Toms Shoes VS. Bobs by Sketchers

[Iridescence]

I don't know how many of you are aware of Toms Shoes. It's basically an organization where you buy a pair of their shoes, and they give a pair of shoes to a child in a third world country who doesn't own a pair of shoes.
But I was recently reading Seventeen magazine, and I saw an add for Bobs by Sketchers. Same thing, same mission.
It kind of shocked me for a moment, I thought, are they really ripping off someones own original idea? I mean don't get me wrong, the more the merrier! It's going for a good cause!
But, I was just wondering, if they asked for permission to do the same thing as this guy, or just simply took it upon themselves and stole their idea.
What do you think?

[Peppermint Tea.♥]

I like the fact that they're still giving shoes to the kids, but they're undercutting TOMS on the more expensive shoes, which I think is wrong. Also, the fact that they are the same style is dumb. If they'd designed a different pair, then people might buy both and more kids would get shoes and it would be good, but they haven't. They have basically copied. I'm unsure as to whether I consider the fact they copied right or wrong, purely because I'm unsure of the legal issues. If they've done it legally then the copying I have no problem with. But to be honest I really think they should have designed their own shoe at least.

Do they need to ask permission? I would have thought if they hadn't got permission when they needed it, they'd get sued or something like that?

[Skeleton]

What a complete and utter rip off.

If it was a different style of shoe, a name that wasn't a guys name then I'd say it was nice of them to do it but they're doing exactly what Toms are doing, same style, named using a guys name, donating a pair to a third world country. Where is the originality in that?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

These sorts of organizations have been around for years but the way they generate money or material wealth for the target poverty community varies. In a sense, you could say Toms Shoes stole the idea from, say, Dave's Shoes and Dave's Shoes stole it from Harold's Canned Goods and so forth. However, "stole" is an inappropriate word to describe these organizations. There's no need to ask for permission unless there's a patent or copyright, which there obviously wouldn't be, thus, it's simply modelling after a certain corporation as opposed to being a deviant. Think of the various fast-food restaurants that currently exist in any given country. They all have the same idea: give cheap "quality" food to hungry customers, or more specifically, give a burger, chicken wings, or whatever the food is to hungry customers. It's like saying Wendy's stole the idea from Harvey's, who stole it from McDonald's who stole it from Burger King, etc... .

Back on topic, I'm not a shoe expert so I'll assume the two organizations have a similar style, otherwise the article in Seventeen would be even more pointless. It's business, in other words, if there's a lucrative field with organizations getting rich, you can bet your ass other organizations are going to want their pot of gold. It may not be very imaginative but that's not necessary.

Also, on a different note, I wouldn't use Seventeen magazine as a reliable source for such information. It's glamorized more than Paris Hilton is. It's geared toward teeny-boppers and teens who want to see something flashy or something to gossip about. If you want to read more about it, find a more reliable source. It's also a guideline on here to cite it so we all can use the same source you're using without having to dig around online to find that particular article.

[dr2005]

I suppose the best phrase for this is "imitation is the best form of flattery". It no doubt appears underhanded, but something like this happens quite often and provided the originator's business model is sound they can usually weather the storm. Certainly, Toms appears to be strong enough considering the first report I could find for this was back in 2010 - if anything, Sketchers damaged their own reputation rather than Toms' prospects. It'd certainly be better if Sketchers had shown a little more originality in their effort, but seeing as both are supporting the same worthy cause I can't really complain too much on that front. As long as both can co-exist that's best in the long run after all.

[Iridescence]

Charlie, the name behind Tom isn't because the creator's name is Tom, it's because it's really short for Tomorrow. As in, buy a pair of shoes today, give a pair of shoes tomorrow. But they had a problem fitting tomorrow on the tag of the shoes so they shortened it tom. I saw the founder on the Ellen DeGeneres Show, and he explained the name and how people can get mixed up with that.

And The Man And xx Master, where you said

I wouldn't use Seventeen magazine as a reliable source for such information. It's glamorized more than Paris Hilton is. It's geared toward teeny-boppers and teens who want to see something flashy or something to gossip about.

I never said it was a reliable source or that it just popped out where EVERYONE just had to see it, it was a simple one page add. Nothing too glamorous or something to gossip over. Though I see how you can look at Seventeen as just a gossip flashy magazine, but I'm not going to rant about that, simply because that's how guys see it as.

[JKmadu619]

Well, one quick thing to point out... companies only do this for tax reasons. Every dollar they give to chairity when you purchase any product saves them two in taxes later that could be donated to the children. Buisness is buisness, and if you care to buy the shoes, who cares? But don't delude yourself into thinking you're saving the world.

