A study of makeup foundation ranges finds that adding shades alone does not guarantee that a brand can serve more skin tones. How those shades are distributed matters to customers who struggle to find a close match.
Researchers Retsef Levi, Elisabeth Paulson and Georgia Perakis developed a model for designing product ranges that fit a diverse population. They applied it to the foundation lines of 11 makeup brands, using skin tone and acceptable differences between a product and a customer as inputs.
Their research, published in Management Science, addresses a business problem beyond cosmetics: a longer list of options can leave customers underserved when the available choices are clustered around the same needs.
Where the choices fall matters
A foundation range can contain many light, medium or deep shades. If several products are very similar while a portion of the range has wide gaps, a customer whose skin tone falls in a gap may have no close option.
The authors define coverage in terms of whether a product is sufficiently close to a user’s needs. Their model asks how to select the smallest set of options that provides an acceptable match across the population considered.
In Harvard Business School’s account of the research, Paulson says the modeled population could be covered with 37 strategically chosen shades. That number depends on the study’s skin-tone measurements and assumptions about acceptable mismatch; it is not a universal rule for every market or product.
The model considers a simplified feature, skin tone. Actual makeup selection can depend on undertone, texture, coverage, ingredients and how a product performs in use. A line that meets a numerical coverage criterion still needs testing with customers.
The cost of a bigger range
Each additional option can require production planning, packaging, shelf space and inventory. A retailer that carries many similar products may also need to forecast demand for each one, increasing the chance of shortages in some options and unsold stock in others.
Those costs do not mean businesses should automatically reduce their ranges. A product that sells less frequently can still serve customers excluded by the rest of the assortment. The study instead offers a way to ask which additions close a gap and which mostly duplicate an existing choice.
A company can compare product features with evidence about customers’ needs, then check whether availability is equally reliable across the range. An option contributes little to access if customers cannot find it in stores or order it when needed.
Our earlier reporting on product choice and information costs considered another part of the decision: how easily shoppers can evaluate alternatives. Range design and clear information address different obstacles, and both can affect whether a customer finds a suitable product.
The authors’ framework identifies possible gaps under stated assumptions. It does not measure every brand’s sales response or establish that a particular range will maximize profit. Businesses still need to validate proposed choices with customers, suppliers and actual demand.
