|
|
| |
| Container Shipping Traditional Approach to Revenue Generation |
| |
| Written by Ana Casaca |
Posted on 27 May 2025 |
Reading Time 55 minutes |
|
 |
| |
1. The Logic of Traditional Container Shipping Revenue System |
| Container shipping remained markedly conservative in pricing and revenue strategies, particularly when contrasted with more dynamic sectors such as aviation and hospitality. In these industries, real-time pricing models have long been embedded to adjust fares according to demand patterns, customer segments, and market conditions. Historically, container shipping lines have relied on relatively straightforward, volume-driven revenue generation strategies typically centred on standardised pricing structures, long-term contractual relationships, and blanket rate applications, underpinned by an overarching focus on maximising vessel and equipment utilisation through economies of scale. The prevailing logic of securing volumes, filling ships, maintaining schedule reliability, and controlling costs supported a pricing philosophy developed during relative trade stability when customer requirements were more uniform and digital technologies had yet to significantly alter commercial and operational paradigms. They reduced negotiation complexity, ensured consistency, and facilitated predictable planning horizons for carriers and customers. This approach explains why pricing was typically defined by long-term service contracts with major shippers, bespoke arrangements tied to specific relationships and publicly filed tariff schedules for transparency. Commercial emphasis was placed on administrative simplicity and contractual stability rather than agility or responsiveness to real-time market fluctuations in an industry characterised by high capital intensity, globally dispersed service networks, and pronounced cyclical fluctuations in demand. |
| However, while such frameworks provided valuable predictability and stability, attributes valued by beneficial cargo owners and logistics intermediaries, they increasingly failed to address the complexities of a fast-changing global trade environment. Fixed pricing models were disconnected from real-time demand signals, reducing carriers’ ability to capture value during high-demand periods or stimulate volumes during downturns. This rigidity led to suboptimal space utilisation, revenue leakage, and a lack of responsiveness to diverse customer needs. A critical turning point has been the rise of spot pricing. Once considered marginal in container liner shipping, spot rates have gained increased prominence as the different stakeholders, such as carriers, beneficial cargo owners and logistics intermediaries, seek more flexible pricing mechanisms aligned with real-time market conditions. Spot pricing enables voyage-specific rate setting, often close to departure, allowing carriers to respond more effectively to real-time capacity constraints or surplus conditions. This approach proved particularly during pandemic-related disruptions when conventional contract models could not cope with the volatility in supply and demand. This shift reflects a broader move away from fixed long-term contracts towards dynamic rate-setting practices, allowing carriers to capitalise on market fluctuations and shippers to leverage favourable rates and gain greater flexibility in managing their supply chain costs. The increased volatility of freight rates, especially during global disruptions, has made spot pricing a vital tool for revenue optimisation. |
| The emergence and proliferation of digital freight platforms and real-time pricing tools have further accelerated this trend by improving transparency and enabling carriers, beneficial cargo owners, and logistics intermediaries to respond more efficiently to supply-demand imbalances. Drawing from practices in other sectors, these systems enable instant comparisons, bookings, and visibility into available capacity, significantly increasing competitive agility. Spot markets now account for a growing share of volumes on major trade routes, signifying a structural shift away from fixed-rate dominance (Xeneta, 2024), even though the percentage allocated to contract or spot pricing depends on companies’ strategies (Miller, 2023; Chen, 2024; Miller, 2025). Digitalisation has become a critical enabler of this transformation as it catalysed a shift in how freight rates are analysed and applied across different port pairings. The increasing availability of granular data on customer behaviour, cargo characteristics, and booking patterns has made it possible for shipping lines to move beyond uniform or static pricing models. |
| One primary application of this data-driven approach is the dynamic and differentiated analysis of port pairings, where carriers assess the profitability, demand elasticity, and operational efficiency of specific origin-destination combinations. As carriers adopt predictive analytics and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven forecasting tools, they can model demand fluctuations, assess market competition, and identify optimal pricing strategies for each port pairing. This allows for the strategic deployment of capacity and yield maximisation, for instance, prioritising premium cargo or time-sensitive shipments on high-demand lanes while adjusting pricing to stimulate demand on backhaul or underutilised routes. Moreover, port pair analysis supports customer segmentation by aligning service offerings and rates with the varying price sensitivities and logistical needs observed across trade lanes. Thus, the ability to conduct such granular pairing assessments is not only a consequence of digitalisation but a key enabler of the transition from generic to highly customised revenue strategies in container shipping. |
| Still, to better understand the structural inertia that continues to shape pricing behaviours in this evolving environment (Wang and Ding, 2021; Raza et al., 2023), it is essential to examine the foundational logic of traditional revenue models. These legacy practices in container shipping can be grouped into three overarching thematic categories, namely 1) pricing structures and mechanisms, 2) customer engagement and commercial flexibility and 3) capacity management and operational strategy, each representing a pillar of historical industry logic. Pricing structures and mechanisms encompass the formulation of base freight rates and supplementary charges, with a strong emphasis on standardisation, administrative ease, and cost recovery, often at the expense of pricing flexibility and responsiveness to demand variability. Customer engagement and commercial flexibility include pricing and service strategies for managing customer relationships, such as volume incentives and service tiers. It also reveals how limited technological integration has constrained the ability to segment customers or implement dynamic, value-based offerings. Capacity management and operational strategy reflect how vessel space has historically been allocated and managed, revealing a systemic reliance on volume-driven utilisation metrics, often without regard to profitability or demand volatility. |
| |
| Table 1: Revenue Categories and Elements in Container Shipping |
 |
| Source: Casaca (2025) |
| |
| Together, these categories illustrate the traditional revenue model strategic intent and operational logic and its growing inadequacy in a dynamic, digitised, and customer-centric logistics environment (Edirisinghe, 2017). Moreover, each category is further broken down into specific revenue elements, which are explored in detail in the subsequent paragraphs. These discussions draw directly from the structure outlined in Table 1, which serves as a framework for understanding the various elements that influence traditional pricing and revenue strategies. By examining each element systematically, the analysis provides a comprehensive view of how these factors influence revenue generation and commercial decision-making in container liner shipping. |
| |
1.1. Pricing Structures and Mechanisms |
| The evolution of pricing models in container shipping reflects the liner shipping industry’s response to changing operational, technological, and market dynamics. Initially, blanket pricing dominated, offering a uniform rate across customer segments or trade lanes to promote simplicity and standardisation during the early stages of containerisation. As trade volumes expanded and carrier networks became more complex, this approach gave way to tariff-based fixed rates, which introduced structured pricing linked to container type, cargo characteristics, and origin-destination pairs, often coordinated through conferences or alliances. To manage increasing volatility in operational costs, carriers began layering ancillary charges and surcharges onto base tariffs. These included adjustments for fuel, currency fluctuations, and peak demand, providing a mechanism for cost recovery without renegotiating fixed rates. However, as global shipping entered a more volatile and digitised era, traditional models proved too rigid. This led to a dual pricing structure, combining long-term fixed-rate contracts with more flexible spot pricing mechanisms. The result is a dynamic yet complex pricing environment marked by ongoing tension between predictability and market responsiveness. While still present to varying degrees, each model illustrates a distinct phase in the industry’s commercial and strategic transformation. |
| |
| Blanket Pricing. Blanket pricing in container shipping refers to applying a single rate across a broad customer base or trade lane, regardless of variations in shipment size, cargo characteristics, urgency, or booking behaviour. This approach was prominent during the early stages of containerisation when the industry sought to simplify operations and achieve scale through standardisation. For carriers, blanket pricing reduced administrative overhead and streamlined negotiations. It enabled the efficient processing of repetitive shipments and facilitated integration with documentation and internal systems. From a systems perspective, it provided predictability and promoted equality among customers, particularly in high-volume routes and commoditised services. However, this uniformity presents significant commercial drawbacks. Blanket pricing disregards the heterogeneity of customer needs and fails to leverage opportunities for pricing differentiation. By not adjusting rates based on cargo urgency, booking timing, or customer value, carriers cannot optimise revenue and capacity utilisation. During periods of high demand, uniform pricing may undercharge urgent shipments, while in slow periods, it may deter marginal cargo by remaining uncompetitive. This pricing method also limits the potential to incentivise desirable behaviours such as early booking or volume commitments. Additionally, the one-size-fits-all model contributes to service commoditisation, where competition centres primarily on price rather than added value or reliability. As a result, the market may become saturated with undifferentiated offerings, reducing the potential for brand or service loyalty. Operational and strategic flexibility is constrained when pricing fails to reflect the real-world diversity of demand profiles in global shipping markets. In today’s container shipping landscape, blanket pricing is still present in specific commoditised trades, such as the Trans-Pacific eastbound (Asia to North America), intra-Asia, and select north-south corridors like Asia to Africa or South America (Wolf, 2023). These trades are typically characterised by high volumes of relatively uniform cargo, such as electronics, garments, and foodstuffs, where service expectations are standardised, and shippers remain highly price-sensitive. In such contexts, the simplicity and predictability of blanket pricing continue to appeal, particularly to smaller or regional carriers with limited pricing agility. However, it is becoming progressively less sustainable and increasingly being replaced or supplemented by tiered and differentiated pricing models. Rising market volatility, growing demand for customer-centric solutions and the emergence of advanced pricing tools and data analytics have enabled carriers to tailor rates to real-time demand signals and customer profiles, supporting a transition toward more agile and yield-optimised models. As a result, the legacy of uniform pricing is giving way to dynamic approaches that better reflect competitive pressures and service differentiation. While blanket pricing may still be practical in select, operationally simplified contexts, it is increasingly viewed as a legacy practice, misaligned with the complexity and commercial realities of modern liner shipping markets. |
