Today is Free Shipping Day, and thousands of online merchants are participating in this movement, offering free or reduced price shipping so customers have an opportunity to receive last-minute orders in time for the holidays. Free Shipping Day was founded by an entrepreneur-couple in December 2007 as a location for finding shipping discounts offered by major brands. Since its launch, the service expanded to Canada and the United Kingdom.

While shopping online is convenient, consumers often pay for that convenience through shipping costs and the delay between ordering an item and receiving the delivery. A benefit of ordering online is that you never need to leave your house, unless you prefer to see an item in person before making your purchasing decision.

Last night, I ventured outside with the goal of upgrading my cell phone. Verizon Wireless released the new Samsung Galaxy Nexus, and I figured this would be a good opportunity to replace my current, sluggish phone. Due to a car accident, traveling to the store took three times longer than it should have, and the store had no phones in stock by the time I arrived. I did have a chance to try the phone in the store, though. The sales representative offered me an opportunity to order the phone from the store, with no guarantee of when the order would arrive, but the price in the store was higher than the price on the Verizon Wireless website.

I realize that the price of this device would likely go down in just a few weeks, but I’ve been looking to get rid of my current phone for about a year. At least I didn’t need to pay a delivery fee. Verizon Wireless is not a merchant on the list of those participating in Free Shipping Day; this retailer offers free shipping in its normal course of business.

Here are the retailers participating in free shipping day.

Photo: kalleboo

{ 4 comments }

Delivery company — or logistics company, depending on how you look at it — UPS is taking a page from Amazon.com’s Prime service and offering better delivery options for customers willing to pay a fee.

When I didn’t work out of my home, I’d often come back after work to be greeted by the familiar yellow slip sticking to my front door. While occasionally, my package would be waiting with a neighbor, occasionally my signature was required. And less frequently, for particularly valuable deliveries, my signature was needed in person. I’ve made many trips to the UPS delivery warehouse 45 minutes from my house in order to pick up a delivery I couldn’t be home to receive during delivery hours. I had always had the option to redirect delivery to another location, however, after paying a fee. At one point this fee was $4, but I believe it has increased over the past few years.

On October 3, UPS is launching the “My Choice” service. The basic service is free, and this provides a notification a day in advance of a scheduled delivery. The notification will include a four hour window during which the package will be delivered. The company is offering a convenient feature to pre-authorize a delivery needing a signature. This is an excellent feature for someone who receives UPS deliveries regularly.

If you want more than the basic service, pay a $40 annual fee to receive access to a delivery tracker. UPS does a good job of telling you when your delivery is on the truck on the way to the point of delivery, but this new service is like GPS for your package. Another service available narrows the window during which your package will be delivered. For another $5, you’ll receive a two-hour window rather than a four-hour window.

Are these features worth a $40 annual fee? If I weren’t working from home, I might take advantage of pre-authorization to ensure my packages are delivered without me needing to be present, but I’m not sure I’d pay a $40 annual fee for a tighter guaranteed delivery time.

zyphbear

{ 17 comments }

Earlier this year, AT&T announced its plans to acquire T-Mobile, a plan that would change the landscape of wireless service in the United States and pave the way for an industry dominated by two large players: the new AT&T and Verizon Wireless. Today, the U.S. Justice Department stepped in, issuing a complaint to block the acquisition.

T-Mobile is currently a lower-cost option for wireless service, and the acquisition would most likely result in less competition and higher prices. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice blocked a merger between H&R Block and TaxAct, and the move was questioned when deals like the one between AT&T and T-Mobile were allowed to continue. As we can see now, the government is attempting to take the anti-duopoly approach across industries.

The Comcast acquisition of NBC was a different type of acquisition, and the Department of Justice did not seek to block it. The unified company can now control media from their creation to delivery, and this type of vertical integration seems to not be seen as anti-competitive, even though it could result in increased cost for the consumer and content exclusivity where none existed before. Deals like the one between AT&T and T-Mobile or between H&R Block and TaxAct take a marketplace and offer the consumer fewer choices.

Sprint, the distant fourth player in wireless, lobbied the Department of Justice to block the merger. While the block may be in the best interest of consumers, it’s definitely in the best interest of Sprint, likely to be pushed out of the market after the proposed acquisition. If the shoe were on the other foot, and AT&T were to buy Sprint, T-Mobile would be the company seeking to block the deal on behalf of consumers.

Consolidations and acquisitions can be good for the economy when there are major inefficiencies. Capitalists, for the most part, don’t want the government stepping in to block he progress of business and the growth of corporate empires. In theory, if one company gets so large that the consumer is left with poor choices, the market will eventually correct itself with new players willing to meet the neglected needs of the consumer. But when the cost of becoming a large enough presence in a market dominated by one or two companies is prohibitive, as it most likely is for offering cellular service due to the necessary infrastructure, blocking an acquisition might be a better solution than waiting a decade, a generation, or more for new competitors to re-shape the consumer landscape.

In its own words, the Department of Justice explains the decision:

The Department filed its lawsuit because we believe the combination of AT&T and T-Mobile would result in tens of millions of consumers all across the United States facing higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality products for their mobile wireless services.

Consumers across the country, including those in rural areas and those with lower incomes, have benefitted from competition among the nation’s wireless carriers, particularly the four remaining national carriers. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that everyone can continue to reap the benefits of that competition.

This isn’t the only acquisition of concern recently; Capital One was the winning bidder for ING Direct. Although the deal would make Capital One “only” the sixth largest bank in the United States when measured by deposits, the government and regulators are not taking this deal lightly, seeking more comments from the public.

Do you think the Department of Justice should block the AT&T acquisition of T-Mobile?

Photo: whiteafrican
Department of Justice

{ 11 comments }