the trouble with Harry: interview with Andy Yablin
Getting 8.5 million copies of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix into stores for sale at but not a minute before the witching hour on June 21 was only part of Andy Yablin's challenge. The other part was keeping every single copy under wraps so nobody could ruin the magic.
Peter Bradley is an award-winning career journalist with more than three decades of experience in both newspapers and national business magazines. His credentials include seven years as the transportation and supply chain editor at Purchasing Magazine and six years as the chief editor of Logistics Management.
Maybe the hippogriffs weren't available. And it was probably clear from the start that an 870-page volume wouldn't be a good candidate for shipping by broomstick (even a Firebolt model) or by "owl post." In the end,all 8.5 million copies of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix rolled up to loading docks and doorsteps across America after traveling by conventional means—truck, rail, ship and plane.
These conventional choices were probably a big relief for Andy Yablin, the guy who had to account for each copy from the moment it left the bindery until it arrived at the retailer's or redistributor's premises. Since January, Yablin, vice president of global logistics for Scholastic Inc., the U.S. publisher of the Harry Potter books, has had little time for anything other than figuring out where each of the 8.5 million copies would go once it was produced, when it was going to get there and how. A challenging task, to be sure, but that wasn't the half of it. To accommodate author J.K. Rowling's wishes to keep the plot secret, Scholastic placed an embargo on the book's contents. That meant Yablin also ended up as the de facto chief of the Potter transportation police, charged with making sure that not one of those 8.5 million copies went astray while in transit.
Obviously, launching book 5 of the wildly popular Harry Potter series was no ordinary mega-challenge. But when the pixie dust settled, it was apparent that Yablin and his team had prevailed. When customers lined up outside bookstores across the country for the much-ballyhooed midnight release, the books were there waiting for them.
Though nothing in his background could have prepared him for this challenge, Yablin at least came to Scholastic with deep experience in the field. He holds a degree in logistics from Northeastern University in Boston and a master's degree in management from Lesley College in Cambridge, Mass. While at Northeastern, he began working at Mobil Oil, a job he found through the school's co-op program. He joined Mobil full time after graduation and stayed with the company for 14 years, managing gasoline storage and delivery and ocean, rail, pipeline and truck transportation. He lef t Mobil to become North American transportation manager for Pepsico's Pepsi Bottling Group, where he was responsible for truck load transportation in the United States and Canada, overseeing raw materials delivery into 70 bottling plants. In Apri l 2002, he moved to Scholastic, where logistics has a high profile with executive management — Yablin reports to Beth Ford, senior vice president of global operations and information technology, who reports directly to Chairman, President and CEO Richard Robinson.
Yablin talked to DC VELOCITY Chief Editor Peter Bradley about the weeks and days leading up to that magic moment when Harry 5 was released.
Q: What was involved in getting ready for such a major rollout?
A: We started in January, about six months ahead of the expected launch date,so we were actually planning well before the book was even finished. We started with the framework from the last two book launches, going over the pluses and minuses for both Harry 3 and Harry 4.
In the end, we decided to use the same framework that we used for Harry 4, which was to contract with a third-party logistics company to manage the truckload scheduling and coordination and large pallet-quantity orders that could be combined into truckload orders. That company would be responsible for load planning, coordinating deliveries and making the delivery appointments as well as coordinating with the producing plants on the outbound schedule.
The company we contracted with is called Combined Express. They're a large company in the book industry and knew the commodity, which was important to me.We held our first meeting with them in February.
Knowing that security was going to be an issue, one of the first things I told them was that they'd be restricted to one major carrier for the majority of the moves. For 95 percent of the truckload business, they partnered with J.B. Hunt directly. It worked out that we were able to take about 94 percent of the volume directly from the binderies or printing locations to the end customer. Because we only had six weeks from the time presses started up to the drop-dead date, I knew that we had to take steps out of the process. To go direct not only would save us a lot of money, but would also keep the process pretty tight. We did a lot of work on the load-planning side to ship as much as we possibly could direct.
