Welcome to the initial edition of The LogTech Letter, a weekly look at a particular aspect of the impact technology is having on the world of global and domestic logistics. This is the place to turn on Fridays for quick reflection on a dynamic, software category, or specific company that’s on my mind. You’ll also find a collection of links to stories from me, my colleagues at the Journal of Commerce, and other stories I find interesting.
For those that don’t know me, I’m Eric Johnson, senior technology editor at the Journal of Commerce and JOC.com. I can be reached at eric.johnson@ihsmarkit.com or on Twitter at @LogTechEric.
The hardest company for me to report on is Flexport. That name has become the very definition of a loaded term in the logistics industry. My aims around covering Flexport are pretty simple though. I try my absolute best to be as fair as I can to the company, to the rest of the industry, and most importantly, to my readers.
Here’s the problem. Flexport needs to be covered differently because it has formed in a unique way, and that, in and of itself, makes it newsworthy. The problem lies in managing that uniqueness in a way that doesn’t penalize Flexport, nor its competitors. In other words, am I covering some aspect of Flexport that I wouldn’t cover about another global forwarder? I look at that from a positive and negative perspective. Am I writing about their technology in a way I never would about similarly sized forwarders? Possibly yes, because they were able to secure $1.3 billion to build technology that was different from other forwarders, so it’s important to scrutinize what they have, and haven’t built.
The flipside of that is, do I point out when they have layoffs, or are hit by a cargo airline with a ban for hazmat documentation issues, when other forwarders have the same types of problems? This cuts both ways. And there’s probably no completely “correct” way to manage this. On the spectrum of Flexport lover to Flexport hater, there will always be pieces I do that seem to be advocating for them, and others deemed “hit pieces.”
I can assure you that my sole intention is to inform our readership, to highlight when Flexport has done something that I think is worth exploring, and to analyze its evolution in the context of its investment model. If anything, the rise of Flexport has expanded the list of forwarders, and forwarder-enabling software providers, that I speak with tenfold at least. It amazes me to this day how many times the company comes up in conversation, most times unsolicited from me. That tells a story of its own, the degree to which the company is in the broad consciousness of the industry now.
It’s hard to determine what the chicken is and what the egg is - did Flexport’s marketing efforts all along make that prominence self-fulfilling, or has their mere existence created an awareness in the industry that filters into the discussions I have? I cannot tell.
I will say this - I’m undeterred by the people on both margins of this discussion. The far more interesting thing to analyze is the juicy middle, where we can get at what Flexport has done so far, what its existence means to the industry now, where it is going, and how that shapes what others do. That’s really all that matters to shippers - the marketing and the VC palace intrigue is pretty meaningless to a shipper that just wants consistent service and a cool website to work with.
Here’s a roundup of pieces I wrote for JOC.com the past week (note: there is a paywall):
And here’s some coverage and analysis I found interesting:
https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/future-of-mobility/future-of-freight-connected-data-intelligent-automation.html
https://medium.com/@EqualVentures/smarthop-a-platform-for-truckers-by-truckers-290f5d44ca95?source=social.tw
https://www.dat.com/blog/post/beware-of-biased-benchmarking
Disclaimer: This newsletter is in no way affiliated with The Journal of Commerce or IHS Markit, and any opinions are mine only.
Sign up now so you don’t miss the first issue.
In the meantime, tell your friends!