The last mile is changing. But is customer service keeping up?
A little over a year ago, I wrote about the growing popularity of parcel lockers and questioned whether they represented genuine progress in last-mile delivery or simply a more efficient solution for parcel carriers.
At the time, my conclusion was that they were a good idea, provided they improved the customer experience rather than simply reducing the cost of delivery.
Having spent more than 30 years in logistics and supply chain, I could certainly appreciate the operational advantages. Consolidating multiple deliveries at one location rather than visiting individual homes makes obvious commercial sense.
And parcel lockers are hardly a new invention. Various versions have been tried over the years. What has changed is the technology supporting them, the scale of investment and the growing enthusiasm of carriers to expand their networks.
But something else has caught my attention recently.
The complaints are beginning to change.
For some time, I have followed the steady stream of LinkedIn posts from frustrated customers complaining about failed deliveries, missing parcels, incorrect tracking information and the seemingly impossible task of speaking to somebody who can actually help.
More recently, I've noticed an increasing number of those complaints relating not to failed home deliveries, but to problems involving parcel lockers. And that raises an interesting question.
Are we solving the last-mile problem, or simply moving it somewhere else?
The Commercial Argument Is Obvious
Nobody familiar with parcel distribution would dispute the economics. The final mile has always been one of the most expensive and operationally challenging elements of the delivery process. Drivers, vehicles, fuel, congestion, unsuccessful delivery attempts and increasingly demanding customer expectations all contribute to the cost.
Parcel lockers offer an attractive alternative. One driver can deliver multiple parcels to a single location, often considerably faster than completing the equivalent number of individual home deliveries.
The potential savings are substantial, particularly in densely populated areas where locker networks are well established.
And there can be benefits for the customer too. Convenient collection locations, extended access hours, improved security and fewer missed deliveries are all legitimate advantages.
Some operators also offer cheaper delivery prices when customers choose a locker rather than their home address. So, commercially and operationally, I have no argument with the concept.
But reducing the cost of delivery and improving the quality of delivery are not necessarily the same thing.
A Different Delivery Point, But the Same Frustration?
Consider what happens when something goes wrong. The customer receives a notification advising that their parcel has arrived at a locker. They travel to collect it, only to discover that the collection code doesn't work, the compartment won't open, or perhaps the parcel isn't there at all.
What happens next?
Ideally, the customer contacts the carrier, explains the problem and receives prompt assistance. Unfortunately, the experience described in some of the complaints appearing on LinkedIn seems rather different.
Automated responses. Chatbots. Tracking information that offers little explanation. Difficulty finding somebody with the authority or ability to resolve the problem.
Sound familiar? These are many of the same frustrations customers have experienced with traditional home deliveries.
Except now, in some cases, the customer has also made the journey to collect the parcel.
This is where I believe the industry needs to be particularly careful. A parcel locker may be an efficient delivery point for the carrier, but if the customer cannot retrieve their parcel or obtain meaningful assistance, the delivery has not been successfully completed from their perspective.
Have We Automated Customer Service Too Far?
I recently wrote another article, When Customer Service Goes Public - What Has Gone Wrong? questioning why so many customers now feel compelled to use LinkedIn to attract the attention of major service providers.
My argument was straightforward. Things go wrong in every service business. What matters is how effectively the company responds when they do.
Technology has undoubtedly improved many aspects of customer service. Tracking systems, automated notifications, mobile applications and AI-assisted support can make routine interactions faster and easier.
But there is a significant difference between using automation to improve customer service and using it to avoid providing customer service. When an automated system cannot resolve an issue, there must be an effective route to somebody who can.
In my view, that is where some major service organisations continue to fall short. And I wonder whether the rapid expansion of parcel locker networks is being matched by an equally serious investment in the systems, people and processes needed to support them.
Who Actually Benefits From the Savings?
There is another aspect worth considering. If parcel lockers substantially reduce the operational cost of last-mile delivery, how much of that saving is being passed on to the customer?
There are examples of carriers offering lower prices for locker deliveries, which is encouraging. But the picture is less transparent when ordering through online retailers, where delivery charges may be bundled into the purchase price or influenced by commercial agreements between retailers and carriers.
And what about the customer's own costs?
Time spent travelling to a locker, fuel or transport costs, and the inconvenience of a failed collection attempt all form part of the wider delivery experience.
None of this makes lockers a bad idea. For many customers, collecting a parcel at a convenient location is preferable to waiting at home. But it does reinforce the importance of genuine choice, transparent pricing and reliable service.
The Industry Needs to Finish the Job
I remain convinced that parcel lockers have an important role in the future of parcel distribution. They offer genuine operational advantages and, when properly located and managed, can provide an excellent service for customers.
My concern is not with the lockers themselves. It is with the possibility that carriers are investing enthusiastically in the physical infrastructure while failing to address some of the longstanding weaknesses in their customer-service operations.
A sophisticated locker network supported by an inadequate complaints process is not the complete solution. Neither is an impressive tracking application that cannot explain what happened when a parcel goes missing.
The industry should be measuring success not simply by the number of lockers installed, parcels processed or delivery costs reduced, but by how reliably customers receive their goods and how quickly problems are resolved.
Because the final mile doesn't end when the driver closes the locker door. It ends when the customer successfully receives their parcel.
And if something goes wrong along the way, that is when the quality of the carrier's service really matters.
Perhaps it's time the industry put as much effort into improving its customer service as it has into expanding its parcel locker networks.