| |
| Tariff-Based Pricing Structures. In the traditional container shipping model, tariff-based pricing formed the core of revenue generation. Carriers established structured and publicly available tariffs, fixing freight rates according to container size, origin-destination pairs, cargo type, and any value-added services requested by the customer. By providing a uniform pricing framework, tariffs supported efficient planning and helped reduce negotiation cycles; shippers, particularly those engaged in regular trade routes, looked for transparency and budgetary certainty that tariffs afforded. The system also satisfied regulatory demands for standardisation and fair competition across carriers operating on similar trade routes. These tariffs were typically set individually or through collective mechanisms such as shipping conferences and strategic alliances to ensure consistency and predictability in the pricing structure. However, it is important to note that cooperative agreements, such as conferences or alliances, are subject to significant regulatory oversight and legal constraints. Antitrust and competition laws, particularly in major jurisdictions such as the United States and the European Union, have imposed strict limitations on how carriers coordinate pricing or capacity, reducing the long-term viability of such collective pricing models. Despite these advantages, tariff-based pricing systems reveal considerable rigidity in dynamic market conditions. They are generally slow to react to changes in demand, cost structures, or supply chain disruptions. This static pricing model does not accommodate fluctuations in operational factors such as fuel costs, port congestion, or seasonal peaks. Nor does it account for behavioural or service-related differences among customers, such as lead time sensitivity or reliability preferences. Consequently, opportunities for pricing differentiation or premium yield extraction are often missed. In an era marked by volatility, digital transformation, and growing expectations for tailored service offerings, the static nature of tariff-based pricing presents challenges for carriers aiming to optimise revenue and align services with evolving customer demands. |
| |
| Ancillary Charges and Surcharges. Shipping lines have long employed ancillary charges and surcharges alongside base tariffs to manage fluctuating operational costs and protect financial margins. These fees are levied to cover specific cost elements beyond standard freight, including fuel price variations, terminal operations, currency exchange impacts, and capacity surges during peak seasons. Typical surcharges include the Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF), Peak Season Surcharge (PSS), Currency Adjustment Factor (CAF), and Terminal Handling Charges (THC). By design, these components offer carriers flexibility to pass on cost increases without revising core tariff rates or renegotiating contracts, thus maintaining revenue stability in unpredictable conditions. Their implementation enables carriers to manage cost exposure better while honouring long-term rate agreements. Nonetheless, the surcharge model is frequently criticised for its lack of transparency and consistency from the shipper’s viewpoint. The simultaneous application of multiple, often loosely defined surcharges can make total freight costs difficult to predict. These charges may be introduced or adjusted with limited notice, hindering the ability of shippers to budget effectively. Moreover, surcharges are typically based on input costs rather than customer value or market conditions, so they do not contribute to demand-sensitive revenue management. They serve primarily as cost recovery mechanisms rather than instruments of strategic pricing. Adding to the complexity, surcharge terminology and calculation methods are not standardised across carriers. Different lines may use varied names, structures, or applicability criteria for similar cost components, making it difficult for shippers to interpret and compare pricing across carriers, particularly when using multiple service providers on the same route or across different trade lanes. This inconsistency creates significant administrative burdens, reduces pricing transparency, and complicates freight procurement decisions. The resultant opacity and variability can strain carrier-customer relationships and erode trust, particularly when shippers perceive the rationale behind certain charges as arbitrary or unjustified. |
| |
| Contract and Spot Pricing Models (Dual Pricing Tension). The coexistence of contract and spot pricing structures has introduced a dual pricing model in container shipping designed to accommodate differing market dynamics and customer requirements. Typically based on 3, 6 and 12-month contractual arrangements, contract pricing provides stable rates and guaranteed space over set periods. It serves customers with regular shipping needs and supports predictable revenue streams for carriers. In contrast, spot pricing is determined in the short-term and reflects immediate market conditions. Spot rates are responsive to fluctuations in supply and demand and often offer higher margins during capacity shortages or peak periods. This dual approach emerged as a practical response to increasing market volatility and the limitations of exclusively static or contractual models. However, the interplay between these pricing systems generates operational and strategic challenges. When market rates rise significantly, spot prices often surpass contracted rates, leading to internal tensions over space allocation and profitability. Carriers may prioritise spot cargo for its higher yield, sometimes at the expense of contract customers, thereby risking service reliability and long-term relationships. Conversely, during downturns, spot rates may fall below-contracted rates, prompting customers to question the value of their agreements. This divergence complicates carriers’ and shippers’ forecasting, planning, and inventory management. Internally, sales and revenue teams may face conflicting incentives, balancing short-term gains against long-term customer commitments. Additionally, the visibility of fluctuating prices across digital platforms can confuse customers and erode trust. While reflective of contemporary market realities, the dual pricing structure introduces complexities that impact the shipping sector’s pricing strategy and operational coherence. |
| |
1.2. Customer Engagement and Commercial Flexibility |
| Customer engagement and commercial flexibility have become critical differentiators in container shipping, particularly as shippers demand greater alignment between service reliability, pricing transparency, and relationship management. However, many traditional pricing and service practices have struggled to meet these expectations. While volume incentives and loyalty rebates aim to reward consistent shippers, they often lack the strategic sophistication to foster long-term commitment or adapt to shifting demand patterns. Similarly, generalised service tiers, designed to segment offerings, frequently fail to correspond with nuanced customer needs, resulting in limited differentiation and reduced perceived value. This challenge is compounded by the inconsistent experiences shippers face across contract and spot market segments, where service reliability, booking priority, and pricing transparency can vary widely. Such inconsistencies weaken trust and complicate procurement decisions, particularly for global shippers or multiple booking channels. Moreover, the limited integration of technological tools into pricing frameworks continues to constrain carriers’ ability to offer flexible, data-driven solutions that respond in real-time to customer behaviour or market signals. As a result, carriers risk undermining revenue potential and customer loyalty if they do not evolve toward more integrated, personalised, and responsive commercial models. |
| |
| Volume Incentives and Loyalty Rebates. Volume incentives and loyalty rebates are long-established tools within container shipping, used to attract and retain high-volume customers by offering financial benefits linked to shipment quantity or repeat business. These mechanisms often operate through retrospective rebates, awarded based on the shipper reaching pre-agreed volume thresholds within a defined time period. The commercial rationale lies in securing cargo stability, enabling carriers to plan capacity more accurately and achieve higher vessel utilisation rates. This predictability aids in scheduling and operational planning, lowering per-unit transport costs and supporting route profitability. From a competitive perspective, these pricing tools help build customer retention, especially in routes with frequent sailings and repeat demand. Nevertheless, the rebate model has notable limitations. In competitive trade lanes, the race to secure large volumes can lead to excessive rate undercutting, with carriers prioritising volume acquisition over profitability. This approach often erodes margins and exacerbates service commoditisation. The rebates themselves tend to cultivate transactional loyalty, where customers remain with a carrier only for the financial incentive and shift allegiance as soon as better terms are offered elsewhere. In such contexts, customer relationships are highly price-sensitive and lack strategic depth. Furthermore, volume-based rebates frequently overlook contribution margins, meaning that high-volume but low-yield accounts may be rewarded equally, or more, than smaller yet more profitable customers. This disconnection between volume and value can weaken overall revenue quality. The structural emphasis on quantity rather than profitability underscores a broader challenge in aligning traditional pricing models with evolving market dynamics in container shipping. |
| |
| Generalised Service Tiers. Implementing generalised service tiers has been a central feature in the traditional pricing structures of container shipping. These tiers typically segment offerings into broad categories such as basic, standard, premium, customised, and, more recently, sustainable services. This model aimed to balance operational simplicity with a degree of service differentiation, particularly during the formative years of containerisation when reliability and affordability were paramount to shippers. Carriers could manage complex networks by standardising operations, aligning port rotations, and simplifying marketing and administrative processes. The model also supported economies of scale by offering predictable service levels to a broad customer base without requiring bespoke arrangements. However, this structure is increasingly out of step with diversifying customer requirements in global logistics. Today’s shippers frequently demand specialised capabilities, ranging from reefer containers and high-security transport to digital tracking and multimodal coordination. Generalised tiers often lack the granularity to reflect such variations, resulting in misalignment between service offerings and customer expectations. This broad-brush approach constrains revenue optimisation by limiting opportunities for price differentiation based on service features or customer segment value. High-margin customers may receive pricing and services similar to those of lower-value accounts, which dilutes potential returns. Additionally, carriers may miss the opportunity to monetise value-added services or capitalise on customer preferences for customisation. As a result, the tiered system may suppress revenue and service innovation. Broad categories reflect a legacy structure prioritising operational efficiency over strategic pricing and customer-centricity within a changing marketplace. |
| |
