Bike manufacturer sees huge reduction in delivery damage by printing TV on box
medium.com
medium.com
...I'll see myself out.
>"One disheartening result was that our package received more abuse when marked "Fragile" or "This Side Up." The carriers flipped the package more, and it registered above-average acceleration spikes during trips for which we requested careful treatment."
[0] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/a6284/whi...
On the other hand, I doubt this technique has been tried with hundreds of bikes yet either. So everything about these statements could just be worthless information I suppose.
They gave him the most space when he was wearing a long blonde wig.
http://archive.cosmosmagazine.com/news/blonde-wigs-safer-hel...
It would be interesting to see if the effect is reproducible under better experimental controls, such as analyzing video recordings from places where there is a lot of mixed car and bike traffic. Of course the analysis would have to be automated to avoid bias.
The data could then be combined with an estimate of the actual increase of crash risk correlated with passing distance, e.g., how many crashes are due to drivers passing too closely. What actual risk is being influenced here?
In my experience (anecdotal of course) of near-misses, the drivers were not aware of my presence at all, typically because they only look for what they expect to see. It's hard to imagine a mechanism in their brains, scanning for helmets but not cyclists.
In particular, your read is in a completely different direction than mine which is:
1. Premise (GGGP): TV boxes printed (by printers) depicting bicycles on the outside.
2. Joke (GGP): TV manufacturers are threatened by printing companies demanding protection money, which if not paid will result in printers depicting bicycles on the outside of boxes containing manufacturers' TVs.
Your read is much more sophisticated than mine and, in my opinion, is a fairly novel and creative joke, at least neutral if not intriguing.
While the joke I see is predictable to the point of tedium, I'm not sure it's so bad or offensive it's worth hitting GGP's karma.
EDIT: formatting
Spot on comparison though. Just proves that millions of years of evolution has solved a bunch of problems for us if we know where to look.
[edit] Uh, maybe not so cheap from this particular company. You probably could do this for less with a little electronic device.
Thanks for the link, these little devices are super interesting!
But the best was reading that they are delivered by truck (to avoid airplanes shocks?)
And would be funny too receive a box and find that all your 50 units were activated due to their delivery:-)
SOC (system on chip) computers are now in roughly the $5 range, less in cases. Costs fall by roughly an order of magnitude a decade (Moore's Law, generalised). So we're looking at a world of $5 heading to $0.50 complete system indicators, with a battery life (think an Amazon Kindle) which can easily extend weeks, possibly months. In fact the battery is probably the most expensive part of this.
Simple systems could be even simpler.
You can create a datalogger which notes every single acceleration noted by a package from the time it leaves the factory, down the the second. Wireless capability means it can log in and report periodically en route, whenever it finds itself within WiFi range.
For sufficiently expensive goods (anything over about $100 in price), this becomes a part of the shipping package. Even if you're not getting 100% reporting at endpoint, the data trail itself is going to be sufficient to point out where and when within the delivery chain problems occur.
Shippers (that is, the originator of the goods) and their insurance carriers will likely collectively have sufficient leverage to open carriers (the shipping companies -- FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc.) to identify where within their own process the damage occurred. Hotspots -- locations or transport segments with high-damage incidence -- will be pretty much immediately obvious. Even just a few hundred tracers would provide that information.
We're headed to a world of highly inexpensive devices and if not ubiquitous, highly probably WiFi access at multiple endpoints. Self-logging of this sort seems exceptionally probably.
Adding general 4GL WiFi access and even just a few minutes of data transfer capability should be possible for little more, and would allow systems to phone home directly.
It would surprise me if much of this doesn't already exist.
edit: so, in reply, I sincerely hope so.
Either TVs are getting better service for free, or bikes aren't getting the service that they pay for.
In fact, the code states: "Whoever, without authority, opens, or destroys any mail or package of newspapers not directed to him, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." 18 USC 1703
So far, I've only had to go to the post office 1 out of ~10 times, and that because the postal company said they were contractually obligated to get my signature. (So I don't get Dell shipped to my unit any longer.) It's striking how that one line changed everything for me.
