Reflexology sandals

rrhoad2376 · 15th February 2007, 08:13 AM

I was in a Walgreen's yesterday and saw a rack of sandals on sale for $10 each. They looked comfortable and I could use a new pair so I threw them in the basket.

Then I looked down at the tag. It said that the design was based on reflexology studies. I put the sandals back and decided to see what this company was about.

It seems as if their advertising and selling point of the sandal is all based around reflexology. I wouldn't have had any problem with the sandals if it wasn't for this fact, why couldn't they just say comfortable sandals massaging insoles or something? Anyway I ended up getting another pair of sandals instead.

Here is the website for them if you want to see what I mean.

tkingdoll · 15th February 2007, 08:26 AM

So did you not buy the sandals because you didn't want to give money to a company promoting woo?

Which is fine if the sandals you eventually did buy were as good or better, but if not, then personally I'd have just bought them anyway.

Your action only has a point if you write to the company to tell them they lost a customer because of their woo. Otherwise it's an empty gesture.

grayman · 15th February 2007, 08:31 AM

When I read the title to this thread I thought it said "Reflexology Scandals.

The beads in the sandals that are part of the "reflexology inspired design" remind me of several years ago when everybody seemed to be putting the wooden-bead seat covers in their vehicles. Whatever happened to those seat covers? If they really worked, why was it a passing fad? And since the therapeutic massaging of feet is referred to as reflexology, what is the term for the therapeutic massaging of one's butt?

By the way, as I type this my spell-check does not recognize the word reflexology; it suggests that what I am really trying to spell is sexology. Hmmm.

Lothian · 15th February 2007, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Which is fine if the sandals you eventually did buy were as good or better, but if not, then personally I'd have just bought them anyway.

Who cares if they were made by kids in sweat shops, do they look good ?

This might be an unfair comparison (ok, it is an unfair comparison) but the issue is similar. Should you financially support a company who promotes ideas or practices of which you disapprove ? I would not have bought them no matter how well they went with my white socks.

tkingdoll · 15th February 2007, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Lothian

Who cares if they were made by kids in sweat shops, do they look good ?

This might be an unfair comparison (ok, it is an unfair comparison) but the issue is similar. Should you financially support a company who promotes ideas or practices of which you disapprove ? I would not have bought them no matter how well they went with my white socks.

It's a silly comparison, not just an unfair one, but actually the principle is the same in terms of silent protesting. Not buying something because you have an ethical objection is completely useless unless you tell the company they lost a sale.

Otherwise no-one wins. You don't get the sandals you like, and the company doesn't learn a lesson. It's a pointless exercise.

But, if we're going to open the can of worms that is ethical shopping, I suggest that anyone even attempting to add some ethics to their purchasing decisions does a HUGE amount of research.

For example Toblerone is owned by a tobacco company. Anti smoking? Better not buy those delicious chocolate pyramids then.

Have a company pension scheme? Unless you were specifically offered an ethical plan, you are very likely profiting from some massively unethical businesses.

And so on.

Amapola · 15th February 2007, 09:18 AM

I suppose that simply not buying the sandals would send a message eventually, as long as everyone else didn't buy them either. If it's just one person, it will send no message whatsoever.

On the other hand, if only one person writes in and protests, this would also likely have no effect on the company. Hopefully the sandals were on sale because they were not selling, and the store was trying to get rid of them.

Lothian · 15th February 2007, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

It's a silly comparison, not just an unfair one, but actually the principle is the same in terms of silent protesting. Not buying something because you have an ethical objection is completely useless unless you tell the company they lost a sale.

So I should write to every single company I object to and tell them why I won't buy their products ?

No, I have my moral standards that I keep to.

I don't expect others to follow suit, nor would I expect companies to change their policies just for me.

tkingdoll · 15th February 2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Lothian

So I should write to every single company I object to and tell them why I won't buy their products ?

No, I have my moral standards that I keep to.

Which is fine, although again as I point out it's almost impossible to be consistent in ethical buying. And starting a thread saying you really liked some sandals but didn't buy them because you objected to their woo advertising strategy is different to what you are describing of your own behaviour.

Quote:

I don't expect others to follow suit, nor would I expect companies to change their policies just for me.

But the OP does expect us to follow suit. Or do something, I'm not entirely clear what but this thread was started for a reason. If that reason is simply for us all to be equally outraged that there is such a thing as woo in the sandal market, then I don't get it. If it's for us to start some sort of campaign or boycott of the product, then I reiterate such a move is useless without informing the company.

