I finally bought a pair of Toms Shoes this weekend.
For the past few summers, I’ve toyed with plunking down the $44, but I could never bring myself to do it.
While I knew that the company was doing good things for kids in developing countries–I’d met and interviewed founder Blake MyCoskie before–I wasn’t convinced that the shoes would wear well.
How much comfort could $44 bring? If one pair was given away for each pair sold, there was no way MyCoskie was creating a high-quality product. At least not if he wanted to make any money.
Well, I was wrong. I’m still not sure TOMS is a very profitable company. In fact, I doubt it is, and I’ve made the case in the past that most socially-conscious retailers will never make much money. But that’s besides the point. Those shoes are comfortable!
I wore them around the city on Saturday and Sunday and there were no blisters, red marks or aching heels involved. They’re more comfortable than my Keds and Converse. What’s more, they make my feet look super slender. And they work with jeans as well as casual dresses.
I bought red. I’m going back next week for navy. And maybe cream, too. Yes, it’s great that an underprivileged kid gets a pair of shoes when I buy a pair. But it’s also great that said shoes feel good, too.
Tags: Blake Mycoskie, TOMS shoes
Comments [41]
Leave a comment
Most Read
- 1
First Look: Marni for H&M, the Complete Collection (Plus Pricing) - 2
Central Saint Martins Fall 2012: The Most Memorable Looks - 3
New York Fashion Week Crib Sheet: The 10 Most Well-Reviewed Shows According to Everyone Who Matters - 4
Mulberry Debuts Lana Del Rey Bag on the Runway - 5
Kate Moss, Rihanna, and More Attend Stella McCartney's London Dinner Show--Oh, and Alexa Chung Levitated on Swords
- 1
Copyright © 2012 Breaking Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
Registration or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
My mother sells TOMS in her store and I snap up a pair or two whenever I can. They are insanely comfortable and much more versatile than you would believe. One of my favorite Sartorialist images is of a girl wearing black TOMS with leggings, an ankle length black tulle skirt, and a black leather jacket.
I live in Toms! Truly comfortable and lightweight too – great for travelling. In fact when I wear heels, I slip some Toms into my bag for when the going gets tough ;)
i have never tried TOMS shoes before because i think they don't go with any one of my outfits…but from the comments above i think i should give it a try…if they're comfortable, they why not…thanks for the info..
They look SO much better than you'd imagine. If you wear Keds, Converse or just plain old ballet flats, you'll like them.
Toms is a very profitable company. They're not a non-profit, they are a FOR profit company. So for profit that “do-gooder” Blake drives a Bentley. It's great that a child in need receives a pair for every pair purchased, but that doesn't take away the fact that it is a for profit company.
where to buy toms in the city? just moved from LA and they're everywhere….need a replacement pair for summer in the city
@GR – the post never claimed the company was non-profit.I love my Toms! My one qualm is that my heels wear out quickly, but that tends to happen to a lot of my canvas sneakers, so I don't think it's necessarily Toms fault. But I sing praises of how comfortable they are, and wear them with pretty much everything I own!
It's important to you that even your feet look “super slender”?
I bought red TOMS two weeks ago and I am obsessed with them. I saw a girl wearing white with navy polks dots and I'm now hunting for those.
TOMS' “cause” is hardly an altruistic one, although I am sure they'd like you, the young capitalist in the making, to feel good about spending $40+ on hideous shoes that fall apart quickly. Additionally, why don't you do some research and revise both your theory on the company's profitability and the one concerning the alleged benefits reaped by the children who benefit from receiving low-quality shoes. For the actual cost it takes to make a pair of these pieces of crap, the company could donate boatloads of their product, at expense of their profit margin, of course. And even then they would still ultimately be contributing to the oppression of the very people they are “helping” my merely participating in the liberal economy which you are so eager to applaud. Now, who will be the first to call me a “socialist?”
Also, I suppose little attention is paid to its effect to the local economies. I'm just saying.
TOMS shoes is still technically a “small business” based in Santa Monica, and that's how Blake and other executives of TOMS are able to live comfortably. They rely heavily on their interns (usually 12 per school semester who all live rent free in a 3 bedroom condo with $50/week stipend), and their followers (college do-gooder types that help them market their shoes around campuses for basically nothing). My friend worked for TOMS for just over a year, but she left because she was feeling over-worked and under-appreciated/under-paid (welcome to the fashion world). Don't get me wrong. I LOVE MY TOMS. I even got suckered into buying a limited edition pair at a Fred Segal party that had been hand painted by a local LA artist. It's a great company in theory and a good company in practice. They try to figure out their sales for the fiscal year and do a “shoe drop” in their country of choice. I just hope one year they choose the USA because there are 100s of thousands of children here that need shoes to go to school, as well. I hope everyone finds their own pair of TOMS and loves them just as much as Lauren and the other commenters!
It's not important, for me anyway, but it is a bonus. Who wants their feet to look “super wide”? I sure don't.
Where can you find the best selection of TOMS in Manhattan? I've been toying with buying but want to try them on…
Clearly, we the customer are paying for 2 pairs of TOMS, but I for one, am all for buying shoes for children who need them.
hhhmm. thanks for the review.. i may try them out.http://126king.blogspot.com/
did you do any research TOMS is an extremely profitable company
Although I love the way TOMS look and they are incredibly comfortable, they also wear out SUPER fast. Considering how expensive they are, you would think the quality would be better… if you plan on wearing yours on a daily basis, be aware that they won't last more than a couple of months at best. For all their hype of giving a free pair of shoes to children in need, I wonder how long those shoes actually last the kids.Also, TOMS definitely rakes in the profit– there's no way those shoes cost more than $10 to make.
yes, it's very important. Some countries still practice feet binding. My mom's feet were binded when she was a child.
find out everything before you drink the Kool-Aid
Toms shoes are not more than $1 to make them and $3 retail. Sure they are overpriced! I bet it is a profitable company. They are from Argentina originally. All the people use them there as a basic shoe in the countryside or all around! They last at least 6 months even more cause if you see the extra fabric in the point of the shoe is for the purpose when they start breaking. I still prefer buying the original alpargatas. That is the real name!!! and the price that I pay is $3 instead.
