Blame Follows the Messenger

Customers blame retailers less when the delay notification comes from someone else

When something goes wrong, most companies reach for the same playbook: communicate early, communicate often, and keep customers informed. It is difficult to argue with that logic. Customers hate surprises, and transparency has become a cornerstone of good service. Whether the issue is a delayed shipment, a production disruption, or a missed commitment, managers generally assume that more communication demonstrates accountability and builds trust.

New research published in the Journal of Business Logistics suggests the real lesson is narrower and more useful than “communicate more.” The study shows that communication does more than transfer information. It also shapes how customers assign responsibility. The volume of communication was not what mattered. The identity of the messenger was.

Researchers presented consumers with identical delivery delays following an online purchase. In the study, the same standard emails were sent to every participant: an order confirmation, a shipment notice, and a delivery confirmation. What varied was only how customers learned about the delay itself. Some received a delay notification from the retailer, some from the carrier, and others discovered the delay on their own through package tracking. The delivery outcome was identical across every condition.

When the retailer proactively communicated the delay, customers assigned more blame to the retailer, which reduced customer intentions to purchase from that retailer again. When the carrier communicated the delay, customers assigned less blame to the retailer, which improved repurchase intentions. Customers who discovered the delay through tracking also responded more favorably than those who received a proactive retailer notification. This shows the worst outcome for the retailer occurred when it communicated the delay.

The explanation comes from how people make sense of negative events. When something goes wrong, customers look for a cause and decide who is responsible. The source of a message becomes part of that judgment. A delay notification from the retailer can signal that the retailer had greater involvement in the delivery process. A notification from the carrier directs attention toward the party actually handling the shipment. The messenger therefore affects how customers interpret the same service failure.

One detail from the study is worth calling out directly. The researchers measured blame on both the retailer and the carrier. Only blame on the retailer turned out to drive repurchase intentions. Blame on the carrier moved around depending on who sent the notification, but it never significantly affected whether customers said they would buy from the retailer again. In practical terms, this means the retailer is not just shifting the blame problem downstream by stepping back. The retailer is largely getting out from under a blame problem that was never really about the carrier’s reputation in the first place.

The effect also proved durable. The researchers tested whether it changed when the delivery was particularly important or when customers had an established relationship with the retailer. Neither condition altered the underlying effect. Communication source continued to shape blame, which in turn influenced repurchase intentions.

For managers, the finding challenges the reflex to put the retailer’s name on every notification simply because that feels like better service. Before sending another notification, companies should consider what the customer needs to know, who should deliver the information, and what the source of that message may signal about responsibility. In many cases, the retailer should allow the carrier responsible for the delivery to communicate the disruption directly.

This does not justify withholding information or avoiding legitimate responsibility. In the experiments, customers still learned about the delay in every condition. The finding concerns how communication is designed and who delivers it, not whether customers are kept informed. Managers should preserve transparency while recognizing that the source of information affects how customers interpret it.

The instinct to have the retailer explain its own failure comes from a good place, but good intentions do not change how customers read the message. A retailer that steps forward to explain a delay signals ownership. A carrier or a tracking page delivering the same news signals circumstance. The delivery outcome stays the same either way. What shifts is who ends up owning the blame, and, in turn, who gets the next order.

About the Research This article is based on “The Case for Doing Less: Rethinking Communication With Consumers During Logistics Service Failures,” by Haley Paluzzi, Micah J. Marzolf, Travis Tokar, and Haozhe Chen, published in the Journal of Business Logistics (2026).