Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the "choose one from two" (二选一) accusation against Ctrip, highlighting the risks of monopolistic behavior in the OTA (Online Travel Agency) sector and its impact on market dynamics [4][5][19]. Group 1: Market Dynamics and Competition - Ctrip is currently facing scrutiny after being questioned by the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Bureau, with media focusing on its pricing strategies and potential monopolistic practices [5][19]. - The OTA industry is more complex than the food delivery sector, involving higher consumer decision costs and a longer supply chain, which could lead to greater risks if monopolistic behavior is established [9][10]. - Ctrip's market dominance is significant, with projections indicating it will hold a 56% market share in 2024, far surpassing competitors like Tongcheng (15%) and Meituan (13%) [16][18]. Group 2: Pricing Strategies and Merchant Impact - Ctrip's commission structure places significant financial pressure on hotel merchants, with basic commissions ranging from 12% to 15%, and total costs potentially nearing 30% [11][12][13]. - Merchants have reported that Ctrip's "price adjustment assistant" and "golden card" system may effectively force them into a "choose one from two" scenario, limiting their pricing autonomy and market choices [22][34]. - The article suggests that Ctrip's operational strategies may create a closed market where it dictates terms, impacting the competitive landscape for merchants [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - Didi's subsidiary, 99Food, is reportedly investing over 1 billion RMB in Brazil to secure exclusive agreements with merchants, preventing them from collaborating with Meituan's Keeta while allowing partnerships with local competitor iFood, which holds an 80% market share in Brazil's food delivery sector [1][2]. Group 1 - Didi's 99Food has approached over 100 restaurant chains in Brazil, offering at least 900 million BRL (over 1 billion RMB) in advance payments for exclusive "choose one" agreements [1]. - The "choose one" clause primarily targets Meituan's Keeta, while not restricting merchants from working with iFood, the dominant player in the market [1]. - Didi's strategy appears to be focused on maintaining a competitive position against iFood, as both 99Food and Meituan Keeta are new entrants in the Brazilian market [1][2]. Group 2 - Didi 99Food has acknowledged signing "choose one" agreements with some restaurants, with reports indicating offers as high as 6 million BRL (approximately 8 million RMB) for semi-exclusive contracts that target Keeta but allow for iFood partnerships [2]. - The company has also engaged in competitive advertising practices by purchasing Google ads containing the term "Keeta," aiming to lower the visibility of Keeta's search results [2]. - A Brazilian court has ruled that such advertising practices constitute unfair competition and trademark infringement, ordering Didi 99Food to cease these activities within three days or face a daily fine of 20,000 BRL [2].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing conflict between JD.com and Meituan in the food delivery market highlights the competitive dynamics and potential regulatory implications of the "choose one" strategy, which may reshape the industry landscape [1][3][4]. Group 1: Company Actions - JD.com accused competitors of enforcing a "choose one" policy that restricts delivery riders from accepting orders from its platform, leading to delays in order fulfillment and poor user experience [3][4]. - In response, JD.com announced several measures to support delivery riders, including not forcing part-time riders into a "choose one" situation, prioritizing work assignments for all riders, and planning to recruit 100,000 full-time riders over the next three months [3][4]. - JD.com also apologized to consumers for order delays and promised to waive fees for any orders that exceed a 20-minute delay [4]. Group 2: Competitive Dynamics - Meituan responded to JD.com's accusations by denying any restrictions on riders working for multiple platforms and attributing order delays to JD.com's own operational issues [4][7]. - The rivalry has prompted both companies to enhance their offerings, with JD.com implementing various initiatives aimed at improving rider welfare and service quality, while Meituan announced plans to start providing social insurance for full-time and stable part-time riders by Q2 2025 [6][7]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The conflict between JD.com and Meituan is expected to drive the food delivery industry towards more standardized practices and improved service quality, regardless of the immediate outcome of their rivalry [8]. - The entry of JD.com into the market has created more options for riders, merchants, and consumers, potentially benefiting the overall ecosystem [6].