That said, re. startling's comment elsewhere in this thread, I don't think lack of buzzing means they didn't try -- they often have to drop off more than one person's package in my building, and I never see delivery folks waiting by the door buzzing every individual's number ;-)
What made it even more annoying was that many times that company would leave packages at the front office when I was home. They would not even try to deliver to my apartment. They would just go straight to the front office.
Anymore, if I get to choose then I choose FedEx, because it's very easy to have the delivery re-routed to a FedEx/Kinkos store, and pick it up there. UPS re-routing has been impossible for me.
Vanmoof (the company in the article) seems to specialize in aluminum commuter bikes though, which should be reasonably robust. Aluminum is a wee bit brittle, but it's a lot more burly than carbon fiber. As such, I suspect the frames aren't the problem. It's probably what's bolted onto the frames. Shifters, pedals, fenders, etc. can all bend/break if a package is given "UPS special" treatment.
I'd lay this one on the bike company. I'm guessing they didn't have big enough boxes for cardboard to sit between the bike and the outer box, or didn't add enough padding around the tubes or some combination of both.
My guess is that it it was still a low percentage, but that this was still worth the change. And, it would have been immeasurable at the scale you were talking about.
The crack in the shifter was more of a cosmetic issue, but the pulley wheel had to be replaced immediately.
The rear derailleur has a steel guard. Without it, the derailleur probably wouldn't have survived this.
Not everything on a bike is as sturdy as the frame.
Senders should add a small $1 "black box" recording acceleration data, and shipping companies should be able to query for a certain package and a certain timestamp, which employee was accountable at that moment.
Then when you receive a broken package, the black box tells you the timestamp when it was thrown to the ground, you tell that to the shipping company, which then finds the employee at fault and gives him/her a warning/sacks him/her.
Could just find a mention here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/inside-the-dreamlin...
But it's on a seat cover and it's a cheesy clip art pic. Not much to it.
Is the success rate of printing the decoy box that much better for the relative cost compared to just putting shock stickers on the box, though? Probably. But one is an accidental effect with no guarantee that it will work, versus a tool that is designed for this specific purpose.
But not sure what customers will think.
[1] http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/04/posters-angry-eyes-ac...
If someone told me they improved shipping damage by a simple outside change that much I would say the have poor parcel design and strength to begin with.
Daily I see idiotic mailers with improper packaging. Examples diapers normally on a grocery shelf with open space on the underside (Amazon is famous for this) that are exposed
Liquids that spill over other unprotected parcels and slugs.
LPs with soft cardboard.
Anything sent from an Etsy source. It's a serious joke.
The article claim is very questionable in my mind from my perspective. Even the worst package gets through unscathed. I deliver coconuts from Hawaii with only a stamp and Sharpie address.
The greatest factor in the proper safe arrival of a parcel is NOT the delivery BUT THE PACKING. Take that to the bank.
They started doing so after having issues with "disappearing" guitars in transit (though probably at the moment with all the new tracking systems this is more complicated nowadays)
Their packaging is also quite protective, as you can imagine with a musical instrument...
Now I hope that some car manufacturers would introduce new models that look like a TV thereby resulting in fewer accidents and lost lives.
This all said, 90% of the boxes I get from Amazon via UPS are in perfect condition - it's remarkable how well they handle small packages.
There's a national geographic show called "ultimate factories" that has an episode called "ups worldport". Super fascinating. I recommend it!
Bought an 80's Italian steel bike from an Italian brick and mortar restoration shop -- excellent packaging, foam padding, positioning, etc.
Bought an 80's steel bike from a US individual -- really shoddy packaging and positioning of the bike (why would you leave the rear derailer and drop outs exposed to external shock?) that resulted in a trip to the shop to get the drop outs bent back into place. Luckily no damage to derailer.
Moral of the story -- I'll be looking specifically for "professionally packaged by bike shop" for future purposes.
I'm still fine tuning it.
I bought a bike from Jet and it arrived damaged, the box popped open, parts had fallen out. Returned that (trouble free which was nice) and ordered another from Amazon instead.
