http://exygy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/4888996861_763025d1f2-289×300.jpg
While the one for one business model is prosperous in terms of marketing, as consumers are more likely to purchase from a brand that “supports” and provides aid for an unprivileged environment for the purpose of self contentment and emotional attachment, it does little to help eradicate the issue of poverty.
I am opposed to the one for one business model because giving away free products does nothing to address the causes of poverty and work toward a long term solution. For example, “Toms” buy one, give away one for free, system isn’t going to lessen those that are battling poverty because it doesn’t provide the infrastructure to create wealth. As a social entrepreneur, Blake Mycoskie should discover strategies that actually work towards lessening those in poverty while sustaining its business such as developing manufacturing plants close to donation locations as it provides employment in the industry and decreases the cost of shipping for the firm.
Toms system is more of a business strategy to make consumers feel good about themselves and their purchase. Because in reality the children that Toms “helped” by giving up free shoes are still susceptible to harmful diseases due to the location and environment they’re put in.
The one for one business model is currently becoming a trend in social entrepreneurship which would harm other firms who are currently following the same business model thus similar brands should work towards differentiating its products and invest in research to discover strategies it can use in its sales to create a meaningful impact in countries that suffer from poverty while educating society the severity of the issue.
Sources:
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679628/the-broken-buy-one-give-one-model-three-ways-to-save-toms-shoes
http://archive.skoll.org/about/what-is-social-entrepreneurship/