In the last two decades, La Heij and colleagues have presented accounts of a number of context effects in Stroop-like word-production tasks. Roelofs (2007 this issue) criticises various aspects of our proposals, ranging from the number of processing stages assumed to details of simulation results. In this reply we first argue that we do not challenge spoken-word production models developed in the psycholinguistic tradition for being "too complex", as Roelofs asserts. Next we discuss Roelofs' detailed criticisms on our proposed solutions. Finally, in response to Roelofs' argument that increasing the structural complexity of our model would render it similar to its main competitor, WEAVER++, we discuss the crucial differences that would still remain. (Contains 1 figure and 3 footnotes.)