Amazon have a checkbox to have large deliveries that would normally not be in an Amazon branded box placed in one at no extra cost. Checked that box knowing it would act as sacrificial outer layer.
There are a bunch of clever things that I still have to remind myself exactly how they work. Several kinds of data compression come to mind.
The problem is that it isn't one (a TV). Why would someone feel mortified if they accidentally drop a packaged bicycle from 2-3 feet (typical carrying height) when a fully assembled bike can be dropped from 2-3 feet, and this is packaged, so it should be even safer. On the other hand no one would feel free to drop a packaged LCD TV from even half a foot because people know it includes a giant pane of essentially glass, and they know that there are limits to what packaging can do.
So, yeah, by failing to meet expectations when it comes to packaging a bicycle, they can reduce damages by writing on it that it's a TV instead. All right.
But isn't this still them not meeting expectations exactly? If they write on it that it's a delicate stained-glass window, that would still be not meeting expectations. If the handler is the one with unreasonable expectations or behavior (if 2-3 feet isn't a reasonable drop height and should be considered a failure), then maybe educate the handler with some writing or warnings on the packaging.
isn't the real issue here that handler's expectations of bike packaging does not meet bike packaging's characteristics? so, you could tackle it head-one by writing care instructions.
alternatively, the article says only 70-80% reduction in damages was achieved. Maybe by lying and saying it is delicate stained-glass, handle with extreme care, they could up that to 95% reducted. I guess I've just saved them 15% of their former damages (even higher percentage of their remaining damages) with this one neat trick.
I honestly wouldn't expect a packaged bicycle to survive a 3 foot drop; the air in the tires does a lot of the work when you are riding it, in the package you might accidentally drop much of the load on a sensitive point or whatever.
I get that you are arguing they should package the bike to your expectations so that it shouldn't matter if you drop the package 3 feet onto the most sensitive point, but I wonder why you expect them to accurately read your mind instead of skimping on packing material.
1. http://www.camdencycles.co.uk/images/uploads/website%20Doc/b...
Yes, I could have tried to mix the new title with the original post, but I feared that would get changed back.
Also, in a sense, https://twitter.com/jasongay/status/772556605548326912 is the original, but that's "[citation needed]"
But the answer is (as always) more automation. Mind, this can lead to really neat edge cases where you accidentally build a package smashing factory. But in general repeatability (machine) beats out diligence (people) every time.
You just have to, you know, pay for it. The cost benefit analysis probably strongly favors the marked box in this case.
The sheer amount of variables that this would require, without error, would be ridiculous. UPS and other places tried to make the customer do it by storage lockers, and those failed. There's nowhere near any elegant form of solution to improve on that.
Right now, my neighborhood has grouped mailboxes[1], and anything more than a semi-flat package will not fix. Small boxes that don't fit are delivered to the shared larger compartment, which is locked, and the key is then left in your mailbox. When you use the key, it does not come out of the shared compartment, so in retrieving your delivery the key is automatically returned. I don't see why this system can't be scaled up somewhat. Automated delivery to a shared compartment which can be designed to accommodate such a scenario would be significantly easier. Want direct to home delivery by a person? I'm sure the delivery companies can accommodate you with a special type of delivery[2]. Theft might be a problem, but since these are generally in neighborhoods next to houses, and setting up a camera would be simple (and undoubtedly pay for itself in some circumstances when people contend they did not get a package), I think it wouldn't be too much of a problem.
1: https://www.mailboxworks.com/images/af-12doorcbu-lrg.jpg
2: In truth, it would probably start with the automated to shared compartment delivery being a new option that's slightly cheaper. Eventually it would probably become the norm since it's cheaper.
My shipping experience is a constant fight to get them to hold the package for pickup because I'm not going to be home during their delivery hours (~9-5 Mon-Fri) and I don't want to wait four or five business days for them to make several delivery attempts before I go pick it up.
I used one in Denmark last week. I received an SMS saying delivery would be the next day, but I could reply to request delivery to the drop off point in a nearby supermarket instead of at my home. I did this.