| Inconsistent Customer Experience Across Contract and Spot Segments. Contract-based and spot-based pricing mechanisms in container shipping have given rise to notable inconsistencies in customer experience. Contract customers typically benefit from agreed rates, assured space allocations, and more predictable scheduling supported by formalised service agreements and long-term relationship management. These customers often interact through dedicated account structures and rely on pricing and service availability stability. In contrast, spot customers engage with carriers more directly, subject to short booking lead times, fluctuating prices, and variable service guarantees depending on real-time capacity. This segmentation results in a divergence of service experiences. For instance, during peak periods or when vessel space becomes constrained, carriers may prioritise spot cargo that yields higher margins, even if it compromises space commitments made under the contract. This can lead to shipment delays, rollovers, or reduced reliability for long-term customers. Simultaneously, spot customers may access lower rates or expedited service during low-demand intervals, creating an uneven perception of fairness. Such disparities can undermine customer confidence in service predictability and provoke dissatisfaction across segments. Compounding this issue are technical and procedural inconsistencies. Booking systems may differ between pricing streams, leading to fragmented communication, inconsistent rate visibility, and limited cross-segment transparency. Customers engaging across both pricing models may encounter conflicting information or service protocols. As a result, service quality becomes closely tied to pricing structure rather than standardised performance metrics. These systemic inconsistencies reflect the underlying tension within a market adapting legacy processes to accommodate more agile and differentiated pricing frameworks. |
| |
| Limited Technological Integration in Pricing. A key limitation of traditional pricing structures in container shipping lies in the limited integration of advanced technology into pricing and revenue management processes. Historically, pricing decisions were made through manual methods, static spreadsheets, experience-based estimations, and bilateral negotiations. Legacy systems sustained this analogue approach and underinvestment in digital infrastructure, compounded by the complexity of coordinating vast global shipping networks. As a result, pricing strategies were often reactive rather than predictive, constrained by delays in data processing and limited access to real-time market intelligence. Operational silos between departments, such as sales, operations, and finance, further hindered coordinated decision-making. Without integrated systems or centralised data platforms, pricing teams lacked visibility into dynamic factors such as cargo flow shifts, competitor pricing, or capacity fluctuations. This fragmentation restricted the development of dynamic pricing models and behavioural pricing strategies. For example, rates were rarely adjusted based on booking lead times, cancellation trends, or customer reliability. The absence of predictive analytics tools meant that carriers were slow to identify patterns that could inform differentiated pricing and unable to forecast high-yield opportunities in time-sensitive windows. In a context where other logistics sectors and digital-native competitors are leveraging artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic pricing to gain market advantage, container shipping’s reliance on manual and static models places it at a structural disadvantage. Traditional revenue strategies lack the responsiveness and precision required in a volatile, customer-driven market without automation and real-time data integration. This technological lag represents a foundational constraint on the evolution of pricing practices within the industry. |
| |
1.3. Capacity Management and Operational Strategy |
| Effective capacity management and operational strategy are foundational to service reliability and financial performance in container shipping. However, traditional revenue models often fall short in aligning available space with actual demand in a responsive and optimised manner. Practices such as static capacity allocations can lead to inefficiencies, with underutilised slots in some segments and overbookings in others, particularly during periods of demand volatility. This misalignment constrains revenue and limits the ability to prioritise high-value or time-sensitive cargo. Similarly, while helpful in maximising load factors, utilisation-focused strategies may overlook the commercial value of flexible capacity deployment tailored to customer segments or market shifts. The tension between contract and spot cargo further complicates operational planning, especially when fixed space commitments hinder real-time optimisation. In many cases, the absence of integrated digital tools to support forecasting, dynamic reallocation, and adaptive pricing undermines strategic agility. Without more intelligent, data-enabled coordination between commercial and operational functions, carriers face increasing difficulty in managing space as a strategic asset, impacting customer satisfaction and profitability in a highly competitive and unpredictable environment. |
| |
| Static Allocations. Static allocations represent the predefined distribution of container slots or vessel space to specific customers, trade lanes, or service agreements. Typically embedded within long-term contractual frameworks, this approach is grounded in historical shipping patterns and forward-looking volume commitments. Static allocations support carrier network design, resource planning, and operational continuity. They facilitate the scheduling of vessels, positioning of containers, and alignment of service rotations with expected demand. Shippers, in turn, benefit from assured capacity, allowing for more reliable supply chain coordination and reduced exposure to market volatility. Despite these operational benefits, static allocation frameworks can lead to misalignment between planned and actual usage. Demand fluctuations, shipment cancellations, or seasonality may cause booked volumes to fall short of allocated capacity, leaving carriers with underutilised slots. Additionally, shipper no-shows, when containers are booked but not delivered for loading, further exacerbate the mismatch between expected and actual cargo volumes. These discrepancies undermine operational efficiency and revenue optimisation, compelling carriers to adopt overbooking strategies and explore predictive tools to mitigate uncertainty. Alternatively, surging demand on under-allocated routes may lead to artificial shortages and lost booking opportunities. Since reallocation typically requires renegotiation or internal intervention, responsiveness to emerging commercial conditions is limited. This rigidity can result in suboptimal capacity use, where high-demand shipments are rejected while other slots remain idle or are filled with low-yield cargo. The model also restricts flexibility in responding to external shocks such as geopolitical disruptions, weather events, or sudden trade imbalances. In an industry increasingly influenced by real-time variables, the static nature of predetermined space allocation constrains the ability to maximise fleet efficiency and financial performance. The reliance on forecast-based commitments underscores the tension between long-term operational planning and the need for adaptive commercial agility within containerised trade networks. |
| |
| Focus on High Utilisation and Network Efficiency. A cornerstone of traditional container shipping economics has been the pursuit of high utilisation rates and optimised network efficiency. Carriers operating in a capital-intensive industry with significant fixed costs have historically prioritised the full deployment of vessel capacity to ensure profitability. This emphasis shaped the development of large-scale hub-and-spoke networks, consolidated port pairings, and the deployment of increasingly larger vessels aimed at capturing economies of scale. By maximising twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) volumes per voyage, carriers aimed to reduce unit costs and drive operational efficiency across global shipping loops. This volume-driven model also informed route planning, container repositioning strategies, and vessel turnaround times. Efforts were focused on reducing the incidence of empty repositioning, increasing backhaul utilisation, and preserving schedule integrity. However, this operational lens often led to the indiscriminate acceptance of cargo to fill space, including low-yield or marginal freight. In doing so, pricing power was undermined, and rate volatility became entrenched, especially on major east-west trade lanes prone to overcapacity. Moreover, the emphasis on maximum utilisation constrained service flexibility. Fixed rotations and inflexible sailing frequencies limited carriers’ ability to adapt to changing customer requirements or market patterns. This rigid approach favoured engineering efficiency over commercial optimisation. In practice, it prioritised the quantity of cargo over its quality in revenue terms. As the container shipping environment becomes more complex and demand increasingly segmented, this traditional model highlights the operational trade-offs between maximising slot use and ensuring profitability per unit of capacity deployed. |
| |
| Challenges in Balancing Space Between Contracted and Spot Cargo: Managing vessel space between contracted and spot cargo presents one of the more complex operational challenges in container shipping. Contractual agreements, often negotiated months in advance, typically secure space commitments for large-volume shippers over specified periods and trade routes. These agreements provide stability and predictability for both parties. Conversely, spot bookings are characterised by their immediacy, reflecting short-term market demand and pricing dynamics. The coexistence of these two booking streams creates tension in allocating and utilising finite vessel capacity. Operational dilemmas emerge when actual contract volumes differ from forecasted expectations. Underutilisation of contracted slots may result in excess capacity that carriers must fill with last-minute bookings, often at reduced rates. At the same time, sudden spikes in spot demand may coincide with vessels already fully allocated under existing agreements, leading to opportunity costs when high-yield bookings cannot be accommodated. These competing priorities necessitate constant re-evaluation of capacity commitments and raise the risk of service inconsistency. Forecasting uncertainties, variable market conditions, and overbooking strategies to hedge against no-shows compound the complexity. While overbooking can mitigate shortfalls in space utilisation, it also carries the risk of exceeding actual vessel limits, necessitating last-minute rollovers or cancellations. The structural rigidity of static allocation systems and the unpredictability of spot markets reinforce the delicate balance that carriers must maintain. Space management across these segments thus involves ongoing negotiation between commercial performance, contractual fidelity, and operational feasibility within a dynamic shipping landscape. |
| |
2. Traditional Approach Limitations to Revenue Generation |
| Container shipping is no longer navigating calm waters; the commercial environment in which carriers operate has changed profoundly. Modern logistics chains are increasingly shaped by digitisation, digitalisation and digital transformation, demand volatility, customer segmentation, heightened expectations for service customisation, and other external forces, such as geopolitics, that have redrawn the commercial map, leaving traditional revenue models adrift in a transformed global trade environment. These developments have introduced unpredictable fluctuations in cargo volumes, disrupted established trade lanes, and undermined the predictability upon which tariff-based and fixed-rate contracts historically relied. Moreover, shippers now demand transparency, pricing flexibility and intelligent digital tools that enable visibility, agility, and tailored service options. In addition, the escalation of environmental regulation, exemplified by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 sulphur emissions cap and upcoming carbon taxation frameworks, has added a new layer of operational cost and complexity. These regulatory pressures challenge the ability of legacy pricing mechanisms to recover costs transparently and efficiently, exposing the inflexibility of traditional models. The COVID-19 pandemic further amplified these vulnerabilities, exposing the fragility of static pricing structures. The severe imbalance between supply and demand rendered conventional contracts, surcharges, and blanket rates inadequate for reflecting real-time market dynamics, forcing carriers and customers into a reactive stance. |
