international express 2011 - admin.inxpress.com.au international express... · dhl fedex ups tnt...

International Express Market Survey 2011

Results and analysis of Ti’s International Express Parcels surveyFebruary 2011

Transport Intelligence’s products and services include:

• Daily and weekly newsletters

• Market and competitor monitoring

• Market reports including trend analysis, market sizing, market share, forecasting and ranking

• Ti Dashboard – a selection of economic and industry data/charts

• Unparalleled access to TI’s entire research output through the Global Supply Chain Intelligence website www.gscintell.com

• Dedicated research and client surveys

• Acquisition/agent/partner search and marketing due diligence

For more information about these services and to sign up to the free Transport Intelligence newsletter go to www.transportintelligence.com

About Ti

http://www.transportintelligence.com/

1.0 Introduction 4

2.0 Shipper survey – Global 5

3.0 Shipper survey – Europe 40

4.0 Shipper survey – North America 54

5.0 Shipper survey – Asia 68

6.0 Carrier survey 82

Contents

• In January 2011, Ti undertook an extensive electronic ‘usage and perception’ survey examining the state of the global international express segment.

• Senior industry executives from both the demand (i.e. Shipper) and supply (i.e. Express) segments took part in the survey.

• All the major regions were represented providing a Global, European, Middle Eastern, North American and Asian perspective.

• Executives were asked to share their perspective on market growth and prospects as well as the performance of their suppliers.

• In total, 526 individuals participated in this survey, 390 from the demand side (including manufacturers, retailers, logistics companies, banks, the public sector, etc.) and 136 from the express industry itself.

Introduction

1.0

The 390 users of express services (shippers) classified themselves into the following industry segments.

The largest segments were other logistics companies (57%) and manufacturers (19%).

Shipper survey ‐ Industry classification

2.019%

4%

57%

5%2% 13%

Manufacturer RetailerLogistics companies Banks / financial institutionsPublic setcor Other

Global – Main express carriers used

2.1The respondents were asked to name the first, second and third choice of international express parcel operators that they used on a regular basis.

DHL was the most popular carrier, accounting for 33% of all mentions, followed by FedEx, UPS (21%) and TNT (16%).

In terms of first choice DHL was by far the most popular (42%), followed by FedEx (21%), UPS (18%) and TNT (10%).

33%

21%21%

16%

2% 1%1%

2% 3% DHLFedExUPSTNTAramexChronopostGLSDPDOther

Global ‐ Users Rating of Importance of Express Services

2.2

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Dedicated customer service

Price

Reliability

Track and trace capabilities

Late cut off times

Delivery time optionsTransit times

Global coverage

Range of value added services

Customs clearance capabilities

Security

The respondents were asked to rate the importance of a number of key service attributes, 5 being most important and 1 being least important.

Reliability was judged to be the most important attribute (4.74) followed by Price (4.49) and Track & Trace (4.46). Range of delivery time options (3.84) and Range of value added services (3.55) were the least important.

Global ‐ Users Rating of Express Carriers’ Performance

2.3

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Dedicated customer service representative

Price

Reliability


Late cut off timesDelivery time options (eg before 10am etc)Transit times

Global coverage



Security

The respondents were then asked to rate their main service provider on the same basis (5 strongest – 1 weakest) against the same set of metrics. From this data, an industry average performance rating was calculated.

The industry scored most highly on Reliability (4.36), Transit times (4.34), Price (4.25) and Delivery time options (4.15) and poorest on Range of value added options and Track and Trace (3.84).

Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance

2.4

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off timesDelivery time

optionsTransit times

Global coverage



Security

Importance of Service Express Company Performance

5 being most important and 1 being least important

Using the two sets of data, it was then possible to identify the gap between user aspiration and carrier delivery.

Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance

Reliability PriceTrack & Trace Security

Transit times

Global coverage


Late cut off times

Customs clearance

Deliverytime

options

Range of

value added

servicesImportance of

Service 4.74 4.49 4.46 4.36 4.30 4.16 4.07 4.01 3.96 3.84 3.55

Performance 4.36 4.25 3.84 4.12 4.34 3.82 3.88 3.93 4.12 4.15 3.86

Gap 0.37 0.24 0.62 0.24 -0.04 0.34 0.19 0.09 -0.17 -0.31 -0.31% under/over

aspiration 9% 6% 16% 6% -1% 9% 5% 2% -4% -7% -8%

The performance metrics are ranked in order of importance to users from left to right.

Although carriers score highest on ‘Reliability’, they still fall short of user aspiration (9% deficit). The largest discrepancy occurs in ‘Track & Trace’ where carriers’ performance was 16% below user aspiration.

The industry as a whole however exceeds expectations on the least important metrics (‘Customs Clearance’, ‘Delivery Time Options’ and ‘Range of Value added Services’).

2.4

Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and DHL’s Performance

2.5

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Dedicated customer service representative

Price

Reliability


Late cut off times

Delivery time options (eg before 10am etc)Transit times

Global coverage



Security

Importance of Service DHL's Performance

The chart below shows the rating of each service attribute provided for DHL by its customers.

2.5Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and DHL’s Performance

Reliability Price

Trackand

trace

SecurityTransit times

Global coverage

Customs clearance

Late cut off times

Deliverytime

options

Dedicated customerservices


Importance of Service 4.76 4.44 4.38 4.38 4.32 4.19 4.11 3.98 3.86 3.74 3.60

Performance 4.28 3.85 4.38 4.15 4.13 4.53 3.95 3.85 3.86 3.87 3.87

Gap 0.48 0.59 0.00 0.22 0.20 -0.34 0.16 0.14 0.00 -0.14 -0.27% under/over

aspiration 11% 15% 0% 5% 5% -7% 4% 4% 0% -4% -7%

The performance metrics are ranked in order of importance to DHL’s specific customers from left to right.

On ‘Reliability’ and ‘Price’, the two most important attributes for its customers, it under‐achieved by 11% and 15% respectively.

It exceeded customer aspiration on the metrics of ‘Global Coverage’, ‘Dedicated Customer Services’ and ‘Range of Value Added Services’ and met expectations on ‘Track & Trace’ and ‘Delivery Time Options’.

Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and FedEx’s Performance

2.6

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Dedicated customer services

Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage



Security

Importance of Service FedEx's Performance

The chart below shows the rating of each service attribute provided for FedEx by its customers.

2.6Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and FedEx’s Performance

The performance metrics are ranked in order of importance to FedEx’s specific customers from left to right.

On ‘Reliability’ and ‘Price’, the two most important attributes for its customers, it under‐achieved by 11% and 16% respectively.

It exceeded customer aspiration on the third most important metric ‘Track & Trace’ as well as ‘Global Coverage’, ‘Delivery Time Options’ and ‘Range of Value Added Services’ and met expectations on ‘Dedicated Customer Services’.

Reliability Price

Track&

Trace

Customs clearance

capabilities SecurityTransit times

Global coverage

Late cut off times


Delivery

time options

Range of

value added


Service 4.80 4.54 4.51 4.45 4.45 4.42 4.26 4.03 3.91 3.86 3.48Performance 4.33 3.92 4.56 3.92 4.27 4.22 4.40 3.97 3.92 4.00 3.86

Gap 0.47 0.62 -0.05 0.53 0.18 0.19 -0.14 0.06 -0.01 -0.14 -0.38% under/over

aspiration 11% 16% -1% 13% 4% 5% -3% 2% 0% -3% -10%

Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and UPS’ Performance

2.7

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage



Security

Importance of Service UPS' Performance

The chart below shows the rating of each service attribute provided for UPS by its customers.

2.7Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and UPS’ Performance

The performance metrics are ranked in order of importance to UPS specific customers from left to right.

On ‘Reliability’ and ‘Track & trace’, the two most important attributes for its customers, it under‐achieved by 10% and 3% respectively. ‘Price’ was the third most important metric, which it missed by 9%.