I received another SMS with a collection code. A keypad on the set of lockers opened the lock on one of them, and I collected the package at a perfectly convenient time.
Or wait, scratch that; how about Uber for packages. Bored at work? You could be delivering packages remotely to supplement your income!
I think it's only a matter of time before large scale data gathering service providers form a good-enough model of the environment in which they operate, to the point that the core service can be completely automated.
They use "Earn on your own schedule" instead of "Bored at work?" as a slogan, though (https://www.uber.com/signup/drive/deliver/)
Smarter mailboxes where you literally address the mail to an electronic physical mailbox, which digitally signs the receipt.
Doesn't matter how much you pay someone if you make it clear at every point that you don't care what they think about trying to improve the job they do, then they'll adjust their enthusiasm accordingly. Or if trying to be better is used as a form of punishment i.e. "that's a good idea Barry, you can be in charge of implementing it without any change in pay or responsibilities!"
But no, first answer is always "remove people" I guess. Like you even can, no robot is going to be able to do a UPS job any time soon.
17-ish years ago I got a temp seasonal job at one of UPS's air hubs, and they paid me $8 per hour. $8 in then-money is equivalent to more than $11 in now-money. So you're saying I was better paid as a seasonal temp than people who are much higher in UPS's pecking order than that are nowadays.
Now it being part time, yeah, I believe that. Pretty much everyone in that facility was working about 30h/wk.
Surveillance - that's what supervisors are for. Really though, you have 800-1000 packages to load into 3-4 cars over 3-5 hours. When you have 20 of these bikes arrive on the conveyor belt in a 30 minute window and nowhere to put them (since it's hours from shift end and you can't put them in the delivery truck yet), they get dealt with fast and not so gently. That could easily mean a 3-4 ft drop onto concrete, and a supervisor would be unlikely to care since they know the pressure to go fast. The official policy is "hand to surface" for every package, but in reality you have to work at a pace where this is impractical - so it's ignored apart from egregious abuse of packages.
edit: as for discussion elsewhere here about proper packaging, here's FedEx guidelines/testing: http://www.fedex.com/us/services/pdf/PKG_Testing_Under150Lbs...
Some of the criteria, such as dropping the package 10x from a 30" height, might seem absurd if you haven't seen how the sausage is made. It really isn't.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ups+driver+wage
I usually see UPS drivers cited as an example of a unionized, middle-class job.
See articles 22, 40, and 41. $11 is current part-time package handler pay (preload), drivers are almost exclusively (with a few exceptions) full time employees, and max out at close to $30/hr. Locals can and do negotiate this higher, that's the national minimum. Also, a huge priority for the union is ensuring that UPS doesn't start using part time drivers instead of FT drivers.
Seasonals shouldn't make less, unless you're counting the $125 union initiation fee that everyone has to pay - a bit silly that it applies to them, probably a great money maker.
Then again, don't get me wrong, I do think that the government needs to do more wealth redistribution.
Who get told "we need an X% increase in productivity" - so they look at their metrics and come up with some idiot conclusion like "drivers just need to spend on average X seconds less per delivery...so I'm going to start measuring people by how long they're stopped making a delivery and have reviews when they are stopped too long".
Meanwhile, the delivery driver who has a route full of apartment buildings without easy truck access gets screwed.
This is rather about the workplace culture than the pay.
https://scontent-lax3-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/142...
So sick of the endless chatter of this "automation utopia" here. It doesn't exist, it's not going to exist likely for hundreds of years, so lets turn the blind eye while the automaters rake in the profits and wages continue to stagnate for the next 40 years like they have the previous 40.
Believe it or not, some people want to work. Many are raised on the principle of you need to work to eat, and will continue to raise their kids in this fashion for the unforeseeable future. Call it what you want, it is just the way some people live their life and find worth. We have to stop and ask ourselves why on earth would we want to even automate all work? It always goes down some utilitarian route, and I am saddened to see that this is the only ethical framework that has room in modern, capitalistic society.
