logo
‘Frustrating experience' inspires Aussie mum's $26 million business

‘Frustrating experience' inspires Aussie mum's $26 million business

News.com.au24-05-2025

When Alexandra Weller was shopping for a rug for her home, she quickly realised how difficult and uninspiring the process could be.
Around the same time, her husband Aaron Weller – who was consulting for an SEO company – discovered there was a huge volume of online searches for rugs.
This insight prompted the Aussie couple to dig deeper, asking their friends and family about their own experience trying to purchase a rug for their homes.
'Without exception, everyone shared a similar story: the excitement of decorating a space would quickly turn into disappointment,' Alexandra told news.com.au.
'Sizing was confusing, colours felt off once in their space, and the whole experience was overwhelming. It became clear that there was a gap in the market – and a real opportunity to re-imagine the way people shop for rugs.'
A $50,000 gamble
So, the husband-and-wife duo from Sydney set out to fill that void in the market, throwing $50,000 of their life savings into a crazy new business idea and launching online rug retailer Miss Amara in 2014.
Their main point of difference? The brand provides photos of their extensive range of rugs in-situ, meaning customers can snap a photo of their space and see what the products look like in their home before purchasing.
In addition to this, the co-founders also decided to offer a first-of-its-kind return service, with Miss Amara footing the bill for a courier to pick up the rug and offer a full refund if the customer didn't love their purchase.
'In the early days, I would spend hours reaching out to strangers online, asking if they'd be willing to photograph our rugs in their stunning homes – not as a marketing tactic, but because I genuinely wanted to show people what was possible,' the co-founder said.
'These days, we call this influencer marketing and UGC (User-Generated Content), but back then, it was just a deep desire to help customers visualise the home of their dreams.
'That hope hasn't changed; whether someone discovers us through an email, a social post, or a visit to our website, my wish is that they walk away feeling inspired to create a home that feels beautiful and uniquely theirs.'
It all started with one product
The item that first emerged as the brand's hero product was their pet-friendly range, a stain-proof rug that pet owners and parents of young children absolutely loved due to its super easy cleaning process.
'From the beginning, we've prided ourselves on being a customer-centric brand, and what we kept hearing was that many people, especially pet owners and young families, felt excluded from owning beautiful things,' she said.
'They believed style had to be sacrificed for practicality, and that didn't sit right with us. So, we set out to design rugs that were not only beautiful but could also withstand the realities of everyday life.'
The rugs, which are available in a variety of shapes and sizes, range in price from $199 to $4,499, depending on materials – wool varieties being the most expensive rugs on their website.
More than a decade later, the rug brand boasts a team of around 80 employees operating across five countries throughout Australia and Asia, including Hong Kong, where the couple are now based with their two young kids.
The company turned over $26 million last financial year.
'Talking about money still feels a little uncomfortable, because success in business can be so
unpredictable,' Alexandra admitted.
'I've watched brands I've admired for years close their doors, sometimes seemingly out of nowhere, so I never take where we are today for granted.'
The co-founder revealed it took the couple five years before they even paid themselves a salary.
'There were so many moments of uncertainty along the way, and honestly, if it weren't for my husband, I'm not sure I would've had the courage to keep going. He's a true entrepreneur – fearless and incredibly driven. Where I'm naturally risk-averse, he's what I'd call 'pro-risk'.'
Alexandra recalled that in the their early 30s, Aaron convinced his wife to 'go all in', arguing they had 'everything to gain, and nothing we couldn't rebuild if it didn't work out'.
That leap of faith is what she credits the business' success with.
A new cult item
Speaking of kids, the Miss Amara co-founder says the brand's new cult item is undeniably their range of rollie pollie playmats, which were 'born directly' from her own experience as a mum of little ones.
'I was searching for the perfect playmat and quickly realised it didn't exist. I wanted something that not only felt soft and luxurious for little hands and feet, but also complemented and elevated my home. Something I didn't feel the need to roll up or hide away when guests came over,' she said.
'That personal need sparked the idea, and it's been incredibly rewarding to create a product that speaks to both form and function for modern families.'
While it's easy to read the phrase '$26 million success story' and believe it was a seamless journey, Alexandra assures us that absolutely was not the case.
The couple faced numerous setbacks in the early days, including naysayers weighing in on their business idea.
'There were countless moments where people told me the things I was trying to do simply wouldn't work. In the beginning, no one would take our calls or even consider working with us. And once they did, the objections didn't stop,' the entrepreneur recalled.
'Our courier company warned us that offering a free return and collection service would send us out of business. But I knew that fear and hesitation were the biggest blockers for customers
buying rugs online, and I was adamant that removing those barriers was essential.'
Alexandra also said they were warned it would be far too expensive to implement a virtual reality tool on their website, but 'giving our customers the ability to visualise the rug in their space transformed our conversion rate and far outweighed the cost'.
She added: 'These are just a few of the objections we've had to push through and still face today. Building something from nothing isn't easy, and there will always be people who doubt you. But if you back yourself, stay true to your vision, and keep listening to the customer, the belief you hold becomes your biggest strength.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Climate stability will require carbon removal on a large scale — are the existing methods up to the task? - ABC Religion & Ethics
Climate stability will require carbon removal on a large scale — are the existing methods up to the task? - ABC Religion & Ethics

