What is success? How bad do you want to succeed?
I am watching this everyday for 30 days straight. I'll let you know what comes out of it...
- One Way - broadcast
- Few people define popularity
- Two Way - Participation (ownership)
- Audience defines popularity (don't need a green light)
As media goes more and more toward these two new rules, the people will have more control, more say, more power. Does that mean media will get less interesting? Not at all.
Occupy Wall Street
Is Government failing its people? Should Government have the ability to fail its people?
Is Big Business failing its people?
Is Occupy about the money? or about the system?
Is the current system broken?
Is it the Government's job to protect, care, and nurture the people? Or is that our job?
This is not an issue of Capitalism. It is an issue of corruption. The corruption of a few.
This is a 21st Century revolution. Good? Bad?
Where do you stand? Or should we be standing together?
Everyone should get this book.
Here goes a post from my long hiatus.
I have found myself wanting to write but every time I tell myself it will take too long.. Why does action take so much time sometimes?
The 'inner voice' traps you from doing anything. Spewing out excuses that you cannot do this or cannot do that.
My 'inner voice' is strong, but it must yield to what I should do and what I must do.
So, I write.
And the journey continues..
With the rise of social media, companies have had to react to the social desire for corporate sustainability in the world. We want things green. We want to know that 'you' as a corporation cares for the environment. We want to know you are responsible.
Five years ago, Blake Mycoskie reinvented the wheel on an old marketing scheme. Buy one pair of shoes and we will give one pair of shoes away to someone in need. TOMS began very grassroots in 2006 and has had tremendous growth over the last 5 years. They gave away their 1,000,000th shoe this last September.
Their shoes are unique. Their logo is definable. And their shoes are comfortable, relatively speaking.
With the lastest installment of eyewear to TOMS shoes announced today, I was intrigued by what the prices would be. TOMS shoes have always been reasonable and they partnered with Amazon early on, where you could get them on sale for $30-$50. So when I went to see the sunglasses, I was shocked at the $135 and $145 sticker price! TOMS sunglasses are fairly priced compared to Gucci or Louis Vuitton but you could also get a pair at H&M for $10. If you got a pair at H&M for $10, you could give $100 to the charity of your choice and have money left over. $100 goes a long way in the Philippines or Nepal.
This leads me into TOMS being a 'fashion' brand. In the beginning and by definition, TOMS shoes was not really known. They had to be unique. People wearing the shoes were sole (pun intended) advocates dispersing their shoe to all who were interested and all of those who were not. As popularity grew and you knew the story, the shoes became an icon in mainstream fashion. If you saw someone wearing TOMS shoes, you would understand that that person was 'socially responsible'. An outward sign for their inward desire to help humanity.
Don't get me wrong, I love TOMS shoes and I think Blake is a genius at branding, marketing, and made a brilliant business move. We need more companies who are willing to set aside a retainer for philanthropic efforts, whether it is built in like TOMS One for One motto or done socially through company means.
I am just saying with the new prices for TOMS eyewear; it aligns more with a business move than a social caring action. Sunglasses are easily one of the highest markups in the industry. Understandably, if TOMS wants to be a global brand it will need more capital to expand in different regions. I just don't want them to lose their non-profit-esque flair in the name of expansion.