most definitely DB'd.. I usually call both of them and start drilling the questions. It becomes pretty obvious who the DB is and who the original broker is once you ask for shipping hours or types of equipment. The original broker would have that info on deck whereas the DB is almost only concerned about the rate, everything else is "let me check with my customer"
I have to ask ... Is there any real value in LoadLink?
- Thread starter Michael Ludwig
- Start date
20
I realize that this is an older thread, but wanted to make it known to those who are interested, that there are alternatives to LL out there today. All they require is your use! Yes this is not a quick fix, but with your commitment to use and spread the word, the community can be built quicker then you think. I would welcome those who would be interested in helping us to build this community to reach out to me directly via my email: mark@gofexle.com , feel free to visit the website as well. The software is built and operational today, all we need is your continued participation!
30
Unfortunately this will go about as well as trying to get carriers to band together to stop taking cheap freight. It's a great idea but I imagine not many people will want to invest months looking at an unhelpful load board.
Your right Jack. it will take those who want the solution. But we have tried to make it easy, all a carrier has to do, is post their lanes with us (on a free account), and when ever a new load is posted that matches their lane, an automated email will be sent to them stating the details right in the Subject Line, allowing them to make a quick decision if they wish to pursue it any further or not.
I'm all for it, Loadlink is in dire need of competition. What will you guys be doing differently to curb the DB's? I'd go as far as to say that seems to be one of the biggest issues with any of the freight load boards. We'll be signing up but I'd be more inclined to jump ship if there was something to eliminate or mitigate DB's or just bad brokers in general. IF your product is similar to LL's then I don't see it as a real alternative.
We welcome input and discussion, what ideas would you have for curbing DB's on this type of system? As you see it, where and how have the others failed in this regard?
30
I'd imagine in a nutshell, they want companies that are reported for double brokering (multiple times) kicked off the board. Exactly like LL doesn't.
30
Is it really double brokering that gets under your skin (it does mine), or is it when a double broker fails to pay the carrier?. As we all know, most of the time double brokering goes on completely unnoticed, the load gets delivered, the carrier who hauled the freight gets paid and the shipper is happy. Whether it is Load Link or this new outfit, they cannot and should not perform the vetting of your customers or suppliers, that is and always will be, your job. I am all for competition in the load board business, but other than a different pricing structure, what can they really offer? It will be the same “pool” of available carriers for brokers to pick from, it will also be the same pool of broker loads for carriers to select from. Yes, ease of use and simplicity is important, but have they really invented a new “mouse trap”? I am not sure. The only way to find out is give them a test drive
30
Blaming the load board for double brokering is like blaming the phone company for telemarketing scams. It's up to us to make sure we have the processes in place to ensure double brokering doesn't happen. In my case I always tell my shipper who I'm sending in, and if the name/DOT number on the truck coming in doesn't match what I told the shipper, then the truck doesn't get loaded.
Just thinking out loud, what about allowing the brokers to post carrier references in their profile, that those to match to their loads can see and follow up with. Yes some of the DB Brokers would not fill them out (that would be telling), some would fill in obscure carriers (again telling), and others could put in known carriers but a phone number to a friend. But at least those who wish to find out if the broker is legit, would have an avenue to do so before dealing with them.
30
That might work, but some fraudsters do that too... they'll list a bunch of carrier and shipper references knowing full well that most people don't call references and those who do generally can't get through to anyone. It would be like me listing General Motors as a reference and putting a likely sound name along with GM's general number in Detroit as a phone contact.
I get that, but providing some information that could expose the fraudster would be useful. When dealing with a new broker you have no experience with, is there a better way to expose those who wish to mislead?
30
Regardless of how strong you build the hen house and how fortified you make the door, the foxes will still find a way in. Although it goes against most accepted business practices, you want to make it difficult for customers to buy your services. Find a way to weed out the “carriers” who operate a derelict cube van in order to obtain a CVOR and call themselves a transport company. As well, ensure that all brokers who offer cross border freight are registered with the FMCSA. Ask everyone for verifiable references. I understand that this seems like a whole lot of extra work, but honestly, unless you offer the industry something completely different that what is currently available, you will have a tough road ahead.
5
It's not only the fact that it is double brokered and may or may not pay the hauling carrier. Customers pay me to make sure I have vetted the carrier that their cargo is moving on. I have no idea whether the truck who the load was double brokered to was adequately checked.
With regards to the Link, if we could even get the same with a few minor changes but not be charged such exorbitant fees wouldn't that be an improvement?
10 days ago I reported a carrier calling on my loads to Loadlink via email. I confirmed at that time over the phone that they were not a member. I called them today to followup and it seems nothing has been done. I expected to see the alert notification on their site. Today the customer service person indicated they wait for 2 or 3 members to report on the same carrier. So brokers beware. I also asked about another carrier today who called on a load. Again that carrier is not a member. Both of these carriers are fairly new companies with 1 truck. Why wouldn't the link just put up the alert that so and so is not a member of Loadlink.
Agreed, we already request FMCSA credentials and confirm the numbers match those who sign up
I used to work for Link.. they have a program called Freight First where a carrier or o/o can go and post 2 trucks day. It was always a downgrade option for anyone who wished to cancel the Loadlink and at the time only $50.00/month. If I remember correctly they could only see the loads and carriers could not see them. This could be one of the reasons why companies with 1 truck are calling.
But...I do broker now and I am always weary of 1 truck companies calling on freight.
It's up to credit providers to make sure we are comfortable with isssuing credit to another company. Not Load Link or any other load board.
You will need to get enough members interested. That's where you should focus. We've seen competitors come and go.
Many of us are upset as Links fees are way out of line and they are taking advantage of a monopoly. There is an anti monopoly dept within The Canadian government. But no one seems to make complaints.
I wish LL would revisit the fees.
You will need to get enough members interested. That's where you should focus. We've seen competitors come and go.
Many of us are upset as Links fees are way out of line and they are taking advantage of a monopoly. There is an anti monopoly dept within The Canadian government. But no one seems to make complaints.
I wish LL would revisit the fees.