If you choose to share your moral standards on an internet forum then you have to expect to justify them, I think. Otherwise what's the point of the discussion? Woo exists, sandals exist...now what?

Ceritus · 15th February 2007, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by tkingdoll

Which is fine, although again as I point out it's almost impossible to be consistent in ethical buying. And starting a thread saying you really liked some sandals but didn't buy them because you objected to their woo advertising strategy is different to what you are describing of your own behaviour.

But the OP does expect us to follow suit. Or do something, I'm not entirely clear what but this thread was started for a reason. If that reason is simply for us all to be equally outraged that there is such a thing as woo in the sandal market, then I don't get it. If it's for us to start some sort of campaign or boycott of the product, then I reiterate such a move is useless without informing the company.

If you choose to share your moral standards on an internet forum then you have to expect to justify them, I think. Otherwise what's the point of the discussion? Woo exists, sandals exist...now what?

I tell my mother this all the time when she buys organic food and vegatarian foods. She is against the killing of all animals, I ask her when she buys the over priced food does she think about the truck drivers transporting the food and wonder if the money she pays for the food in some way pays for the transport and production of the food and the money she spends which pays their wages do any of them eat meat and so on.

chillzero · 16th February 2007, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by grayman

When I read the title to this thread I thought it said "Reflexology Scandals.

The beads in the sandals that are part of the "reflexology inspired design" remind me of several years ago when everybody seemed to be putting the wooden-bead seat covers in their vehicles. Whatever happened to those seat covers? If they really worked, why was it a passing fad? And since the therapeutic massaging of feet is referred to as reflexology, what is the term for the therapeutic massaging of one's butt?

By the way, as I type this my spell-check does not recognize the word reflexology; it suggests that what I am really trying to spell is sexology. Hmmm.

I used to get my hair caught up in those stupid car seat covers, so I am glad they are practically extinct now.

My sister bought me a pair of those reflexology slippers a while ago, and (I hope she never reads this

) they are the most uncomfortable things I have ever put anywhere near my feet. The little bumps in them just make it feel like you are walking on big gravel. Not nice.

15th February 2007, 08:13 AM	#1
rrhoad2376 Student Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Houston, Texas, USA Posts: 38	Reflexology sandals I was in a Walgreen's yesterday and saw a rack of sandals on sale for $10 each. They looked comfortable and I could use a new pair so I threw them in the basket. Then I looked down at the tag. It said that the design was based on reflexology studies. I put the sandals back and decided to see what this company was about. It seems as if their advertising and selling point of the sandal is all based around reflexology. I wouldn't have had any problem with the sandals if it wasn't for this fact, why couldn't they just say comfortable sandals massaging insoles or something? Anyway I ended up getting another pair of sandals instead. Here is the website for them if you want to see what I mean.

15th February 2007, 08:26 AM	#2
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	So did you not buy the sandals because you didn't want to give money to a company promoting woo? Which is fine if the sandals you eventually did buy were as good or better, but if not, then personally I'd have just bought them anyway. Your action only has a point if you write to the company to tell them they lost a customer because of their woo. Otherwise it's an empty gesture.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

15th February 2007, 08:31 AM	#3
grayman Happy-go-lucky Heretic Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Casa del Whacko Posts: 6,142	When I read the title to this thread I thought it said "Reflexology Scandals. The beads in the sandals that are part of the "reflexology inspired design" remind me of several years ago when everybody seemed to be putting the wooden-bead seat covers in their vehicles. Whatever happened to those seat covers? If they really worked, why was it a passing fad? And since the therapeutic massaging of feet is referred to as reflexology, what is the term for the therapeutic massaging of one's butt? By the way, as I type this my spell-check does not recognize the word reflexology; it suggests that what I am really trying to spell is sexology. Hmmm.
	__________________ Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge

15th February 2007, 09:00 AM	#5
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Lothian Who cares if they were made by kids in sweat shops, do they look good ? This might be an unfair comparison (ok, it is an unfair comparison) but the issue is similar. Should you financially support a company who promotes ideas or practices of which you disapprove ? I would not have bought them no matter how well they went with my white socks. It's a silly comparison, not just an unfair one, but actually the principle is the same in terms of silent protesting. Not buying something because you have an ethical objection is completely useless unless you tell the company they lost a sale. Otherwise no-one wins. You don't get the sandals you like, and the company doesn't learn a lesson. It's a pointless exercise. But, if we're going to open the can of worms that is ethical shopping, I suggest that anyone even attempting to add some ethics to their purchasing decisions does a HUGE amount of research. For example Toblerone is owned by a tobacco company. Anti smoking? Better not buy those delicious chocolate pyramids then. Have a company pension scheme? Unless you were specifically offered an ethical plan, you are very likely profiting from some massively unethical businesses. And so on.
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

