Not quite.
I follow the business law blog The Conglomerate. Some of the stuff is not my cup of tea (which, I don't drink regardless). But, some of the articles hit right in my sweet spot.
There was an article yesterday talking about Social Entrepreneurship and how these hybrid companies, while helpful to those in need, are not S.E. companies. The argument is that these companies such as Toms, and Ben and Jerrys just sell premium products to a specific market niche. The prices are jacked up and thus they have plenty of money to donate an extra pair of low cost shoes to those in need. Real S.E is making an affordable low cost shoe available.While I get the point the author is making, I find myself wrestling with the idea that these "do good" business are not social entrepreneurs. For example, Toms could just sell their unique product and not donate a shoe. Or, would that ruin their business model and make them less popular? Either way, I don't have a problem with these companies. People clearly want to buy the product and so they are doing something right. The question is whether or not the social aspect of the product is a big reason why people are purchasing.
Here is a link to the article: Conglomerate
Toms business definitely benefits from their "charity". Some might not like the thought that Toms is exploiting (a little to harsh of a word) their "charity" to make money, but who cares? The reality is that they are helping people buy providing a product that people are willing to buy and at the same time helping someone who less fortunate. I say it is a win win. My thought was not very well articulate, but hopefully you get the idea.
ReplyDelete