At some point, your organization did a cost-benefit analysis. That analysis found that the cost you incur from charging consumers below market value for shipping would be offset by the profit gained from an increase in orders. In other words, yes you are losing money overall on shipping, but if you charged consumers more for shipping, then you would probably have less overall orders. LiveAquaria.com specifically markets its "low" shipping rates on its website. It follows that LiveAquaria.com thinks that its shipping rates attract consumers. So focusing on your shipping loss only presents half the issue.
Moreover, high fuel costs and surcharges are obstacles all vendors face; LiveAquaria.com does not exclusively feel the harm. Some vendors chose to charge consumers actual shipping cost. LiveAquaria.com does not.
Please understand that I am EXPLAINING, --not complaining.
I never implied that LiveAquaria.com was a "money making scheme." I merely expressed my assumption that LiveAquaria.com partly subsidizes the cost of bigger/ distant destination / heavier orders by charging "local" customers higher than actual shipping costs, and my opinion that I felt this was unfair. This opinion does not require the inference (nor do I intend the inference) that LiveAquaria.com is "pocketing" that money. As I stated in my original post, LiveAquaria.com passes this added benefit onto its other consumers.
I feel safe in assuming that LiveAquaria.com has the noblest of motives for entering the business market. However, it is not merely a "labor of love and contribution to the hobby." A much more realistic construction is that it is part business, part hobby, part politics.
Finally, I am glad that I am not paying LiveAquaria.com dues to lobby on my behalf. Frankly, I would be offended if I was asked to. What other industry overtly charges consumers a fee for lobbying? Certainly, consumers usually do assume lobbying costs, through the vehicle of marginal increases in goods and services pricing.
My specific question was: what is the reasoning behind the shipping policy? After several responses where LiveAquaria.com avoided answering my direct question, you have admitted that LiveAquaria.com does not lose money on "short distance orders or packages that are extra lightweight and small." Implicitly, you have given me my answer. LiveAquaria.com made a decision to charge local and small customers over market price on shipping so that they can offer below market price shipping for distant and large customers. What would be the possible reason for prioritizing distant and large consumers over local and small consumers? As I stated, allowing local consumers to pay actual shipping costs is likely to increase your amount of local orders. However, apparently this model does not eliminate as much of the cost of distant, bigger orders as charging local consumers above market price.
Thank you for helping me determine LiveAquaria's reasoning myself.
I want to say that I am a current LiveAquaria.com consumer, that I intend on continuing to buy from LiveAquaria.com, and that I have always been satisfied with LiveAquaria's quality and level of service. I am sorry if you take offense to this post, but unfortunately LiveAquaria.com appeared reluctant to answer my direct question on this occasion.