Share your ideas with us

Currently it's possible to view returns analytics only per 1 store at a time. It would be great to be able to select multiple stores and have a consolidated view on returns. 

We are a worldwide dropshipping service catering to e-commerce entrepreneurs. Merchants can design and market personalized products through us, setting prices and choosing their sales platforms from our integrated e-commerce options.   Once merchants place orders, we will handle the manufacturing, fulfillment, and shipping logistics to consumers.   When I am using Aftership for tracking, I want to enable my premium customers (merchants) with the ability to customize white label branded tracking pages and possibly an API to create them (since they won't have access to Aftership admin, and it would be impossible for me to maintain all tracking pages for them).   So that I can add this ability as part of the product & service package for my main customers (merchants), which creates more value for my business.

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 

As a merchant, I allow shoppers to exchange items for different variants during returns, which may have different prices. For example, a Small size costs $30 while a Large size costs $50.   Currently, Shopify allows me to adjust prices manually only after the Return Merchandise Authorization (RMA) is submitted. If aftership could facilitate charging or refunding price differences for variants during the return request process, it would greatly streamline our operations and enhancing the overall efficiency of RMA management.

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.

As online shopping continues to expand, cities and businesses are looking for ways to simplify last-mile delivery. In this shift, automated parcel lockers have become a practical solution, helping reduce missed deliveries and improving convenience for both couriers and customers. Their use is steadily shaping the future of contactless and efficient package management.

I would like to include the RMA number barcode on the returns label. This way, upon receiving the returns label at my warehouse, I can simply scan the barcode to retrieve the RMA number. Subsequently, I can use this number to efficiently locate the corresponding RMA information within the returns system. This process will significantly enhance the operational efficiency of our RMA procedures.

The same videos are displayed to shoppers on my collection page or recommendation widgets. I want greater exposure to alternative products and videos, but selecting which ones to display and updating them regularly feels overwhelming.   Furthermore, testing to determine which video garners the most traffic is even more challenging. I have no idea if my efforts will result in sales. If only there is a tool could help!

I work in the furniture industry with thousands of products and continuous new product listings.   Consumers often inquire about variations in materials and sizes between similar pieces of furniture, placing a significant burden on my support team. Generating comparison pages for every query we receive is unfeasible due to the volume of requests.   Given the potential of AI to suggest comparable items, could it also be leveraged to pinpoint disparities among products and present these distinctions to consumers? Such a system can alleviate my workload significantly and potentially reduce bounce rates as well.

1. What is the context?  * We are currently a Premium plan subscriber operating a high-volume merchant shipping 68% of our Canadian orders via GLS Canada. We are looking to utilize the Enhanced MPS Visibility feature to improve our customer experience.   * Currently, your documentation lists carriers like FedEx, UPS, and DHL as supported for MPS, but GLS Canada is excluded. When we contacted support, we were told this is due to "carrier limitations.   2. What issue do you want to address? We believe the "carrier limitation" rationale may be outdated or incorrect because AfterShip is already successfully pulling data for GLS child packages. * Evidence: On GLS Canada tracking number P97186751, AfterShip retrieves events for both Package 1 (Delivered Nov 21) and Package 2 (Delivered Nov 19). * The Problem: Because GLS Canada is not on your "Supported Carriers" list for MPS logic, your system aggregates these distinct events into a single "scrambled" timeline instead of separating them into tabs. * The Gap: The data exists in your system; the parsing logic to separate "Master" vs. "Child" is simply missing for this specific carrier. 3. What outcome do you expect? * We request that the product team add GLS Canada to the Enhanced MPS Visibility supported carrier list * We need the system to recognize the child packages it is already detecting and display them in separate tabs (Piece 1, Piece 2), just as it does for FedEx or UPS.   4. Who will benefit from your idea? * Merchants: This allows Canadian merchants to use your Enterprise MPS features for their dominant carrier, reducing support tickets regarding "confusing" status updates. * AfterShip: It improves the value of your Enterprise plan for the Canadian market by supporting the region's major logistics provider.