Share your ideas with us

Would you be able to: 1. Add a functionality that restricts order views based on a ship from location or/or login? We have multiple ship from locations and we are 100% manula orders; it creates confusion when one warehouse sees orders from another warehouse.  2. Have a ship to address book and have that be varied based on ship from locations. We have set ship to locations and it doesnt change often. 

Currently, I can only choose from 3 resolution options in Warranty admin: Repair item, Replace item & Other. At the end of the day, I need to manually export a list of Warranty claims and see how many store credit resolutions were recorded. (By using the “Other” option with a note.) This process is very time-consuming and inefficient.    It would be very helpful if a direct "issue store credit" feature were integrated, potentially automating the process across platforms like Shopify.

We would love to be able to see the return comment information our customers provide when returning items within the return reports we download. Our customers are using the comment box to describe the return reason in depth but this information is lost when it comes to dowloading the return reports.

FedEx has master tracking numbers which can have multiple tracking numbers under 1 tracking numbers. I'd like to be able to add a group of numbers to a group, or master number, and it should be collapsable so I can open it and look at all attached tracking numbers. 

Currently OTD report, reports the complete journey so the avereage time can fluctuate based on how long it takes for customers to collect their order.  We need to report on the carrier performance and then the time it takes to collect.  It would be good to have  a PUDO report that breaks down : average transit time to collection point   Average time waiting for collection    If we expand our PUDO options in Europe it would be a good indication 

I want to fully customize different free shipping thresholds for different currencies/regions.   This would better compensate for my shipping costs in different currencies and may also increase the order value.

As a loyal Aftership customer, I am extremely disappointed to learn that integrating a new carrier requires an additional fee—a neither transparent nor customer-friendly policy. Carrier expansion should be a standard improvement to Aftership’s platform, not an extra cost passed onto paying customers. Why This Needs to Change: Improving Aftership Should Be Your Priority, Not an Upsell Adding new carriers benefits all Aftership users. Expanding carrier integrations should be part of Aftership’s ongoing development efforts, not a hidden fee imposed on individual customers. Hidden Costs Undermine Customer Trust Nowhere in Aftership’s pricing model is it clearly stated that carrier integration comes with additional fees. This lack of transparency frustrates users and creates an unexpected financial burden. Loyal Customers Deserve Better Customers who have trusted Aftership for their business operations should not have to pay extra to access a fundamental feature like carrier support. Proposed Solution: Aftership should eliminate extra fees for new carrier integrations and invest in expanding its platform instead of charging individual users. This would be part of its commitment to improving service for all customers. Clear, upfront disclosure of costs should be required if Aftership maintains this fee structure. If Aftership truly values its customers, this change must ensure a fair, transparent, and customer-centric experience.

A notification to give the customer the opportunity to change their requested ship date. This allows wineries to change the date without re-directing.  Using the RSD and sending a notification 3 days or so before. 

That would be great if Feed could accommodate the listing of "not-for-sale products" on TTS. This feature is newly introduced in TTS, where the product is not for sale to shoppers but will be gifted to them instead.

Goal: To make it easier for customers to accurately select the correct item for return when using the return portal. Preconditions: The customer has placed an order containing multiple items, some of which may have similar or identical titles, colors, or sizes. The SKU numbers for the items exist in the system but are not currently displayed in the return portal. Trigger: The customer initiates a return and accesses the return portal to select the item(s) they wish to return. Basic Flow: The customer logs into the return portal. The portal displays the items from their order, including details such as title, color, size, and now the SKU number for each item. The customer uses the SKU number to cross-reference their order confirmation or invoice, ensuring they select the correct item for return. The customer completes the return process with confidence that the correct item has been selected. Postconditions: The customer successfully returns the correct item without confusion. The support team receives fewer inquiries about mismatched returns. Benefits: For Customers: Improved user experience by reducing confusion when selecting items for return. Greater confidence in completing returns independently. For the Business: Reduced customer support requests related to returns. Increased efficiency in processing returns, minimizing errors caused by incorrect item selection. Priority: Medium – This enhancement has a high potential to improve customer satisfaction with a relatively low implementation effort. Technical Requirements: Modify the front-end display of the return portal to include SKU numbers as part of the product details. Ensure the SKU numbers are fetched and displayed consistently across all customer orders. This use case focuses on enhancing the clarity of the return process for customers while streamlining operational efficiency for the business.