However it exceeded customer aspiration on ‘Global Coverage’, ‘Transit Times’ as well as the three least important attributes.

ReliabilityTrack & Trace Price

Global coverage

Transit times Security

Late cut off

times

Dedicatecustomerservices

d

Delivery time

options

Customs clearance

capabilities

Range of value added


Service 4.80 4.59 4.46 4.26 4.24 4.22 4.15 4.09 3.96 3.72 3.65Performance 4.36 4.48 4.10 4.48 4.32 4.12 3.84 3.82 4.10 3.84 3.82

Gap 0.44 0.11 0.36 -0.22 -0.08 0.10 0.31 0.27 -0.14 -0.12 -0.17% under/over

aspiration 10% 3% 9% -5% -2% 2% 8% 7% -3% -3% -4%

Global ‐ Comparison between Users Importance and TNT’s Performance

2.8

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage



Security

Importance of Service TNT's Performance

The chart below shows the rating of each service attribute provided for TNT by its customers.

2.8Global ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and TNT’s Performance

The performance metrics are ranked in order of importance to TNT specific customers from left to right.

On ‘Reliability’ and ‘Price’, the two most important attributes for its customers, it under‐achieved by 23% and 28% respectively. ‘Track & Trace’ was the third most important metric, which it missed by 12%.

TNT exceeded customer aspiration on ‘Delivery Time Options’ and ‘Range of Value Added Services’.

Reliability PriceTrack & Trace


Global coverage


Late cut off

times

Customs clearance

capabilities

Deliverytime

options

Range of

value added


Service 4.71 4.63 4.46 4.23 4.23 4.20 4.11 4.06 3.91 3.71 3.31

Performance 3.84 3.63 3.97 3.91 3.91 4.06 3.84 3.78 3.81 3.88 3.81

Performance Gap 0.87 1.00 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.14 0.27 0.28 0.10 -0.16 -0.50% under/over

aspiration 23% 28% 12% 8% 8% 3% 7% 7% 3% -4% -13%

Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance ‐ Dedicated Customer Services

2.9

3.50

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

DHL FedEx UPS TNT

Customer Expectations

Companies’ performance compared with total sample service expectations

Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance ‐ Price

2.10

3.50

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.30

4.50

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance ‐Reliability

2.11

3.50

3.70

3.90

4.10

4.30

4.50

4.70

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance –Track & Trace Capabilities

2.12

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

4.60

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance – Late Cut Off Times

2.13

3.65

3.70

3.75

3.80

3.85

3.90

3.95

4.00

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance –Delivery Time Options

2.14

3.70

3.75

3.80

3.85

3.90

3.95

4.00

4.05

4.10

4.15

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance –Transit Times

2.15

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance –Global Coverage

2.16

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

4.50

4.60

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance – Range of Value Added Services

2.17

3.50

3.55

3.60

3.65

3.70

3.75

3.80

3.85

3.90

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance –Customs Clearance Capabilities

2.18

3.70

3.75

3.80

3.85

3.90

3.95

4.00

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Major Express Carriers Performance –Security

2.19

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

DHL FedEx UPS TNT



Global ‐Which Express Operator has the Strongest Brand Globally?

2.20

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

DHL FedEx UPS TNT

DHL was selected by the majority of respondents as having the strongest brand, followed by FedEx, UPS and TNT.

Global ‐ How have Express Parcel Rates Changed over the Past Year?

2.21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

IncreaseDecreaseNo Change

By far the most number of respondents saw no change in rates in 2010. The most frequent change of rates was in the range 1‐5% with a significant number in the 6‐10% range.

Global ‐ How are Express Parcel Rates Expected to Change in the Coming Year?

2.22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Asked how they expected express parcel rates to change in 2011, the overwhelming majority of respondents replied that they expected them to remain the same.

Global ‐Which Value Added Services are Most Commonly Used?

