Let’s be honest—reciprocity is commonly the industry’s highest priority when selecting agent partners. Not service quality, not admin excellence, not price: Reciprocity is most often the first consideration. Let’s be more honest—reciprocity is a conflict of interests in which what’s best for the client is traded for what’s best for the service provider. 

Reciprocity is a nearly universally known concept in the moving industry, but let’s make sure we’re starting on the same page. Reciprocity is when two companies trade business (shipments) between each other. This happens because most movers wear two different hats of the “booker” who secured the client’s business, as well as the “agent” who is assigned by the booker as an origin or destination service provider. As example, Fred is a U.S.-based mover who has a steady stream of shipments to Australia. He establishes a casual or formal trading agreement with an Australian mover who will serve as local agent. The agreement is predicated on the Australian company’s commitment to reciprocate shipments on their own bookings and utilize Fred’s company as their U.S. agent whenever possible. Such agreements often have explicit tonnage commitments and/or financial penalties for trade imbalances. 

According to physics, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction; according to accounting, for every credit there must be a debit. Likewise, when you prioritize one factor (reciprocity), you inherently deprioritize some other factor (quality or price). Move coordinators know what I’m talking about. Having started my career in a forwarding coordination role and later at a managerial level, I know it’s common for coordinators to prefer working with Agent A based on past performance, but management dictates using Agent B because they have established a reciprocal trading agreement. Service quality was deprioritized for reciprocity. 

Likewise, a simple thought experiment demonstrates reciprocity’s impact on the factor of price. Imagine the booker is again choosing between Agent A who does not have reciprocity chips to trade, vs Agent B who is an established reciprocity partner. Let’s assume their pricing is identical, in which case the booker obviously assigns the move to Agent B. However, what if Agent A’s price is 1% lower? The booker probably still goes with Agent B reciprocity partner. But what if Agent A’s price is 20% lower? Hmmm… tough call. Merely considering that tradeoff is proof of the inherent conflict of interests. 

I’m not being self-righteous or judgmental…well, maybe a little. Frankly it’s a bit annoying that everyone knows and openly acknowledges that reciprocity is a thing, yet almost no one admits the conflict of interest implications. But therein lies the opportunity for those who see a reality that others are overlooking. Businesses who target more price-sensitive buyers (e.g., consumer, lumpsum) should be able to reasonably lower total move price by removing reciprocity considerations.

Understandably, this is a tough pill to swallow for many, and impossible for some P&L’s that are buoyed by reciprocity revenue. Meanwhile you may need to be explicit with your partner network of agents who are accustomed to the reciprocity paradigm. For example: “Bob, I’d like you to give me an X% discount on your normal tariff, because I’m not going to ask for reciprocity in return.” In other words, the agent doesn’t have to spend their reciprocity trading chips with you, and can instead commit that tonnage to reciprocity-minded partners (at higher price). The conclusion is simple: a no-reciprocity trade-off justifies lower agent prices, which in turn increases your closing ratios with price-sensitive buyers.