With society’s increasing call for socially responsible, sustainable marketing, there have been numerous companies that set out with a mission to make a difference in the world. As Ted Lee discussed in his blog (“I bet you saw the Toms Shoes, but did you know them?”), Toms Shoes is a successful company that takes on its social responsibility by giving a pair of shoes to a child in needs with every purchase; it allows socially conscious consumers to support the cause and help others by buying Toms. However, reading Ted’s blog on Toms Shoes provoked a thought that a brand must be very tactful when implementing a socially responsible marketing campaign. An example to consider is the relative success of the Bobs, a line of shoes launched by the brand Skechers.

Compared to Toms, Skechers’ new line of Bobs offers nearly the same design, the identical campaign, and perhaps more comfortable shoes (as customers have stated) at lower prices. Nonetheless, Skechers has evidently failed to establish its image as the caring and friendly brand that strives to help those in need for the better future. Conversely, Bobs by Skechers received numerous criticisms, being perceived by the consumers simply as a malicious, profit-seeking “knock-off.” So what is the reason behind such different responses to Toms and Bobs? While I tend to believe that it was acceptable for Skechers to follow the lead of Toms Shoes to carry out a sustainable marketing strategy and campaign, it is their plagiarized product design and advertising that positioned their brand as a direct threat to Toms Shoes in the minds of the consumers. By launching an identical product as Toms, Skechers’ motives became questionable, and their “good willed” campaign was presented as an attempt to steal Toms Shoes’ market shares. Hence, while the fact remains that the children in need receive shoes just as same whether Toms or Bobs are purchased, many customers advocate and support Toms because it is a brand that truly represents generosity and society’s interests.