Instant Auctions

Unlocking Faster Freight Matching Through Instant Bid Responses

Company

Convoy

Industry:

Freight

Start:

April 1, 2022

Start:

April 1, 2022

End:

February 1, 2023

End:

February 1, 2023

Empowering carriers to save time, plan smarter, and earn more with every load.

Empowering carriers to save time, plan smarter, and earn more with every load.

About Convoy

The Convoy Carrier App connects drivers and fleets to a digital freight marketplace, allowing them to find, bid, and manage loads in real time. My design work focused on improving booking flows, visibility, and feedback loops to reduce driver downtime and increase trust in automated bidding systems.

Project Goal

Reduce the amount of time carriers have to wait by providing an immediate response after they place a bid.

Opportunity

Evaluating how faster feedback impacts carrier trust and participation.

Instant feedback → More bids → More matches → Stronger marketplace.

Results

Instant Auctions was highly successful.

+5%

+5%

Margin improvement

Margin improvement

66%

66%

of matches made through counteroffers

of matches made through counteroffers

"This is the best of the best. In the past, I couldn’t always accept Convoy loads that I had won, because I’d booked another load while waiting for a response. Now, I know right away if I’m going to haul it, so I don’t need to search for another load. This significantly reduces the time it takes me to plan and book my schedule!”

Ghareeb Nawaz, Stryker Trans

I’m able to make smarter bids because I’m getting instant feedback. I can submit as many bids as I want and sometimes Convoy provides a counteroffer. This is a huge benefit to carriers like me.”

I’m able to make smarter bids because I’m getting instant feedback. I can submit as many bids as I want and sometimes Convoy provides a counteroffer. This is a huge benefit to carriers like me.”

Josh Rickards, Rickards Transportation Services LLC

Research

Evaluating how faster feedback impacts carrier trust and participation.

Instant feedback → More bids → More matches → Stronger marketplace.

Testing Method

Testing Method

• 11 moderated interviews via Zoom


• Explored current booking behaviors and pain points


• Tested Instant Auction concept — gathered reactions, expectations, and concerns

• 11 moderated interviews via Zoom


• Explored current booking behaviors and pain points


• Tested Instant Auction concept — gathered reactions, expectations, and concerns

Participant Demographics

Participant Demographics

Sampling Criteria:

  • Carrier segment (intent-based)

  • Carrier size (driver → small → large)

Mix of drivers, dispatchers, and fleet carriers representing varied booking goals and behaviors

Sampling Criteria:

  • Carrier segment (intent-based)

  • Carrier size (driver → small → large)

Mix of drivers, dispatchers, and fleet carriers representing varied booking goals and behaviors

Key Findings

01.

01.

01.

Carriers loved getting an instant decision — it streamlined their workflow, making load booking faster, smoother, and more predictable.

Carriers loved getting an instant decision — it streamlined their workflow, making load booking faster, smoother, and more predictable.

02.

02.

02.

The idea of counteroffers was exciting and felt like a fairer, more transparent system.

The idea of counteroffers was exciting and felt like a fairer, more transparent system.

03.

03.

03.

Carriers expected a back-and-forth negotiation — they wanted to counter our counteroffer, not just accept or reject.

Carriers expected a back-and-forth negotiation — they wanted to counter our counteroffer, not just accept or reject.

04.

04.

04.

They wanted clarity on what happens after rejection and preferred their bids remain “in play” rather than immediately dismissed.

They wanted clarity on what happens after rejection and preferred their bids remain “in play” rather than immediately dismissed.

05.

05.

05.

After a rejected counter or bid, many chose not to rebid, feeling discouraged or undervalued by the process.

After a rejected counter or bid, many chose not to rebid, feeling discouraged or undervalued by the process.

Solutions

Tradeoff: Negotiation Experience vs. Model Integrity

🎨 Design Perspective

 Carriers wanted a natural back-and-forth negotiation, like traditional brokerage — more human, flexible, and fair.

🧠 Data Science Perspective

 Multiple counters would destabilize pricing models, creating feedback loops and reducing accuracy.

✅ Decision

 Limit to one counteroffer cycle to preserve model reliability. Carriers can rebid manually, but each is treated as a new negotiation.

Acceptance Window

We allowed a 15-minute acceptance window for logistics. We did not provide a timer, but instead adjusted the booked now rate to the counteroffer price and showed expired under counteroffer info item.

Content

Content

Acceptance Window

We allowed a 15-minute acceptance window for logistics. We did not provide a timer, but instead adjusted the booked now rate to the counteroffer price and showed expired under counteroffer info item.

Acceptance Window

We allowed a 15-minute acceptance window for logistics. We did not provide a timer, but instead adjusted the booked now rate to the counteroffer price and showed expired under counteroffer info item.

Tradeoff:
User Sentiment vs. Market Efficiency

When a carrier’s bid was rejected, the team debated whether to “soften” the rejection message — for example, by adding friendlier language (“Your bid wasn’t accepted this time, but we’d love to see you bid again soon!”) or subtle hints (“Try bidding slightly higher next time”).

The question was: should the system empathize or optimize?

🎨 Design tradeoff: Empathy vs. Clarity


 💡 Decision: Chose a firm rejection to encourage realistic bids and reduce confusion.


 📊 Impact: Faster market resolution, cleaner data, fewer double acceptances.

Rollout Phase 1- 30%

Measuring Impact & Investigating Friction

📊 Monitored feedback loops: CS calls, in-app feedback, brokerage data.


 💬 10 carrier interviews: Explored pain points around rates and trust.


 🔍 Outcome: Identified pricing perception as key barrier → informed next iteration vs. rollback decision.

User Research - Key Findings

✅ Carriers prefer Instant Auctions — faster responses and less waiting improved overall satisfaction and planning efficiency.

⚠️ Low counteroffers discouraged re-bids — carriers perceived early offers as unfair or uncompetitive, reducing engagement.

⏳ Urgency gap in counteroffers — without time pressure, even acceptable offers failed to drive immediate action.

💰 Counteroffers often below market — pricing too close to “accept now” rates led to distrust and fewer matches.

📉 Conservative initial pricing — encouraged “last-minute” bidding behavior and slowed early marketplace activity.

⚠️ Lack of bid status transparency — carriers grew frustrated by unclear communication about held bids and wanted control to cancel.

Rollout Phase 2

Design Goal: Simplify the Flow & Re-Engage Carriers

🧩 Removed acceptance timer → Simplified decision flow; fewer expirations.


 💬 Revised decline modal → Set clearer expectations, encouraged re-bidding.


 📈 Outcome: Increased rebid rate, improved carrier retention metrics.

Validating the Rollout: Quantitative Phone Survey

🤝 Partnered with Data Science → Designed structured survey to test rollout readiness.


 ☎️ 100 carrier calls via CS team → Quantified preference for Instant vs. Timed Auctions.


 📊 Goal: Validate experience quality before 100% launch.

86%

86%

of surveyed carriers indicated preference for IA

of surveyed carriers indicated preference for IA

70%

70%

increase of bids per hour

increase of bids per hour

11%

11%

point increase in zero-touch automation rate

point increase in zero-touch automation rate

Learnings & Reflections

Designing for both user trust and algorithmic stability required tradeoffs.


Carriers valued clarity and fairness more than unlimited negotiation — proving that simplicity can still feel empowering when expectations are clear.

Thanks for reading 😊