- Justin

[thebigmole]

I saw Bobs for the first time in a Sketchers store about a year ago. My mouth actually dropped open because they are the EXACT same shoe. Exactly the same, and the whole "Bobs" thing. I mean I just didn't get it, the giving shoes to kid thing is a great idea and the more the merrier but why not even try to hide the fact that they are ripping off Toms.

[Tynan]

I have to agree with The Man And XX Master in this one.
There are loads of different non-profits/ organizations/ businesses/ that do the same thing. Look how many non-profits raise money/get food for the hungry people around the world. Or how many clothing stores there are.

Why is it so different if a big name shoe company wants to help out by doing the same thing as a non-profit does? Are you not going to eat at burger king because white castle was the first fast food style of restaurant?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by NeonxNinjas

And The Man And xx Master, where you said I never said it was a reliable source or that it just popped out where EVERYONE just had to see it, it was a simple one page add. Nothing too glamorous or something to gossip over. Though I see how you can look at Seventeen as just a gossip flashy magazine, but I'm not going to rant about that, simply because that's how guys see it as.

I didn't state it because it's, "how guys see it as". I stated that because the information in there is hardly a reliable source and you have to admit, its focus is on glamorizing to the teen girl audience. The thread is about 2 businesses and common business practice, not something you find a silly teen magazine. I would say the same thing if it were in a glamorized teen boy magazine.

Consider the example I gave of fast-food restaurants in my earlier post.

[Sincerely Yours ♥]

I don't think it's a bad thing if they want to have the same mission as TOMS. My sister & I definitely laughed the first time we saw a commercial for BOBS, because it was so obvious what they were copying, but really it's no big deal. They're doing it for a good cause. Although, I think they could have come up with a more original name & style.

[Guile]

Donate shoes to poor children in first world countries and I might buy a pair.

Guile's Tiers of Importance
Myself.
My Relationships.
My People.
My World.

I won't send a dollar to a third world country as long as children in my country go without. Anyway, it's better for the economy to keep the money internal.

[Sythan]

They need food more than they need shoes.

[Iridescence]

^ Some third world countries don't allow the child to go to school if they don't have shoes. They give the shoes so they can get an education.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by NeonxNinjas

^ Some third world countries don't allow the child to go to school if they don't have shoes. They give the shoes so they can get an education.

If you give a person who is on the brink of death due to starvation a pair of shoes and say, "here you go, now you can get an education and make money to eat", that's going to be useless. If you give the person food and water but not shoes, they can stay alive first, then get shoes. Food and water are more important than having a pair of shoes.

[Haylee.]

I think it's dumb. the end. lol. and pathetic.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by NeonxNinjas

^ Some third world countries don't allow the child to go to school if they don't have shoes. They give the shoes so they can get an education.

And if we send them flightsims they can all earn Pilot's Licenses and then buy shoes!

Riiiiiiiiight?

[Iridescence]

My point to that comment Master And The XX Master is that there are already organizations out there to provide food and water to the needy. I know UNICEF is an organization to provide clean water. I'm not aware of an organization for food, but then again, I can't list off every single organization out there.

[FlyingTrue]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru

Why is it so different if a big name shoe company wants to help out by doing the same thing as a non-profit does?

I have noticed in many cases, when people associate "big-name company" and "donation", they also think of "tax write-off", there is a lot of cynicism apparently.

It definitely seems like this Bobs concept infringes on some of the intellectual property rights of Toms. Of course this puts Toms in a hard spot because if they then try to sue to protect their rights then Sketchers could easily try to make them out as the bad guy simply on the grounds that they're being sued over a charity concept. Quite a twisted situation.

[JKmadu619]

FlyingTrue: It's true, all of the grocery stores that say "Donate a dollar to a child today" make that much back in taxes, no one, especially a large coporation can afford to do something for nothing. Even if donating money gives you a nice feeling inside, no one just does something without some form of benifit.

- Justin

[Sythan]

Originally Posted by NeonxNinjas

^ Some third world countries don't allow the child to go to school if they don't have shoes. They give the shoes so they can get an education.

They need food more than they need an education if they're starving.

[Iridescence]

Originally Posted by Sythan

They need food more than they need an education if they're starving.

As I said in my above post, there are already organizations to help provide those needs. I think it's nice that someone like this organization creator (TOMS Shoes) thought of a more out-of-the-box idea like that because I haven't heard of a group to provide shoes to those who can't get an education because they don't have proper footwear.
I think this idea is neat and will help the kids get a better education. But yes I do agree food and water is extremely important, BUT, like I said, there are already organizations out there to help provide that.