ABC News

time30 minutes ago

  • ABC News

Climate stability will require carbon removal on a large scale — are the existing methods up to the task? - ABC Religion & Ethics

If countries are to meet the Paris Agreement goal of holding 'the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels' and pursing efforts 'to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels', we're now told that reducing greenhouse gas emissions alone will be insufficient. Given our energy needs and the time it will take to transition to fully renewable sources of energy, Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) will also be needed, on a large scale. But there is considerable scepticism about CDR. In May, power company EnergyAustralia apologised to its customers after settling a Federal Court case launched by advocacy group Parents for Climate. In a statement published as part of the settlement, the company said: 'Burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas emissions that are not prevented or undone by carbon offsets.' There are several reasons why that might be true. One that critics frequently cite comes from the fact that the removals certified by carbon offsets can't be guaranteed to last as long as the emissions they are supposed to offset. Is this a good reason for dismissing CDR? CO₂ removal methods and the risk of reversal Broadly speaking, there are two types of CDR methods. 'Nature-based methods' use natural processes — like photosynthesis — to trap CO₂ in ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and farmlands. 'Engineered' methods, on the other hand, typically use advanced technology to capture CO₂ directly from the atmosphere or industrial sites. Both of these methods have drawn criticism. Some argue against investing in new carbon capture methods due to their high costs and technological uncertainties. Others argue that the benefits of nature-based solutions are profoundly limited, not least because of the short time horizon over which forests and other natural sinks can store carbon. The critics of nature-based methods are on to something. If the core idea of net zero emissions is balancing greenhouse gas additions and removals, we need the removals to last as long as the additions. However, the CO₂ we release today can persist in the atmosphere for centuries or even millennia. In contrast, many nature-based methods, like planting trees, might only store carbon for a few decades. This criticism highlights a genuine concern: merely planting a tree cannot be considered a valid offset if it eventually releases its absorbed CO₂ back into the atmosphere when it dies. This carries a 'reversal risk' — a risk that CO₂, once stored, will be re-released. However, while reversal risk is undoubtedly important, this doesn't mean that nature-based methods should be dismissed — instead, it means that they need to be managed well. Individual trees die, but provided a forest is properly maintained and managed over the long term, it can still act as a carbon sink. It's the continuous, deliberate maintenance of forests that ensures carbon is consistently captured, even if individual trees within the ecosystem die and are replaced. Additionally, reversal risk is not exclusive to nature-based methods. Engineered carbon removal methods and novel storage technologies also carry their own reversal risks. Storage facilities could fail, or novel technologies might prove less effective or reliable than initially expected. Investing all our resources in engineered CDR is problematic for another reason. Keeping within the 2°C carbon budget requires increasing the use of CDR now — and these technologies are not, even on an optimistic picture, going to be available at the scale required soon enough. Rather than being taken as grounds for dismissing these different CDR methods, we think these criticisms support a different conclusion. Each method on its own faces a serious problem — but they can complement each other, when used together. We must combine them strategically, using the strengths of each to offset the weaknesses of the other. Nature-based methods, if employed sensibly, offer the rapid, large-scale deployment that is needed now to help reduce peak global temperatures and slow warming trends. Engineered solutions, coming on stream later, have the potential for more secure long-term removals. These technologies, once fully developed, offer the prospect of more stable CO₂ storage options, significantly reducing the risk of reversal. What climate mitigation requires A number of companies recently announced they are leaving the Australian government's Climate Active carbon credit scheme amid concerns about its integrity. Some critics of carbon credit markets suggest that they operate simply as a way of allowing companies to buy the illusion of climate action, while continuing with business as usual. However, if the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is right, we will need emission reductions to be accompanied by CDR into the foreseeable future, and we will need well-functioning carbon markets to deliver it. Stabilising the consequences of human activity on the climate will require reducing emissions — but alongside this, it will also require both nature-based and engineered methods of CDR, situated within a well-governed carbon credit market. Christian Barry is Director of the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. Garrett Cullity is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Moral, Social and Political Theory at the Australian National University Together with a team of international climate scientists and policymakers, they are authors of a new paper discussing these themes at greater length, 'Considering Durability in Carbon Dioxide Removal Strategies for Climate Change Mitigation', forthcoming in Climate Policy.

