Multi-carrier strategy: The secret to faster and cheaper shipping

Returns: A critical part of the shipping strategy

A discussion of carrier strategy that omits returns is incomplete, because the returns logistics challenge has become as commercially significant as outbound shipping for most fashion, electronics, and general merchandise retailers. Managing those returns efficiently, which means getting goods back quickly, in condition to be resold, at reasonable cost, is a direct function of returns carrier choice.

The multi-carrier logic applies to returns with equal force but different considerations. The optimal returns carrier is often not the optimal outbound carrier.

Returns volumes are more irregular, geographically concentrated, and administratively complex. The carriers that have invested most heavily in returns-specific infrastructure, tracked returns, scan-on-receipt confirmation, and integration with returns management platforms are not always the same carriers that offer the best outbound rates.

Building a multi-carrier strategy for returns means evaluating carriers on criteria relevant to returns: cost per return parcel, the quality of scan data at the point of receipt (which affects restocking speed), and customer experience at the drop-off point. 

The last of these matters more than it is typically given credit for. A customer experience that involves a convenient, well-communicated returns process, including clear carrier instructions, tracking updates, and rapid refund processing, is a meaningful driver of repurchase behaviour. Carriers that offer dense drop-off networks and reliable tracking are worth a cost premium for this reason.

How carrier choices impact customer support and satisfaction

Customer support costs are among the most overlooked parts of e-commerce logistics and are driven almost entirely by carrier performance. A late delivery means a ‘Where is my order?’ call. A damaged parcel means a claim. A missed delivery means a redelivery request or a complaint. Every one of these eats up support team time.

This matters because support contacts from logistics failures are not random. They are predictable from carrier data. Carriers with better on-time rates get fewer WISMO calls. Carriers with lower damage rates get fewer claims. Carriers who deliver on the first try get fewer complaints. These patterns are clear and measurable, but most businesses ignore them when choosing carriers because support and shipping costs live in separate budgets and are rarely considered together.

The commercial implication is that the true cost of a shipping decision is not the label price. It is the label price plus the expected support cost per shipment, which depends on the carrier’s performance for the specific service tier and destination zone used.

There is a customer lifetime value dimension here that extends the analysis further. Research consistently shows that delivery failures generate churn at higher rates than most other service failures in e-commerce. A customer who receives a damaged product and receives a satisfactory resolution will generally give the retailer another chance. A customer who waits five days for a delivery promised in two and has to chase it through a support channel is significantly more likely to simply shop elsewhere next time.

Routing decisions that incorporate carrier performance data are, therefore, simultaneously logistics decisions and customer retention decisions, making a well-executed multi-carrier strategy key to reducing WISMO inquiries through more reliable deliveries.

Choosing the right carrier mix for your business

There is no universal answer to which carriers an e-commerce business should use. That might sound like a frustrating non-answer, but it is actually the most useful thing to say, because it directs attention toward the right question: which carriers are right for your business, given your specific volume profile, customer geography, product characteristics, and service level commitments?

The carrier mix that makes sense for a fashion retailer shipping 10,000 lightweight parcels per month to UK residential addresses is structurally different from that for a B2B electronics supplier shipping 1,000 heavier items per month across Europe. 

Start by digging into your own shipment data: how much you send, where it goes, how heavy it is, what it is worth, and which service tiers you use. Once you know your profile, the aim is not to chase the lowest price overall, but to match the best carrier to each shipment type, and build a portfolio that covers your real needs.

Key criteria for evaluating carrier partners

Cost structure: Base rates, dimensional weight formula, surcharge schedule, and the existence of volume-tier discounts at your committed shipment level. The headline rate is rarely the full story.

Geographic performance: On-time delivery rates broken down by region, not just national averages. A carrier with 97% on-time nationally may have 88% on-time in the postcodes where your customers are concentrated.

Damage and loss rates: Claims frequency by parcel value band. For high-value products, the insurance and liability provisions in the carrier contract are as important as the rate card.

First-attempt delivery success: The percentage of deliveries that are completed on the first attempt. Failed delivery attempts trigger redelivery costs, customer contacts, and deterioration in satisfaction, all of which have real commercial value that does not appear in the base-rate comparison.

Returns capability: Does the carrier offer a viable returns product, and is it cost-effective for your typical return profile? Outbound and returns carrier alignment reduces operational complexity significantly.

Finally, revisit this data regularly as carrier performance evolves, your volume profile shifts, and your customer geography changes. Carrier performance is not static, and a routing rule built on last year’s data may be routing volume suboptimally today.