‘I Can Track My Pizza, But Not My Freight?’ Why Visibility Makes Everyone Angry–and How to Fix It

Most logistics teams have heard some version of this line:

“I can track a $10 pizza in real time, but you can’t tell me where my $100,000 shipment is?”

It’s half joke, half accusation; and it captures a real trust gap between shippers and the logistics service providers who manage their freight.

Shippers now live in a world of one-click tracking: e-commerce orders, food delivery, ride-hailing, even grocery runs. Meanwhile, freight visibility is still fragmented across carrier portals, PDFs, emails, spreadsheets, and phone calls. To customers, that difference looks less like “inherent complexity” and more like “someone’s not trying hard enough.”

This post looks at what’s really behind that gap; and how LSPs, forwarders, and 3PLs can close it with a more realistic, scalable visibility model.

What Shippers Think They’re Buying: Consumer-Grade Visibility

In the shipper’s mind, tracking is simple:

Open an app or link
See where the shipment is
Get a reliable ETA

Consumer apps have normalized this experience. People don’t think about the system architecture behind their grocery order; they just see:

“Out for delivery”
“3 stops away”
“Delivered – photo attached”

When the same person is responsible for a production-critical shipment or high-value cargo, they bring those expectations with them. If they can see the exact status of a $10 pizza, why can’t they get the same for a shipment that could shut down a production line?

From their perspective, when an LSP says:

“The shipment is somewhere between origin and destination.”
“We’re waiting to hear back from the carrier.”
“We don’t have an updated ETA yet.”

…it doesn’t sound like “complexity.” It sounds like loss of control — and it immediately translates into pressure on the relationship.

The key point: shippers think they’re buying an outcome and a level of transparency, not a list of operational constraints.

Why LSPs and Forwarders Feel Stuck in the Middle

On the other side of the table, LSPs and forwarders know the reality is messy.

Shippers write tracking and visibility expectations into contracts:

“Real-time tracking required”
“Proactive notification of delays”
“24/7 access to shipment status”

Operations teams then have to deliver that promise using a patchwork of:

Multiple carrier portals
ELD and telematics feeds
Email updates from partners and agents
Tracking apps that drivers may or may not use
Spreadsheets and manual milestone updates

The result:

Customer-facing teams spend time explaining gaps they don’t fully control.
Operations teams spend hours per day on “Where is my shipment?” work they know should be automated.
Management sees visibility tools in the budget, but doesn’t always see the promised reduction in noise and firefighting.

In many organizations, visibility has become a strange paradox:

It is sold as a differentiator.
It is delivered as a manual, reactive process.

The Real Constraints Behind the Tracking Gap (Without the Drama)

It’s easy to say “just get better tracking,” but the friction is real. A few structural issues show up again and again.

1. Fragmented tools and channels

Every customer, carrier, and partner may bring their own platform:

One customer insists on a specific visibility provider.
Another prefers emailed status reports.
A carrier has its own portal but won’t integrate.
A driver is asked to install yet another single-use tracking app.

Each tool may work in isolation, but together they create noise:

Multiple sources of truth
Conflicting timestamps
Gaps when data doesn’t sync cleanly

2. Integration gaps

The ideal state is clear: carrier systems, ELDs, and telematics push standardized events into a central visibility platform. In practice:

Not all carriers expose high-quality, consistent data.
Smaller operators may not have the systems or resources to integrate.
Data structures and event definitions differ by carrier and mode.

Without robust integrations, ops teams fall back to emails, calls, and screenshots.

3. Data reliability and behaviour

From a carrier or driver perspective, visibility often shows up as:

Extra steps (install this app, accept this link, keep it running)
No clear benefit to them
Events can be missed or entered late
Exceptions may be handled locally but not communicated upstream
More pings from brokers and LSPs, even when tracking is active

If the visibility model adds effort for carriers but doesn’t improve their experience or revenue, compliance will always be fragile.

And once a shipper sees one incorrect ETA or “ghost location,” their trust in the entire setup drops.

From Dots on a Map to Event-Based Visibility

A big part of closing the gap is reframing what “good tracking” actually means.

Most shippers don’t need to watch a shipment move in real time like a food delivery icon. What they truly need is:

Reliable milestones
Accurate ETAs
Fast detection of exceptions

In other words: event-based visibility rather than constant GPS streaming.

