A procurement manager in Durban needs a bonded warehouse. A few years ago she would have searched Google, scanned the first page and made three phone calls. Today there is a reasonable chance she types the question into ChatGPT instead, reads a paragraph of considered-sounding advice, and works from the handful of companies it names.

That shift is quietly rewriting how supply chain businesses get found. And it comes with a complication most operators have not yet noticed: the answer she gets depends heavily on which tool she opens. Ask ChatGPT, Google’s AI Overviews and Perplexity the same sourcing question and you will often get three different sets of cited companies, sometimes with barely any overlap.

This is not one of the systems getting it wrong. As a recent analysis by Johannesburg digital agency IMS sets out, each platform runs a genuinely different process for deciding which sources are trustworthy enough to name. Understanding those differences matters more to a freight forwarder or 3PL than knowing the acronym for it.

ChatGPT: Being Read Is Not the Same as Being Named

When ChatGPT searches the web, it reads far more than it credits. Independent analysis of its browsing behaviour has found that only a fraction of the pages it retrieves end up cited in the final answer. The rest inform the response without ever being named. For a logistics company, that is the difference between a shipper seeing your name and a shipper seeing a competitor’s while your website quietly supplied the background.

ChatGPT also does not search the live web on every question. It is far more likely to go looking when the query carries commercial or comparative intent; “best cold chain provider,” “Transnet vs road freight costs,” “cheapest customs clearance Cape Town 2026”, than when someone asks it to explain what a bill of lading is. Which is convenient, because commercial intent is exactly where supply chain buyers sit.

The pages that survive the cut tend to share the same traits: they answer the specific question directly, they carry concrete figures rather than general claims about service excellence, and they are structured so a passage can be lifted out cleanly.

Google AI Overviews: A Page One Ranking Is Not Enough

AI Overviews sits on top of Google’s existing search index, but qualifying for the AI panel is a separate process from ranking. A logistics site can hold position two for a competitive term and still be skipped, while a page sitting at position eight gets quoted because it states the answer in two clean sentences with a number attached.

Researchers studying AI Overview outputs describe the process as a funnel: a large pool of candidate pages narrowed through semantic relevance matching, then authority and expertise filtering, then a final re-ranking before a small number of sources are stitched into the summary. Depth counts here in a way it does not for ChatGPT. Google appears to favour sites showing sustained expertise across several interlinked pages on a subject, rather than one strong article standing alone.

For an operator, that has a practical translation. A single well-written page about your temperature-controlled fleet is worth less than a cluster of connected pages covering cold chain compliance, load monitoring, last-mile handover and the regulations that govern them.

Perplexity: Built to Cite From the Ground Up

Perplexity is the outlier, usefully so. Citation is not a feature added to a chat product; it is the product. It runs a retrieval-augmented pipeline with multiple ranking layers scoring relevance, freshness, factual accuracy and structural clarity before anything reaches the answer.

It is also the most selective of the three. Perplexity will typically visit around ten pages for a query and cite only three or four. Structural trust signals carry real weight: named authors, visible editorial standards, and claims corroborated across more than one independent source rather than appearing on a single company page.

This is where trade publications, industry associations and conference coverage become genuinely valuable to a logistics business, not as vanity placements, but as the independent corroboration these systems are specifically looking for.

Why the Three Disagree

Put the pipelines side by side and the disagreement stops being mysterious. ChatGPT is deciding whether a page is worth naming after it has already read it. Google is applying an authority-and-extractability filter on top of an index built for a different purpose. Perplexity is built around sourcing and rewards signals the other two barely weigh.

The divergence is not random, either. A 2024 audit of ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Perplexity by researchers Alice Li and Luanne Sinnamon, published in the Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, found that generative search systems lean heavily on news, media and business publications for their sources, and showed measurable commercial and geographic bias in which sources they use to support claims.

Geographic bias deserves attention in this market. A system weighted toward North American and European business media is a system that may not surface the South African freight forwarder that is genuinely the right answer to a South African question.

What the Research Says Actually Works

The most rigorous evidence available comes from “GEO: Generative Engine Optimization,” a study by Pranjal Aggarwal, Vishvak Murahari and colleagues at Princeton, Georgia Tech and IIT Delhi, presented at KDD in 2024. The researchers built a benchmark of roughly 10,000 real queries and tested nine content optimisation strategies against generative engines.

The strongest performers were not keyword tactics. Adding statistics and adding direct quotations were among the most effective changes tested, improving visibility by roughly 30 to 40 percent against an unoptimised baseline. Authoritative language and explicit sourcing also helped. Keyword stuffing did close to nothing.

