外卖平台，七月激战

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the intense competition between Taobao and Meituan in the food delivery market, highlighting the strategies and responses of both companies during a significant battle in July 2025 [2][10]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - Taobao's flash delivery service achieved a daily order volume of 60 million, challenging Meituan's dominance in the market [4][6]. - On July 5, Meituan responded with a "0 Yuan Self-Pickup" strategy, reaching a daily order volume of 120 million, maintaining a competitive ratio of 3:2 against Taobao [6][7]. - The competition intensified as both platforms engaged in aggressive subsidy strategies, with Taobao reportedly offering up to 20 billion in daily subsidies [32][41]. Group 2: Operational Strategies - Meituan's strategy involved maintaining its position as the market leader by ensuring that it would not incur losses while competing aggressively [9][10]. - Both companies focused on enhancing their delivery capacity, with Meituan and Ele.me competing for rider resources through subsidies [17][25]. - The operational efficiency of delivery services became crucial, with predictions that overall order volumes could double, but delivery capacity was lagging behind [14][15]. Group 3: Financial Implications - The article notes that the intense competition led to significant financial implications, with Meituan's unit economics (UE) reportedly dropping to around 0.2 Yuan per order due to high subsidy costs [46][70]. - Despite the fierce competition, Meituan maintained a market share of over 50%, while Taobao and Ele.me's combined share rose to approximately 40% [48][49]. - The overall market for food delivery expanded significantly, with daily orders increasing from 100 million to 200 million during the competition [52]. Group 4: Impact on Merchants - The article highlights that while the competition was fierce, many top-tier merchants benefited from increased order volumes, with some reporting order growth of 4-5 times [53][56]. - However, smaller merchants faced challenges as the burden of subsidies shifted, leading to reduced profit margins [57][59]. - The overall market dynamics changed, with larger brands gaining more from the subsidies compared to smaller players, who struggled to maintain profitability [56][60].