The US needs Australian beef for hamburgers, Littleproud says
The US needs Australian beef for hamburgers, Littleproud says

News.com.au

time39 minutes ago

  • News.com.au

The US needs Australian beef for hamburgers, Littleproud says

Anthony Albanese should play hardball with the US on beef as tariff talks grind on, Nationals leader David Littleproud says. American beef imports have emerged as a key negotiating item in the Albanese government's efforts to secure a tariff carve out. The Trump administration has been pushing for Australia to loosen import rules to include beef from cattle originating in Canada and Mexico but slaughtered in the US. The Prime Minister has confirmed biosecurity officials were reviewing the request but vowed his government would not 'compromise' Australia's strict bio laws. But the prospect of changing laws has sparked unease among cattle farmers worried about keeping bovine diseases well away from the country's shores. With beef imports seemingly key to securing a US tariff exemption, Mr Littleproud on Monday said there needed to be some 'perspective'. 'The United States does need Australia and other countries to import beef to be able to put on their hamburgers,' he told Sky News. 'They don't have the production capacity to be able to produce the type of beef that goes on their hamburgers. 'So this is a tax on themselves that they put on Australian beef.' Despite being subject to the blanket 10 per cent tariffs on foreign imports, Australian beef into the US has risen by 32 per cent this year, according to Meat and Livestock Australia. Meanwhile, the cost of domestically produced beef within the US has been climbing, as cattle farmers struggle with drought. Mr Littleproud said the Nationals were not against importing American beef provided that it was from cattle 'born in the United States and bred all the way through to their slaughter in the United States'. But beef from cattle originating in third countries was a risk because 'we don't have the traceability that we have over the US production system'. 'And that's why Anthony Albanese needed to rule out straight away that he would not open that up to those cattle that were born in Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else in the Americas, because that poses a significant risk unless we can trace those cattle,' Mr Littleproud said. Mr Albanese has been clear in saying he would 'never loosen any rules regarding our biosecurity'. But he has also said that if a deal can be struck 'in a way that protects our biosecurity, of course we don't just say no'. Mr Littleproud acknowledged Mr Albanese's words but said 'when you see reports from departments saying this is what's on the table in terms of negotiations – where there's smoke, there's fire'. In addition to the baseline 10 per cent duties on foreign goods, Australia has also been subjected to 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium. Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the Donald Trump's tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent imposts on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Though, Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'.

Indigenous employment rules dropped from two-thirds of Commonwealth contracts
Indigenous employment rules dropped from two-thirds of Commonwealth contracts

ABC News

timean hour ago

  • ABC News

Indigenous employment rules dropped from two-thirds of Commonwealth contracts

Indigenous employment rules have been dropped in two-thirds of Commonwealth contracts, meaning $70 billion worth of contracts did not have to hire a minimum number of Indigenous people or use Indigenous businesses. The Audit Office found departments had exempted two-thirds of recorded contracts since 2016, or about 1,475 contracts, from requirements for at least 3 per cent of the workforce to be Indigenous, or that amount of components sourced from Indigenous-owned businesses. Auditors said the exemptions were given "often for reasons that [were] unclear". But even among the contracts that were subject to Indigenous participation rules, just a fifth were actually assessed for compliance — with more than a quarter found to be non-compliant. Commonwealth contracts are subject to Indigenous participation rules if they exceed $7.5 million in value and more than half of that value is spent in a nominated industry in Australia — such as in construction, healthcare, industrial cleaning or wildlife management. Auditors said contract exemptions were rising, and while some were legitimate exemptions, others were given with little explanation. "The inappropriate use of exemptions impedes achievement of the Indigenous Procurement Policy's objectives," auditors said. "Systems have been set up to allow potentially invalid exemptions." Of those contracts that were exempted from Indigenous participation rules, a third listed their reason for exemption under the category "other". Auditors were told by the responsible agency, the National Indigenous Australians Agency, that contracts were sometimes exempted simply because they were "in practice non-compliant" with the rules. For example, between July 2016 and September last year $35 billion worth of Defence Department contracts were exempted — with more than half of those contracts listed as "other" as the reason for exemption. But even among the 870 contracts where Indigenous participation rules were applied, the NIAA only assessed compliance of a fifth of those. Of those assessed, 28 per cent, or 45 contracts, were found not to have complied. The agency had also not updated its guidance to contractors on navigating Indigenous participation rules since July 2020, despite reporting requirements changing in that time. "A commitment to publish guidance tailored for Indigenous businesses was not met," the auditors found. In a response to auditors, the National Indigenous Australians Agency said prior to the introduction of minimum requirements a decade ago, Indigenous businesses secured limited business from the Commonwealth, and the policy had "significantly" increased the rate of purchasing from Indigenous businesses. The agency agreed to review its use of the "other" category for allowing exemptions, but argued it was the responsibility of Commonwealth departments to ensure each met their own obligations.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store