect casual shoe for me at work, and i don't wear socks with them. Would I buy another pair? definitely. Sorry but I would. I personally don't work for the company, and I do think there is some good in what they do. A kid will get a pair of shoes, that's cool with me.
 
#16
Barefoot Gentile wrote:  A

Barefoot Gentile said:
A kid will get a pair of shoes, that's cool with me.
Click to expand...

But if they had a choice to check a box for whether you wanted the kid to be in a warm mostly shoeless village or a cold place where everyone wore shoes you would check the *correct* box, right?
 
#17
Thanks for elaborating,

Thanks for elaborating, Longboard. At first I had thought "what's wrong with giving away shoes?" but you make a good point. I guess if they really want to make a difference in impoverished parts of the third world, they might try donating the equivalent value of the shoes to a clean water charity, or something like that.

As for bwing minimalist, I figured that Toms might qualify as a "reduced" shoe, but not minimal. I don't think they make any claims of being minimalist?
 
#19
Most reputable charities no

Most reputable charities no longer ship material goods overseas unless they really, really have to - it's generally much more helpful to support homegrown industries. It would be far better for Tom's to take the money and buy shoes locally.
 
#20
I never even addressed that

I never even addressed that angle here, but the third world shoe industry does suffer as a result of the charitable donations. As JS points out, in an area that shoes may be advisable, purchasing them from local independant manufacturers helps much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Support Your Club

Support Your Club! Get More Odd Looks!

Forum statistics

Threads
19,158
Messages
183,653
Members
8,705
Latest member
Raramuri7

Latest posts

Share this page

Share this page
Top Bottom
Back
Menu