| Subject to this environment, many legacy pricing structures and capacity management tools have revealed critical limitations; the emerging digital ecosystems have elevated customer expectations, making one-size-fits-all revenue strategies obsolete. They also highlighted operational inefficiencies and structural mismatches between outdated commercial models and contemporary global logistics’ complex, data-driven demands. As a result, legacy pricing and capacity management tools are fundamentally misaligned with how value is created and captured in the modern shipping economy. Finally, mounting regulatory scrutiny, particularly from competition authorities in key jurisdictions, has imposed new constraints on cooperative pricing mechanisms such as conferences and strategic alliances. These restrictions have curtailed carriers’ ability to coordinate rates and capacities, dismantling long-standing frameworks that once supported collective revenue management and operational optimisation. Overall, the limitations of traditional revenue generation models in container shipping are not solely the result of internal design flaws; they are also significantly shaped by a series of exogenous factors that have fundamentally reshaped the broader commercial and logistical environment. Exogenous factors have accelerated the obsolescence of static revenue generation models and created an urgent need for carriers to embrace more adaptive, data-enabled, and customer-centric pricing and commercial strategies capable of thriving in a complex, uncertain, and continual evolution market. |
| The limitations of traditional revenue practices in container shipping can be broadly categorised into four overarching domains: structural, strategic, operational, and technological. This categorisation is not arbitrary but rather grounded in the distinct nature of each revenue element and its specific mode of influence on commercial performance. Each category encapsulates a particular dimension of constraint that, collectively, shapes the overall effectiveness and adaptability of revenue generation models within the sector (see Table 2). Each identified limitation is examined in the following paragraphs, offering a detailed analysis of how legacy practices in container shipping are constraining revenue performance and what this implies for the industry’s future competitiveness. |
| |
| Table 2: Limitations to the Revenue Generation Traditional Approach in Container Shipping |
 |
| Source: Casaca (2025) |
| |
2.1. Operational Limitations |
| Operational limitations refer to the practical constraints and inefficiencies that arise during the day-to-day execution of commercial and service delivery activities in container shipping. These limitations typically manifest across core operational domains such as pricing application, vessel space allocation, customer service delivery, and responsiveness to dynamic booking behaviours. In essence, these are tactical shortcomings. They do not reflect a lack of strategic foresight but rather an implementation gap, where the mechanisms for translating strategic intent into operational action falter. For instance, while dual pricing models aim to maximise yield across contract and spot markets, their practical execution often results in capacity conflicts, customer dissatisfaction, and planning inconsistencies. Similarly, while service tiers and contractual commitments are designed to segment the market and ensure reliability, their rigid application frequently fails to accommodate diverse customer segments’ nuanced and fluid needs. Unlike strategic or technological deficiencies, which often stem from flawed long-term visions or inadequate digital infrastructures, operational limitations emerge from the friction between well-conceived business models and the inadequacy of existing processes to adapt swiftly and effectively to real-time conditions. |
| Such limitations are most visible during periods of volatility, whether induced by seasonal peaks, geopolitical disruptions, or sudden shifts in trade flows. Inflexible allocation models, siloed decision-making structures, and outdated planning protocols reveal a chronic lack of agility in these scenarios. The result is a misalignment between market conditions and operational capacity, leading to underutilisation, lost revenue opportunities, diminished service quality, and erosion of customer trust. Addressing these operational limitations requires more than incremental process adjustments. It demands reconfiguring the interface between commercial, planning, and execution functions, supported by real-time data integration, predictive analytics, and cross-functional alignment. Through such systemic responsiveness, carriers can enhance their agility, sustain competitiveness, and deliver consistent value in an increasingly volatile, customer-driven market landscape. |
| Operational limitations include internal tensions and revenue forecasting, fragmented service quality based on pricing channel, mismatch between allocated and actual demand and trade-offs in space allocation and risk of inefficiency; they are described below. |
| |
| Limitation 04: Internal Tensions and Revenue Forecasting Complexity derived from Contract and Spot Pricing Models (Dual Pricing Tension). The coexistence of contract and spot pricing models in container shipping introduces strategic complexity that often leads to internal conflicts. On the one hand, contract pricing arrangements provide predictable revenue and long-term customer relationships, which support stability in planning and network management. On the other hand, the volatile nature of the spot market offers lucrative opportunities, especially during demand surges or capacity shortages. This creates a persistent tension: should carriers prioritise fulfilling lower-yielding contractual obligations or divert capacity to exploit higher spot rates? Such duality results in fragmented decision-making across commercial, operational, and planning teams. It undermines revenue forecasting accuracy, as the volatility of the spot market affects both short-term earnings and long-term customer trust. Moreover, customers often perceive favouritism or neglect based on market conditions. When contract customers see their cargo displaced by more profitable spot shipments, their trust erodes, weakening loyalty and potentially leading to renegotiation pressures or attrition. This model also complicates strategic coherence. Commercial policies may appear inconsistent, especially when tactical responses to market volatility contradict long-term pricing commitments. The lack of an integrated pricing logic makes aligning objectives across departments and geographies difficult. As a result, carriers face both internal operational friction and external reputational risk. Ultimately, while dual pricing models aim to optimise yield, their execution often reveals fundamental limitations in balancing market responsiveness with relational stability, thereby diminishing the efficacy of revenue management and customer engagement. |
| |
| Limitation 07: Fragmented Service Quality Based on Pricing Channel derived from Inconsistent Customer Experience Across Contract and Spot Segments.The dichotomy between contract and spot cargo segments generates inconsistencies in service delivery, undermining customer trust and brand reputation. Contract customers expect assured space, predictable pricing, and stable service levels. However, during periods of capacity constraints, such as peak seasons or disruption events, they may find their bookings deprioritised in favour of higher-paying spot shipments. Conversely, spot market customers might unexpectedly receive better rates or expedited services during downturns, creating confusion and perceived unfairness. Such disparities are exacerbated by the siloed structure of customer relationship management across segments. Many carriers operate with different teams, systems, and processes for contract and spot customers. This disjointed approach hinders a holistic understanding of customer value, especially for customers who operate across both pricing channels. It also limits the ability to deliver consistent communication, customised solutions, or integrated service levels. The result is a fragmented customer journey that lacks coherence and predictability. Service quality becomes contingent on market cycles rather than strategic customer segmentation or long-term value. For shippers, this inconsistency adds complexity to their supply chain planning and often leads to frustration. From the carrier’s perspective, it complicates loyalty-building efforts and reduces opportunities for premium service monetisation. In a competitive environment where differentiation increasingly depends on service experience, such fragmentation is a critical weakness. Addressing it requires greater integration of customer data, harmonised service policies, and an agile approach to resource allocation that transcends simplistic contract vs spot dichotomies. |
| |
| Limitation 09: Mismatch Between Allocated and Actual Demand derived from Static Allocations. Static allocation models, which predefine how much capacity is reserved for contracted versus spot cargo, fail to reflect the fluidity and unpredictability of modern shipping demand. These rigid frameworks assume relative consistency in cargo volumes, routes, and seasonal trends. However, global trade patterns are increasingly shaped by dynamic forces, geopolitical shifts, natural disasters, inventory strategies like just-in-time vs just-in-case, and e-commerce-driven demand spikes. When capacity is locked into static contracts, carriers lose the flexibility to respond to these evolving conditions. During surges, they may be unable to reallocate space to high-paying spot cargo, missing revenue opportunities. In contrast, fixed allocations may go underutilised during slack periods, leading to wasted capacity and lost cost recovery. The inability to recalibrate in real time disrupts the delicate balance between supply and demand, especially on key trade lanes where margin optimisation depends on granular control over space deployment. This misalignment also erodes service reliability. Customers experience booking rejections or last-minute changes, damaging the carrier’s credibility. Operationally, planners are burdened with inefficiencies, such as underfilled vessels or mispositioned equipment, which compound costs and delay responses to market signals. In today’s environment, where agility and responsiveness are central to competitiveness, static allocation is increasingly an anachronism. Carriers require adaptive models that integrate demand forecasting, real-time booking trends, and pricing signals to optimise space dynamically. Without such evolution, static practices will continue to undermine profitability and service quality. |
| |
| Limitation 11: Trade-offs in Space Allocation and Risk of Inefficiency derived from Challenges in Balancing Contracted and Spot Cargo. Balancing contracted and spot cargo presents a continuous operational and commercial conundrum for container carriers. Long-term contracts provide revenue certainty and foster enduring client relationships. However, these commitments also tie up capacity that could be potentially more profitable if sold on the spot market, particularly during periods of tight supply and high rates. Conversely, allocating too much space to the spot market exposes carriers to revenue shortfalls during downturns or when forecasted spot demand fails to materialise. The inherent inaccuracies of demand forecasting in volatile markets further complicate this balancing act. Forecasts are often based on historical data that may not account for sudden economic shifts, port congestion, or weather-related disruptions. Overbooking practices, employed to mitigate no-shows, also risk exceeding vessel capacity and triggering rollovers, leading to service failures and compensation costs. Operational teams are thus caught in a constant state of adjustment, striving to reconcile forward-looking sales commitments with real-time market realities. These adjustments often involve conflicting pressures from commercial departments seeking revenue maximisation and operations teams prioritising service stability and efficiency. This dissonance strains internal coordination and limits the effectiveness of space planning strategies. It also detracts from the customer experience, mainly when rollovers or booking denials occur unpredictably. To address these challenges, carriers must invest in more sophisticated demand forecasting tools, flexible space management protocols, and integrated planning systems that facilitate informed trade-offs. Without such capabilities, the tension between fixed and opportunistic cargo will continue to erode operational coherence and profitability. |
