Managing Ecommerce Vendors

If you can’t prove your supplier can be verified, whether by contacting them by phone or finding their website, you’re at high risk of having their invoices rejected by Amazon. This, in turn, could quickly lead to account deactivation. This trend has been building since earlier this year and peaked over the summer. Amazon wants to avoid issues with counterfeit, mislabeled, or improperly packaged products entering the U.S. market. They’re also not interested in letting resellers determine which suppliers are “reliable” for sourcing legitimate items. To minimize counterfeit and IP complaints, Amazon is pushing resellers to source directly from brands (with their own LOA) or from authorized distributors who can provide their own LOA for resale. In some cases, you may also need to provide your "supplier's supplier" invoices to trace the supply chain back to the brand itself. In Amazon’s ideal future for the 3P marketplace, most resold items will come directly from brands or authorized distributors, avoiding the risk of inventory changing hands multiple times through “middlemen.” They want fewer resellers sourcing from general wholesalers or suppliers without direct brand or manufacturer relationships. Long term, it appears Amazon is moving toward cutting ties with sellers lacking LOAs for the brands they sell. This approach may reduce counterfeit claims, IP complaints, negative reviews, and the perception that Amazon can’t regulate its own marketplace. However, it may also lead to the suspension or permanent closure of sellers without a solid history of compliance. Take this trend seriously: Avoid suppliers without an established online presence, and don’t buy from sources lacking a direct link to the brand or an authorized distributor. Anything less is now extremely high risk. Amazon is clearly doubling down on requiring “verifiable suppliers” and top-notch invoices to keep their marketplace clean.

Not all labs are meeting Amazon’s standards, and starting July 13, that will matter more than ever.   Not all compliance documents are created equal and it is easy to assume that if a lab can give you a certificate, you’re good to go.   However, Amazon is changing how it validates risk by tightening control over where your compliance documentation originates. If your lab is on the suspended list, even if your product is safe, your document will be rejected.   Starting July 13: • Amazon will only accept product test results from labs that meet internal safety and authenticity standards. • Documents issued by labs flagged as non-compliant will be automatically rejected. • Sellers who previously used banned labs may be required to resubmit documentation to avoid listing removal. • The list of suspended labs will continue to evolve, it's your responsibility to monitor it.   Two suspended labs already include: • Bay Area Compliance Laboratories Corp. (Dongguan) • Shenzhen LCS Compliance Testing Laboratory Ltd.   Amazon is no longer treating compliance as a check-the-box exercise. They’re treating it as a trust signal, a way to score your product, your supplier, and your risk to the platform.   So it's time to think of it from the safety and defensibility side, because the wrong lab doesn’t just slow your listing approval, it signals to Amazon that your documentation chain is weak, and we all know how bad it can turn.   So what should sellers and agencies do? • Review your past compliance submissions. If they came from now-suspended labs, be proactive. • Bookmark and regularly check Amazon’s approved lab directory: https://lnkd.in/gU2pAgeG • When sourcing new documents, confirm the lab meets Amazon's current requirements before you pay.   The cost of using the “easy” lab isn’t worth the operational risk, if your backend can’t stand up to audit, your brand won’t scale.   #AmazonCompliance #MarketplaceOps #AmazonSellers

AI adoption is failing at most companies. (it's not the technology) You use ChatGPT daily. Your team has random AI tools. No unified strategy. No measurement. Your VP keeps asking: "What's our AI plan?" You need frameworks, not more tools. 9 AI Adoption Frameworks: 1/ Workflow Audit Before Tool Selection → Map your team's top 10 daily tasks first → Flag repetitive work worth automating → Identify judgment calls for AI augmentation 2/ Build vs Buy Decision Matrix → Buy for standard ops (scheduling, emails) → Build only for competitive differentiation → Partner for specialized expertise gaps 3/ Pilot Program That Actually Scales → One department, one use case, 90 days → Define success metrics before you start → Document every lesson for VP presentation 4/ Executive-Ready Training Strategy → VP briefing: ROI projections and risks → Manager training: implementation roadmaps → User training: hands-on, role-specific 5/ ROI Measurement That VPs Care About → Track hours saved per employee per week → Measure quality improvements and accuracy → Calculate revenue impact, not just savings 6/ Data Governance Framework → Audit what data touches AI tools now → Create approval process for new platforms → Set data retention rules before scaling 7/ Change Management for AI Rollouts → Address "will AI replace me?" fears early → Show augmentation wins before automation → Create AI champion roles for career growth 8/ Smart Automation vs Augmentation Rules → Automate: data entry, report generation → Augment: strategy, creative work, decisions → Never automate: customer relationship calls 9/ VP-Level Adoption Mistakes to Avoid → Don't chase every shiny new AI tool → Never skip the governance foundation step → Stop letting AI adoption happen randomly AI adoption isn't a technology problem. It's a leadership strategy problem. Twice a week I send frameworks like this to 15,000+ operators in Tactical Memo. Join free: https://lnkd.in/eFNHsxmh

𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 - 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸-𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝗮 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻? There is a compelling case for off-the-shelf Procurement solutions. But there are potential downsides to consider. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳: ▪️ new features are tied to hefty price hikes ▪️ evolution to changing business needs is not possible ▪️ architecture options are dictated by vendor upgrade plans ▪️ product roadmap do not align with your specific plans and needs ▪️ the flexibility promised through rich functionality does not materialise Yes, 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗳, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗶𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸? Talking to many companies on their Digital Procurement, this major worry is real. Given the long range of investment payback, it would be an illusion to bet on building own solutions. 𝗙𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 in this case - 𝗶𝘁'𝘀 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 of a company. Find here a few points which come to mind to 𝗮𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗸-𝗶𝗻 but build a stable Digital Procurement architecture, while keeping flexibility: ✅ Build a 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 choosing solutions with an API-first to easily integrate or replace components over time. Modern solutions can be integrated and orchestrated without hard dependencies! ✅ 𝗛𝘆𝗯𝗿𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵 by buying core capabilities like Source to Contract solutions but build or extend AI plug-ins or custom Automations. Intelligent Automation & Orchestration solutions provide extra flexibility and not just a patch. ✅ 𝗘𝘅𝗶𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝟭, factoring in possible migration paths to prevent costly transitions later. For example ingesting the data of your Spend Analytics provider regularly into your own data lake. ✅ 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 which does not overcommit to a single provider but uses a mix of best-of-breed tools where flexibility matters most. Rationalising your vendor choice can bite you down the line. Procurement Tech should evolve at pace with your business needs, not lock you into someone else’s roadmap. The best strategy here is: Flexibility as a principle. ❔What's your view on this challenge. Anything missing on the picture? ❔Can vendor lock-in be minimised.

GRC vendors are playing the wrong game. The losing strategy: Be everything for everyone. Compete on dashboards, workflows, integrations, AI features. Result: Feature parity race. Acquisition or death. The winning strategy: Be a lego-block. Own ONE vertical so completely that you're embedded in 80% of companies without competing directly. Examples? Assurance-driven TPRM - Telemetry nobody else captures, insights nobody else offers, integrate to procurement for tracking Workflow orchestration - Focus on getting work done, not reporting work done Data transformation - AI-ready GRC data at scale (framework become only translation layers) Agnostic trust networks - Verification infrastructure making third-party attestations obsolete The protection: Companies use you PLUS whatever else. You're infrastructure, not application. They can vibe-code dashboards. They can't vibe-code your proprietary telemetry or deep vertical capability. Like Stripe for payments. Everyone uses it. Nobody competes with it. Too embedded to replace. If your main USP is "GRC automation platform with AI," you don't have a USP. Own a vertical. Become infrastructure. Be a lego-block. Which vertical is most defensible? #GRCEngineering #VendorStrategy

The Untapped Risk in Marketplace-First Brands... Marketplace Dependency Risk — and it quietly compounds as you scale. Here’s the math: 1️⃣ Topline Fragility  If 70–80% of your revenue comes from Amazon, Flipkart, or Myntra... One algorithm tweak, penalty, or policy shift — and your revenue can drop by 30–40% overnight. 2️⃣ Pricing and Margin Squeeze  Marketplaces push for discount parity.  They want the lowest prices and commissions.  You can’t easily raise prices, but your costs (logistics, returns, ads) keep rising quietly. Margin compression isn't a phase. It's structural. 3️⃣ No Consumer Ownership  Even after selling 10,000+ units, you don’t own the customer data.  You can’t remarket. You can’t build loyalty.  You are permanently renting traffic—on someone else’s terms. 4️⃣ Working Capital Traps  Longer payment cycles + return risks = working capital nightmares.  Every rupee stuck in the system delays scale. 5️⃣ Exit Valuation Hit  Brands with over 60% marketplace dependence often get lower valuations.  Investors penalize the "platform risk" by adjusting down the revenue multiple. This is the advice I've seen the smart founders share: - Balance marketplace sales with your own website D2C channel. - Invest in brand-building early—even when marketplace sales look tempting. - Build retention engines (email, WhatsApp) off-platform. - Negotiate smarter platform deals once you have leverage. 📌 What's one thing a founder should do to de-risk their channel dependence? Picture - Inc42 FAB MAVEN

Line-level profitability reviews are the lifeblood of profitable vendor accounts. Yet most 1P brands have no idea about their ASIN-level net margins. ❌ Instead, they look at Gross Margins and #Amazon's Net PPM. But that doesn't uncover hidden cost centres like chargebacks, shortages, and coop deductions. So make sure you create reporting systems that capture the unit economics of your customer P&L. 𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲'𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱: First, get your gross revenue. That's the price at which you sell your products to Amazon. Second, add up all the costs for each product. That includes buying and making the product, packaging, marketing, etc. Third, add all the direct and indirect costs of selling to Amazon. ✅ A complete list may include: - Off-Invoice Discounts - On-Invoice Discounts - Trade Terms (DA%, AVS, Marketing, etc.) - Chargebacks, Shortages, Price Variances, … - COGS (manufacturing costs) - Freight - Storage - Pick & Pack Fees - Marketing Costs (Amazon Advertising) - OpEx (Payroll, Rent, Technology, …) Knowing your unit economics will let you understand where you make and lose money. And helps you identify where changes are needed most. Losing money on pick & pack fees? » Set up pallet ordering with Amazon. Losing money on chargebacks? » Focus your AVN on chargeback waivers. Don't let assumptions about your margin performance dilute your bottom line. 👉 Drill down to your unit economics instead. --- Are you tracking ASIN-level profitability? Let me know in the comments! #amazonvendor #amazonstrategy