The remaining 6 percent of the volume, books going to smaller independent stores, moved out of our distribution facility in Jefferson City, Mo. We still contracted through Combined Express and J.B. Hunt to move that 6 percent into Jefferson City. Then we hired [less-than-truckload carrier] Yellow Freight, which handled just under 1,400 deliveries out of that facility. The truckload business was about 800 one-stop or multi-stop loads out of the binderies. We also used two other carriers: UPS moved some of the volume, and the U.S. Postal Service handled 15,000 orders consisting of one or two books. So we had four main providers.
Q: Tell me a little bit about the work of the internal teams.
A: There were two teams. The team I headed up included a representative from the Jefferson City distribution facility, my folks on the logistics side, and one of the sales operations guys, who reported to the VP of sales. Our task was to figure out where the book would go once it was produced, when it was going to get there and how.
At the same time, the other team, a procurement team under the VP of purchasing, was working on securing the raw materials, the paper, the printing time and all of that. The two teams worked pretty closely together. I managed the inbound logistics for materials going to the bindery.We knew that shortly after the covers for the book got to the bindery, the books would be coming off the line.
The VP of supply chain and his department became involved in the planning process as well, playing a key role in the project. It was really a whole supply chain process, keeping the same carriers and the same personnel in the loop the whole time. Early on, we had biweekly planning meetings. As we got closer to the rollout, those meetings became weekly, then daily interactions with a structured discussion about how we were doing and the issues of the moment.
Q: What were some of the issues that came up?
A: We had normal production issues— nothing major, just production dates that moved back and forth. We produced at 12 locations—11 domestic, one in Mexico— which meant coordinating 12 binderies' production schedules and matching up those production schedules to a transportation schedule.
We ran into some issues moving books across the border, which turned out to be nothing more than delays. Crossing the Mexican border is not the easiest thing to do in the best of times, but we had just come out of the war and security had tightened up, so we had to build in some time there.We really didn't have a lot of fluff in the schedule b ecause we had only six weeks to do this and every book that was coming off the line was critical.
The other day-to-day issue was that once we started printing— we started producing around the 14th of May— we needed to account for every book every day. As days passed, the volume of books to account for grew larger. To keep track of the finished books, we had a roll call for every book every day— whether it was in the bindery's warehouse or on a truck staged in a secure yard. And that became more challenging as we got closer to the drop-dead date, given that we had eight and a half million books scattered across the United States.
To ensure security during transit, we put numbered cable seals on every trailer. We had Qualcomm [tracking equipment] on all the J.B. Hunt trucks so we could locate them while they were in transit. We even had an alarm mechanism set up to notify us if they stopped or if we didn't hear from the driver for X amount of time. Upon receipt at the yard, the seals were checked. If there was a disconnect there, the alarms went off. And once the trailer was in the yard, the seal was checked every 24 hours.
At the same time we were worrying about security, we were also taking steps to mitigate transportation costs. For example, we knew that the book was going to be heavy. Once we knew its exact weight, we could determine what the target truckload payload would be so that we could minimize the number of loads by maximizing the pallet count.
Eventually we targeted 42,000 pounds as the standard truckload payload weight and then worked backwards to calculate the number of cartons on a pallet to maximize that. It turned out that loading 28 pallets on a truck would get us to 42,000 pounds.
Early on in the planning process we realized that it would be a nightmare if we let every customer order a different configuration. So we notified customers that it would be 500 books on a pallet and if it was going to come from the bindery, it had to be a complete pallet. We also told them that a standard truckload was 28 pallets, and that's the way it was. It wasn't 26, it wasn't 27; it was going to be 28.
I think the simplicity that we built into the process really helped us. The forklift loader at every bindery knew that 28 pallets was a full load. It didn't matter where it was going. It really helped us maximize our loads as well as minimize the aggravation we would have faced if Wal-Mart ordered one way and Target ordered another way.
