You can get a parcel delivered almost anywhere these days and on your terms whether you want a proof of delivery or a Saturday pickup. But you can also expect to pay for it.
Michael Erickson is president of AFMS Inc., a consulting company that specializes in negotiating shipping contracts and service terms. He can be reached at (800) 246-3521 or via the company's Web site, www.afms.com.
It's a scene repeated countless times each day in offices and shipping rooms across America. There's a tap at the door and in walks a UPS or FedEx delivery person. As he (or she) drops off the package, the driver either runs a scanner over the label or requests a signature on that handheld device he or she carries before heading out the door.Whichever the case, it's clear that package delivery these days isn't just a matter of moving a parcel between two points; it's about creating a full electronic record of a parcel's whereabouts every step of the way.
The benefits of collecting all this information are undeniable. Access to tracking and tracing data can prove invaluable to a manager frantically awaiting an urgent shipment. And the signatures collected as proof of delivery have settled many a dispute. But there's unquestionably a downside as well. Shippers may not realize it, but the information being captured in those innocuous-looking devices is also affecting the prices they pay for small-package service.
With several years' worth of detailed data on their expenses, carriers from Airborne to FedEx now know exactly what it costs to deliver each package. They know who's likely to give them shipments that are relatively cheap to handle on a per-package basis, like half a truckload of parcels delivered to a single city block near one of the carrier's major hubs. They also know which shippers are more expensive to serve, the ones that routinely send parcels to impossibly remote locations or request a lot of extras. They know what it costs to collect a signature. They know what it costs to provide a photocopy of the airbill. And they know what it costs to make a detour for an unscheduled pickup.
Armed with specific cost-toserve information, carriers are no longer shy about recouping those costs, generally in the form of service charges or accessorial fees. Just a few years ago, no tariff contained more than a handful of accessorial charges.
Today there are fees for everything—around 80 at last count. Need a shipment picked up on a Saturday? That will be $2.50 (on top of the regular charges). Want to change the terms of a COD collection? That will be $7. Need a written proof of delivery? That will be $5.How about a residential delivery? Figure on paying an extra $1 to $1.75. Want a verbal confirmation of delivery? $2. Address correction? $5 for ground and $10 for air shipments. Whatever the service, it's no longer safe to assume it's included in the price of the delivery.
No more package deals? It's easy to understand why carriers like those fees. First, collecting surcharges allows them to recoup the added costs they incur for hard-to-deliver shipments. And more to the point, in a competitive marketplace, collecting fees and surcharges allows carriers to raise revenues without announcing huge rate increases. But there's more to the small-package pricing shift than a few fees. Though many shippers aren't aware of it, carriers are also using their enhanced costto- serve data when drawing up contracts with customers.
In the past, small-package rate setting was a pretty straightforward matter. Pricing was based on a fairly simple formula that factored in zones, volume, weight and seasonality. Discounting was a straightforward process as well. When a carrier offered a shipper a discount, it was for all the shipments in that service field from zone 2 - one pound to zone 8 - 199 pounds.
Not any more. Look at a contract today and you'll likely be in for a shock. Carriers have taken all the data collected by their drivers over the years, wrestled it through their computer systems, and developed sophisticated cost-toserve models that bear little resemblance to pricing schemes used in the past. Gone are simple rates based on zones and volumes. Instead, carriers are using complex algorithms based on at least 10 often obscure factors, such as rolling averages, cell-by-cell pricing and revenue tiers.
Granted, it's complex, but it's not necessarily cause for dismay. Nor is it a sign that you should enroll in law school or dust off your old calculus textbooks.What you do need to understand is what the carriers consider profitable and unprofitable in terms of package characteristics and where your freight fits in. In the end, that's what will determine the rates and discounts carriers are willing to offer you.
You also need to be able to decipher the new terms that are cropping up in contracts with increasing frequency. Here's a little quiz: Can you identify the following 10 terms?
Net minimums
Matrix pricing
Cell-by-cell pricing
Revenue tier
Rolling averages
Product group (portfolio) pricing
Ramp-up period
Delivery codes
Accessorial charges
Delivery density
These are important to know. Though not every term will appear in every contract, it's a good bet you'll encounter some or even most of them the next time you read through a contract. Here's a brief explanation:
Net minimums – Minimum rates set by the carrier, typically a set figure or the gross cost of a one-pound, zone 2 package, which ensures the carrier a minimum revenue for delivering that package.
Matrix pricing – Pricing based on discounts that may change by weight or zone for each service. There may also be a bonus offered as an incentive for meeting a certain revenue threshold.
Cell-by-cell pricing – A pricing formula under which specific rates apply to specific weight and zone combinations.