Why event-based visibility works better

Event-based tracking focuses on key operational moments:

Gate in / gate out
Vessel departure / arrival
Transshipment complete
Out for delivery / delivered
Empty return

Each of these events has:

Operational meaning (e.g., when storage starts, when risk changes)
Clear owners (terminal, carrier, depot, etc.)
Direct impact on cost, planning, and customer communication

If you can capture and standardize these events reliably, you can:

Detect delays early (e.g., missed departure, extended dwell time).
Estimate downstream impact on arrival and delivery.
Trigger automated alerts and workflows.

This is where platforms like TRADLINX are designed to operate:

Aggregating event data from 50+ shipping lines and global ports
Normalizing it across carriers and regions
Enriching it into proactive alerts and accurate ETAs

Instead of asking, “Where is the shipment every minute?”, you can ask, “Is this shipment where it should be at this point in the plan?”

How LSPs Can Close the “Pizza vs Freight” Gap

Solving the visibility trust gap isn’t about promising perfect tracking. It’s about designing a visibility model that is credible, consistent, and operationally realistic.

Here are practical moves LSPs and forwarders can make.

1. Define what you actually promise

Start by being explicit — internally and externally — about:

Update frequency:
- Live GPS?
- Hourly?
- Event-based with thresholds?
Depth of visibility:
- Truck-level?
- Container-level?
- Consolidated milestone view?
Exception handling:
- What counts as an exception?
- How quickly will you notify?
- Who is responsible for the follow-up plan?

When expectations are vague, every delay feels like a broken promise. When they’re clear, shippers can align their own processes accordingly.

2. Rationalize your tracking stack

Too many tools create confusion. Consider:

Consolidating around a central visibility platform that integrates:
- Ocean carrier data
- Rail and barge milestones
- ELD / telematics where available
- Inland depots and CFS events
- Reducing the number of one-off tracking apps you rely on.
- Using white-labeled portals so different customers see the same underlying data, in their own branded experience.

TRADLINX, for example, is used by forwarders and LSPs as a single dashboard for container visibility, while still letting them expose selected views to shippers under their own brand.

3. Build clear internal rules around tracking and communication

Visibility tools only reduce workload if your internal behaviour changes with them.

Questions to answer:

When tracking is active and reliable, how often should ops call carriers?
When should customer teams proactively inform shippers of delays?
How are exceptions escalated and documented?

Without these rules, teams default to “call and email first” — and you end up with tools layered on top of old habits, instead of replacing them.

4. Design visibility with your partners in mind

Your carriers and drivers are part of your visibility system, whether you like it or not. You can:

Prioritize carriers willing to integrate ELD/telematics or provide API access.
Make it clear that if tracking is live and accurate, you won’t flood drivers with calls.
Tie premium visibility requirements to rate and lane strategy, so carriers see the business case.

The goal is not to eliminate human communication, but to reserve it for real exceptions (not routine “just checking” calls.)

5. Turn visibility into a service asset, not just a compliance checkbox

Finally, visibility is most powerful when it’s framed as a service, not a surveillance mechanism.

You can:

Provide shippers with shared, real-time access to container and shipment status through a portal.
Offer exception-based alerts instead of raw data streams.
Use historical visibility data to review performance, refine planning buffers, and improve routing decisions.

This is where TRADLINX customers often see a shift: visibility becomes something they proactively show to win and retain customers, rather than something they reluctantly provide under pressure.

Conclusion: Visibility as a Trust Strategy, Not Just a Tool

The pizza comparison is not going away. As long as consumer apps set the emotional baseline for tracking, shippers will keep asking why freight can’t look the same.

Logistics professionals don’t need to replicate the exact consumer experience. But they do need to:

Offer transparent, consistent visibility based on events and exceptions.
Reduce reliance on fragile, one-off tracking methods.
Align tools, processes, and partners around a clear visibility promise.

In that world, the conversation shifts from:

“Why can’t you track my shipment?”

to:

“Here’s exactly how we track it, what we’ll tell you, and when.”

That’s not just a technology upgrade. It’s a trust strategy — and for modern LSPs and forwarders, it’s becoming a core part of staying competitive.