美团亏160亿，外卖大战激烈，王兴称难以为继

Core Viewpoint - The intense competition in the food delivery market has led to significant financial losses for major players like Meituan, Alibaba, and JD, with aggressive subsidy strategies impacting profitability and market dynamics [1][3][11]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - In Spring 2024, JD entered the food delivery sector, prompting Alibaba's Taobao to follow suit, leading to a fierce competition that forced all players to increase spending [1]. - By Summer, the market saw unprecedented subsidy levels, with consumers benefiting from numerous promotions, while businesses struggled with the financial implications of these strategies [3]. - The competition has resulted in a significant increase in marketing expenses for all three major companies, with Meituan's spending rising from 18 billion to 34.3 billion, and Alibaba's from 32.5 billion to 66.5 billion year-on-year [3][11]. Group 2: Financial Performance - Meituan reported a core local business operating loss of 14.1 billion in Q3, with expectations of continued losses into Q4, indicating a challenging financial landscape [5]. - Alibaba's CFO indicated that the company would tighten its spending on flash purchase business after a peak in Q3, suggesting a potential shift in strategy to mitigate losses [5][9]. - All three companies reported significant losses in Q3, with Meituan losing 16 billion, while Alibaba and JD also faced substantial financial challenges, leading to a bleak outlook for the industry [15][17]. Group 3: Competitive Strategies - Meituan's market share remains strong, particularly in mid-to-high price orders, with two-thirds of orders over 15 yuan and 70% of orders over 30 yuan being processed through its platform [7]. - Despite the ongoing competition, Meituan's leadership emphasized a commitment to avoiding low-quality, price-driven competition, focusing instead on long-term value creation [13][15]. - The industry is witnessing a shift towards more sustainable practices, with companies beginning to reconsider their aggressive subsidy strategies in light of regulatory pressures and financial realities [9][17].