2.23

0102030405060708090

100

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

A significant number of respondents did not use Value Added Services. Of those that did, the most popular was ‘Returns’. This was followed by ‘Import Express’ and ‘Pick & Pack’.

Global ‐ Customers’ Use of Time Sensitive Options

2.24

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pre-8am Pre-9am Pre-10.30am Pre-12am Pre-1pm Close of business

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

71% of the sample used time sensitive options. The most popular was pre‐10.30am delivery.

Global ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options has Changed in the Past Year

2.25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Although overall there has been little change in the usage of time sensitive options in the last year, a significant number chose to increase their usage by between 1‐10% showing a trend to higher value products.

Global ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

2.26

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of P

artic

ipan

ts


This trend is confirmed by the significant number of respondents who said that they will increase their usage of time sensitive options in the coming year.

Global ‐ Average Weight of Items Shipped

2.27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Less than 100

grams

100 grams to

500 grams

500 grams to

1kg

1kg to 5kg

5kg to 10kg

10kg to 20kg

20kg to 30kg

Over 30kg

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

As can be seen from the chart the most frequent weight range of goods shipped by international express carriers was between 1‐5kg.

Global ‐ How the Weight of Items Shipped is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

2.28

0

50

100

150

200

250

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

IncreaseDecreaseNo change

Although the vast majority of respondents believe that the weight of goods per item they ship in 2011 will stay the same, there is an upward trend.

Global ‐Main Reasons Cited for not Using one of the ‘Big Four’ Express Carriers

2.29

05

101520253035404550

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

‘Local knowledge’ was cited as the main reason for not using one of the ‘Big Four’ international express carriers. This was closely followed by ‘Better Rates’.

Europe – Main International Express Carriers Used in Europe

3.0

46%

27%

6%

12%9%

DHLUPSFedExTNTOther

The respondents were asked to name the first, second and third choice of international express parcel operators that they used on a regular basis.

DHL was the most popular carrier, accounting for 32% of all mentions, followed by UPS(25%), TNT(23%) and FedEx(10%).

In terms of ‘main carrier’ DHL was by far the most frequent mention(46%), followed by UPS (27%), TNT (12%) and FedEx(6%).

Europe – Users’ Rating of Importance of Express Services

3.1


-1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage



Security


As in the ‘Global’ survey population ‘Reliability’ was judged to be the most important attribute (4.73) followed by ‘Price’ (4.60) and ‘Track & Trace’ (4.37). ‘Customs clearance capabilities’ (3.74) and ‘Range of value added services’ (3.26) were the least important.

Europe – Users’ Rating of Express Carriers’ Performance

3.2


1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Dedicated customer …

Price

Reliability




Global coverage


Customs clearance …

Security


The industry scored most highly on Global Coverage (4.26), Track & Trace (4.20), Reliability (4.16) and poorest on ‘Range of value added options’ and ‘Dedicated customer service’ (3.61).

Europe ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance

3.3

-

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage


Customs clearance

capabilities

Security


Using the two sets of data, it was then possible to identify the gap between user aspiration and carrier delivery.

Europe ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance


The largest gaps between users’ rating of service attribute importance and carrier performance occur in the two most highly rated metrics: ‘Reliability’ and ‘Price’. Here the industry falls short significantly, by 14% and 22% respectively.

3.4

Reliability PriceTrack & Trace


Late cut off times

Global coverage


d

Delivery time

optionsCustoms clearance


services

Importance of Service 4.73 4.60 4.37 4.22 4.22 4.03 3.89 3.84 3.80 3.74 3.26

Performance 4.16 3.78 4.20 4.08 3.99 3.76 4.26 3.61 3.84 3.78 3.61

Gap 0.57 0.83 0.17 0.13 0.23 0.27 -0.37 0.23 -0.04 -0.03 -0.35% under/over

aspiration14% 22% 4% 3% 6% 7% -9% 6% -1% -1% -10%

Europe ‐Which Express Operator has the Strongest Brand in Europe?

3.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

DHL FedEx UPS TNT Chronopost DPD

Over 60% of the European sample said that DHL had the strongest brand in Europe.