Group 1 - The article discusses the recent significant declines in the U.S. stock, bond, and currency markets, referred to as a "triple kill" [1][4] - On April 21, U.S. President Trump urged the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, claiming that inflation no longer exists in the U.S. and warning of economic slowdown risks if action is not taken [2][4] - The U.S. stock market saw substantial losses, with the Dow Jones falling by 971.82 points (2.48%), the Nasdaq down 2.55%, and the S&P 500 decreasing by 2.36% [4] Group 2 - The volatility in U.S. Treasury bonds has increased, leading to a steepening yield curve, with the ratio of U.S. government bonds to global counterparts dropping to its lowest level since March 2024 [4][5] - The U.S. dollar index fell by 0.88% to 98.35, marking a three-year low, with the dollar also declining against the yen [5] - International gold prices reached new highs, with spot gold peaking at $3,430.67 per ounce, driven by market uncertainty and a flight to safety [7][9]

所谓二选一，最初起源于电商行业，指部分电商平台利用自身优势地位，以及入驻商家对平台的依赖， 以明示或者暗示的手段要求商家在自己和竞争对手之间做选择，达到"人无我有"，吸引更多消费者到平 台，从而抢占市场份额。 而在那场轰轰烈烈扑灭电商二选一的战役中，京东曾打过一次胜仗，如今，正在如法炮制，整顿"美团 们"。 烽火连天 过去，外卖行业长期处于"一超一强"的固化格局。 美团是主导者。通过轻资产模式整合线上和线下的零售资源，用流量和算法分配订单，进而占据高位； 饿了么背靠阿里生态，本应拥有得天独厚的资源优势，但一直不温不火，本地生活集团更一直深陷亏损 泥潭，拖着饿了么在盈利之路上步履蹒跚。 4 月 21 日，京东一封《致全体外卖骑手兄弟们的公开信》将即时零售行业的"暗战"推向幕前，更撕开了 骑手"自由接单"的温暖面纱。 京东称，近期，有竞对平台再次玩起"二选一"游戏，强迫各位骑手不能接京东平台的秒送订单，如有违 反，会采取封杀措施。 因并未指名道姓，截至发稿，尚未有外卖平台对此做出回应。不过消费者还是将目光放在了近期与京东 开启多轮隔空喊话的美团， 自京东入局以来，双方已厮杀 51 天。 自官宣入局外卖行业以来，京 ...

Core Viewpoint - JD.com has publicly criticized a competitor for enforcing a "choose one" policy that restricts delivery riders from accepting orders from JD.com, resulting in a 16-25% decrease in rider income. The company expresses sympathy for the riders and condemns these practices as illegal and unethical [3][4]. Group 1: JD.com's Response and Measures - JD.com has launched emergency assistance measures to support delivery riders and ensure their income stability in light of the competitor's actions [3]. - The company has apologized to users for delays in delivery caused by the sudden enforcement of the "choose one" policy, promising to waive fees for orders that are over 20 minutes late [6]. - JD.com has established an emergency response team to address delivery speed issues within the week [6]. Group 2: Public Reaction and User Experience - The public response to JD.com's open letter has been mixed, with many praising the company's stance, while others have reported difficulties in getting their orders fulfilled, leading to frustration among users [6][11]. - Users have shared experiences of long wait times for deliveries, with some stating they had to resort to other platforms like Meituan for timely service [7][11]. Group 3: Competitor's Denial and Market Context - Meituan has publicly denied the allegations of enforcing a "choose one" policy, labeling the claims as rumors and asserting that they do not restrict riders from working on multiple platforms [13]. - The "choose one" practice is described as a potential abuse of market dominance, which could harm competition and consumer interests, as outlined by legal experts [15][16].

低价战火蔓延到海外。 等式的左边，前半截已然成为现实，后半截里，虽然规模还不够大，但拼多多的跨境电商平台 Temu 利用 超低价商品在海外迅猛增长，上线仅两年多就实现了数百亿美元的成交额，这引起了美国电商市场第一名 亚马逊的注意。 2024 年末，入驻 Temu 不到半年的安克突然撤下所有商品，官方店铺也暂时休店，搜索 "Anker" 关键词只 能看到类似的非官方商品。这种情况只持续了大约一周，安克在 Temu 的两个官方品牌店很快恢复营业， 其中只卖翻新品的店铺基本恢复正常，但官方旗舰店重开后，只有少量商品陆续恢复上架，同款价格与亚 马逊持平甚至更贵，销量也大不如前。 市场猜测安克的一系列动作可能是遭遇了亚马逊的 "二选一"。亚马逊说自己未要求卖家独家销售，允许他 们同时在不同网站销售。我们了解到，亚马逊确实没有下明确的指令，但如果平台上的头部商家离开 Temu，亚马逊会给予一定的佣金优惠。 安克是从亚马逊起家的中国头部卖家，去年有一半以上收入来自亚马逊，卖的充电宝、投影仪和耳机都是 典型的标品，价格透明可比，店内有十多款商品月销万件以上。 文丨邱豪 制图丨 黄帧昕 编辑丨管艺雯 拼多多创始团队早年对自己在 ...