15th February 2007, 09:18 AM	#6
Amapola Pirate Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Mora, New Mexico Posts: 8,260	I suppose that simply not buying the sandals would send a message eventually, as long as everyone else didn't buy them either. If it's just one person, it will send no message whatsoever. On the other hand, if only one person writes in and protests, this would also likely have no effect on the company. Hopefully the sandals were on sale because they were not selling, and the store was trying to get rid of them.
	__________________ ignoring is art....not science pillory

15th February 2007, 08:42 AM	#4
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by tkingdoll Which is fine if the sandals you eventually did buy were as good or better, but if not, then personally I'd have just bought them anyway. Who cares if they were made by kids in sweat shops, do they look good ? This might be an unfair comparison (ok, it is an unfair comparison) but the issue is similar. Should you financially support a company who promotes ideas or practices of which you disapprove ? I would not have bought them no matter how well they went with my white socks.

15th February 2007, 10:16 AM	#7
Lothian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: https://twitter.com/CV4UK Posts: 10,373	Originally Posted by tkingdoll It's a silly comparison, not just an unfair one, but actually the principle is the same in terms of silent protesting. Not buying something because you have an ethical objection is completely useless unless you tell the company they lost a sale. So I should write to every single company I object to and tell them why I won't buy their products ? No, I have my moral standards that I keep to. I don't expect others to follow suit, nor would I expect companies to change their policies just for me.

15th February 2007, 02:20 PM	#8
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	Originally Posted by Lothian So I should write to every single company I object to and tell them why I won't buy their products ? No, I have my moral standards that I keep to. Which is fine, although again as I point out it's almost impossible to be consistent in ethical buying. And starting a thread saying you really liked some sandals but didn't buy them because you objected to their woo advertising strategy is different to what you are describing of your own behaviour. Quote: I don't expect others to follow suit, nor would I expect companies to change their policies just for me. But the OP does expect us to follow suit. Or do something, I'm not entirely clear what but this thread was started for a reason. If that reason is simply for us all to be equally outraged that there is such a thing as woo in the sandal market, then I don't get it. If it's for us to start some sort of campaign or boycott of the product, then I reiterate such a move is useless without informing the company. If you choose to share your moral standards on an internet forum then you have to expect to justify them, I think. Otherwise what's the point of the discussion? Woo exists, sandals exist...now what?
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie

15th February 2007, 03:14 PM	#9
Ceritus Suspended Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: I am the mind that you call home. Posts: 650	Originally Posted by tkingdoll Which is fine, although again as I point out it's almost impossible to be consistent in ethical buying. And starting a thread saying you really liked some sandals but didn't buy them because you objected to their woo advertising strategy is different to what you are describing of your own behaviour. But the OP does expect us to follow suit. Or do something, I'm not entirely clear what but this thread was started for a reason. If that reason is simply for us all to be equally outraged that there is such a thing as woo in the sandal market, then I don't get it. If it's for us to start some sort of campaign or boycott of the product, then I reiterate such a move is useless without informing the company. If you choose to share your moral standards on an internet forum then you have to expect to justify them, I think. Otherwise what's the point of the discussion? Woo exists, sandals exist...now what? I tell my mother this all the time when she buys organic food and vegatarian foods. She is against the killing of all animals, I ask her when she buys the over priced food does she think about the truck drivers transporting the food and wonder if the money she pays for the food in some way pays for the transport and production of the food and the money she spends which pays their wages do any of them eat meat and so on.

16th February 2007, 05:36 AM	#10
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,230	Originally Posted by grayman When I read the title to this thread I thought it said "Reflexology Scandals. The beads in the sandals that are part of the "reflexology inspired design" remind me of several years ago when everybody seemed to be putting the wooden-bead seat covers in their vehicles. Whatever happened to those seat covers? If they really worked, why was it a passing fad? And since the therapeutic massaging of feet is referred to as reflexology, what is the term for the therapeutic massaging of one's butt? By the way, as I type this my spell-check does not recognize the word reflexology; it suggests that what I am really trying to spell is sexology. Hmmm. I used to get my hair caught up in those stupid car seat covers, so I am glad they are practically extinct now. My sister bought me a pair of those reflexology slippers a while ago, and (I hope she never reads this ) they are the most uncomfortable things I have ever put anywhere near my feet. The little bumps in them just make it feel like you are walking on big gravel. Not nice.