> A job automated is a person that doesn't need to work.
False. A job automated is a person that a company doesn't need a worker for. There is a difference, in that now that person doesn't get paid. Company makes more money. This will be the situation until we reach the fabled "automation utopia" where all the essentials are taken care of such as food, shelter, water, travel, medicine, law, governance, and humans are left to frolic around to and fro. Until then, there will be hundreds of years of human suffering. Let's stop this endless pursuit to automate which is driven largely by profit, and focus our attention on solving human suffering. We have better things to be doing with our time than to figure out how to replace everyone's job.
It would be great if someone could disrupt the duopoly of bad service.
Probably it's just impossible to find enough good employees (for the salary they are willing to pay), and once you reach a certain scale, you will always face such issues.
God DHL is such an utter shit-show, it's amazing.
> for the salary they are willing to pay
Yeah that tends to be a big issue, there isn't any positive incentive to care, and the "production" incentives (number of packages through) generally go the other way, wasting time treating packages carefully is a good way to not meet quota and get shit-canned. And let's not kid ourselves, consumers aren't generally willing to pay for expensive careful shipping either.
I work in Packaging design and love problem solving. Any startups that need custom Packaging designed (design is usually free as value added service to get the mfg contract) feel free to PM me to discuss. I love to help/advise whether it becomes a mutually beneficial Business relationship, or a one sided help you only situation. ;)
If you want your contact details to be public you need to put them into the "about:" box in your profile.
I guess companies can in some cases track damages backwards and add these to the quotas and bottom lines.
When I was 18 I worked for a few months on the assembly line at a Motorola manufacturing plant, assembling radio communication devices. It was a shit job with minimum wage and we had to meet strict quotas, but assembly errors were also counted, (the goal was "six sigma", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma).
Once defects were a priority as well, and they were tracked to a specific person (by means of a sticker on each assembly stage), people started to care.
BTW the only cool thing about it was that the company REALLY cared about improving efficiency and reducing errors, and anyone who would come up with an improvement to any process, would get a reward, that could be a lot of money in extreme cases. I suggested a very basic "hack" that saved the company $100 a month or so, and got a small gift and a certificate of excellence or some bullshit.
Anyway, the connector cables were manually soldered to them at a nearby station, and the ladies who did the soldering used to just pile the LED panels in a box, and as a result some of them would get scratches on the visible part and had to be thrown away. At the same time, the speakers I would also screw-in, came in these grid-like trays, where each speaker was placed in a small rectangular cell.
My brilliant idea was to recycle these cardboard trays and have the solderers place the finished circuits in them, so they'd never damage each other. It saved 10-20 defected panels a month IIRC. Not enough to get me bonus, but enough to get me a cheap FM radio and a certificate.
A guy who worked there at the time optimized some circuit board printing procedure and saved the company IIRC like $100K a year (or was it a month?), and got a very big bonus.
Most baggage is clothes etc, but the handlers understand a huge box with a bicycle drawn on the side.
(I've only flown twice with a bicycle. London Heathrow accepts a bike in a thick polythene bag, and SAS accept one with no bag at all. The bike wasn't damaged either time.)
Why do the shippers care about breaking a TV? Presumably there are repercussions, such as an insurance plan. So why don't those repercussions just apply to bicycles? If they're fined for enough bikes being broken, they should probably learn that they need be more careful than they thought, right?
EDIT: Toning down my choice of words.
If they're doing this purely out of courtesy, then yes, I could understand that being wrong about the fragility of bicycles could lead to such a disparity of broken things, since they pay no consequences for being wrong. However if there is a simple insurance policy, which I can only imagine any business would have with a shipping company, they are paying consequences for it, and they would have reason to learn, and try to treat bicycles a little more like televisions.
Apparently this isn't happening, but I don't understand why.
EDIT: I would add that the only explanation I have is that bicycles are less expensive than televisions. This implies that putting a television on the box leads the shipping company to believe that they have to put more time (aka money) into care for the box than they actually have to. This is what lead to my comment about fraud.
