When U2 was Rock
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/photos/rolling-stone-readers-pick-the-top-ten-live-acts-of-all-time-20110309/6-u2-0379360
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Shilling Lecture Series: TOMS Shoes
Well, I didn’t quite know what to expect out Mr. Blake Mycoskie, but I did think he’d dress up a bit more than our student representatives. At any rate, I did come into the auditorium feeling much more distrustful and dissatisfied than I did coming out – Mr. Mycoskie did win me over in certain aspects of his lecture. For instance, since I participated in one of the pre-lecture salons over TOMS shoes, I went in knowing a bit more about the company and with many more questions than I would have otherwise – questions like: if the shoes are so cheaply made, why only give away a single pair of shoes for each pair purchased? And how is your business working to avoid “white savior” paternalism issues? However, the question I liked best, the question Dr. O’Neill came up with, the question that wasn’t answered: why the hell are they called “TOMS” shoes? Why not BLAKES? Any way, I digress.
I was rather frustrated with his storytelling approach to this lecture when, in fact, I had come expecting him to speak on more substantial matters such as: it’s been said that your company’s style of charity will change the face of capitalism – how is it that you think this can hold any water given that you yourself (Mycoskie) don’t trust anyone else to be true to your mission (hence his refusal to sell the company unlike his previous businesses)? Or, how can you (Mycoskie) say that there are limits to how much people are willing to donate to charity but no limit to how many pairs of over-priced shoes people will be willing to buy?
Don’t mistake me, I am very grateful for what Mycoskie is doing in the world – shoes for children around the world are a basic necessity and the world is a better place for Mycoskie to be here trying to supply those shoes. However, it doesn’t seem to me that his business model is all that sustainable. It’s true that things could go either way: people will buy a pair of shoes, feel satiated in their “good” deed, and thus ends their charity for the (week, month, or year) or people will buy a pair of shoes and then decide to turn all of their consumer purchases to more responsible and charitable companies. From where I’m standing, it seems that Mycoskie should be standing at the ready with another line of products to release to the public under the same One for One promise.
I felt that his Q&A session was much more substantial than his actual lecture – and that’s where he did the winning over avec moi. I was pleased to learn that he works with and subsidizes NGO’s to make sure that the shoes are being distributed appropriately; I liked that he works with “local” shoe manufacturers; I liked that his focus was on disease prevention and in getting children to school so as to aid in the end of some instances of cyclical poverty; and I liked that, due to the NGO’s, he was redistributing larger shoes to children as they grew out of the ones he’d already given them. I was also glad to learn why his shoes are priced the way they are (for paying the retailers, the donated pair, transporting the donated pair, etc) as well as why he hadn't simply sold this company the way he has sold his previous businesses.
I was also particularly impressed with our student representatives and just how crisp and eloquent their questions were -- especially the question about if he believed he was competent or ready for actually maintaining a business given his lack of experience with that type of management. Very well done, Rosie and Brad!
But, overall, I found Blake Mycoskie charming, goofy, frustrating, misleading, naïve, a few shades away from the colors of a benevolent dictator, paternalistic, and, generally, a good person trying to do something good for others (while turning a profit).
I was rather frustrated with his storytelling approach to this lecture when, in fact, I had come expecting him to speak on more substantial matters such as: it’s been said that your company’s style of charity will change the face of capitalism – how is it that you think this can hold any water given that you yourself (Mycoskie) don’t trust anyone else to be true to your mission (hence his refusal to sell the company unlike his previous businesses)? Or, how can you (Mycoskie) say that there are limits to how much people are willing to donate to charity but no limit to how many pairs of over-priced shoes people will be willing to buy?
Don’t mistake me, I am very grateful for what Mycoskie is doing in the world – shoes for children around the world are a basic necessity and the world is a better place for Mycoskie to be here trying to supply those shoes. However, it doesn’t seem to me that his business model is all that sustainable. It’s true that things could go either way: people will buy a pair of shoes, feel satiated in their “good” deed, and thus ends their charity for the (week, month, or year) or people will buy a pair of shoes and then decide to turn all of their consumer purchases to more responsible and charitable companies. From where I’m standing, it seems that Mycoskie should be standing at the ready with another line of products to release to the public under the same One for One promise.
I felt that his Q&A session was much more substantial than his actual lecture – and that’s where he did the winning over avec moi. I was pleased to learn that he works with and subsidizes NGO’s to make sure that the shoes are being distributed appropriately; I liked that he works with “local” shoe manufacturers; I liked that his focus was on disease prevention and in getting children to school so as to aid in the end of some instances of cyclical poverty; and I liked that, due to the NGO’s, he was redistributing larger shoes to children as they grew out of the ones he’d already given them. I was also glad to learn why his shoes are priced the way they are (for paying the retailers, the donated pair, transporting the donated pair, etc) as well as why he hadn't simply sold this company the way he has sold his previous businesses.
I was also particularly impressed with our student representatives and just how crisp and eloquent their questions were -- especially the question about if he believed he was competent or ready for actually maintaining a business given his lack of experience with that type of management. Very well done, Rosie and Brad!
But, overall, I found Blake Mycoskie charming, goofy, frustrating, misleading, naïve, a few shades away from the colors of a benevolent dictator, paternalistic, and, generally, a good person trying to do something good for others (while turning a profit).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)