ShipScience, 268 N Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA (2026)

03/19/2026

Transform renewals from comparison to advantage.

Internal benchmarking only compares you to yourself.

It’s the single biggest blind spot in enterprise logistics right now. A transportation leader looks at a monthly report and sees green arrows. Recovery is up 2% over last quarter. The team is high-fiving. Everyone says "we’re good."

But "good" is dangerous when you’re grading on a curve you built yourself.

Here is the reality of what happens when you operate in a vacuum.
You might sign a rebate waiver thinking you saved hassle, not realizing that carriers often make huge margins on those deals. We see rebates covering as little as 1/10 to 1/5 of total recovery eligibility.

That is money you legally own, left behind because the internal math looked "safe."

Or take approval rates.
I see teams celebrating a 40% win rate on loss claims because it beats their historical average. Meanwhile, shippers with cleaner data connectivity and automated documentation are hitting 90%+.

That gap isn't about effort. It’s about visibility.

Real leverage happens when you walk into a negotiation with more than just your own history. You need to know exactly where the carrier is failing against the market standard, not just your internal standard.

If you don't have external benchmarks, you aren't negotiating. You are guessing.

Stop asking if you’re better than you were last year.
Start asking if you’re capturing everything the market actually owes you.

Has external data changed a negotiation for you? Like & Comment if you've seen the difference.

03/18/2026

Transform claims filing into true recovery.

When I ask enterprise shippers about their recovery, the answer is almost always the same. "We’re good. My team handles it."

Usually, they pull up a report showing filing volume. Look at all this activity.

But activity isn't cash.

Most logistics teams are tracking how busy they are—filing rates, time spent, tickets opened. They aren't tracking the only metric that predicts financial health: dollars successfully reconciled in the bank account.

I’ve looked at spreadsheets from companies filing 2,000+ claims a week. On the surface, it looked like a machine. Digging into the data, though, we found documentation missing on huge chunks of volume.

The carrier denials were silent. The team was celebrating the filing rate while the recovery rate tanked.

That’s the difference between a filing operation and a recovering operation.

If you’ve waived your right to file claims in exchange for a rebate, the math is likely working against you. We consistently see those rebates covering only 1/10 to 1/5 of the total recovery eligibility.

That is a lot of money to leave on the table for the sake of convenience.

To know if you're actually optimized, you need to look at different benchmarks:

-> **The 80% Floor.** For loss claims without a carrier POD, any positive resolution rate below 80% means the process is leaking value.

-> **The "Stuck" Ratio.** How many claims are sitting in limbo waiting for data? This isn't just a backlog. In the claims world, time kills deal value.

-> **True Reconciliation.** Are you verifying that the check matched the claim? Filing is just the administrative start.

Stop measuring effort. Start measuring results.

Check your last monthly report. Does it tell you how many claims were filed, or how many dollars actually cleared?

Like & Comment "Recovery" if you're ready to see the real numbers.

03/16/2026

What your claims reports don't show.

Your internal claims reports detail what happened. They intentionally omit the critical insight: what *should* have happened. This omission creates a massive blind spot in performance optimization.

I see this dynamic constantly.

A Director of Logistics hands me a monthly report showing a 98% approval rate on filed claims. They feel solid about it. The team gets a win. The dashboard shows green.

But often, that report is masking a much bigger problem.

It’s measuring activity, not opportunity.

It tells you that of the 100 claims you filed, you won 98. What it fails to mention—because it literally cannot see it—is the 400 eligible claims that nobody ever filed because the data was disconnected, the carrier portal was down, or the eligibility window quietly expired while a human was busy doing something else.

We saw exactly this with ECS Tuning.

Sophisticated in-house team. Really solid internal processes. They genuinely believed they had this specific operational area locked down.

When we ran the independent validation, the reality was different.

-> They were losing over $200k a year.

Not because they were bad at filing claims. But because manual processes naturally leak value at scale. The "invisible" claims were eating their margins while their internal reporting said everything was fine.

