The problem there is that ecommerce vendors are usually offering products on a variety of channels where price is a major factor in the buying decision. The product is going to be listed in Google shopping, it may have the price attached to organic results, it might be listed on a third party clearinghouse, etc..

And in those cases it's going to show up next to other merchants selling the same product. Inflating the price by factoring shipping into it can hurt your sales. That's why many sellers offer free shipping on orders of a certain size where the profit is large enough to cover the shipping loss.

And, of course, what happens when a customer buys multiple items? Now they're potentially paying for shipping more than once.

Shipping is really the core reason Amazon usually wins. No one can compete with their multi-billion dollar distribution system.

If only retailers with similar physical infrastructure (Walmart, Kroger, et al) hadn't been so late in building the technology to compete. Even now any chain with an existing, large warehouse and distribution system could introduce a cheaper FBA type system for merchants and capture part of the market while giving smaller MFRs and retailers a way to reasonably compete with Amazon on shipping.

Sadly they're all old school brick and mortar organizations which are notoriously bad at tech.

"retailers with similar physical infrastructure (Walmart, Kroger, et al)"

There's a lot more to direct-to-consumer logistics than there is to "center-to-store" logistics. Distribution-center-to-store logistics can rely on largish shipments of any individual product, very large shipments for any DC to any store, and has a backup mini-warehouse (aka the back of that Kroger's) for each delivery site.

Amazon can't store ten extra "diamond-coated Samsung Makeupsian-2" cases at your house when you order just the 1. Walmart often stores a few pallets of "nobody wants it" at their stores. Amazon doesn't drop of multiple pallets per deliver (usually, that is); Kroger's never gets less than several pallets at a time. Amazon can't predict what you're going to order months in advance; Target knows they need ten cases of "Fresh Bloom"-scented bleach per month, plus-or-minus 10%. Multi-pallet vs. singleton; buffered vs. just-in-time; predictable-load vs. "I want only one, once, randomly".... there are a lot of differences in the logistics that Amazon faces versus what Kroger/et. al. face.

I honestly do not think that most existing distribution systems could support an FBA-style system w/out massive overhaul. That's not to say that FBA is not replicable... it just requires a massive capital investment and a massive rethink of how to do product logistics. Even if they're good at tech, I don't think the old-school organizations could successfully pull it off.

You might be right, that they won't be able to pull it off, but a future where the majority of retail happens digitally isn't far off. If someone other than Amazon doesn't figure out the logistics before then, Amazon will eat the whole marketplace.

I think the primary barrier here is that, while you can assume based on IP/Locale, you don't entirely know where the customer intends on shipping the product, and therefore rates fluctuate.

It would be great to allow customers to estimate shipping as soon as possible, rather than just before clicking the "give us money" button.

But for the continental US, weight and size (and contract terms) is the controlling cost factor, moreso than destination.

Also, you want to present the same price to all customers.

Yeah, I don't know why you'd do what they're prescribing. It's just misleading and seems more like a dark pattern. As if "free shipping" will manipulate them to make the purchase.

People already understand the price of an object vs the cost of sending that object somewhere in the world. Everyone understands $100 shoes with a shipping fee, not $105-$130 shoes that shape-shift depending on where the person lives that opens the link.

But seeing $100 shoes then seeing $5 shipping fees tacked on separately will make people feel cheated, and abandon the purchase. They made a decision to spend $100, and now you're trying to make them make another decision to spend $105 instead.

Disclosing the shipping fees up front helps a bit, but not completely.

That's what I'm saying. I don't think people feel cheated seeing $100 + $5 S/H. I mean, speak for yourself: do you really feel cheated by the transparency?

And if people do feel cheated (I'm unconvinced), I still don't believe they need to be manipulated into thinking that shipping doesn't have cost. These kinds of reality-distortion practices are all too common in tech and ecommerce.