| |
2.2. Strategic Limitations |
| Strategic limitations in container shipping refer to the foundational misalignments between long-standing business philosophies and the rapidly evolving demands of the modern logistics landscape. These limitations originate from legacy frameworks that historically prioritised economies of scale, operational simplicity, and uniform service offerings. While these models were effective in the formative decades of containerisation, when standardisation, cost-efficiency, and global network expansion were paramount, they are increasingly ill-suited to an environment defined by volatility, digital disruption, and heightened customer expectations. |
| At their core, strategic limitations represent a disconnect between the industry’s traditional value proposition and the strategic imperatives of today’s shipping markets. Many carriers continue to operate under pricing structures that emphasise volume over value, offering blanket rates, static tiering, or generalised service bundles that fail to reflect the differentiated needs of contemporary shippers. This inertia stems from an overreliance on commoditised business models, which treat shipping capacity as a uniform product rather than a flexible service capable of adaptation, segmentation, and monetisation. Moreover, these outdated strategic assumptions hinder the industry’s ability to innovate and capture value through customised offerings, integrated logistics solutions, or dynamic pricing strategies. They also impede the transition towards more collaborative and data-driven partnerships with customers, particularly those seeking end-to-end visibility, sustainability metrics, or supply chain resilience. |
| Strategic limitations, therefore, are not merely abstract concerns; they have tangible consequences. They restrict revenue growth, reduce competitive differentiation, and expose carriers to market share erosion by more agile, customer-centric, and technologically integrated service providers. Addressing these limitations requires a fundamental reorientation of strategic intent: one that embraces complexity prioritises customer value over volume, and aligns core business models with the demands of a digitised and demand-driven global economy. |
| Strategic limitations include lack of transparency and limited strategic pricing value, failure to differentiate pricing across customer types, rewarding volume over profitability, inadequate response to diverse customer needs, revenue dilution through indiscriminate volume focus; they are described below. |
| |
| Limitation 02. Lack of Transparency and Limited Strategic Pricing Value derived from Ancillary Charges and Surcharges. Ancillary charges and surcharges, such as bunker adjustment factors, terminal handling charges, congestion surcharges, or documentation fees, are intended to recoup specific operational costs. However, the lack of standardisation, transparency, and consistency in their application frequently leads to confusion and mistrust among shippers. These charges are often applied retroactively or revised with little notice, making it difficult for customers to forecast total shipping costs accurately. The perception that surcharges are arbitrary or opportunistic is widespread, particularly when they lack a clear basis linked to actual service value or cost increases. This opacity diminishes shipper confidence and erodes the relational equity between carrier and customer. It also undermines procurement efficiency and complicates shippers’ budgeting and cost allocation processes, especially in large or time-sensitive supply chains. Moreover, these charges typically do not reflect differentiated service delivery or customer value, meaning they fail to serve as strategic pricing tools. Rather than segmenting customers based on behaviour, loyalty, or willingness to pay, surcharges apply broadly and indiscriminately, contributing little to customer retention or revenue maximisation. To overcome these limitations, carriers must invest in more transparent, predictable, and value-aligned charging mechanisms. This could involve bundling charges into base rates, offering clearer rationales for surcharges, or deploying dynamic tools that adjust charges transparently based on indexed cost drivers. Without reform, ancillary fees will continue to represent a source of dissatisfaction and a barrier to the evolution of trust-based, data-driven commercial relationships. |
| |
| Limitation 03. Failure to Differentiate Pricing Across Customer Types derived from Blanket Pricing. Blanket pricing, wherein a single rate is applied across a broad customer base or geographical scope, represents a significant constraint on strategic revenue management. While simplifying rate setting and reducing administrative burdens, it neglects the complexities of customer profiles, service needs, and value perceptions. By failing to reflect differences in booking behaviour, cargo urgency, seasonality, or relationship tenure, blanket pricing commodifies the service offering and leaves money on the table. This undifferentiated pricing structure undermines the potential for price discrimination, a fundamental principle of revenue optimisation. High-value or time-sensitive shipments are priced the same as lower-value cargo despite differing willingness to pay. This flattens the market, fostering competition on price alone and discouraging investment in service quality or innovation. Moreover, it inhibits behavioural incentives; there is no mechanism to reward early bookings, encourage cargo consolidation, or promote digital engagement. From a strategic standpoint, blanket pricing constrains agility. In dynamic markets subject to frequent disruption, such as those influenced by port congestion, geopolitical shifts, or supply chain reconfigurations, uniform rates are slow to respond and risk underpricing during peak periods or overpricing during downturns. To address these limitations, carriers must shift towards segmented, value-based pricing models considering customer behaviour, cargo characteristics, and market context. Digital platforms and data analytics can facilitate more granular and responsive pricing, enhancing customer satisfaction and profitability. In today’s environment, static, uniform pricing structures are outdated and detrimental to competitive positioning. |
| |
| Limitation 05. Rewarding Volume over Profitability derived from Volume Incentives and Loyalty Rebates. Volume incentives and loyalty rebates have long rewarded repeat business and high-volume shippers. However, these mechanisms often prioritise sheer throughput over profitability, leading to suboptimal commercial outcomes. In highly competitive lanes, volume-based incentives can trigger rate erosion as carriers compete to secure large accounts, sacrificing margin for market share. This transactional focus disincentivises strategic engagement and fosters a commodified relationship between carrier and shipper. Such rebates tend to overlook the total value a customer brings, including factors like booking reliability, payment behaviour, lane diversity, or potential for premium service uptake. As a result, high-volume but low-margin customers may receive the same or better incentives than more profitable but smaller accounts. This misallocation distorts customer segmentation and clouds internal assessments of account performance. Moreover, loyalty driven by discounts rather than service quality or strategic alignment is inherently fragile. It diminishes once competitors offer better rates, triggering churn. These schemes can also become overly complex to manage, with opaque terms, retrospective calculations, and administrative overheads that detract from commercial agility. To enhance revenue quality, carriers need to evolve towards profitability-based loyalty models. These would reward customers based on contribution margin rather than volume alone, promoting smarter commercial decisions. Integration of customer lifetime value metrics, margin-based segmentation, and digital contract management tools could support this shift. In a landscape increasingly shaped by customisation and service differentiation, volume-centric incentives represent a blunt instrument that can no longer deliver strategic value. |
| |
| Limitation 06. Inadequate Response to Diverse Customer Needs derived from Generalised Service Tiers. Traditional service tier structures in container shipping, typically defined by broad categories such as basic/economic, standard, premium, customised, and sustainable/green, are increasingly misaligned with modern shippers’ nuanced and evolving demands. These predefined tiers offer limited flexibility, grouping diverse customers under homogenised service packages that fail to reflect variations in cargo sensitivity, supply chain priorities, or value-added service requirements. This rigidity constrains carriers’ ability to implement differentiated offerings or dynamic pricing models. As digitalisation, sustainability, and resilience become central to logistics decision-making, customers increasingly expect services aligned with specific key performance indicators, such as emissions tracking, cargo visibility, guaranteed delivery timeframes, or expedited handling in congested ports. Generic tier systems often fail to accommodate these preferences, forcing customers into suboptimal packages or ad hoc workaround solutions. The static nature of traditional tiering structures stifles innovation, limits revenue diversification, and weakens competitiveness, particularly when benchmarked against integrated logistics providers and digital-native platforms that offer modular, adaptive service menus. To remain relevant, carriers must evolve beyond these legacy tiers toward a more customer-centric, data-informed service architecture. This entails the development of modular service components, the enablement of dynamic bundling, and the strategic use of customer data to personalise offerings. Such an approach promises greater value capture across diverse market segments, enhanced client satisfaction, and stronger positioning as strategic logistics partners rather than commoditised transport providers. However, container carriers may not always succeed in introducing such modular offerings due to the constraints imposed by entrenched tier structures. As a result, initiatives to enable customers to configure tailored service packages that meet specific operational needs and budget constraints are frequently obstructed by systemic inflexibilities and limited digital integration. |
| |
| Limitation 10. Revenue Dilution Through Indiscriminate Volume Focus derived from a Focus on High Utilisation and Network Efficiency. Container shipping carriers have traditionally emphasised high utilisation and network efficiency as core performance indicators. While this focus ensures operational consistency and cost amortisation across vessels, it also encourages volume-centric behaviours that can degrade revenue quality. Pursuing full ships often leads carriers to accept low-yield or marginal cargo merely to maintain utilisation thresholds. This volume-driven approach erodes average revenue per TEU and contributes to systemic overcapacity. Moreover, a fixation on network efficiency can result in rigid sailing schedules and limited route flexibility, diminishing the carrier’s ability to adapt to demand variability or offer differentiated services. In peak periods, prioritising utilisation may displace higher-paying customers in favour of completing the load plan, while during low seasons, discounted cargo fills space that could be better reserved for more profitable, time-sensitive shipments. This tactical mindset constrains strategic revenue management. It overlooks key customer metrics such as profitability, willingness to pay, or service elasticity and fails to effectively integrate commercial and operational planning. As a result, carriers may achieve strong load factors but poor financial outcomes, especially in volatile markets. A more sophisticated approach would involve shifting focus from sheer volume to revenue quality. This requires dynamic pricing, predictive booking management, and understanding customer contribution at the shipment level. By optimising for margin rather than tonnes, carriers can better balance utilisation with profitability, enhancing network health and long-term competitiveness. Network efficiency should be a means to strategic ends, not the goal itself. |
| |
2.3. Structural Limitations |
| Structural limitations in container shipping refer to the deeply embedded constraints arising from the foundational design of pricing architectures, institutional frameworks, and industry-wide norms that shape competitive behaviour. Unlike operational or strategic shortcomings, which can often be addressed through internal process optimisation or business model innovation, structural limitations are systemic. They are rooted in the legacy configurations of the industry’s regulatory, commercial, and institutional environment, making them inherently resistant to short-term correction or isolated interventions. These limitations manifest through entrenched pricing systems prioritising uniformity over responsiveness and industry practices discouraging transparency, flexibility, or true differentiation. For example, the persistent reliance on general rate increases (GRIs), surcharges, and non-binding service commitments reflects a structural dependence on price-led competition rather than value-based or service-led differentiation. Similarly, the absence of enforceable standards around service performance or customer protection allows opaque practices to persist, further entrenching inefficiencies and trust deficits. |
| Structural limitations are also perpetuated by institutional inertia and fragmented governance. Many carriers, terminals, and logistics providers operate within siloed regulatory regimes and competitive frameworks that discourage cooperation and impede coordinated innovation. These conditions often foster zero-sum competition rather than shared value creation, particularly in data sharing, emissions reduction, or capacity pooling. Addressing structural limitations thus requires more than internal reform; it calls for collective industry realignment, cross-border regulatory harmonisation, and a shift in the competitive paradigm. Such change is inherently slow and politically complex, but without it, the industry will remain constrained by outdated rules, legacy pricing philosophies, and institutional barriers that inhibit progress. Overcoming these limitations is essential for sustainable profitability and advancing global logistics toward greater transparency, resilience, and environmental accountability. |
| Structural limitations only includes inflexibility in responding to market volatility; it is described below. |
| |
| Limitation 11. Inflexibility in Responding to Market Volatility derived from Tariff-Based Pricing Structures. Tariff-based pricing structures are a legacy feature of container shipping, designed to offer stability, predictability, and a framework for transparent negotiations with shippers. These tariffs typically establish base rates for specific routes, vessel sizes, and container types, often published well in advance and revised infrequently. While this model provides consistency and supports long-term planning, it is fundamentally ill-suited to the realities of modern, volatile trade environments. In today’s shipping landscape, marked by rapid demand shifts, supply chain disruptions, fluctuating fuel costs, and geopolitical unpredictability, tariff-based pricing lacks the responsiveness required to optimise yield. Rates anchored in static schedules cannot adjust to high-demand periods or unexpected cost spikes in real-time. As a result, carriers miss revenue opportunities when demand exceeds expectations and absorb unnecessary losses when market conditions deteriorate, but rates remain artificially high. Moreover, tariff pricing assumes homogeneity across customers, failing to account for variations in cargo value, urgency, reliability, or service requirements. This one-size-fits-all approach prevents meaningful price segmentation and dilutes the potential to reward strategic behaviours such as early booking, flexible transit windows, or digital interaction. It commodifies the carrier’s offering, inviting competition purely on price and reducing the scope for value-based differentiation. To remain competitive, carriers must evolve towards dynamic pricing frameworks supported by real-time data analytics and digital platforms. These systems can enable agile rate adjustments, improved segmentation, and price alignment with actual service value. Clinging to inflexible tariffs in a fluid market risks both profitability and relevance. |
| |
2.4. Technological Limitations |
| Technological limitations in container shipping originate from the persistent lack of digital maturity within many traditional carriers’ pricing and revenue management functions. In a sector increasingly shaped by real-time data, automation, and advanced analytics, such deficiencies have become a critical impediment to operational efficiency and strategic agility. These limitations are particularly conspicuous when contrasted with the rapid digital transformation across adjacent logistics and supply chain domains, where algorithmic pricing, dynamic capacity management, and integrated customer platforms are becoming standard practice. The technological shortcomings of traditional carriers are often characterised by the continued reliance on outdated tools, such as static spreadsheets, legacy enterprise systems, and fragmented databases, that operate in silos. These systems lack the capacity to integrate market signals, customer behaviour, and internal constraints into coherent, real-time pricing strategies. The result is a disjointed decision-making process, where pricing remains mainly manual, reactive, and dependent on human negotiation rather than data-driven optimisation. |
| Such limitations inhibit carriers’ ability to forecast demand accurately, respond to market fluctuations, or differentiate pricing by customer segment, cargo type, or service tier. Moreover, the absence of digital integration across commercial and operational functions undermines the visibility and coordination required for effective yield management and customer service customisation. This technological lag increases administrative burdens and delays response times, contributing to revenue leakage, service inconsistencies, and missed opportunities for value-added service innovation. In a competitive landscape increasingly dominated by digitally enabled logistics providers and platform-based shipping models, the failure to modernise pricing and revenue management technologies represents a structural disadvantage. Overcoming these limitations demands more than system upgrades; it requires a comprehensive digital transformation strategy encompassing data infrastructure, process reengineering, and organisational culture change. Without such a shift, traditional carriers risk obsolescence in a market that rewards speed, transparency, and intelligent automation |
| Likewise, structural limitations only includes lack of dynamic and data-priven pricing capability; it is described below. |
| |
| Limitation 08. Lack of Dynamic and Data-Driven Pricing Capability derived from Limited Technological Integration in Pricing. In the increasingly digitised logistics landscape, the absence of advanced technological integration in pricing represents a significant competitive disadvantage for many container carriers. Traditional pricing processes remain heavily reliant on manual inputs, static spreadsheets, and fragmented systems that operate in departmental silos. This disconnect inhibits capturing and acting upon real-time market intelligence, which is essential for executing dynamic, data-driven pricing strategies. Without integrated platforms, carriers cannot leverage predictive analytics to anticipate demand shifts, monitor competitor rates, or respond agilely to external disruptions such as port closures, fuel price volatility, or geopolitical events. Pricing decisions are often delayed, inconsistent across regions, and disconnected from operational realities such as vessel utilisation or equipment availability. This latency diminishes the capacity to capitalise on high-demand periods or adjust downward in response to soft markets, ultimately reducing revenue per TEU. Moreover, the lack of behavioural pricing, wherein customer history, loyalty, booking patterns, and responsiveness to offers are factored into rate-setting, limits carriers’ ability to tailor pricing to maximise customer value. The inability to personalise offers curtails monetisation opportunities and weakens customer engagement, especially as shippers increasingly expect seamless, digital interactions. Digitally advanced competitors, particularly platform-based logistics providers and digital freight forwarders, are already using AI and machine learning to drive real-time pricing and segmentation. To remain relevant and competitive, traditional carriers must invest in pricing technology that unifies commercial and operational data, enables automation, and supports strategic revenue optimisation through intelligent decision-making. |
| |
3. Lessons Learned from Legacy Revenue Generation |
| The traditional revenue model of container shipping is increasingly unfit for this purpose in a volatile, data-driven, and service-centric global logistics environment. Operational, strategic, structural, and technological limitations are no longer isolated inefficiencies; they represent systemic constraints that erode competitiveness and hinder responsiveness to market evolution. This growing misalignment between legacy frameworks and emerging commercial realities reflects a sector moving beyond predictability and volume-centric logic. To remain viable, container carriers must adopt revenue management paradigms that are flexible, customer-focused, and digitally enabled. Understanding these limitations through a structured categorisation is not merely an academic exercise, it serves a functional purpose. Operational issues expose shortcomings in execution and coordination; strategic issues highlight the stagnation of outdated business models; structural issues signal the need for foundational redesign; and technological issues underscore the urgency of digital transformation. This framework provides a practical lens through which stakeholders can identify priorities and target interventions. More importantly, it transforms critique into strategy, offering a pathway to modernise revenue models and reposition carriers as agile, value-generating actors in global trade. |
| Building on this categorisation, the lessons learned from these limitations offer critical insight into the systemic adjustments required to navigate today’s complex and dynamic market landscape. These lessons are not abstract reflections but actionable outcomes from closely examining where traditional practices have failed to evolve. Each limitation category reveals specific gaps in adapting to shifting customer expectations, accelerating digitalisation, and the volatility of global trade flows. Understanding these shortcomings enables stakeholders to move beyond incremental fixes and towards foundational reforms that promote agility, resilience, and sustained value creation. What follows is a synthesis of key lessons drawn from each domain, offering a blueprint for reimagining revenue management in line with the demands of modern container shipping. |
| |