The most dangerous data isn't the data that looks bad. It's the data that looks complete when it isn't.

If you are only measuring success against your own historical activity, you aren't actually optimizing. You are just codifying your existing limitations.

True control requires external benchmarks. You need to verify the total addressable recovery available to you, not just the pile of wins you managed to scrape together this week.

Don't trust the green light on the dashboard until you've verified the wiring behind it.

Have you ever audited your "missed" opportunities, or are you just tracking your wins?

Like & Comment if you think most internal dashboards are lying.

03/14/2026

Data confirms missed leverage in contract renewals.

Analysis of enterprise logistics patterns shows a consistent failure to leverage independent claims data during the 90-day pre-renewal period. This represents a systematic loss.

We see this timeline constantly.

A shipper walks into a negotiation with volume reports and internal KPIs that are all green. They feel prepared. They feel "good." But usually, they're measuring their performance against their own history—not against what the carrier is actually doing wrong.

The 90-day mark is the strategic sweet spot.

If you wait until 60 days, you're just trying to get signatures before the lights go out. 120 days is too loose. But at 90 days, you have time to build a case.

And the biggest piece of leverage most teams ignore?

The rebate trap.

So many organizations waive their right to file claims in exchange for a flat rebate. It sounds smart on paper. Less administrative work, guaranteed cash back.

But we've run the math on this across millions of shipments.

Those rebates typically cover only 1/10 to 1/5 of the total recovery eligibility.

Think about that math. You are essentially paying for the privilege of ignoring service failures.

When you bring independent data to the table—showing the actual rate of lost packages, damages, and delays that you *would* have claimed—the conversation shifts immediately.

You aren't asking for a favor. You're showing them a service failure rate that violates the agreement.

Claims rates inform true carrier performance.

That data is your leverage.

Don't walk into that room with just a volume report.

How are you prepping for your next carrier conversation?

03/13/2026

Data shows most claims recovery fails.

When a Director of Logistics tells me "we're good" on claims, they’re usually looking at a spreadsheet that measures effort.

Tickets opened.
Emails sent.
Hours spent.

They see a team that is working hard. And they are. But there is a massive difference between activity metrics and outcome metrics.

Activity is busy work. Outcome is money landing in the bank account.

Most internal reports miss the context that exists outside your four walls. We see this constantly with rebates. Companies waive their filing rights for a flat credit. It feels like a win. Less friction, guaranteed cash.

Then we run the independent benchmark.

-> The rebate usually covers 1/10 to 1/5 of actual eligibility.

That is the reality of the math. The carriers preserve high margins on those rebates because you don't have the visibility to contest it. You are trading dollars for pennies because the pennies are easier to count.

Even sophisticated teams miss things.

We looked at a company called ECS Tuning recently. They had a solid in-house process. Smart team. But manual coordination breaks when volume scales. We found >$200k/year in missed claims just sitting there. Not because they weren't trying. But because manual processes can't catch everything.

If you are 90 days out from a renewal, you need to know this.

This comes down to leverage.

Claims rates prove service failure. When you walk into a negotiation knowing exactly how often they failed you—backed by independent data—the conversation changes. You aren't asking for a favor. You're discussing performance.

Don't guess.

Check the outcome metrics.

Does your team rely on carrier reports or independent data? Like if you agree that third-party validation is essential.

03/12/2026

My data pinpoints your ideal renewal window.

Timing matters more than most enterprise shippers realize.

Honestly, most teams treat renewals like a calendar reminder. They set a date and hope for the best. But when we look at the actual data, there is a massive difference in outcome based on exactly when you start.

Too early? The data isn't actionable.
Too late? You've lost your leverage.

This reasoning breakdown shows how to think about pre-renewal assessment timing.

If you start 6 months out, you are analyzing a ghost.
Shipping profiles change fast. The data you pull in Q1 might look totally irrelevant by Q3 due to seasonal shifts or operational changes. You end up negotiating terms for a business profile that doesn't exist anymore.

Wait too long, and the dynamic flips.

