Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
Those looking for a "steady as she goes" transport climate should steer clear of parcel. E-commerce's explosive growth has translated into enormous traffic gains. There are all sorts of new ways to get packages into people's hands. Meanwhile, shippers in the business-to-business (B2B) segment continue to face escalating rates and ancillary charges as giants UPS Inc. and FedEx Corp., which dominate the B2B parcel shipping world, push for ever-higher revenue.
Parcel consultants like Rob Martinez, all of whom held executive positions with various carriers before hanging out their shingles, frame themselves as the shippers' wingmen. Martinez has logged 25 years in the business, the last 15 running his own shop. Like other consultants, Martinez said his firm can help shippers with a myriad of functions, including assisting—to some degree—in contract negotiations. In an interview with DC Velocity Executive Editor Mark B. Solomon, Martinez said the deck is stacked against B2B shippers and it will take creativity and extra effort (and a little outside help) to win at the table.
Q: Several years ago, UPS and FedEx said they would no longer work directly with parcel consultants. How have consultants worked around that edict, and have the carriers backed off from that hard line?
A: UPS and FedEx will work with third-party consultants for matters unrelated to pricing, provided the consultant, shipper, and carrier sign a three-way nondisclosure agreement. However, the restriction remains in place for rate negotiations and third party-led bids. We've heard that some firms have closed their doors, and others have pivoted to other services. Even if consultants aren't allowed to negotiate pricing directly with the carriers, the good ones can still offer tremendous value in areas like distribution analysis, dimensional pricing and accessorial impact studies, RFP (request for proposal) templates, negotiation strategies, DC site studies, modal/carrier optimization, automation recommendations, and invoice auditing.
Q: UPS has struggled to master its peak season operations in the wake of rapid growth in online shipping. It's been suggested the company choose between driving market share through aggressive pricing and focusing on improving its return on invested capital at the expense of market share. Given the current landscape, what would be your recommendation to the company?
A: In 2013, UPS and FedEx dealt with a deluge of packages tendered during Christmas week, severe weather conditions in several U.S. states, and an abbreviated peak shipping season. An estimated 2 million packages were delivered late. UPS delivered exceptional service last peak, but it came at a cost of $200 million over 2013. UPS is well down the road in planning for Christmas 2015. While it will continue to assume the burden of higher costs associated with holiday deliveries, it will also strive to recover costs from its customers. For example, high-volume e-commerce shippers will be assessed a "peak season" residential surcharge this year.
Q: As we speak, UPS and FedEx are a couple of months into their programs to impose dimensional weight pricing on packages measuring less than three cubic feet, which is a large chunk of their mix. Are parcel shippers changing their packaging strategies, or will they grin, bear it, and pay up?
A: At this time, many shippers have been slow to analyze cost increases attributed to dimensional pricing. Shippers will find that package optimization carries benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. Some will enjoy lower transportation costs. For many, however, there will be significant rate increases. We estimate, on average, a 17-percent rate increase on packages affected by the new policies.
Q: Much has been made of UPS and FedEx's dominance of the B2B parcel market. But B2C (business-to-consumer) shipping has become a larger share of the overall mix. In B2C, there is strong competition from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and possibly from the likes of Amazon.com, which may establish a dedicated shipping network. Given the different dynamics of B2C, are competitive concerns about the FedEx-UPS duopoly overstated?
A: First off, Amazon is decades away from being a significant competitor to the national private carriers. In fact, it may never reach that level. USPS is a formidable competitor in B2C. However, though USPS plays in B2B, that segment will continue to be ruled by FedEx and UPS because their networks and systems do the best job of serving that market. Unfortunately for shippers, FedEx and UPS are focused on revenue and yield management, which means finding more ways to extract money from their customers.
Q: Do you see regional parcel carriers moving the needle in a significant way? Is there a marketplace need—or is it viable from a business standpoint—for a national network knitted together by the various regionals?
