Amazon could deliver rescue of Postal Service
The news that Amazon essentially has hired the U.S. Postal Service to deliver on Sundays is both surprising and completely sensible.
The partnership of a floundering, old-world institution and perhaps the nation's most future-oriented tech company — Amazon's strategy is to take losses today in the service of profits down the road — would at first seem incongruous. As my colleague Brian Fung outlined, though, teaming up for Sunday delivery gives both an edge over the competition that could force the rest of the industry to adapt.
So why stop there?
Amazon and Postal Service have lots more to gain from each other — and an outright merger might maximize the best qualities of both.
First, the Postal Service.
The economics of the shipping industry were changing such that it would have to make dramatic changes to stay afloat. A Boston Consulting Group study in 2009 mapped declining mail volumes through the year 2020, when it calculated that the Postal Service would lose $15 billion in a single year.
And yet, the Postal Service has improved. Even as overall revenue falls, it's served more delivery points and increased income from “negotiated service agreements” with private companies. It has shed more than 200,000 employees over 10 years and is in a position to lose more — about half of current workers are eligible for retirement. That should bring down labor costs, which now make up 80 percent of its budget, compared to 61 percent at UPS and 43 percent at FedEx.
Although it's managed to reduce 21,000 routes and consolidate some mail-processing facilities, pleas to close unprofitable post offices and cut Saturday delivery always run into a wall of “no.” And changes to the business model — such as the ability to offer “non-postal” services — are subject to legislative approval, leading to a persistent drumbeat of calls for privatization.
It has invested heavily to deliver more products faster, cheaper and farther than the competition, including dozens of U.S. warehouses, a fleet of trucks and even “lockers” for people to pick up their goods at convenience stores.
Its operations, though, are expensive: Fulfillment costs amounted to $1.96 billion, or 11.5 percent of revenue, last quarter alone. Amazon considers it an investment in the future, as part of its strategy to provide anything customers might need as fast as they could possibly get it — as well as a tax strategy because it knows it will lose the benefits of lacking a physical presence in states soon anyway. The embodiment of this gambit is AmazonFresh, which is supposed to ease the transition toward delivering more and more goods.
Owning the Postal Service would get Amazon the rest of the way there. USPS has 31,000 post offices and 461 mail-processing centers.
The Postal Service still is the best last-mile mail delivery service provider. Amazon is perhaps the most aggressive warehousing-logistics innovator, which could enable a partnership that would leverage their strengths.
Of course, there are important questions about the public role of the Postal Service in delivering the mail to everyone.
Also: Wouldn't it be problematic to hand a monopoly to a private company?
Well, the new Amazon Postal Service could be required to offer its services to other companies at competitive rates, as it does with its rapidly expanding network of data centers.
Meanwhile, competition is shaping up: EBay has partnered with FedEx. It's not hard to imagine Wal-Mart doing the same with UPS.
Lydia DePillis reports on business policy for the Washington Post.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Santorum charter flight tab broke $400K
- New York’s fracking ban starts clock for lawsuits
- Heat records smashed across West
- $18.7B record-breaking deal clears path for BP to put Gulf Coast oil spill in rearview mirror
- Illegal immigrants stay in shift of policies
- Kentucky clerk sued for denying license to wed to any couples
- Sex offenders say Indiana curbs religious freedom
- 2 friends of Boston Marathon bomber sentenced
- Thefts, foul-ups by employees cost TSA $3M in 5 years
- Catholic bishops pressure presidential candidates
- Counterterror efforts making U.S. any safer?