It's like Verizon manipulating people into thinking they get a "free iPhone" when they sign a 2-year contract. It's 100% misleading.

If people are surprised by shipping fees, it's only because this misleading practice is widespread and we're racing to the bottom on dark patterns. All the more reason to be principled, imo.

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't change that seeing additional fees after an initial decision seriously puts me off. Note that I'm from Europe, i.e. if the sticker on the shelf says something is 5.99, it's 5.99, not 6.47.

I also often do feel cheated because the shipping fees often match or exceed non-discounted consumer postage fees, and many stores just use it to advertise deceptively low prices. The argument here is "handling cost", but a grocery store also has handling costs - and how would you feel if a "check-out fee" was added at the end?

When I'm on a shopping site to buy an individual item, I want to know "how much do I have to pay to have this item in my hand". I don't care if you charge $5 for the item and $10 for shipping, or $15 with free shipping.

If the shipping fee is clearly advertised (i.e. in legible, discoverable font right next to the price) and is reasonable, it's one thing. But patterns I often see and always hate:

- ridiculous shipping fees used to advertise lower prices than others when the actual price is higher (sucks if the platform you're using sorts by price, not total cost - like Amazon does!)

- charging 9.99 for shipping for something that comes in a barely padded envelope with 1.50 worth of postage on it

- shipping costs well hidden, so you have to spend time before you know what the actual price you'll pay is

I consider "free shipping" not "manipulating me into thinking that shipping doesn't have cost". I consider it a promise that what I see is what I pay (i.e. I consider that transparency). Without it, if you see $19.99 on a web site, it could mean $19.99, or $39.98, and you often can't easily tell.

I find the best deals are where shipping is separate. With free shipping I have to pay for the rare person in remote areas (Alaska...) who costs a lot more to ship to. By separating shipping my costs are much less.

The above applies ONLY when the shipping charge is the actual shipping charge. All the big shippers make it easy to figure out what shipping a package will cost so you should know when I click add to cart what the costs are. (As a bonus it would be nice if you would tell me which item in my cart costs so much to ship - some things are worth buying locally because retail can use cheaper shipping to the store)

I prefer to pay 120 with free shipping than 100 + 15 for shipping. Not just me: most people. This has been tested repeatedly. Yet, it seems so irrational that retailers don't believe it. But it's true!! And Amazon wins because of this.

I have far too many abandoned carts because of shipment charges. Do I feel cheated ? No but I was not willing to pay the shipment charges even though I was willing to pay for the product. Amazon solves this problem pretty well.

Wouldn't they feel more cheated if they find out that the price given to them is, with no justification, more costly than the price given to friends and family in other locations?

You can certainly present the same price of the good to every user, while also automatically calculating the cost to ship to their postal code--if they specify it, or the postal code most likely for their IP address if not. Then apply a "combined shipping discount" calculation when they go to view the contents of their shopping cart, for everything that can fit in a single box shipped from a single warehouse.

Then allow the user to sort on base retail price or price plus shipping, as they prefer.

Being transparent about goods versus shipping makes the customer feel better about not getting manipulated and/or ripped off.

My problem is that for a lot of small sites, especially auto parts in my experience, will have an outsized shipping cost that totally ruins the deal.

One example I found recently was a couple of small brake light bulbs. $4.13 plus $14 shipping from a parts dealer or $5.75 plus free shipping from Amazon. Initially you think the price is great, it's cheaper than Amazon! Then you find out they have a hard time sourcing padded envelopes.

Also, please make it easy to find out which countries you do and don’t ship to. I’m tired of going through a long payment flow only to be faced with “We only ship to the continental USA”.

> 4: Whenever possible (which is, in most cases except for huge and/or super cheap items), incorporate shipping costs into the cost of the product. Then you can say: "Free shipping!"

But won't that typically be a worst-case estimate? I actually kinda like itemized shipping charges. Then I know if I'm buying two items then I'm not being double-charged for shipping.