Start at 60 days and the carrier knows they have you. You don't have time to work through complex deal points. You definitely don't have time to migrate volume. The clock becomes their best negotiator.

We have found the math is actually pretty simple.

⬇️ 120 Days: Okay, but you risk data decay.
⬇️ 60 Days: Dangerous. You are rushing, not strategizing.
⬇️ 90 Days: The absolute sweet spot.

Ninety days is the window where your data is fresh enough to be undeniable, but your runway is long enough to handle a real fight over terms.

You have time to analyze the counter-offers. You have time to push back.
Most importantly, you aren't staring down the barrel of an expiring agreement while trying to redline a contract.

Plan for the 90.

Agree with this timeline, or do you prefer a longer runway?

03/11/2026

Your "good enough" claims process costs revenue.

I hear it constantly. A shipper tells me, "We're good. We have a team handling it."

Or the other common one: "We took the rebate."

They genuinely believe they are covered. And why wouldn't they? If you look at internal reports, the numbers probably look steady. Stability feels like safety.

But internal benchmarks are dangerous.

They only tell you how you performed against yourself. They don't tell you that a best-in-class operation would have recovered significantly more from that exact same volume.

We see this gap every time we run a validation.

Take the rebate strategy.
It seems smart—you waive your right to file claims in exchange for a guaranteed kickback. Less work for your team.

But we've run the math on this.
Those rebates usually cover 1/10 to 1/5 of your total recovery eligibility.

The carriers are making a massive margin on your "convenience."

Or look at the internal teams. Even sophisticated ones.
I analyzed a shipper recently—smart people, good intentions. They were confident. But manual processes collapse under volume. We found they were missing over $200,000 a year simply because eligible claims were slipping through the cracks or lacked the specific documentation the carrier demanded.

Here is the hard metric we use:
If your success rate on loss claims (where there is no proof of delivery) is below 80% -> the process is not optimized.

You can't fix what you don't measure against reality.

The standard can't just be "are we filing?"
The standard has to be "are we recovering everything we're owed?"

Don't trust the feeling of safety until you've validated it with independent data.

Agree? Like if you think companies leave too much leverage on the table.

03/10/2026

Elevate claims from cost to leverage.
Shift your perspective from merely recouping dollars to using claims data as a game-changing asset.

When I hear a shipper say "we're good" on claims, it usually means their process isn't broken and the money flowing back matches what they saw last year. They are benchmarking against their own history.

But history is a terrible metric if the baseline was flawed to begin with.

We see sophisticated teams—companies with full internal departments—who waive their filing rights in exchange for a carrier rebate. It feels like a win. You delete the administrative headache and get a guaranteed discount. Efficient, right?

Until you run the math on what you gave up.

We consistently see those rebates covering only 1/10 to 1/5 of the total recovery eligibility. That means the carrier is capturing a massive margin on that "efficiency" deal while the shipper bleeds value they don't even know exists.

Take a group we analyzed recently. Let's call them ECS.

They had a sharp in-house team. Smart people. Robust process. But manual processes at scale have invisible friction points, and we found over $200k annually in eligible claims that were just... dissolving.

The cash recovery is important, obviously.

But the bigger loss is the data.

When you don't file or when you accept a rebate, you stop logging the service failures. You lose the paper trail that proves the carrier isn't hitting their service level agreements.

So when you walk into that critical 90-day negotiation window before renewal, you have no leverage. You are negotiating based on spend, not performance.

Claims aren't just about getting $100 back on a lost box. They are the only way to force the carrier to own their mistakes and give you the upper hand when it matters most.

Like this if you think carriers bank on us being too "busy" to do the math.

03/09/2026

The metric hiding your enterprise's six-figure loss.

Most enterprise shippers track claim submission rates religiously. They have dashboards that light up green when the team files a claim, and honestly, it feels like a win. The box was lost, the claim was filed. Job done.

But almost none track the gap between submitted and approved.

This approval rate gap is where six figures disappear quarterly. It is hidden in plain sight because nobody thinks to measure it until it's too late.