| Lesson 01: Embrace Customer-Centric Service Architectures. One of the most significant lessons from the limitations of traditional revenue models in container shipping is the urgent need to shift toward a more customer-centric service architecture. Historically, carriers have relied on rigid, standardised service tiers that treat all customers as if their needs and priorities are uniform. This one-size-fits-all model is increasingly misaligned with the realities of modern shipping, where shippers vary widely in their expectations, constraints, and value perceptions. Based on their unique supply chain configurations, today’s logistics customers may prioritise different factors, speed, reliability, cost-efficiency, environmental impact, compliance, or digital integration. A more customer-centric approach requires robust segmentation based on operational and strategic relevance. Customer segmentation should not rely solely on volume but incorporate factors such as shipment frequency, cargo sensitivity, time constraints, industry requirements, and relationship longevity. This enables carriers to craft differentiated offerings tailored to the specific needs of distinct customer cohorts. For instance, temperature-controlled pharmaceuticals and automotive just-in-time components demand different handling and service guarantees than bulk commodities or standard consumer goods. The key to operationalising this segmentation lies in developing modular service components. Carriers could allow shippers to assemble customised solutions from a core menu, including real-time tracking, guaranteed departure, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reporting, or customs clearance facilitation. This architecture supports tailored pricing models and fosters stronger customer loyalty by aligning value delivery with client expectations. In an increasingly complex and competitive market, such adaptability is vital for long-term commercial sustainability and relevance. |
| |
| Lesson 02: Adopt Dynamic, Data-Driven Pricing Mechanisms. A central lesson emerging from the structural and operational constraints in container shipping is the critical need to modernise pricing practices by adopting dynamic, data-driven mechanisms. Traditional models, reliant on static tariffs, blanket rates, and volume-based rebates, are increasingly incompatible with the fluid nature of global trade. These legacy systems assume a level of stability that no longer exists in a world shaped by demand volatility, geopolitical disruptions, capacity fluctuations, and shifting customer behaviours. Dynamic pricing mechanisms address these shortcomings by leveraging real-time data from internal and external sources. Carriers can monitor booking patterns, trade lane conditions, fuel prices, port congestion, and competitor activities to inform more agile and responsive rate adjustments. This enables a more accurate reflection of market value and supports a more consistent alignment between pricing and actual operating conditions. Equally important is using behavioural and transactional data to improve pricing precision. By understanding customer-specific variables, such as booking reliability, contract performance, responsiveness to pricing changes, and service preferences, carriers can establish pricing strategies that are both fair and commercially sound. This avoids over-generalisation and supports personalised pricing that builds trust. Transparent application of dynamic pricing also plays a crucial role. Rates must be clearly communicated, supported by accessible logic, and periodically reviewed to ensure alignment with market conditions. Integrating this approach into commercial systems requires investment in data infrastructure and training. However, the payoff is substantial: improved responsiveness, better-informed commercial decisions, and enhanced credibility in the eyes of customers navigating a complex and high-stakes logistics environment. |
| |
| Lesson 03: Digitise Operations and Revenue Management Systems. The limitations exposed by manual, siloed, and outdated pricing and commercial planning practices underscore the need for full-scale digitisation in container shipping operations. Many carriers still rely on spreadsheets, email chains, and disconnected systems to manage pricing, contracts, and capacity, methods that are inherently inefficient and prone to error. This technological lag severely restricts responsiveness and strategic alignment in a sector where timing, coordination, and data accuracy are vital. Digitisation begins with building a unified digital infrastructure capable of capturing and analysing real-time data from multiple sources, internal operations, customer interactions, market conditions, and third-party logistics partners. Implementing cloud-based platforms, real-time dashboards, AI-enhanced forecasting, and automated booking tools creates a foundation for smarter and faster decision-making. These tools help eliminate bottlenecks, reduce dependency on manual oversight, and allow teams to respond quickly to changes in demand or service disruptions. Integrated revenue management systems also break down organisational silos by fostering collaboration across departments. Sales, operations, finance, and customer service can access shared data environments, ensuring consistent communication and coherent strategic execution. This visibility is particularly valuable for long-term planning and performance monitoring, as it supports scenario analysis, contract compliance tracking, and proactive exception management. Digitisation is not merely a matter of software upgrades; it requires a cultural shift toward data-informed thinking and cross-functional coordination. In doing so, carriers can future-proof their revenue models, streamline internal processes, and build a more resilient and responsive business capable of thriving in an increasingly digital logistics ecosystem. |
| |
| Lesson 04: Implement Flexible and Real-Time Capacity Allocation. Traditional capacity allocation models in container shipping, often fixed in advance and tied to historical booking volumes, are no longer fit for purpose in a world characterised by fluctuating demand, unforeseen disruptions, and diverse customer requirements. A significant lesson from operational inefficiencies is that more dynamic and real-time approaches to managing vessel space are needed. Fixed allocations frequently result in underutilised slots, booking denials, or the displacement of higher-value cargo during peak periods. To address this, carriers must adopt systems that allow for ongoing reassessment of space allocation based on real-time booking data, forecast accuracy, customer reliability, and commercial priorities. Rather than committing capacity too far in advance, a portion of available space should be held back and allocated closer to departure, allowing tactical decisions that reflect current market conditions. Flexibility in allocation also facilitates better customer service. Strategic accounts can be prioritised during capacity constraints, while less time-sensitive cargo can be shifted accordingly. Furthermore, by using predictive analytics and digital planning tools, carriers can anticipate demand spikes or cancellations and reallocate space to maximise utilisation without compromising service quality. Implementing flexible allocation requires integrating technology, organisational agility, and process transparency. Real-time capacity management tools and cross-functional decision-making frameworks allow efficient coordination between commercial and operational teams. Ultimately, this approach enables carriers to align space utilisation with profitability and customer satisfaction, reducing waste, enhancing responsiveness, and reinforcing market relevance. |
| |
| Lesson 05: Redesign Incentive Structures to Reward Value, Not Just Volume. A critical takeaway from the limitations of current revenue practices is that traditional incentive structures, often built around volume commitments, are no longer effective in driving strategic customer behaviour or sustaining profitability. These models reward scale irrespective of shipment quality, profitability, or reliability. As a result, carriers may offer rebates to customers whose business imposes operational strain or delivers marginal financial returns. To resolve this, incentive programmes must be redesigned to reward value creation. This involves moving beyond TEU-based targets and incorporating broader performance metrics such as booking accuracy, forecast reliability, payment discipline, and strategic alignment. For example, customers who consistently honour bookings, provide accurate forecasts or show flexibility in routing should be recognised with preferential terms, not just those who ship in bulk. Redesigned incentive structures also support stronger commercial partnerships. When incentives are tied to mutual goals, such as predictability, efficiency, or supply chain sustainability, carriers and customers are encouraged to collaborate rather than transact. This strategic alignment is especially critical in complex logistics ecosystems where long-term planning and shared risk management are essential. Furthermore, incentives should be transparent, trackable, and integrated into digital pricing platforms. This enables real-time monitoring, simplifies administration, and enhances customer understanding of how performance influences rewards. Ultimately, shifting from volume-driven to value-driven incentives promotes higher-quality business relationships, improves resource allocation, and ensures that pricing and commercial policies reflect market realities and strategic priorities. |
| |
| Lesson 06: Prioritise Pricing Transparency to Build Trust. The persistent lack of transparency in pricing practices, particularly concerning ancillary charges and surcharges, has long been a source of tension between carriers and shippers. Many customers struggle to anticipate the actual cost of a shipment due to the retroactive application of fees, opaque rate structures, and inconsistent communication. This erodes trust and undermines the long-term stability of commercial relationships. A key lesson is that pricing transparency must become a strategic priority. Clear, consistent, and well-communicated rate structures allow customers to plan more effectively, manage budgets, and assess service value without ambiguity. Carriers should adopt standardised templates for quoting and invoicing, ensure consistent terminology across markets, and provide early notification of pricing changes or new charges. Surcharges should be indexed to verifiable cost drivers, such as fuel prices or port fees, and applied predictably and fairly. Bundling services into simplified, all-in rates can improve clarity and reduce disputes, particularly for strategic or high-frequency accounts. Where itemised pricing remains necessary, supporting documentation or justifications helps reinforce fairness and accountability. Transparent pricing improves customer satisfaction, enhances brand credibility, and differentiates carriers in a competitive market. In an era where procurement decisions are increasingly data-driven and trust-based, opacity in pricing is a commercial liability. Carriers prioritising transparency will be better positioned to build resilient, long-term relationships grounded in mutual understanding and shared commercial goals. |
| |
| Lesson 07: Foster a Culture of Innovation and Service Adaptability. Container shipping has historically lagged in service innovation, often constrained by legacy processes, conservative mindsets, and a standardised approach to offerings. A key lesson from current limitations is that this rigidity is no longer sustainable. In a market shaped by evolving customer needs, environmental imperatives, and digital disruption, carriers must cultivate a culture that embraces innovation and service adaptability. This begins with empowering teams at all levels to challenge conventional approaches and propose new solutions. Encouraging a mindset of experimentation, supported by rapid prototyping, feedback loops, and continuous improvement, can help carriers remain responsive to emerging trends. Examples include developing add-on services like emissions tracking, advanced cargo visibility, or expedited customs clearance for time-sensitive shipments. Innovation must also be customer-driven. Regular engagement with shippers, industry forums, and supply chain partners enables carriers to anticipate new expectations and co-develop solutions. For instance, increased demand for environmental, social and governance (ESG) compliant logistics or digital self-service portals should be met not with resistance but with enthusiasm and investment. Technological enablement plays a central role in this transformation. Modular service design, digital platforms, and data analytics make it easier to personalise offerings and deploy them at scale. Carriers should embed innovation into core planning cycles, not treat it as a separate or occasional function. Fostering a culture of innovation equips carriers to move beyond commoditised transport and establish themselves as agile, forward-thinking logistics partners capable of delivering strategic value in a rapidly changing world. |
| |
