Tariffs are shifting. De minimis rules are under pressure. And new enforcement could change how retailers operate overnight. If you sell across borders—through ecommerce, marketplaces, or direct—these changes don’t just impact compliance. They impact your pricing, margins, and conversion rates.

Register for our Trade and Tariff webinar series for regular updates.

Duluth Trading just admitted its own e-commerce channel can't win, and the details surfaced at its June 8 investor day.

At that event, the workwear retailer confirmed it is now letting Amazon fulfill orders placed on Amazon's marketplace. CFO Heena Agrawal described it plainly: a traditional wholesale model where Amazon picks up product from Duluth's fulfillment centers, owns the inventory, owns Prime shipping, owns the returns, and reorders as it sells through. Read that list again. Amazon owns the inventory. Amazon owns the shipping. Amazon owns the returns. What does Duluth own in that arrangement? The manufacturing and the hope that an Amazon shopper eventually wanders over to Dulutht Trading website.

That hope is the whole strategy, and it is thin.

Management frames the Amazon storefront as an "entry point" for customers to discover Duluth's own site. That is the polite version. The honest version is that Duluth's customers were already leaving for Amazon, and the company decided to stop fighting it. Agrawal said it herself: customers go to Amazon for the access, the Prime shipping, the free returns. So Duluth is meeting them there. Fine. But once a customer learns they can get Duluth's gear with Prime speed and free returns, what exactly pulls them back to a site that ships standard orders in five to seven business days?

Nothing. That is the trap of wholesaling yourself to Amazon. You rent the customer, and the rent goes up.

The numbers explain the surrender. Duluth posted a $10 million net loss for the quarter that ended May 3. Retail stores grew 3.3%. Direct-to-consumer sales fell 8.7% as the company pulled back on promotions and watched web traffic and conversion drop with it. That DTC number is the tell. The channel Duluth controls is shrinking. The channel it doesn't control is where the demand is going. When your own digital storefront is bleeding and your customers keep searching for you on someone else's, eventually you take the deal.

Here is what bothers me about the framing. Agrawal said handing fulfillment to Amazon frees up "more free time to service our own online channel and our stores." That is backwards. The online channel is the problem. Outsourcing the part that was working, fulfillment, does not fix conversion or traffic on the site that is declining. It just makes Amazon a bigger slice of the business and Duluth a smaller voice in its own customer relationship.

And Duluth has run this play before. The company sold on Amazon several years ago while keeping inventory in-house, then stepped back. Now it is returning, this time fully inside Amazon's fulfillment network. The dependency only deepens with each pass.

There is a version of this that works. Some brands use Amazon as pure top-of-funnel and convert margin elsewhere. But that requires a destination site strong enough to pull customers off Amazon, and Duluth's own results say its site is doing the opposite right now.

So the question Duluth has to answer is the one its release avoids: if Amazon owns the shopping experience, what is left that's actually yours?

Duluth kept the manufacturing. Amazon kept the customer.

That's the trade. The "entry point to our own website" line gives it away. Route your customers through Amazon's checkout, Amazon's shipping, and Amazon's returns, and they don't come back to a site that ships in five to seven days. Demand goes where the convenience is. Duluth just told everyone where that is.

So, the title's question: Duluth owns the cost of building the product. Amazon owns the relationship that pays off later.

Estée Lauder and Puig were never going to clear the table. The walk-away proves it.

Two family-controlled houses tried to build a $40B rival to L'Oréal. They got close enough that the market treated it as done, then it died in a week of leaks and family infighting. The official line from CEO Stéphane de La Faverie: the price wasn't right. Translation: the deal stopped making sense once the real terms showed up.

Look at what actually sank it. Charlotte Tilbury's change-in-control clause from Puig's 2020 buy-in carried too many strings. The controlling families couldn't agree. And Estée Lauder is sitting on net debt near five times EBITDA while running a turnaround. You don't bolt a mega merger onto a balance sheet that stretched.

The market voted. Estée Lauder rose about 12 percent the day talks died. Puig fell 14 percent, its worst session since going public in 2024. That tells you who needed the deal more, and who investors thought was about to overpay.

L'Oréal didn't have to do anything. It reported over $48B in 2025 sales and watched two would-be challengers fail to merge. Sometimes the strongest move is being the company everyone else is trying to gang up on.