In addition, we used J.B. Hunt's intermodal service to move books from the East Coast to the West Coast. That had a couple of advantages. First, on the doublestack containers, we requested the upper level wherever possible, which kept our freight pretty much out of harm's way. The other thing that did for us was allow us to trade off some storage time for transit time.
Q: You had 8.5 million books to produce. Take me through the timetable for the rollout and the process you used to distribute them to your customers.
A: We had two waves of deliveries. We had a wave the week of June 11th. The target drop date was the 13th for orders that were going to book redistributors. These companies all had approval to get the book early so they could redistribute it through their own networks.
The large orders—like those that would move via Yellow Freight—all dropped on the 19th of June, but they were pre-positioned around the country all ready to go before that. On June 19th, Yellow Freight made 1,100 of its 1,400 deliveries. We used their Exact Express service, so we actually had hourly updates on how many deliveries were made, signatures received and proofs of delivery posted online. So by 11 o'clock Eastern time, we had confirmation that all 1,100 deliveries had been made across the United States. That included Hawaii and Alaska.
We had picked two locations in the United States— Memphis (because of Fed Ex's hub) and St. Louis— where we kept standby inventories of books we could put in the air if we had problems. We tapped into that for a couple of cartons that got damaged in transit, but we made every delivery on time, so we didn't have to worry about using that inventory.
For Hawaii and Alaska, we worked with Yellow Freight to pre-position books from the first press run in May in Honolulu and Anchorage, using secure ocean containers rather than having to move the books via air.
Q: That had to save you a lot of money.
A: Yes. Air transport would have cost about five times as much as ground service. And we had time on our side.
Q: We talked a little about security. I imagine that was a high priority for you.
A: It was priority number one. All the production employees were screened and secured. Each one of the binderies had responsibility for security of the product while it was there.Once the books left the bindery, security became my responsibility.We had a stringent security plan in place that all of the carriers signed up for, and they knew what they needed to do if there was a breach. In Jefferson City, the DC's distribution team, which was headed up by Chris Peters, oversaw the security of the product during the time it was stored in the warehouse.
Q: How many locations were you actually delivering to?
A: That's hard to say. I can tell you that the 1,300 or 1,400 deliveries made by Yellow Freight all went to different customers. The 15,000 shipments that we sent out by the U.S. Postal Service were delivered to 5,000 different customers and then there were about 2,500 shipments that went via UPS.
Q: How did you coordinate with other departments within Scholastic?
A: The trade sales group, headed up by Ed Swart, took the lead on the project. They're the ones who interacted with customers and predicted what volume they'd need. Swart and his team also played a key role in maximizing and simplifying all of the loads. In addition, my interaction with the VP of procurement was clearly critical for both of us, because we needed to get the inbound materials into the bindery. And because these binderies don't have any storage facilities, we needed to have vehicles pre-positioned and ready to pull the inventory out of there as soon as the books were finished. It required a close relationship between purchasing and logistics to make the operations side of it work. I can't stress enough that although I may have been the leader and orchestra tor of the project, the launch represented a tremendous cross-functional team effort.
Q: Tell me about the last week. Was it 24-hour days for you?
A: Everything was pretty calm for the first four weeks of production because we were moving trailers to the secure yards and it was pretty controlled. Once we started making deliveries around the 13th, I'm not sure I really got a good night's sleep until the 21st.
Q: What have you learned from this for the next book launch?
A: I think about 95 percent of the plan that we put in place for this one will carry forward to the next launch, although there are always some things you'd do a bit differently. In this day and age, with staffing and other issues, I think using a third-party logistics company is a great way to bring in the expertise when you have a spike in your volume. They can be there when you need them and they're gone when the project is over. I'd say bringing in hired talent to help manage the project is a st rategy I'll use again. I wrote five words down before you called: planning, communication, execution, teamwork and coordination. To me, those were the key elements that helped guide us through the whole program.