| Lesson 08: From Reactive to Proactive Commercial Strategy. Traditional container shipping strategies have often been reactive, driven by immediate market pressures, volume targets, or competitor actions. This tactical posture limits the ability of carriers to shape demand, develop strategic customer relationships, or plan for long-term resilience. A key lesson from the limitations in existing models is the need to embrace a proactive commercial strategy built on anticipation, alignment, and cross-functional coordination. Proactivity begins with the systematic use of market intelligence. To inform strategic decision-making, carriers must monitor trade lane developments, customer behaviour, regulatory shifts, and global economic indicators. Early identification of emerging trends, such as regional demand shifts, evolving customer expectations, or ESG regulations, enables carriers to adjust their offerings, capacity deployment, and communication strategies in advance. A proactive approach also involves stronger integration between commercial, operational, and strategic functions. Too often, pricing decisions are made in isolation from planning or customer service considerations. Establishing cross-functional governance mechanisms and shared performance metrics helps align goals and ensures coherent execution. In addition, long-term customer strategies should be developed and regularly reviewed, moving beyond transactional engagement. Carriers can build strategic partnerships with key accounts, offering tailored services, joint planning sessions, and structured feedback channels. These relationships create mutual value and reduce exposure to price-driven churn. Being proactive also means investing in digital tools, organisational agility, and talent development to support faster, evidence-based decision-making. In doing so, carriers transition from reacting to market conditions to actively shaping them, securing a more resilient, adaptable, and strategically aligned commercial posture. |
| |
4. New Revenue Paradigm for Container Shipping |
| To thrive in today’s volatile and highly competitive freight environment, container shipping lines must adopt a fundamentally new revenue paradigm that abandons volume-chasing tactics in favour of strategic, customer-centric commercial models. The legacy approach of maximising vessel utilisation at the expense of value has contributed to chronic rate instability, service commoditisation, and limited differentiation. This outdated model is no longer viable in an environment characterised by accelerating digitalisation, time-sensitive supply chains, and rising customer expectations. A revenue strategy anchored in adaptability, transparency, and precision is now required to reflect the diversity of customer needs and the dynamic realities of global logistics. |
| This paradigm shift begins by confronting the operational limitations that have historically constrained commercial effectiveness. The coexistence of contract and spot pricing models has created internal tensions and complicated revenue forecasting. Carriers must now synchronise commercial policies with real-time operational execution, underpinned by integrated data systems that reduce volatility-driven planning conflicts. Inconsistent customer experiences across segments have further eroded loyalty, underscoring the need for modular, consistently applied service architectures to rebuild trust. Operational misalignments, such as static capacity allocations and inefficient balancing between contracted and spot cargo, lead to revenue leakage and service failures. To address these, carriers should implement flexible, dynamically adjustable space management protocols that reflect current booking behaviour and strategic account prioritisation. Additionally, advanced capacity control measures, such as analytics-enabled overbooking strategies, are being deployed to mitigate forecast inaccuracies. These tools help manage the risks of container rollovers and ensure a more reliable service offering, although they must be calibrated carefully to balance commercial optimisation and service dependability. |
| At the strategic level, several legacy practices continue to hinder the potential for sustainable growth. Ancillary charges and surcharges, often lacking transparency, erode trust and impair long-term relationships. A transition toward standardised, indexed, and well-communicated pricing mechanisms is essential to rebuild credibility. Blanket pricing and generalised service tiers fail to capture the nuances of customer value, making the case for dynamic, data-informed pricing and modular service offerings tailored to specific client needs and supply chain configurations. Similarly, volume incentives and loyalty rebates have traditionally rewarded throughput rather than strategic behaviour. Redesigning incentive structures to promote forecast accuracy, digital engagement, and reliability encourages deeper collaboration and mutual value creation. The entrenched focus on utilisation as a success metric must also be rebalanced. High utilisation alone does not guarantee profitability; carriers must strategically deploy capacity to maximise financial returns and customer satisfaction. |
| Structural limitations further complicate efforts to modernise revenue models. While tariff-based pricing once served standardisation, it now lacks the flexibility to respond to market volatility and shifting demand. Carriers must embrace responsive pricing frameworks informed by real-time data, market indices, and scenario-based planning. Meanwhile, technological constraints, particularly the continued reliance on siloed systems and manual processes, impede agility and precision. A transition to digitised, unified platforms is essential. These platforms must support real-time pricing execution, customer segmentation, capacity control, and performance analysis. They enable automation and provide strategic foresight, empowering commercial teams to act on timely, data-driven insights. Importantly, the shift from transactional pricing to long-term commercial partnerships is central to this new paradigm. Competing solely on rates entrenches commoditisation; by contrast, value-creating models reward behaviours such as early booking, reliability, and digital engagement, fostering more stable and predictable relationships. |
| Moreover, external pressures, including geopolitical tensions, pandemic-related disruptions, climate-related risks, and regulatory shifts, have further exposed the fragility of static pricing models. Forecasting demand months in advance has become increasingly untenable. Adaptive, responsive pricing mechanisms are no longer optional; they are imperative. This is particularly true on major trade corridors such as Asia–Europe and the Transpacific, where service commoditisation has intensified price-based competition. As transit times, schedules, and port coverage become less differentiable, pricing agility has emerged as a key competitive lever. In response, leading carriers are introducing differentiated services at premium rates, offering space guarantees, expedited transit, and integrated logistics solutions, moving decisively beyond the one-price-fits-all model. |
| In this new model, digitalisation is a supporting tool and the backbone of strategic transformation. Integrated booking, pricing, and customer engagement platforms form the infrastructure required for agility and scalability. These systems enhance visibility, streamline communication, and enable intelligent planning, laying the groundwork for customer-aligned, data-driven operations. Ultimately, this emerging revenue paradigm redefines pricing from a static administrative task into a dynamic strategic differentiator. It empowers carriers to deliver personalised services, make smarter commercial decisions, and balance growth ambitions with operational execution, ensuring sustainable competitiveness in an ever-evolving logistics ecosystem. |
| |
References |
| Chen, Y. (2024). Red Sea gives shipping an Uber-style price surge. REUTERS. 24 June 2024. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/red-sea-gives-shipping-an-uber-style-price-surge-2024-06-24/ [accessed 19 May 2025]. |
| Edirisinghe, L. (2017). Strategic Marketing Approach in Container Shipping: Application of Ten S Model. CINEC Academic Journal, 2, pp.96-104. https://doi.org/10.4038/caj.v2i0.63 |
| Miller, G. (2023). Maersk: Container shipping contract rates will sink to spot levels. Freight Waves, 08 February 2023. Retrieved from https://www.freightwaves.com/news/maersk-container-shipping-contract-rates-will-sink-to-spot-levels [accessed 19 May 2025]. |
| Miller, G. M. (2025). Zim strikes cautious tone, citing uncertainty on rebound duration. Lloyds list, 19 May 2025. Retrieved from https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1153509/Zim-strikes-cautious-tone-citing-uncertainty-on-rebound-duration [accessed 19 May 2025]. |
| Raza, Z., Woxenius, J., Vural, J. C. A. and Lind, M. (2023). Digital transformation of maritime logistics: Exploring trends in the liner shipping segment. Computers in Industry, 145 (Article 103811). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2022.103811 |
| Wang, W. and Ding, Y. (2021). Dynamic Pricing Research for Container Terminal Handling Charges based on Demand Forecast. Journal of Economic Science Research, 4(1), pp.5-12. https://doi.org/10.30564/jesr.v4i1.2696 |
| Wolf, D. (2023). How to Instantly Calculate Your Container Costs and Determine Your Freight Rates. Freight 101 Library, 15 November 2023. Retrieved from https://www.freightos.com/freight-resources/container-shipping-cost-calculator-free-tool/ [accessed 24 May 2025] |
| Xeneta (2024). Xeneta's Container Trends Update – August 2024. Xeneta. Retrieved from https://www.xeneta.com/hubfs/Xeneta%20Container%20Trends%20Update%20-August%202024-final.pdf [accessed 24 May 29025]. This report provides insights into the dynamics of spot and contract rates, highlighting the factors contributing to the shift towards spot market reliance. |
| |
Note |
| This text was simultaneously published on LinkedIn. |
| |
About the Author |
| Ana Casaca was, first and foremost, a Deck Officer responsible for navigational watches. Being at sea gave her a thorough perspective of the operational side of the shipping industry. She holds a B.Sc. (Honours) in Management and Maritime Technologies from Escola Nautica Infante D. Henrique (Portuguese Nautical school), an MSc in International Logistics from the University of Plymouth and a PhD in International Transport/Logistics from the University of Wales-Cardiff. Next, she became an Experienced Lecturer, Researcher and Peer Reviewer in Maritime Economics and Logistics. In between, numerous functions and roles. For 20 years, she has been an External Expert for the European Commission, evaluating R&D/CEF proposals within the scope of maritime transport. In parallel, she has carried out other projects. She has delivered training and has been invited, since 2002, to peer review academic papers submitted to well-known international Journals. She is the author of several research papers published in well-known academic journals and member of some journals’ editorial boards, namely, Maritime Business Review Associate Editor, Journal of International Logistics Editorial Board Member, Universal Journal of Management Editorial Board Member, Frontiers in Future Transportation Review Editor, and Journal of Shipping and Trade Guest Editor. She is also the founder and owner of ‘World of Shipping Portugal’ a website initiative established in 2018 focused on maritime economics. In addition, she is a Member of the Research Centre on Modelling and Optimisation of Multifunctional Systems (CIMOSM, ISEL), Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) and Member of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME). Beyond my professional achievements, she is deeply committed to holistic well-being and creative expression. She is an avid practitioner of Yoga, Pilates, and Tai Chi/Chi Kung, and a passionate traveller with a keen appreciation for the arts. Her interests extend to sewing and the sensory world of scents, which she explores by creating crafted cosmetics. This passion for creativity and mindful living led her to found Earth & Soul, a project devoted to wellness, artistic expression, and soul-nourishing content to pursue a meaningful and balanced life. All these elements bring her on the quest for creativity, always with the expectation of doing something extraordinary! |
| |
|
| |
| Top of the page |
| |
|
|
