Contents
Toms SWOT Analysis: TOMS was established in the year 2006 in 2006 by Blake Mycoskie. It is a non-profit corporation that runs a non-profit subsidiary.
This company creates and sells footwear based on the design of Argentina and also glasses.
It is based upon the One for One movement, which means that every time TOMS is selling a pair of shoes, the pair is donated to an affluent child.
Likewise, when TOMS offers a pair of glasses, a percentage of the proceeds are used to restore or save the sight of people living who live in countries that are developing.
Strengths In The SWOT Analysis Of Toms
- Pay attention to issues of philanthropy: TOMS concentrates on the problems of human suffering that exist in our current times and incorporates charitable giving into its core business while attracting customers who are looking to contribute and aid.
- One to One campaign is a business model that benefits while also giving donations is clear and efficient.
- The fame of the brand name: the business is known all over the world.
- TOMS The story of TOMS is unique It was created in order to accomplish two distinct goals: make profits and assist the poor children living in Argentinian villages.
- Celebrities’ support for TOMS: a lot of famous people, like Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley, are fans of this brand and have set the example of charitable giving by buying TOMS products.
Weaknesses In The SWOT Analysis Of Toms
- False optimism: although the concept of helping is appealing, those from low-income regions are dependent on charities and don’t learn how to improve their lives.
- Cost of the product The purchase amount includes the cost of shoes for a buyer and the purchase of an additional pair, as well as shipping costs, are significant.
- The absence of commercial advertisements: because TOMS does not participate in traditional promotions, therefore, it is imperative to find alternative solutions.
- The limited range of products: Not all footwear is included in the campaign, and the selection of children’s shoes is not complete.
- Manufacturing: the items that are manufactured
Opportunities In The SWOT Analysis Of Toms
- International expansion: The company could start new stores across the world.
- Assistance in a greater variety of regions: more emerging nations could be eligible for TOMS shoes.
- Enhancing quality through technological innovation The company is able to concentrate on specific shoes designed for conditions of the climate.
- Price reduction: in order to draw new customers and gain their trust The price is vital.
- Assistance to other groups of people who are poorer: more people, such as those who are elderly in regions in the developing, could be considered.
Threats In The SWOT Analysis Of Toms
- A growing amount of criticism regarding ethical questions: some people might decide to change their minds and decide to stop buying TOMS products since they do not provide opportunities for those who are poor.
- Television advertising is not as effective Social networks are unable to provide certain populations with advertising.
- Competitors: Other companies sell similar products at lower prices and can pose a risk of being.
- The allegations of bias include favoritism toward specific areas (especially those who are religiously affiliated).
- Trends disappearance: the appeal of making a difference by purchasing specific products could decrease in the near future.
FAQs
What is TOMS Shoes’ competitive strategy?
The most important factor of TOMS shoes’ competitive strategy will be their main goal of making a difference in the world by offering the goods they sell.
A further important element is the method they market their goods at a cheaper cost than their competitors, while still offering top-quality, trendy stylish shoes.
How do TOMS Shoes make a profit from a cause?
What made TOMS successful?
Is TOMS’s marketing strategy ethical?
References
Angelidus, J.P., & Ibrahim, N.A. 1993. Social Demand and Corporate Strategy: A Social Responsibility Model, Review of Business, 15(1): pp 7-10.
Carpenter, M., Bauer, T. & Erdogan, B. (2010). Principles of Management, Irvington, NY: Flat World Knowledge.
Collins, M. 1993. International Corporate Philanthropy: Marketing Beyond the call of Duty, European Journal of Marketing, 27(2) Pages 46-58.
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of Marketing. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Milton Friedman, 1970. The Social Responsibility of a Business is to Increase Profits. The New York Time Magazine, 2010.
Muller, J. 1997. Performance-based Corporate Philanthropy How Giving Smart can help organizations achieve their goals, Public Relations Quarterly, 42(2): 42-48.
Ptacek, J.J. & Salazar, G. 1997. Enlightened Self Interest: Selling Business or the Benefits of Cause-Related Marketing. Non-Profit World, 15(4): pp 9-15.
Porter, E.M., & Kramer, M.R. 2006. Social Strategy: A Connection to Strategic Advantage, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Competitive Advantage. Boston, MA: Harvard.
Sethi, S.P. 1977. Advocacy, Advertising, and Large Corporation, MA: Lexington Books.
Webb, J.D., & Mohr, L.A. 1998. A Typology to Customers’ Response to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2): pp 226-239.
Conclusion
Companies exist primarily to earn profits. This is accomplished by increasing revenue and reducing operating costs.
Yet, businesses have been involved in social services since the 1800s (Sethi 1977) and modern companies continue to make use of their limited resources to provide social benefits. In the past, this was seen as an unjust waste of shareholder wealth (Friedman 1970).
However, research has shown the possibility to be more profitable while also engaging in activities of social marketing simultaneously (Mullen 1997 and Collins 1993).
ToM’s shoes is an excellent example of a business that has been able to make a profit and at the same time satisfy the needs of the poor people.