Latest Public Opinion Polls:
debate, discuss and vote!

“You feel shame when you look through their catalogs” says Tomas Pando about TOMS shoe catalogs. The TOMS brand is famous for its 'One Pair Sold = One Person Helped' campaign, trademarked as 'One For One', which sends a pair of shoes to a child in need for each pair purchased. 

Tomas Pando is the founder of Argentina's Paez shoes which makes simple canvas slip-ons similar to the popular Santa Monica retailer's. He told LA Weekly that TOMS’ excessive abuse of images of poverty-stricken children is “like stopping me on the street and saying, ‘I’m dying, give me a penny.’ ”

"Pando promotes the quality of his shoes while giving fair-wage jobs to his employees. Paez footwear is produced in a “no-sweatshops” factory on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, where the cost to manufacture Paez shoes is $8, Pando says; he sells them for $16 in his home country."

“We support giving jobs and opportunities to the people of Argentina,” he says.

Alibaba.com publishes data to help manufacturers and buyers find suppliers in foreign countries and shows that a pair of slip-on canvas shoes actually costs between $3.50 and $5 to make. 

"TOMS sells that kind of shoe in the U.S. at retail prices ranging from $29 to $98; the “classic” sells for $44-$68" LA Weekly notes. "Then, for each shoe sold, TOMS gives away a pair of shoes costing $3.50 to $5 to produce."

The cloying campaign being cheap at heart isn't the first red flag regarding TOMS. Founder and self-titled 'Chief Shoe Giver' Blake Mycoskie shocked his brand's supporters in June when he spoke at a Focus On the Family event. The Christian organization is renowned for their hateful anti-gay propaganda and stringent support of the right-wing's Defense of Marriage Act. 

Perhaps due to its charitable efforts, or Mycoskie's image as a carefree So-Cal hipster hanging out on his houseboat,TOMS is certainly widely regarded, by its consumers and folks aware of the brand, as quite contrary to right-wing ideals. 

Mycoskie has blogged apologies for his association with the group, assuring that if he had “known the full extent of Focus on the Family’s beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak.” Adding, “TOMS, and I as the founder, are passionate believers in equal human and civil rights for all.”

Aren't those concepts of equal human and civil rights in conflict with his Christian Evangelical beliefs?

"Like almost all Evangelical Christian groups," religioustolerance.org says, "the The Evangelical Christian Church, Inc. (Christian Disciples) views "homosexuality" as a behavior rather than as a sexual orientation. That is: "homosexuality" is something that a person does; it is not something that a person is."

Abilene Christian University, an evangelical college that refused to allow formation of a gay-straight alliance, hosted an official TOMS 'Style Your Sole' event last year, which of course Mycoskie spoke at. 

Willow Creek Community Church, who has promoted the idea that gays and lesbians should practice celibacy, seek therapy, or 'pray away the gay',  hosted a Global Leadership Summit in June, during which Mycoskie was featured as an entrepreneur. He was scheduled to be interviewed on "leading organizations with a cause and navigating the start-up phase of an organization" for the congregation's members. Admission ranged from $149 to $399, depending on date purchased and number of people in the group, with $79 student $99 military rates available too. 

Should Mycoskie's religious preferences and business practices have been more transparent to his consumers, whose concerns are supposed to simply be fashion and helping those less fortunate? TOMS has donated over 1,000,000 pairs of shoes to children in need, internationally. Or is this a simple case of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'? Mycoskie has never claimed to not be an evangelical Christian and was simply assumed to be a liberal supporter much to the chagrin of those who prefer to buy from brands whose representatives support equal rights. His profit margin on the shoes could have been called into question by a concerned consumer sooner too. What do you think? Please discuss in the comments and share.