Most of the apparel sold in North America is manufactured in Asia, meaning the finished goods travel long distances to reach end markets, with all the associated greenhouse gas emissions. On top of that, apparel manufacturing itself requires a significant amount of energy, water, and raw materials like cotton. Overall, the production of apparel is responsible for about 2% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report titled
Taking Stock of Progress Against the Roadmap to Net Zeroby the Apparel Impact Institute. Founded in 2017, the Apparel Impact Institute is an organization dedicated to identifying, funding, and then scaling solutions aimed at reducing the carbon emissions and other environmental impacts of the apparel and textile industries.
The author of this annual study is researcher and consultant Michael Sadowski. He wrote the first report in 2021 as well as the latest edition, which was released earlier this year. Sadowski, who is also executive director of the environmental nonprofit
The Circulate Initiative, recently joined DC Velocity Group Editorial Director David Maloney on an episode of the “Logistics Matters” podcast to discuss the key findings of the research, what companies are doing to reduce emissions, and the progress they’ve made since the first report was issued.
A: While companies in the apparel industry can set their own sustainability targets, we realized there was a need to give them a blueprint for actually reducing emissions. And so, we produced the first report back in 2021, where we laid out the emissions from the sector, based on the best estimates [we could make using] data from various sources. It gives companies and the sector a blueprint for what we collectively need to do to drive toward the ambitious reduction [target] of staying within a 1.5 degrees Celsius pathway. That was the first report, and then we committed to refresh the analysis on an annual basis. The second report was published last year, and the third report came out in May of this year.
Q: What were some of the key findings of your research?
A: We found that about half of the emissions in the sector come from Tier Two, which is essentially textile production. That includes the knitting, weaving, dyeing, and finishing of fabric, which together account for over half of the total emissions. That was a really important finding, and it allows us to focus our attention on the interventions that can drive those emissions down.
Raw material production accounts for another quarter of emissions. That includes cotton farming, extracting gas and oil from the ground to make synthetics, and things like that. So we now have a really keen understanding of the source of our industry’s emissions.
Q: Your report mentions that the apparel industry is responsible for about 2% of global emissions. Is that an accurate statistic?
A: That’s our best estimate of the total emissions [generated by] the apparel sector. Some other reports on the industry have apparel at up to 8% of global emissions. And there is a commonly misquoted number in the media that it’s 10%. From my perspective, I think the best estimate is somewhere under 2%.
We know that globally, humankind needs to reduce emissions by roughly half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050 to hit international goals. [Reaching that target will require the involvement of] every facet of the global economy and every aspect of the apparel sector—transportation, material production, manufacturing, cotton farming. Through our work and that of others, I think the apparel sector understands what has to happen. We have highlighted examples of how companies are taking action to reduce emissions in the roadmap reports.
Q: What are some of those actions the industry can take to reduce emissions?
A: I think one of the positive developments since we wrote the first report is that we’re seeing companies really focus on the most impactful areas. We see companies diving deep on thermal energy, for example. With respect to Tier Two, we [focus] a lot of attention on things like ocean freight versus air. There’s a rule of thumb I’ve heard that indicates air freight is about 10 times the cost [of ocean] and also produces 10 times more greenhouse gas emissions.
There is money available to invest in sustainability efforts. It’s really exciting to see the funding that’s coming through for AI [artificial intelligence] and to see that individual companies, such as H&M and Lululemon, are investing in real solutions in their supply chains. I think a lot of concrete actions are being taken.
And yet we know that reducing emissions by half on an absolute basis by 2030 is a monumental undertaking. So I don’t want to be overly optimistic, because I think we have a lot of work to do. But I do think we’ve got some amazing progress happening.
Q: You mentioned several companies that are starting to address their emissions. Is that a result of their being more aware of the emissions they generate? Have you seen progress made since the first report came out in 2021?
A: Yes. When we published the first roadmap back in 2021, our statistics showed that only about 12 companies had met the criteria [for setting] science-based targets. In 2024, the number of apparel, textile, and footwear companies that have set targets or have commitments to set targets is close to 500. It’s an enormous increase. I think they see the urgency more than other sectors do.