Revenue tier Carriers will assign you to a specific revenue tier or band, depending on the weekly average revenue you provide them. These tiers are then used to determine discounts.
Rolling average – Carriers use rolling averages to determine the average weekly revenue levels you provide them. Rolling averages are recalculated each week—the oldest week's worth of data are dropped and the most recent week's are added on—so that they reflect the most recent 13- week period.
Product group (portfolio) pricing – In an effort to capture all of your business— air, ground, home deliveries, and so on— a carrier may offer a "product pricing" package with discounts that max out only if you give it all of your business.
Ramp-up period – The grace period for target discounts before the contract goes into effect.
Delivery codes – Carriers use these to classify delivery destinations as rural, super rural or urban. Extra charges will apply for deliveries to rural and super rural areas.
Accessorial charges – Ancillary charges being applied to the cost of a shipment for various reasons, such as oversize and dimensional weights, address changes or residential deliveries.
Delivery density – The number of pieces being delivered at one time to one place. Obviously, the higher the delivery density, the lower the carrier's per-package costs.
Knowledge is power If you didn't know half of these terms and you ship packages under contract with a carrier like UPS or FedEx, you need to reeducate yourself. Ignorance could end up costing you thousands of dollars weekly. You might want to consider getting expert advice to help you evaluate how these charges and costing methods affect your business.
In the meantime, find out as much as you can on your own. Attend some industry trade shows, talk to some experts and get some help figuring out these new contracts and what's behind them.
Too many companies negotiate in the dark. Don't be one of them. Do your research, pay attention to the details, and focus your efforts on steps you can take to make your freight more attractive to carriers. They've gone to the trouble of collecting all the data and using it for their own benefit; now it's time to see if you can't turn it to your advantage as well.
A move by federal regulators to reinforce requirements for broker transparency in freight transactions is stirring debate among transportation groups, after the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published a “notice of proposed rulemaking” this week.
According to FMCSA, its draft rule would strive to make broker transparency more common, requiring greater sharing of the material information necessary for transportation industry parties to make informed business decisions and to support the efficient resolution of disputes.
The proposed rule titled “Transparency in Property Broker Transactions” would address what FMCSA calls the lack of access to information among shippers and motor carriers that can impact the fairness and efficiency of the transportation system, and would reframe broker transparency as a regulatory duty imposed on brokers, with the goal of deterring non-compliance. Specifically, the move would require brokers to keep electronic records, and require brokers to provide transaction records to motor carriers and shippers upon request and within 48 hours of that request.
Under federal regulatory processes, public comments on the move are due by January 21, 2025. However, transportation groups are not waiting on the sidelines to voice their opinions.
According to the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), an industry group representing the third-party logistics (3PL) industry, the potential rule is “misguided overreach” that fails to address the more pressing issue of freight fraud. In TIA’s view, broker transparency regulation is “obsolete and un-American,” and has no place in today’s “highly transparent” marketplace. “This proposal represents a misguided focus on outdated and unnecessary regulations rather than tackling issues that genuinely threaten the safety and efficiency of our nation’s supply chains,” TIA said.
But trucker trade group the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) welcomed the proposed rule, which it said would ensure that brokers finally play by the rules. “We appreciate that FMCSA incorporated input from our petition, including a requirement to make records available electronically and emphasizing that brokers have a duty to comply with regulations. As FMCSA noted, broker transparency is necessary for a fair, efficient transportation system, and is especially important to help carriers defend themselves against alleged claims on a shipment,” OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in a statement.
Additional pushback came from the Small Business in Transportation Coalition (SBTC), a network of transportation professionals in small business, which said the potential rule didn’t go far enough. “This is too little too late and is disappointing. It preserves the status quo, which caters to Big Broker & TIA. There is no question now that FMCSA has been captured by Big Broker. Truckers and carriers must now come out in droves and file comments in full force against this starting tomorrow,” SBTC executive director James Lamb said in a LinkedIn post.
The “series B” funding round was financed by an unnamed “strategic customer” as well as Teradyne Robotics Ventures, Toyota Ventures, Ranpak, Third Kind Venture Capital, One Madison Group, Hyperplane, Catapult Ventures, and others.
The fresh backing comes as Massachusetts-based Pickle reported a spate of third quarter orders, saying that six customers placed orders for over 30 production robots to deploy in the first half of 2025. The new orders include pilot conversions, existing customer expansions, and new customer adoption.
“Pickle is hitting its strides delivering innovation, development, commercial traction, and customer satisfaction. The company is building groundbreaking technology while executing on essential recurring parts of a successful business like field service and manufacturing management,” Omar Asali, Pickle board member and CEO of investor Ranpak, said in a release.
