Depends on volume, complexity, and capabilities. 3PL is typically better for: <$2M annual Amazon revenue, limited warehouse expertise, variable volumes, or multi-channel fulfillment needs. Owned warehouse better for: >$5M annual Amazon revenue, predictable volumes, existing warehouse infrastructure, or desire for maximum control. Between $2-5M, detailed cost analysis determines the optimal approach.

Primary causes: incorrect shipment quantities (30-40% of chargebacks), labeling errors (20-30%), packaging violations (15-20%), late shipments (10-15%), and documentation errors (10-15%). Most chargebacks stem from warehouse processes proper quality control, verification systems, and documentation prevent 60-80% of these penalties.

Evaluation criteria: Amazon experience (critical generic 3PLs often fail Amazon requirements), technology capabilities (integration, visibility, reporting), geographic proximity to Amazon FCs, pricing structure (per-unit versus storage-based), scalability, and references from similar Amazon vendors. Never choose solely on price poor 3PL creates chargebacks costing more than savings.

Yes, strategic warehousing enables efficient scaling. Optimise processes and systems now handling 2-3x volume without proportional cost increases. Proper infrastructure, automation where justified, scalable 3PL partnerships, and efficient carrier relationships support growth without operational disruption or margin erosion. Growth-ready operations are profit multipliers.

A common problem. Options: implement quality control before shipments leave 3PL (costly but prevents penalties), work with 3PL on process improvements (if they're cooperative), or transition to Amazon-experienced 3PL. Document chargeback patterns, quantify costs, and use data to negotiate 3PL improvements or justify transition. Poor 3PL destroys margins change if improvement is impossible.