Europe ‐ How have Express Parcel Rates Changed Over the Past Year?

3.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

31% +

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Whereas globally the vast majority of respondents indicated that rates had not changed in the previous year, in Europe there seems to a far more positive trend to increasing rates.

Europe ‐ How are Express Parcel Rates Expected to Change in the Coming Year?

3.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

No change

1% to 5% 6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


This trend was confirmed by the significant number of respondents who thought that rates would increase between 1‐5% in 2011.

Europe ‐Which Value Added Services are Most Commonly Used?

3.8

05

101520253035

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

In Europe, as in the global sample, ‘Returns’ are the most commonly used value added service. However ‘dangerous goods’ services are also popular.

Europe ‐ Customers’ Use of Time Sensitive Options

3.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

70% of the European sample used time sensitive options when shipping parcels. As globally, pre‐10.30am is the most popular option.

Europe ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options has Changed in the Past Year

3.10

05

101520253035404550

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


From the survey, there seems very little change in the usage of time sensitive options in the past year in Europe.

Europe ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

3.11

05

101520253035404550

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


This status quo looks likely to continue in 2011, although there does seem slightly more enthusiasm for higher value products.

Europe ‐ How the Weight of Items Shipped is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

3.12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


There is very little indication from the survey that weight per item shipped will increase in 2011.

Europe ‐Main Reasons Cited for not Using one of the ‘Big Four’ Express Carriers

3.13

02468

101214

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

When European respondents to the survey were asked why they would use an express carrier outside of the ‘Big 4’, ‘Local Knowledge’ was mentioned most frequently.

North America - Main Express Carriers Used in North America

4.0

16%

29%47%

2%6%

DHLUPSFedExAramexOther

The respondents were asked to name the first, second and third choice of international express parcel operators that they used on a regular basis.

FedEx and UPS were the most popular carriers, accounting for 32% of all mentions each, followed by DHL(30%) and TNT(7%).

In terms of ‘main carrier’ FedEx was the most frequent mentioned (47%), followed by UPS (29%) and DHL(16%).

North America – Users’ Rating of Importance of Express Services

4.1


1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage



Security


As in the ‘Global’ survey population ‘Reliability’ was judged to be the most important attribute (4.66) followed by ‘Price’ (4.45) and ‘Track & Trace’ (4.4.36). ‘Delivery time options’ (3.83) and ‘Range of value added services’ (3.53) were the least important.

North America – Users’ Rating of Express Carriers’ Performance

4.2


1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times

Delivery time options (eg …Transit times

Global coverage



Security


The industry scored most highly on Track & Trace (4.46), Reliability (4.32) and poorest on ‘Customs Clearance Capabilities’ (3.82).

North America - Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance

4.3

-1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


Price

Reliability


Late cut off times


Global coverage



Security



Using the two sets of data, it is possible to identify the gap between user aspiration and carrier delivery.

North America ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance


The largest gaps between users’ rating of service attribute importance and carrier performance occur in the two most highly rated metrics: ‘Reliability’ and ‘Price’. Here the industry falls short, by 8% and 14% respectively. However compared with Europe, providers’ services seem more matched to the needs of their clients.

4.4

Reliability Price Track & Trace Security Transit

timesLate cut off times


d Global

coverageCustoms clearance

Deliverytime

options


services

Importanceof Service

4.66 4.45 4.36 4.25 4.09 4.06 3.98 3.92 3.87 3.83 3.53

Performance 4.32 3.92 4.46 4.04 4.10 3.92 3.82 4.10 3.82 4.04 3.84 Gap 0.34 0.53 -0.10 0.21 -0.01 0.14 0.16 -0.18 0.05 -0.21 -0.31%

under/over aspiration 8% 14% -2% 5% 0% 3% 4% -4% 1% -5% -8%

North America - Which Express Operator has the Strongest Brand?

4.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

DHL FedEx UPS

When asked which international express company had the strongest brand in North America, UPS received the most mentions, followed by DHL.