According to Pickle, its truck-unloading robot applies “Physical AI” technology to one of the most labor-intensive, physically demanding, and highest turnover work areas in logistics operations. The platform combines a powerful vision system with generative AI foundation models trained on millions of data points from real logistics and warehouse operations that enable Pickle’s robotic hardware platform to perform physical work at human-scale or better, the company says.
Bloomington, Indiana-based FTR said its Trucking Conditions Index declined in September to -2.47 from -1.39 in August as weakness in the principal freight dynamics – freight rates, utilization, and volume – offset lower fuel costs and slightly less unfavorable financing costs.
Those negative numbers are nothing new—the TCI has been positive only twice – in May and June of this year – since April 2022, but the group’s current forecast still envisions consistently positive readings through at least a two-year forecast horizon.
“Aside from a near-term boost mostly related to falling diesel prices, we have not changed our Trucking Conditions Index forecast significantly in the wake of the election,” Avery Vise, FTR’s vice president of trucking, said in a release. “The outlook continues to be more favorable for carriers than what they have experienced for well over two years. Our analysis indicates gradual but steadily rising capacity utilization leading to stronger freight rates in 2025.”
But FTR said its forecast remains unchanged. “Just like everyone else, we’ll be watching closely to see exactly what trade and other economic policies are implemented and over what time frame. Some freight disruptions are likely due to tariffs and other factors, but it is not yet clear that those actions will do more than shift the timing of activity,” Vise said.
The TCI tracks the changes representing five major conditions in the U.S. truck market: freight volumes, freight rates, fleet capacity, fuel prices, and financing costs. Combined into a single index indicating the industry’s overall health, a positive score represents good, optimistic conditions while a negative score shows the inverse.
Specifically, the new global average robot density has reached a record 162 units per 10,000 employees in 2023, which is more than double the mark of 74 units measured seven years ago.
Broken into geographical regions, the European Union has a robot density of 219 units per 10,000 employees, an increase of 5.2%, with Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia in the global top ten. Next, North America’s robot density is 197 units per 10,000 employees – up 4.2%. And Asia has a robot density of 182 units per 10,000 persons employed in manufacturing - an increase of 7.6%. The economies of Korea, Singapore, mainland China and Japan are among the top ten most automated countries.
Broken into individual countries, the U.S. ranked in 10th place in 2023, with a robot density of 295 units. Higher up on the list, the top five are:
The Republic of Korea, with 1,012 robot units, showing a 5% increase on average each year since 2018 thanks to its strong electronics and automotive industries.
Singapore had 770 robot units, in part because it is a small country with a very low number of employees in the manufacturing industry, so it can reach a high robot density with a relatively small operational stock.
China took third place in 2023, surpassing Germany and Japan with a mark of 470 robot units as the nation has managed to double its robot density within four years.
Germany ranks fourth with 429 robot units for a 5% CAGR since 2018.
Japan is in fifth place with 419 robot units, showing growth of 7% on average each year from 2018 to 2023.
Progress in generative AI (GenAI) is poised to impact business procurement processes through advancements in three areas—agentic reasoning, multimodality, and AI agents—according to Gartner Inc.
Those functions will redefine how procurement operates and significantly impact the agendas of chief procurement officers (CPOs). And 72% of procurement leaders are already prioritizing the integration of GenAI into their strategies, thus highlighting the recognition of its potential to drive significant improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, Gartner found in a survey conducted in July, 2024, with 258 global respondents.
Gartner defined the new functions as follows:
Agentic reasoning in GenAI allows for advanced decision-making processes that mimic human-like cognition. This capability will enable procurement functions to leverage GenAI to analyze complex scenarios and make informed decisions with greater accuracy and speed.
Multimodality refers to the ability of GenAI to process and integrate multiple forms of data, such as text, images, and audio. This will make GenAI more intuitively consumable to users and enhance procurement's ability to gather and analyze diverse information sources, leading to more comprehensive insights and better-informed strategies.
AI agents are autonomous systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of human operators. In procurement, these agents will automate procurement tasks and activities, freeing up human resources to focus on strategic initiatives, complex problem-solving and edge cases.
As CPOs look to maximize the value of GenAI in procurement, the study recommended three starting points: double down on data governance, develop and incorporate privacy standards into contracts, and increase procurement thresholds.
“These advancements will usher procurement into an era where the distance between ideas, insights, and actions will shorten rapidly,” Ryan Polk, senior director analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Procurement leaders who build their foundation now through a focus on data quality, privacy and risk management have the potential to reap new levels of productivity and strategic value from the technology."