Amazon starts rewriting non-compliant product titles on 27 July. Character limits per category, promotional language stripped, repeated words and stray symbols removed. If your title breaks the rules, Amazon edits it for you, and its version is built for tidy catalogue data rather than your conversion rate or your keyword ranking. For a few hero products that is an afternoon of tidying. For a catalogue of thousands of ASINs it is a month of work you did not plan for. So I built a system to do it properly, and here is how it fits together. I start with a Project in Claude that holds Amazon's title rules for my categories: the character limits, the banned terms, the formatting requirements. That becomes the compliance layer, so every rewrite is checked against the rules by default instead of me policing thousands of titles by hand. Then I feed it the keyword research from Helium 10, the search volumes and current ranks, so it knows which terms are worth protecting inside the limit and which are dead weight. The instruction becomes "keep the highest-volume relevant keywords before the truncation point" rather than "make it shorter." Then the part that actually matters: performance context. A rewrite made blind to how a product sells is just a guess. I connect my live Seller Central data into Claude through Windsor.ai, so the rewrite is grounded in what each ASIN is really doing: what converts, what ranks, what drives the sales. You scope exactly which metrics and SKUs to share. Three tools doing three jobs. Helium 10 for the keywords, Windsor for the live performance, Claude for the rules and the rewriting. They do not merge into one button. The system is wiring those inputs into one workspace and then working through your A products first, three variants each, with your judgement on every hero SKU. The sellers who treat 27 July as a compliance chore will let Amazon rewrite their catalogue. The ones who build the system turn a forced deadline into the listing optimisation they had been putting off. I break the whole build down, plus the EU's new import duty that went live this week, in this week's Signal Over Noise.

99% of the ERP demos that I sat through, from SAP, Oracle, Dynamics, Odoo, etc. The slides vendors push hardest are always hiding the biggest risks. The moment a vendor says: “Let me show you our workflow automation” or “Here’s how our reporting dashboard works”... I start looking for what's not being shown. Here are 5 slides that should trigger red alerts for any finance or IT leader: (1) “Out-of-the-box Reporting” → Ask: “Can I trace any P&L line item to source transactions across modules?” Most ERPs break down here. You get totals, not traceability. (2) “Low-Code/No-Code Customization” → Ask: “Show me one UOM change across inventory, procurement, and production. Live.” Because most low-code tools can’t handle cross-module logic without dev hacks. (3) “Global Tax and Compliance Ready” → Ask: “How many updates have you shipped for GCC VAT or e-invoicing this year?” If it’s less than 3, you’re going to fall behind local compliance—fast. (4) “Mobile Approval Workflows” → Ask: “Can an auditor see the GRN, invoice, PO, and vendor ID on the same screen?” Most systems force 6 tabs and zero context. Audit risk skyrockets. (5) “Implementation Partners Across 50+ Countries” → Ask: “How many projects has your local partner delivered in my industry, in the last 12 months?” Global logos don’t fix regional mess. I’ve seen $30M+ ERP projects fail because nobody asked these 5 questions during the demo. Next time you see a polished demo slide... ask yourself: “What’s the one thing they’re hoping I don’t ask right now?” ♻️ 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 so others can learn.

The biggest risk to your Amazon margin isn't Amazon. It's a team managing a significant Amazon business without the commercial skills to understand what's actually happening underneath it. I'm not talking about platform knowledge. Most Amazon teams know Vendor Central. They know how to manage POs, run ad campaigns, deal with chargebacks. The operational capability is usually there. What's missing is the commercial layer. Understanding what Net PPM actually means and how every decision they make moves it. Knowing how Amazon calculates profitability on their products and why that matters. Being able to read a deduction report as a margin indicator, not just an admin task. Understanding what ROAS/TACOS/ACOS means in a vendor context and why optimising to these is the wrong move. Knowing their P&L before they walk into any commercial conversation with Amazon. These aren't advanced skills, they're baseline commercial competencies for anyone managing an Amazon vendor account. But most teams were never taught them. They were hired for operational capability, trained on the platform, and left to figure out the commercial model themselves. That gap is where margin disappears. The brands consistently protecting and improving margin on Amazon have teams who understand the commercial model as well as they understand the platform. Not one or the other. When did your Amazon team last have any formal commercial training not platform training? If the answer is never it's worth fixing before the next AVN. ---- 🚀 I help Amazon vendors increase their margins by 5-20% in 90 days.