North America - How have Express Parcel Rates Changed Over the Past Year?

4.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

31% +

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Although a significant number stated that they had seen no change, the majority of respondents had seen an increase in rates either between 1‐5% or 6‐10%.

North America ‐ How are Express Parcel Rates Expected to Change in the Coming Year?

4.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

31% +

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Most respondents believe that rates will increase by between 1‐5% in 2011.

North America ‐Which Value Added Services are Most Commonly Used?

4.8

02468

1012141618

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

As in Europe, the most frequently used value added service was ‘Returns’ followed by ‘Dangerous Goods’ services and ‘Import Express’.

North America ‐ Customers’ Use of Time Sensitive Options

4.9

0

5

10

15

20

25


No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

73% of the North American sample used time sensitive options. Pre‐10.30am options were the most popular.

North America ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options has Changed in the Past Year

4.10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


There has been very little change in the use of time sensitive products in North America in the last year.

North America ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

4.11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Most respondents indicated that there would be no change in their usage of time sensitive products in 2011.

North America ‐ How the Weight of Items Shipped is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

4.12

05

101520253035404550

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of P

artic

ipan

ts


As far as average weight per item shipped is concerned, this looks likely to remain the same in 2011.

North America ‐Main Reasons Cited for not Using one of the ‘Big Four’ Express Carriers

4.13

0123456789

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

For those shippers who decided not to use one of the ‘Big Four’ international express parcels carriers, ‘Better rates’ was the main motivation.

Asia - Main Express Carriers Used

5.044%

8%18%

14%

16%

DHLUPSFedExTNTOther

DHL was by far the most frequently used international express carrier in Asia, accounting for 44% of mentions. FedEx was second (18%) followed by TNT (14%) and UPS (8%).

Asia – Users’ Rating of Importance of Express Services

5.1


1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


Price

Reliability



options Transit times

Global coverage



Security

‘Reliability’ was judged to be the most important attribute (4.68) followed by ‘Security’ (4.55) and ‘Track & Trace’ (4.53). It is interesting to note that the issue of ‘Security’ is far more important for shippers in Asia than in either Europe or North America.

The ‘Range of value added services’ (3.73) was the least important service attribute.

Asia – Users’ Rating of Express Carriers’ Performance

5.2


1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00


Price

Reliability




Global coverage



Security

The respondents were then asked to rate their main service provider on the same basis (5 strongest – 1 weakest) against the same set of metrics.

The industry scored most highly on ‘Global Coverage’ (4.42), ‘Track & Trace’ (4.32) and poorest on ‘Customs Clearance Capabilities’ (3.68).

Asia ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance

5.3

5 being most important /strongest and 1 being least important/weakest

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00


Price

Reliability



options Transit times

Global coverage


Customs clearance

capabilities

Security


Using the two sets of data, it is possible to identify the gap between user aspiration and carrier delivery.

Asia ‐ Comparison between Users’ Importance and Carriers’ Performance


The largest gaps between users’ rating of service attribute importance and carrier performance occur in ‘Price’ and ‘Dedicated Customer Services’ (12%). There is also a significant gap in ‘Reliability’ (10%) and ‘Security’ (9%), the two most important attributes for shippers.

5.4

Reliability Security Track & Trace Price Transit

times


d Global

coverageLate cut off times

Delivery time

options

Customs clearance


services

Importance of Service

4.68 4.55 4.53 4.48 4.35 4.32 4.24 3.94 3.94 3.94 3.73

Performance4.23 4.17 4.32 4.02 4.13 3.85 4.42 3.70 3.83 3.68 3.70

Gap0.44 0.38 0.22 0.47 0.22 0.47 -0.17 0.24 0.10 0.25 0.03

% under/over aspiration

10% 9% 5% 12% 5% 12% -4% 6% 3% 7% 1%

Asia ‐Which Express Operator has the Strongest Brand in Asia?

5.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

DHL FedEx UPS TNT GLS

When asked to judge which international express carrier had the strongest brand in the region, three quarters of respondents chose DHL.