If I had a nickel for every time I've had an Amazon purchase refunded or replaced because the delivery person smashed it to hell, or jammed it into a mailbox that was clearly too small, or left it out in the rain unwrapped, or even tossed it in the snowbank during a storm that dumped a foot and a half of snow and disappeared it until spring... I could probably buy a candy bar.
(I'm British, so I know it's not British.)
> ... If I had a nickel for every time I've had an Amazon purchase refunded or replaced because ...
Hah, looks like I forgot how expensive candy bars are. Okay I get it.
I literally can't think of more than maybe 1 or 2 in all that time that have ever been damaged.
Edit: Sorry, I should have made that clearer in my previous comment.
Don't forget that "good bikes" are actually very rare, especially if counted in volume (not price).
You can buy an adult mountain bike for £80 including 20% VAT in the UK. That's $100.
I've used one like this, it lasted less than 6 months of daily use before the sprockets, wheels, bearings and brakes were ruined.
http://www.tesco.com/direct/north-gear-rxt-mens-adults-mount...
My perspective: I used to be like you and spend around $250. The bikes would break more easily (although maybe with an insurance/maintenance plan I would have been happier).
Meanwhile, everyone else spends four figures a year on transportation (driving costs about £1000 a year, the tube costs the same). I figured if I would buy an expensive bike once it would justify the cost over many years.
I bought a folding bike (a brompton) rather than a road bike - it cost around £900. They last for decades if treated right. So the cost, divided over the years of use, is negligible compared to other modes of transport.
This is an awesome hack, and it's a great way to fix behavior without having to collide with bureaucracy.
It's not ethically fraudulent because the shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. And I'm sure they do pay fees for what they break, and the shipping company is trying to do what it can fix that, but putting a picture of a TV on the box is still more effective than whatever the shipping company is trying.
I'm scared to think what else you would view as ethical fraud, if pictures-on-boxes qualifies. I tell baristas that I want "room for cream" in my Americano. But I never put cream in it--- I just want less volume so that when I walk I won't spill hot coffee on my hand. #EthicalFraud
I don't necessarily agree that a shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. I think that they should meet whatever the agreement was. If the agreement is "we'll try super hard not to break stuff" and they're clearly not holding up their side of the bargain when it comes to bikes, then sure, changing the picture is fair game. If the agreement is "we'll pay for anything that breaks", then they should determine how careful they want to be, since they're footing the bill for it. Making that determination for them by changing the picture, I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up.
I think it's just the perception that bikes are "rough" and that they can take a beating. Which is true, but only when fully assembled and driven on road/terrain, not when you bang at it from the side.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So: Does their agreement say that the bike company will accurately represent their product on their packaging? If the bike company's holding up their end of whatever agreement they have, then there's nothing the least bit questionable about what they're doing.
A 3 paragraph email.
A photo of a TV on the side of the box tells the worker right then and there that this is both expensive and delicate, handle with care. It does it more than even "FRAGILE" does, because that's been abused to death already.
I suppose if everybody starts claiming their boxes are TVs, then the effect will wane as well. But this is way more effective than an easily-ignored memo.
If the workers treat every single package as if it were a Ming Dynasty vase, then their throughput will drop through the floor and that won't be their best.
If they treat every single package as if it were a box of rocks, then their breakage rate will skyrocket. That also won't be their best.
Putting the TV on the side of the box tells the worker to slide the scale closer to avoiding breakage and away from moving fast.
But with a bicycle, it is an entirely different story. The seat is not centered on the rails, nice and level. Much has to be assembled and that is understandable, however, the brakes and the gears rarely work as well as Shimano intended. The bike is part assembled and the consumer is left to do the rest. Rarely is the finished result as polished as the fit and finish that the TV arrives with.
If a bicycle manufacturer jost got that final assembly together so that only seat height adjustment was needed with nothing else needing a double check, then they might be able to sell to the end customer properly. As it is there is no quality in the final delivery, bikes sent to the customer will be far from expertly 'tuned'.
It's sort of like IKEA furniture.