How is the fit, Lauren? True to size?
I'm an 8.5/9 and I bought a 8.5.
Yeah, they're about $5 to make. But just because there's a a big margin doesn't mean they're actually profiting. There are a lot of other factors to consider, such as overhead, employees, etc… I'm almost positive they're not profiting. At least not yet.
Um, yeah I did do my research, and I've interviewed Blake in the past, and TOMS doesn't reveal any financial information, so no one knows if they're profitable. As of one year ago, they weren't. I highly, highly doubt that they are now. Yes, the mark-up for the shoes is high, but not any higher than a pair of Keds or Converse. When it comes to profitability, there's a lot more to consider than mark ups. Also, remember that they've tried to create some other shoes, including an ugly pair of boots. There's no way the company hasn't taken a hit from those.As for your whole spiel about
The shoes that TOMS makes are very similar to the alparagatas, but they've got a stronger footbed. And they cost more like $5 to make compared with the originals.
I never said they weren't for profit, I said that they're probably not making a profit. There's a HUGE difference. I suggest you look it up on investopedia.
I've had my TOMS for over a year – OK, I don't really wear them in winter, but they're still going strong. I agree with you Lauren, there's so much to consider in business: marketing, employees, packaging even… There's a lot of overpriced stuff out there, but at least children benefit with TOMS. It's called CRM (cause related marketing) Nothing wrong with that. Plus every brand has to have a unique selling point.
Forgot about your character limit? I'd really love to hear what somebody with a bogus background in fashion merchandising (I'm just guessing, but I am pretty sure Lauren is not Ph.D. in anything, let alone something of consequence) has to say about a valid, though not exhaustive, argument or what you refer to as a “spiel.” Um, I'm sure you did do lots of research though, Lauren. Mom & dad must be proud of their blogger daughter ;)
Didn't forget, but I just stopped caring, because this argument is ridiculous. This story was about how comfortable the shoes are, not about the business model.I don't have a PhD in economics, but I am a business reporter, so if you want more expertise than that, head over to NYU Stern and chat up a professor.
Yes, Lauren, please desist from discussing any aspect of the fashion industry outside of omg ditzy label worship unless you've completed at least 8 years of college. EYEROLL
Loving the Wham Club Tropicana video style revival. It's also about time there was a serious new contender for a stylish flat show to pound the streets of NY. Bored of ballet pumps.
How does it work, exactly? Is a pair still given away even if the pair sold was discounted/on sale?
HEY! THOSE “SHOES” ARE ORIGINALY FRON ARGENTINA, HERE WE CALL THEM “ALPARGATAS”. IT´S A SHOE WORN BY YHE GAUCHOS (THE PEOPLE THAT WHORK AND LIVE IN THE COUNTRY, IN THE RURAL ZONES). THEY OFTEN HAVE A PIECE OF “GUARDA PAMPA” (IT´S OUR NATION LOGO) ACROSS THE SHOE. IT´S FUNNY HOW THEY SELL THEM FOR US$44!!! HERE IN ARGENTINA THEY COST AROUND $5 TO $15 PESOS (US$1.25 TO US$3.75). I LEAVE YOU SOME LINKS WITH IMAGES. XOXOhttp://www.libraazul.com.ar/libra/shop/images/0...http://www.mercadolibre.com.ar/jm/img?s=MLA&f=4...
i dont own a pair but everyone is taiking about how they dont last and how the ones they give to kids dont last …..but i recently read the shoes they give kids are made to last a little longer…FYI
Nobody should wear ANY shoes on a daily basis. They wear out faster that way. Never wear your shoes two days in a row. They'll last longer if you let them air out a day (or more) between wearings.
I thought kids' feet need more support than is provided with shoes like Toms, but I guess inadequate shoes are better than none. That being said, I find them ugly.
…and I notice Urban has knocked them off. I thought the giant “Made in China” inside was a nice touch.
Wow, all this discussion over a shoe model stolen from Argentina. They're ugly, but functional in the city? I'm thinking not. For a country getaway? Sure. Still ugly. I also love how they make their money by taking advanage of interns in a downturned economy by using them as free labor.
Yes, children are getting shoes they need, but I am a bit more cynical of the Toms business model. I founded my own children's footwear brand, so I know a little about the the industry. Shoes of this type are very inexpensive to manufacture, especially given that they are made in China, Argentina and Ethiopia. The retail price of these shoes in the US should be about 1/2 of what Toms is charging. This tells me that Toms actually isn't really giving anything away, their consumers are, and they have a non-profit wing of the company to solicit volunteers to distribute the shoes. Charity should be for charity, not for big profits. Sure cause marketing is a good thing, but when it's not really charity on the part of the company, it rubs me the wrong way. The consumers should be the ones who get a pat on the back for paying for two pair and getting one, while Toms takes the credit for “giving a pair away.” I actually just posted a bit of a commentary about Toms Shoes on my blog…(http://bit.ly/9aGJG1)
Thanks for this post!