Tech / ‘Forwarders have a business model problem’: why Beacon bet on data over freight

Beacon, once part of the digital forwarding wave, has in recent years stepped away from moving freight – and now argues the model itself is structurally flawed. 

“We had a go at becoming a digital freight forwarder,” CEO and co-founder Fraser Robinson told The Loadstar. 

The company initially saw rapid growth, but the experience, combined with the volatility of the Covid-era boom and subsequent market correction, prompted a rethink. 

“Freight forwarding was interesting… because it’s a natural node for the flow of information,” he said, describing how forwarders sit at the centre of documents, invoices, and communications across the supply chain. 

But ultimately, he concluded the model was limiting. 

“Freight forwarders, I think, have a business model problem,” he said. 

Beacon has since repositioned itself as, what Mr Robinson calls, a “100% tech platform”, and he added: “We do not move freight, we do not contract freight… we are a pure-play.” 

The shift reflects a broader tension across the industry, where the role of core systems, particularly the transport management system (TMS), is increasingly being questioned.

Brian Glick, CEO of integration platform Chain.io, said in a separate interview that the industry was increasingly asking not just which TMS to use, but what came next in the tech stack.  

Mr Robinson, a former Uber executive, says the answer lies in data.

“At the very core of my belief system in technology is that most problems can be solved with good data,” he said. The company’s focus is now on aggregating fragmented supply chain data – from shipment tracking and purchase orders to invoices and contracts – into a unified layer that can be analysed and acted upon.

“We accumulate and assemble fragmented, siloed supply chain data into one unified AI layer,” he said. 

A key driver behind the pivot was what Mr Robinson sees as an inherent conflict in the forwarding model.

“A forwarder can never be neutral,” he said. Because forwarders compete for business on price and service, they cannot act as an independent decision-making layer across a shipper’s entire network, he argued. “To become the operating brain… you must be neutral. You cannot be compromised by wanting to win a customer.” 

Beacon’s Fraser Robinson

This creates friction when it comes to deeper integration with customers’ systems. “Customers would say ‘I choose you because of rates and service, but I can’t guarantee I’ll be working with you in a year or two, so I’m not going to invest in integrating you into all my systems’,” he explained.

In effect, the very thing that makes forwarders competitive – the ability for customers to switch between them – also limits their ability to become deeply embedded technology platforms. 

Beacon’s current model centres on using data to tackle cost inefficiencies in supply chains rather than focusing on visibility alone.

“Visibility is a means to an end,” Mr Robinson said. Instead, the company is targeting areas such as freight invoice reconciliation, contract performance, and detention and demurrage costs. “There is so much financial waste that exists in supply chains,” he said. 

Beacon’s main customer base is shippers – a result of supply chain economics. Mr Robinson noted that a single container could represent tens of thousands of dollars in inventory value for a beneficial cargo owner, compared with only a small margin for a forwarder. 

The firm’s focus reflects a wider shift away from monolithic systems trying to do everything, toward more targeted and flexible approaches. Other industry executives argue that companies are increasingly moving away from relying on a single system, instead combining multiple tools tailored to different functions.  

Beacon positions itself not as a replacement for existing systems, but as a layer on top of them. “We’re not a TMS. We sit next to or above… bringing data from different systems into one supply chain context layer.” This includes data from ERP, warehouse and transport systems, as well as spreadsheets and documents. “We’re not saying replace anything… we observe and make a ‘twin’ of your existing systems,” he said. 

The positioning as neither system of record nor execution layer reflects a growing debate over where control in the supply chain should sit. Some companies are attempting to rebuild the TMS itself, with automation and AI at its core, while others are focusing on improving connectivity between systems rather than replacing them.  

While AI features heavily in Beacon’s pitch, Mr Robinson is clear that its effectiveness depends on having the right data foundations.

“You cannot apply AI to anything if the data… isn’t there,” he said. He distinguishes between large language models and what he calls the “context layer” – the structured data environment that enables meaningful outputs. “The LLM just reads it… the real value is in building that context layer,” he said. 

Others in the sector take a more radical view, arguing that the underlying software layer itself should become more open and flexible, enabling companies to build their own tools on top of shared infrastructure.  

Beacon’s pivot puts it on a different trajectory from peers such as Flexport, which continue to combine forwarding and technology. But Mr Robinson explained: “The biggest itch I couldn’t scratch when I was a forwarder was neutrality,” he said. 

Beacon is betting that the long-term advantage will not come from moving freight, but from owning the data layer that underpins it, and, ultimately, the decisions that follow. 

Inside the industry’s AI shift

Complete The Loadstar’s ‘State of AI in the Supply Chain’ survey — and receive the full report and data before release.

Take the 2-min survey