FLEX. Logistik Germany Avis 1

Misleading low-barrier positioning and overreaching response for non-EU sellers

FLEX presents itself with messaging such as “0 EUR pay-per-use,” “no monthly flat rate fees,” “no cost onboarding,” and a generally low-barrier impression.

That was not our actual experience.

We contacted FLEX because we are not based in the EU and specifically needed an EU fulfillment partner for that reason. From the beginning, we clearly communicated that this was a pilot batch of 100 units with 4 SKUs for an early-stage hardware product.

After several emails and after providing the requested operational details, we were told that our volume was too small and that we should come back at around 150 orders per month.

If that is FLEX’s commercial threshold, that is of course their right. But then this should have been communicated clearly from the start, instead of creating a low-barrier impression and then repeatedly asking follow-up questions about a setup that had already been described clearly.

What made the experience worse was the recommendation that we should handle fulfillment in-house. In our case, that is not just unhelpful, but overreaching. We explicitly approached an EU fulfillment provider because we are outside the EU and do not want to run EU fulfillment ourselves.

So the issue was never that FLEX declined the project. The issue was the mismatch between the public positioning and the actual handling, combined with a surprising amount of unsolicited business advice.

Update 1 in response to FLEX’s reply:

FLEX’s reply reinforced our original point.

We did not approach FLEX for an assessment of whether our business model was “feasible,” whether our pilot economics met their standards, or whether they personally believed the project would succeed. We approached them for a fulfillment quotation for a clearly defined pilot batch.

From the beginning, we openly communicated that this was a test batch of 100 units with 4 SKUs. That was not hidden, vague, or misleading. If this volume is too small for FLEX commercially, that would have been perfectly acceptable if stated clearly and immediately.

Instead, the exchange was dragged out with repeated questions, followed by unsolicited judgments about whether the idea would fail, whether the setup was sustainable, and how we should operate our business.

We do not need a fulfillment provider to decide for us whether a pilot phase is “worth it.” We are fully capable of deciding what level of setup cost we are willing to accept, and so are the investors involved. We test products in isolation on purpose. It also makes no sense for us to move existing group-level fulfillment structures to a new provider just for a pilot project that may later run through a newly formed company.

We asked FLEX for a fulfillment quotation, not for strategic consulting, financial assumptions, or paternalistic commentary.

It is also simply not true that this kind of pilot setup is inherently unworkable. We already received sensible offers from alternative EU fulfillment providers for exactly this scenario. So the issue was never feasibility. The issue was that FLEX did not want the business.

That is fine. The overreach was not.

Update 2 in response to FLEX’s latest reply:

FLEX then chose to become personal.

Instead of addressing the criticism, they referred to a pilot batch as “a hobby,” called us “quite a talker,” and tried to use my public reviews as an argument against us.

If public review history is now supposed to matter, that does not help their case. The public-facing feedback for Kevin Scheirich / Fotostudio Norderstedt is positive, including Google at 4.3/5 from 8 reviews and Facebook with 100% recommendation from 18 reviews. At the same time, FLEX’s own Trustpilot profile currently shows 1 review. So trying to discredit a prospective client on that basis is a strange move.

More importantly, a serious fulfillment company should be able to decline a pilot project without mockery, insults, or personal remarks.

That is why our criticism stands:
not because FLEX rejected the project, but because the communication was misleading, the process wasted time, and the responses became increasingly overreaching and unprofessional.