We have companies that have been working at sustainability for quite a long time. I think the apparel sector has developed a keen understanding of the impacts of climate change. You can see the impacts of flooding, drought, heat, and other things happening in places like Bangladesh and Pakistan and India. If you’re a brand or a manufacturer and you have operations and supply chains in these places, I think you understand what the future will look like if we don’t significantly reduce emissions.
Q: There are different categories of emission levels, depending on the role within the supply chain. Scope 1 are “direct” emissions under the reporting company’s control. For apparel, this might be the production of raw materials or the manufacturing of the finished product. Scope 2 covers “indirect” emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity used in these processes. Scope 3 emissions are harder to track, as they include emissions from supply chain partners both upstream and downstream.
Now companies are finding there are legislative efforts around the world that could soon require them to track and report on all these emissions, including emissions produced by their partners’ supply chains. Does this mean that companies now need to be more aware of not only what greenhouse gas emissions they produce, but also what their partners produce?
A: That’s right. Just to put this into context, if you’re a brand like an Adidas or a Gap, you still have to consider the Scope 3 emissions. In particular, there are the so-called “purchased goods and services,” which refers to all of the embedded emissions in your products, from farming cotton to knitting yarn to making fabric. Those “purchased goods and services” generally account for well above 80% of the total emissions associated with a product. It’s by far the most significant portion of your emissions.
Leading companies have begun measuring and taking action on Scope 3 emissions because of regulatory developments in Europe and, to some extent now, in California. I do think this is just a further tailwind for the work that the industry is doing.
I also think it will definitely ratchet up the quality requirements of Scope 3 data, which is not yet where we’d all like it to be. Companies are working to improve that data, but I think the regulatory push will make the quality side increasingly important.
Q: Overall, do you think the work being done by the Apparel Impact Institute will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the industry?
A: When we started this back in 2020, we were at a place where companies were setting targets and knew their intended destination, but what they needed was a blueprint for how to get there. And so, the roadmap [provided] this blueprint and identified six key things that the sector needed to do—from using more sustainable materials to deploying renewable electricity in the supply chain.
Decarbonizing any sector, whether it’s transportation, chemicals, or automotive, requires investment. The Apparel Impact Institute is bringing collective investment, which is so critical. I’m really optimistic about what they’re doing. They have taken a data-driven, evidence-based approach, so they know where the emissions are and they know what the needed interventions are. And they’ve got the industry behind them in doing that.
The global air cargo market’s hot summer of double-digit demand growth continued in August with average spot rates showing their largest year-on-year jump with a 24% increase, according to the latest weekly analysis by Xeneta.
Xeneta cited two reasons to explain the increase. First, Global average air cargo spot rates reached $2.68 per kg in August due to continuing supply and demand imbalance. That came as August's global cargo supply grew at its slowest ratio in 2024 to-date at 2% year-on-year, while global cargo demand continued its double-digit growth, rising +11%.
The second reason for higher rates was an ocean-to-air shift in freight volumes due to Red Sea disruptions and e-commerce demand.
Those factors could soon be amplified as e-commerce shows continued strong growth approaching the hotly anticipated winter peak season. E-commerce and low-value goods exports from China in the first seven months of 2024 increased 30% year-on-year, including shipments to Europe and the US rising 38% and 30% growth respectively, Xeneta said.
“Typically, air cargo market performance in August tends to follow the July trend. But another month of double-digit demand growth and the strongest rate growths of the year means there was definitely no summer slack season in 2024,” Niall van de Wouw, Xeneta’s chief airfreight officer, said in a release.
“Rates we saw bottoming out in late July started picking up again in mid-August. This is too short a period to call a season. This has been a busy summer, and now we’re at the threshold of Q4, it will be interesting to see what will happen and if all the anticipation of a red-hot peak season materializes,” van de Wouw said.
The report cites data showing that there are approximately 1.7 million workers missing from the post-pandemic workforce and that 38% of small firms are unable to fill open positions. At the same time, the “skills gap” in the workforce is accelerating as automation and AI create significant shifts in how work is performed.
That information comes from the “2024 Labor Day Report” released by Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute (WPI), the firm’s government relations and public policy arm.