Asia – How have Express Parcel Rates Changed Over the Past Year?

5.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

31% +

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


It can be seen from the chart below that although a significant number of respondents had seen no change in express parcels rates, the majority had experienced increases. The largest single range of increase was between 1‐5%, but many had seen rises of 6% and over.

Asia ‐ How are Express Parcel Rates Expected to Change in the Coming Year?

5.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

No change 1% to 5% 6% to 10% 11% to 15%16% to 20%

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Continued increases are expected in the coming year, with 1‐5% being the range most frequently selected by respondents.

Asia ‐Which Value Added Services are Most Commonly Used?

5.8

02468

101214161820

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

Whereas ‘Returns’ was the most frequently selected Value Added Service in other regions, in Asia it seems that ‘Import Express’ and ‘Pick and Pack’ are most popular.

Asia ‐ Customers’ Use of Time Sensitive Options

5.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18


No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

77% of the sample in Asia used Time Sensitive Options. The most popular, as elsewhere is Pre‐10.30 am.

Asia ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options has Changed in the Past Year

5.10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No change

1% to 5% 6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


Although most respondents saw no change in their use of time sensitive options, there was a trend to increased usage of higher value products.

Asia ‐ How the Usage of Time Sensitive Options is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

5.11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


This trend looks set to continue into 2011, although most respondents do not anticipate increasing their usage of time sensitive options.

Asia ‐ How the Weight of Items Shipped is Expected to Change in the Coming Year

5.12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

No change

1% to 5%

6% to 10%

11% to 15%

16% to 20%

21% to 25%

26% to 30%

30+

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts


There seems to be a trend towards a higher weight per item shipped in the Asian region, with significant numbers of respondents stating that they expected increases in parcel weight of between 11‐15%.

Asia ‐Main Reasons Cited for not Using one of the ‘Big Four’ Express Carriers

5.13

02468

1012141618

No

of p

artic

ipan

ts

In Asia, it seems that the main reason for not using one of the ‘Big Four’ express operators is ‘Local Knowledge’ and ‘Better rates’ available.

International Express Carriers’ Survey

6.0The 134 providers of international express services which took part in the survey classified their main region of operation as the following:

Global54%

Western Europe18%

Asia13%

North America5%

Middle East / North Africa

4%

Eastern Europe (including Russia

and CIS)3%

Latin America2%

Sub‐Saharan Africa1%

Express Carriers – Markets in which Greater than Average Growth has been Experienced

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Respondents were asked to name the geographic markets in which their companies had experienced the highest growth in the past year. Asia Pacific generally, followed by China and India specifically, were the strongest growth regions.

6.1

Express Carriers – Most Popular Geographical Markets for Expansion in the Past Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Asia Pacific is the leading market for expansion, followed by India and China. Expansion, as might be expected, follows closely the regions where most growth has been experienced.

6.2

Express Carriers ‐ Expansion into New Geographical Markets in 2011

16%

14%

14%

13%9%

8%

8%

5%5%

5% 3%Asia Pacific

None

South America

China

Africa

India

Western Europe

Middle East

Eastern Europe

Russia

USA

Asia Pacific is the most popular region for expansion in the coming year. However it is notable that South America and Africa are high on companies’ investment priorities 6.3

Carriers’ survey ‐Which Vertical Sectors Represent the Greatest Opportunities?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

The survey found that the Healthcare/Pharmaceutical industry was considered to have the most opportunities by the greatest number of respondents. This was followed by ‘High Tech’. At the other end of the scale Defence, Mining and Utilities were perceived to hold out little potential.

6.4

Contact Transport Intelligence

For more information about the information contained with this report or about any of Ti’s products and services contact :

Transport Intelligence Ltd

Global Head Office: +44 (0)1793 850025

Or email:

Sarah Smith: [email protected]

www.transportintelligence.com

international express 2011 - admin.inxpress.com.au international express... · dhl fedex ups tnt...

Documents