That finding sits comfortably with how the logistics sector already communicates. On-time delivery percentages, claims ratios, dwell times, fleet utilisation figures, tonnage handled, accreditation numbers; the industry is unusually rich in exactly the kind of concrete, quotable detail these systems reward. Most of it never makes it onto a company website, where it is replaced by phrases like “world-class logistics solutions.”

What This Means for the Industry

Three consequences follow.

The first is that vague marketing language is now actively costly. A page claiming end-to-end excellence gives an AI engine nothing to quote. A page stating that a facility holds 12,000 pallet positions, operates to a stated temperature tolerance and cleared a specific volume of customs entries last year gives it something to work with.

The second is that being visible on one platform tells you nothing about the others. Because the pipelines differ, and because independent research confirms real bias in what they select, a company cited confidently by Perplexity may be invisible in ChatGPT and Google’s AI Overviews. Each has to be checked on its own terms.

The third applies to the buying side. Supply chain managers using these tools to shortlist providers should treat the results as a starting point shaped by a particular set of preferences, not a market survey. A carrier’s absence from an AI answer says something about its web presence. It says very little about its trucks.

The industry has spent a decade learning to be found on Google. The engines that increasingly sit between a shipper and a supplier now work differently from each other, and differently from search. That is worth understanding before the next tender or RFP goes out.

The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) will bring leaders from Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe together at Automechanika Johannesburg for its Regional Conference 2026, taking place at Gallagher Convention Centre in Midrand on 28 and 29 October 2026.

Held under the theme ‘Driving Innovation, Bridging Borders for an African Future’, the conference will examine how transport, logistics and automotive ecosystems can support connected economies across the continent. The programme places collaboration at the centre of discussions on trade corridors, harmonised systems, safety, skills and the changing mobility landscape.

Elvin Harris: President – CILT South Africa

Elvin Harris, President of CILT South Africa, says the conference offers a meeting point for sectors whose success increasingly depends on coordinated action. “Transport and logistics connect every part of the economy. This gathering will create space for discussion on the infrastructure, standards, technology and people needed to move goods and opportunities efficiently across the region.”

Connecting Corridors and Enabling Trade

A central conference focus will be the future of Africa’s strategic road and rail corridors. Delegates will explore ways to reduce border delays and non-tariff barriers, strengthen one-stop border posts, and improve links between ports, dry ports and inland terminals.

Discussions will also consider investment approaches for corridor infrastructure, including public-private partnerships and blended finance, alongside the relationship between transport networks, the African Continental Free Trade Area and regional industrialisation.

Dr. Tapiwa Mujakachi: President – CILT Zimbabwe

Dr Tapiwa Mujakachi, President of CILT Zimbabwe, states that efficient cross-border systems are essential to prosperity. “Regional trade depends on reliable routes, predictable processes and a commitment to solving operational challenges. The conference will bring attention to the work required to make corridors serve businesses, communities and national development priorities.”

The agenda will further address harmonisation across borders, including vehicle standards, roadworthiness, weights and dimensions, customs documentation, permits and professional qualifications. Delegates will consider the development of common regulatory frameworks for new vehicle technologies, as well as the importance of aligning systems across regional economic communities.

Innovation, Safety and the Workforce of the Future

The conference will also examine the safety and security of people, cargo and freight corridors. Key themes include reducing road fatalities, promoting driver wellbeing on long-haul routes, countering cargo crime, strengthening fleet compliance, and using technology for tracking, monitoring and incident response. Cooperation among operators, regulators and law-enforcement agencies will feature as a foundation for safer regional supply chains.

Conversations will cover electric and new-energy vehicles, supporting infrastructure, local manufacturing opportunities, digital freight and last-mile platforms, smart logistics, data and artificial intelligence. Attention will also be given to policy support, funding and incubation for start-ups and small enterprises, together with the role of special economic zones in automotive and component innovation.

Dr. Tapiwa Mujakachi: President – CILT Zimbabwe

Prisca Mayumbelo, President of CILT Namibia, says the programme recognises regional opportunities. “Africa’s mobility future will be shaped by innovation that is relevant to local conditions and supported by capable institutions. Sharing experience across countries can help turn promising ideas into practical improvements for industry and society.”

Education, training and skills development will complete the programme’s core themes. Sessions will consider new-energy vehicle and digital logistics careers, technical and vocational pathways, industry-academia partnerships, work-integrated learning and professional development. The agenda will also highlight approaches to attracting young people and women into transport, logistics and automotive careers, while addressing funding for scarce-skills training.

Formal conference sessions will be followed each day by opportunities for delegates to visit the Automechanika expo floor and engage with exhibitors. CILT expects the event to encourage durable regional relationships and help shape solutions that support an African future built on connected African systems.