I see this constantly. A Director of Logistics tells me "We're good, we have a team for that." They show me a report saying they filed $500k in claims. Then we look at the actual bank deposits and the reality hits hard.

Actual recovery? Maybe $250k.

Where did the rest go? usually into the void of administrative friction.

-> Documentation was missing or incomplete
-> The filing window expired while the team was manually chasing data
-> The carrier denied it and nobody had the time to fight back

Here is the hard truth I've found from looking at the data: If your positive resolution rate for loss claims (without proof of delivery) is below 80%, your process is broken. You aren't "good." You are effectively donating margin back to your carriers.

And rebates are even trickier.

Some shippers waive their right to file claims for a small upfront discount. It sounds efficient. But we have seen those rebates cover maybe 1/10th of what you would have recovered if you actually filed the claims properly. The carriers are making a massive margin on that spread.

The frustration is valid because this usually isn't a people problem. Your team is likely working incredibly hard.

The issue is that when you can't connect the carrier data to the order data instantly, you lose leverage.

So forget the submission report for a minute. Go look at the actual deposits.

Does your approval rate match your effort?

Like this post if you've seen this gap in your own reports... or if you're scared to look.

03/07/2026

Your shipping data has a hidden expiration date.

I see enterprise teams pull a Q3 report to plan for Q1 and assume they have a solid baseline. They treat the numbers like they're carved in stone.

But shipping data decays fast. It isn't like financial records that stay relevant for years. It’s operational exhaust, and it spoils.

If you are looking at a report from September to judge performance today, you're missing the two things that actually matter.

-> Hard eligibility windows. By the time that quarterly review meeting happens, the filing window for those claims has often already slammed shut. You aren't analyzing an opportunity; you're autopsying a loss.

-> Variable carrier strain. Carrier performance changes wildly based on their volume load. The service failure rate in a "quiet" month predicts absolutely nothing about how they handle your freight during high-volume periods.

We see this variance constantly.

A shipper might have a 90% success rate on loss claims one month. Then documentation standards drift, or the carrier tightens a specific inspection process, and that rate drops. If you're relying on a static benchmark from three months ago, you won't even know you're bleeding cash until the next audit.

That is why "we're good" is such a dangerous phrase in logistics.

It usually means "we were good three months ago."

You need fresh benchmarks. You need to know what the carriers are doing with your packages right now, not what they did last season.

Does your team rely on quarterly lookbacks or live data streams?

Like & Comment if you think static reporting is dead...

03/06/2026

Shift renewal assumptions to validation.

When I talk to enterprise shippers about their carrier contracts, the most common answer I get is "we're good."

Usually because they see tickets being opened. Or they took a rebate to avoid the hassle entirely.

But when we actually look at the data, "good" often looks like leaving huge leverage on the table.

Take the rebate waiver. It feels like a win—no work, guaranteed cash. But we consistently see that those rebates cover maybe 1/10 to 1/5 of the total recovery eligibility.

You are effectively trading a dollar for a dime just to avoid administrative friction.

The other trap is tracking volume instead of value.

Internal teams report on claims filed. It looks like work is happening. But filing isn't funding.

I've analyzed "sophisticated" in-house teams that were bleeding over $200k a year simply because documentation wasn't perfect or the carrier portal made status updates impossible to track.

If you are within 90 days of a renewal, this is the leverage that matters.

Validation doesn't have to take months. It takes days.

-> Connect the data streams
-> See where the documentation is failing
-> Identify exactly how much cash is stuck in the pipes

Stop negotiating based on what you hope is happening in your operations. Negotiate based on the money that should be in your bank account.

How does your team measure success—by the number of claims filed or the actual dollars recovered?

Like & Comment if you've seen this gap in your own reports 👇

ShipScience

03/19/2026

03/18/2026

03/16/2026

03/14/2026

03/13/2026

03/12/2026

03/11/2026

03/10/2026

03/09/2026

03/07/2026

03/06/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category