What the research says about direct carrier capacity.

MIT: Asset carriers vs. non-asset providers

Asset-based primary carriers were approximately five times more likely to stick to contract-priced loads than non-asset providers, in both soft and tight markets.

5×

more likely to stick to contract-priced loads

MIT: The cost of routing-guide failure

MIT research found that average backup-carrier prices were approximately 9–12% above contract prices, depending on routing-guide depth, while average spot rates were approximately 23–35% above contract rates, depending on market conditions.

+9–12%

backup-carrier premium over contract; spot market +23–35%

Hershey: Carrier relationships and capacity commitment

A 2007 study based on data and expertise provided by The Hershey Company found that closer shipper-carrier relationships significantly influenced carriers’ willingness to commit assets and accept loads during periods of constrained transportation capacity.

Capacity

closer relationships influenced willingness to commit assets and accept loads when capacity was constrained

National retailer moves from non-asset providers to an asset-based model

A national retail chain that had relied substantially on non-asset providers for more than ten years moved its recurring freight toward an asset-based model.

16 → 22

lanes awarded after the first year

Drewry: Moving part of a network direct to carriers

An ocean-freight procurement case, not truckload: about 25% of a global retailer’s volume moved to direct carrier contracts.

25%

of volume ultimately allocated directly to carriers

MIT FreightLab: Where brokers have the advantage

The research doesn’t say “never use a broker.” On historically volatile-demand lanes, shipments were 2.3× more likely to be accepted by brokers than asset carriers, and unexpected surge shipments were roughly 2× more likely to be accepted by a broker.

2.3×

more likely to be accepted by brokers on historically volatile-demand lanes