A: The regionals are growing because they offer alternatives to FedEx and UPS. Regionals have simple contracts with more flexible terms and volume commitments, 10 to 40 percent rate savings over FedEx and UPS, more favorable dimensional divisors, and fewer surcharges. That said, regionals haven't moved the needle in a significant way. Shipware estimates they account for less than 4 percent of U.S. parcel volume. Our recent survey on shippers' use of regional carriers reveals that less than 30 percent of high-volume shippers use them. Most of those allocate less than 10 percent of their shipments to the regionals.
A "national regional network" is not going to happen anytime soon. There are too many problems to work out. Who owns package custody? How are systems to be unified for tracking, reporting, and invoicing? What if a carrier cannot handle heavy freight? Most importantly, how is revenue allocated so it makes sense to all parties?
Instead, what is evolving are strategic partnerships between a handful of regional carriers in the areas of business development, lead sharing, and shared operations. An example of the latter is a warehouse-sharing agreement in Pennsylvania between Pitt-Ohio and [regional parcel carrier] Eastern Connection.
Q: If you were speaking to a roomful of parcel shippers on ways to mitigate the price increases that are in place or are looming, what advice would you give?
A: Shippers must utilize multiple concurrent strategies. These include improving pricing through rate negotiations, optimizing package routes by mode/carrier, implementing least-cost/best-way automation, reducing packaging costs, minimizing returns, zone skipping, and exploring postal and regional options.
Shippers should work with carriers to reduce the carrier's operational costs. Carriers link their pricing to the costs of supporting a customer. Shippers should identify components of their business that are raising their cost profile and work with the carrier to reduce its investment in handling the business.
Another approach is to think regionally. It's no secret that many businesses are migrating from globally centralized distribution to multiregional DCs in an effort to put product closer to the customer and reduce transportation costs and transit times. Companies that do both effectively enjoy an enormous competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Also explore the many shipping alternatives out there. Many shippers sole source to FedEx or UPS for convenience or to maximize revenue-based incentives with the carriers. They may forget that cost reductions and service improvements can be achieved by adding more service providers to the carrier mix.
Businesses engaged in international trade face three major supply chain hurdles as they head into 2025: the disruptions caused by Chinese New Year (CNY), the looming threat of potential tariffs on foreign-made products that could be imposed by the incoming Trump Administration, and the unresolved contract negotiations between the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) and the U.S. Maritime Alliance (USMX), according to an analysis from trucking and logistics provider Averitt.
Each of those factors could lead to significant shipping delays, production slowdowns, and increased costs, Averitt said.
First, Chinese New Year 2025 begins on January 29, prompting factories across China and other regions to shut down for weeks, typically causing production to halt and freight demand to skyrocket. The ripple effects can range from increased shipping costs to extended lead times, disrupting even the most well-planned operations. To prepare for that event, shippers should place orders early, build inventory buffers, secure freight space in advance, diversify shipping modes, and communicate with logistics providers, Averitt said.
Second, new or increased tariffs on foreign-made goods could drive up the cost of imports, disrupt established supply chains, and create uncertainty in the marketplace. In turn, shippers may face freight rate volatility and capacity constraints as businesses rush to stockpile inventory ahead of tariff deadlines. To navigate these challenges, shippers should prepare advance shipments and inventory stockpiling, diversity sourcing, negotiate supplier agreements, explore domestic production, and leverage financial strategies.
Third, unresolved contract negotiations between the ILA and the USMX will come to a head by January 15, when the current contract expires. Labor action or strikes could cause severe disruptions at East and Gulf Coast ports, triggering widespread delays and bottlenecks across the supply chain. To prepare for the worst, shippers should adopt a similar strategy to the other potential January threats: collaborate early, secure freight, diversify supply chains, and monitor policy changes.
According to Averitt, companies can cushion the impact of all three challenges by deploying a seamless, end-to-end solution covering the entire path from customs clearance to final-mile delivery. That strategy can help businesses to store inventory closer to their customers, mitigate delays, and reduce costs associated with supply chain disruptions. And combined with proactive communication and real-time visibility tools, the approach allows companies to maintain control and keep their supply chains resilient in the face of global uncertainties, Averitt said.
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.
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."