More information can be found at: https://www.ciltsa.events/cilt-conference-at-automechanika-johannesburg/

Written by Ernst van Biljon, Dean of Research, IMM Graduate School

Peak season is not won when the trucks start moving and the orders begin to surge. It is won in the weeks and months beforehand, when businesses still have time to identify their vulnerabilities, test their assumptions and put corrective measures in place.

For FMCG businesses, a simple 90–60–30 day framework provides a practical way of doing exactly that: 90 days to understand the reality, 60 days to test the response, and 30 days to lock in the operating playbook.

This approach moves peak-season planning away from simply forecasting volumes and securing additional transport capacity. Those remain essential, but they are only part of the challenge. The real question is whether a business understands where its costs and risks are concentrated, and whether it has actually tested its ability to respond when things go wrong.

Peak season is where FMCG logistics strategies are truly tested. Volumes increase sharply, promotional activity intensifies, transport capacity becomes constrained and the margin for error becomes smaller. For consumer brands, one poorly managed week can undermine months of careful planning and, ultimately, damage both profitability and customer relationships.

One of the biggest challenges is also one of the biggest blind spots: cost. FMCG businesses may have negotiated transport rates, but the rate card rarely represents the final cost of moving a product. Fuel charges, peak surcharges, dimensional or volumetric pricing, sudden increases in oil prices, residential and last-mile charges, address corrections and other accessorial fees can all add to the final bill.

This creates a dangerous disconnect. Businesses know that logistics costs are a major concern, but they may not have sufficient visibility into exactly where those costs are accumulating.

The answer is not simply to look at total logistics expenditure. FMCG businesses need to understand their true cost at SKU, customer, channel and lane level. A product that appears profitable when assessed against its selling price and basic transport rate may look very different once all logistics costs are allocated.

Importantly, these costs are rarely distributed evenly. They tend to concentrate around particular products, channels, geographies or transport arrangements. Identifying those pockets of leakage before peak season creates an opportunity to act rather than simply absorb the additional cost.

The second major issue is adaptability. Most businesses have some form of business continuity plan. The problem is that having a plan and being able to execute it are two quite different things.

A backup carrier may exist on paper but not be configured in the transport management system. An alternative distribution centre (DC) may have capacity but no established process for handling the additional volume. A contingency route may be known to management but never actually tested by the operational teams who would have to implement it.

Peak season is not the time to discover these gaps. The most effective approach is to test contingencies before they are needed. This does not necessarily require a major simulation. Moving a limited amount of volume from one carrier to another, testing an alternative fulfilment route or running a tabletop exercise around a DC outage can expose practical problems that would otherwise remain hidden.

The third consideration is that not every FMCG business has the same blind spots. A manufacturer may be primarily concerned with landed cost across different retail and e-commerce channels. A supermarket or retailer may be more exposed to demand uncertainty and the consequences of promotional activity. An online marketplace may be most concerned with the customer delivery experience, particularly where fulfilment is undertaken by third parties.

There is therefore no single peak-season logistics solution. Visibility and flexibility have to be designed around the specific role a business plays in the consumer supply chain.

The 90–60–30 framework provides a useful structure for doing this.

90 Days: Audit Reality

Three months before peak, businesses should stop looking primarily at forecasts and examine what actually happened during the previous one or two quarters.

Analyse shipments by SKU, customer, channel and lane. Compare quoted transport costs with actual invoiced costs and identify the sources of variance. Look specifically for recurring surcharges, inefficient packaging, problematic routes and customers or channels where logistics costs are disproportionately high.

The objective is to produce a ranked list of the biggest cost leaks and operational risks.

60 Days: Test the Plan

Two months before peak, it is time to move from analysis to action. Test at least one realistic disruption scenario. What happens if a key carrier runs out of capacity? What if a DC experiences an outage? What if a major retailer promotion produces an unexpected surge in demand?

Most importantly, establish who makes the decision, what systems need to change and how customers will be informed. A contingency plan that has never been exercised remains a theoretical plan.

30 Days: Lock It In

The final month should be about operational discipline rather than developing another elaborate strategy document. Carrier priorities, escalation procedures, service levels and cut-off times should be agreed. A simple weekly dashboard should track on-time performance, cost per shipment or case, surcharge incidence and emerging capacity constraints. The dashboard does not have to be complicated. Its purpose is to ensure that problems are identified while there is still time to act. 

Peak season is ultimately won before peak season begins. The organisations that perform best are not necessarily those with the most sophisticated logistics systems, but those that understand their vulnerabilities, test their assumptions and establish clear decision-making processes before volumes surge.

For FMCG businesses, the 90–60–30 approach provides a practical discipline: 90 days to understand the reality, 60 days to test the response, and 30 days to lock in the operating playbook.

The objective is not perfect preparation. It is to ensure that when peak season arrives, the organisation is responding to events rather than discovering its weaknesses for the first time.