“We continue to see a labor shortage and an urgent need to upskill the current workforce to adapt to the new world of work,” said Michael Lotito, Littler shareholder and co-chair of WPI. “As corporate executives and business leaders look to the future, they are focused on realizing the many benefits of AI to streamline operations and guide strategic decision-making, while cultivating a talent pipeline that can support this growth.”
But while the need is clear, solutions may be complicated by public policy changes such as the upcoming U.S. general election and the proliferation of employment-related legislation at the state and local levels amid Congressional gridlock.
“We are heading into a contentious election that has already proven to be unpredictable and is poised to create even more uncertainty for employers, no matter the outcome,” Shannon Meade, WPI’s executive director, said in a release. “At the same time, the growing patchwork of state and local requirements across the U.S. is exacerbating compliance challenges for companies. That, coupled with looming changes following several Supreme Court decisions that have the potential to upend rulemaking, gives C-suite executives much to contend with in planning their workforce-related strategies.”
Stax Engineering, the venture-backed startup that provides smokestack emissions reduction services for maritime ships, will service all vessels from Toyota Motor North America Inc. visiting the Toyota Berth at the Port of Long Beach, according to a new five-year deal announced today.
Beginning in 2025 to coincide with new California Air Resources Board (CARB) standards, STAX will become the first and only emissions control provider to service roll-on/roll-off (ro-ros) vessels in the state of California, the company said.
Stax has rapidly grown since its launch in the first quarter of this year, supported in part by a $40 million funding round from investors, announced in July. It now holds exclusive service agreements at California ports including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Hueneme, Benicia, Richmond, and Oakland. The firm has also partnered with individual companies like NYK Line, Hyundai GLOVIS, Equilon Enterprises LLC d/b/a Shell Oil Products US (Shell), and now Toyota.
Stax says it offers an alternative to shore power with land- and barge-based, mobile emissions capture and control technology for shipping terminal and fleet operators without the need for retrofits.
In the case of this latest deal, the Toyota Long Beach Vehicle Distribution Center imports about 200,000 vehicles each year on ro-ro vessels. Stax will keep those ships green with its flexible exhaust capture system, which attaches to all vessel classes without modification to remove 99% of emitted particulate matter (PM) and 95% of emitted oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Over the lifetime of this new agreement with Toyota, Stax estimated the service will account for approximately 3,700 hours and more than 47 tons of emissions controlled.
“We set out to provide an emissions capture and control solution that was reliable, easily accessible, and cost-effective. As we begin to service Toyota, we’re confident that we can meet the needs of the full breadth of the maritime industry, furthering our impact on the local air quality, public health, and environment,” Mike Walker, CEO of Stax, said in a release. “Continuing to establish strong partnerships will help build momentum for and trust in our technology as we expand beyond the state of California.”
That result showed that driver wages across the industry continue to increase post-pandemic, despite a challenging freight market for motor carriers. The data comes from ATA’s “Driver Compensation Study,” which asked 120 fleets, more than 150,000 employee drivers, and 14,000 independent contractors about their wage and benefit information.
Drilling into specific categories, linehaul less-than-truckload (LTL) drivers earned a median annual amount of $94,525 in 2023, while local LTL drivers earned a median of $80,680. The median annual compensation for drivers at private carriers has risen 12% since 2021, reaching $95,114 in 2023. And leased-on independent contractors for truckload carriers were paid an annual median amount of $186,016 in 2023.
The results also showed how the demographics of the industry are changing, as carriers offered smaller referral and fewer sign-on bonuses for new drivers in 2023 compared to 2021 but more frequently offered tenure bonuses to their current drivers and with a greater median value.
"While our last study, conducted in 2021, illustrated how drivers benefitted from the strongest freight environment in a generation, this latest report shows professional drivers' earnings are still rising—even in a weaker freight economy," ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello said in a release. "By offering greater tenure bonuses to their current driver force, many fleets appear to be shifting their workforce priorities from recruitment to retention."