Problems › A Competitor Is Taking Our Customers › Logistics & Supply Chain
Losing to a competitor is a dedicated versus spot positioning question far more often than a rate per mile one, and the two need opposite responses. Logistics and freight companies carry a specific bind here — dedicated freight dilutes margin and is also the only thing that fixes driver turnover. Until that is priced, revenue per loaded mile will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about win rate by segment will stay a matter of opinion.
Losing to a competitor is a dedicated versus spot positioning question far more often than a rate per mile one, and the two need opposite responses. Logistics and freight companies carry a specific bind here — dedicated freight dilutes margin and is also the only thing that fixes driver turnover. Until that is priced, revenue per loaded mile will keep moving for reasons nobody can attribute, and the debate about win rate by segment will stay a matter of opinion.
When a competitor starts winning, the first explanation offered inside the business is always rate per mile. It is occasionally true. More often the competitor has picked a narrower promise such as consistent dedicated lanes and is beating you inside it on driver turnover and deadhead, which looks like rate to operations because rate is the last item discussed before a loss.
The distinction matters because the responses are incompatible. If it is genuinely rate per mile, you either match it and reprice the whole book or you accept the loss of that segment. If it is positioning, matching rate funds their advantage while destroying margin on revenue per loaded mile and operating ratio.
The way to tell is unglamorous: the reasons recorded on the last twenty losses, segmented by lane or customer type. A rate problem shows up everywhere. A positioning problem clusters in dedicated moves where load factor and driver retention differ.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Losses concentrate in one lane type or dedicated customer rather than spreading evenly across spot and contract freight
✓ The operations team asks for rate authority rather than for proof on lower deadhead or better driver retention
✓ The competitor is smaller and more specific than you in the lanes where losses occur
The move that usually makes it worse. Meeting the rate and keeping the positioning, which loses margin on revenue per mile while driver turnover stays high.
It is for you if you run or finance a freight company and losses concentrate in one segment or one use case rather than spreading evenly. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a freight company. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Ridgeway Freight Systems, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $240M revenue, 900 drivers.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Quick Market Scan · sample company profile
The move. Reprice 3-year dedicated renewals by 4-6% and retain 44%-turnover drivers to lift $82M book margin by $3.3M.
The leak it closes. $1.3M annual driver-replacement cost reduced by retaining 120 drivers at 44% turnover
The assumption it rests on. 12 of 14 renewing contracts accept 4-6% rate increase — the engine put the probability at 0.75.
| Investment required | $0.8-1.2M annual retention bonus pool (within $18M 3-year capacity) |
| Expected return | 275-413% annual ROI on $0.8-1.2M retention spend |
| Revenue, year 1 | $83.6M dedicated revenue (+$1.6M from 2% blended rate increase on 50% of book) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $85.3M dedicated revenue (+$3.3M from 4% rate increase on 75% of book) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $87.1M dedicated revenue (+$5.1M from 6% rate increase on 100% of book) |
| Exit criteria | Exit this move if fewer than 8 of 14 contracts renew at ≥3% premium by Month 18, OR if driver turnover rises above 55% by Month 12; reallocate retention bonus pool to LTL driver wage increases |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Competitive Benchmarking & Positioning, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For logistics and freight companies it works through revenue per loaded mile, driver turnover, deadhead percentage and operating ratio, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
Only if you can serve that segment at their price and still make money, and only if you are willing to reprice the customers who already pay you more. A selective match is usually a promise you cannot keep once the market notices.
On specificity, not on breadth. A better-funded competitor can outspend you everywhere and cannot out-focus you in one place, which is why narrowing the promise usually beats broadening the feature set.
Then the honest answer is a product decision with a timeline and a cost, not a marketing response. The damaging outcome is spending a year on messaging for a gap that messaging cannot close.
Materially, yes. Dedicated freight dilutes margin and is also the only thing that fixes driver turnover — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are revenue per loaded mile, driver turnover, deadhead percentage, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on revenue per loaded mile and driver turnover. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית