Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 277

When customised solutions ruin a company

How could you go from winning awards for “Store Design of The Year” and “Best Shoe Ever” to selling nothing?

In 2009, the Australian startup Shoes of Prey set out to make exactly the shoes its customers wanted. Customers could pick the designs, sizes and exact specifications, and Shoes of Prey would deliver exactly what they ordered.

They wouldn’t make shoes no one needed. Traditional retailers use flash sales to move stock that has gone out of fashion. Or they burn or bury it. British fashion label Burberry says it has destroyed more than A$150 million worth of unsold clothes, accessories and perfume over the past five years.

Last month Shoes of Prey hit pause. Co-founder Jodie Fox went to social media to say it was considering its future and wouldn’t process any further orders. It had been unable to “truly crack mass market adoption”. If Shoes of Prey couldn’t, maybe no one can.

The pros and cons of mass customisation

Customisation can increase the perceived value of a product through the 'I designed it myself' effect, giving customers a sense of ownership as 'creators'. It can also improve the customer’s perception of the quality of the product. Research shows people are more likely to enjoy the taste of a meal made from a kit they used themselves than the taste of a meal made from the same kit in a store.

But there are downsides. Making choices is taxing. And the choices pile up. For shoes, size is probably the easiest, followed by colour, heel size, width, pattern and accessories. There are other judgements to be made. Should there be more than one colour? Will that choice look good? What will others think? And so on.

Having many roughly equal options to choose from is draining. The satisfaction we get from choice follows an inverted U curve. Having more options when there are too few makes us feel good, but having even more when there are already a lot makes us feel worse.

And then there’s the cost of time.

When customising, customers have to learn what is possible within the confines of the toolkit, test out different possible solutions, learn from their errors and pick the best solution. All of this takes time.

It’s a resource not everyone has. Research shows customers with the most free time are the most likely to appreciate the opportunity to make choices about what they buy.

Shoes of Prey’s mistake might have been to increase the range and complexity of its offerings too much. What started as customising high heels in 2009 became selecting styles of heels, flats, sneakers, boots and sandals with a multitude of options within each.

While loyal customers could keep up, for the average customer the choice was overwhelming. For some, it was easier to take the path of least resistance – a pair of off-the-shelf shoes.

Mass customisation today

Some retailers are persisting with mass customisation. More than 60% of online shoppers in the US are believed to have chosen, recommended or bought a brand that provides a customised experience or service. Interestingly though, 42% wanted to customise from a list of options and be 'led by the brands' rather than start from scratch.

So-called 'customisation via starting solution', where customers choose from an initial option closest to their desired outcome and then refine it to their needs, has been found to enhance satisfaction, decrease the perceived complexity of the customisation and result in more feature-rich products being customised.

An example of a brand currently making headway is Choosy, a new, fast-fashion brand that draws its inspiration almost exclusively from the top-trending posts on Instagram. Releasing 10 styles a week, it gives customers just a few days to order before they go into production. By creating only pieces customers have committed to buying, it avoids building up surplus stock and leverages the upside of mass customisation while minimising the downside.

Does it have a future?

The waste in mass production of fashion items is unsustainable in the long term, from both an economic and social standpoint.

Shoes of Prey broke ground with its innovative business model of delivering customised shoes through on-demand manufacturing, but faced challenges in convincing customers to make the necessary choices to customise a product.

If brands can tackle the barriers to customisation, reducing the cost to customers in time and choice as Choosy has done, then mass customisation could have a future.The Conversation

The Conversation

 

Jessica Pallant, Lecturer in Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology and Sean Sands, Associate Professor of Marketing, Swinburne University of TechnologyThis article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

  •   23 October 2018
  •      
  •   

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Indexation implications – key changes to 2026/27 super thresholds

Stay on top of the latest changes to superannuation rates and thresholds for 2026, including increases to transfer balance cap, concessional contributions cap, and non-concessional contributions cap.

The refinery problem: A different kind of energy crisis in 2026

The Strait of Hormuz closure due to US-Iran conflict severely disrupted global energy supply chains. While various emergency measures mitigated the crude impact, the refined product market faces unprecedented stress.

The missing 30%: how LIC returns are understated, and why it matters

The perceived underperformance of LICs compared to ETFs is due to existing comparison data excluding crucial information, highlighting the need for proper assessment and transparent reporting.

Little‑known government scheme can help retirees tap into $3 trillion of housing wealth

The Home Equity Access Scheme in Australia allows older homeowners to tap into their home equity for retirement income, yet remains underused due to lack of awareness and its perceived complexity.

Origins of the mislabeled capital gains tax ‘discount’

Debate over the CGT discount is intensifying amid concerns about intergenerational equity and housing affordability. This analysis shows that the 'discount' does not necessarily favor property investors.

2 billion reasons to fix retirement income

A proposal to address Australia's 'stranded balances' in retirement by requiring super funds to transition members to pension phase at 65, boosting retirement income and reframing super as a source of income.

Latest Updates

The ultimate superannuation EOFY checklist 2026

Here is a checklist of 28 important issues you should address before June 30 to ensure your SMSF or other super fund is in order and that you are making the most of the strategies available.

Retirement

Two months into retirement

A retirement researcher's take on retirement and her focus on each of her six resource buckets to stay engaged during the transition and beyond.

Superannuation

Markets have always delivered for super fund members. What if they don’t?

What happens if market resilience in the face of ongoing geopolitical tensions ends? Potential decade-long market weakness shows the need for contingency planning.

Retirement

We tend to spend less in retirement …

Studies show that a drop in expenditure during retirement leads to a happier retirement. But when costs ramp up again later in life, it's a guaranteed income that makes spending more hurt less.

Shares

Can you value a share just using dividends?

A cow for her milk, a stock for her dividends. Investors are too quick to dismiss this valuation technique. 

Property

The 25-year property trust default is being questioned

The 33% CGT discount rate being floated isn’t random. It sits at the structural break-even between trust and company for the multi-property cohort. That’s driving the conversation we’re hearing now.

Investment strategies

Are active managers bringing a knife to a gunfight?

How passive investing has permanently changed market structure — and why sophisticated tools are now the price of survival.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2026 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.