Group 1 - JD.com has initiated its "Double 11 Global Goods Festival" earlier than other major shopping platforms, raising concerns about its practices during this promotional period [4][10] - Allegations have emerged that JD.com is engaging in "choose one" behavior, restricting merchants from participating in promotions on competing platforms, with penalties ranging from millions to tens of millions of yuan for violations [4][7] - Internal sources from JD.com claim that their actions are aimed at "active price comparison" to protect consumers, arguing that the accusations of "choose one" misinterpret their intentions [6][10] Group 2 - The competitive landscape has shifted, with JD.com previously criticizing Alibaba for similar practices, highlighting the cyclical nature of such competitive strategies in the industry [8][9] - JD.com's recent defensive strategies, including the establishment of a "price protection wall," reflect a loss of confidence and a shift from an open ecosystem to a more controlled environment [12][25] - The failure in the food delivery sector has led JD.com to adopt a defensive posture, impacting its approach to the upcoming Double 11 sales event [15][16] Group 3 - JD.com’s core business, particularly in home appliances, is under scrutiny as it attempts to navigate the challenges posed by competitors and changing market dynamics [16][20] - The company's previous advantages in logistics and customer service are diminishing as the industry evolves, leading to a decline in consumer willingness to pay a premium for these services [20][22] - JD.com’s reliance on traditional promotional strategies, such as issuing coupons, indicates a lack of innovation in adapting to new market conditions [22][23] Group 4 - The ongoing conflict with brands over pricing strategies is eroding JD.com's reputation as a trustworthy partner, potentially benefiting competitors who respect merchant autonomy [26][27] - JD.com’s approach of positioning itself as a defender of consumer interests may provide short-term gains but risks long-term damage to its ecosystem [28][29] - The company must undergo a significant transformation to regain its competitive edge, focusing on building trust and enhancing its core value proposition rather than engaging in price wars [31][32]

Core Viewpoint - The recent controversies surrounding JD.com, including the hefty fines imposed on Midea and the "choose one" policy, reflect the competitive pricing strategy of JD.com, which aims to provide lower prices for consumers, leading to public debate [1] Group 1: Pricing Strategy - JD.com's pricing strategy, particularly during the "Double Eleven" shopping festival, involves requiring brands to adjust their prices on JD.com if they offer lower prices on other platforms, which is seen as a way to build a "price protection wall" for consumers [3] - This strategy is perceived as a means to ensure competitive pricing and protect consumer interests, as JD.com maintains a trustworthy brand image and stable service experience [3][4] - The concept of "choose one" is argued to be a misinterpretation of JD.com's pricing strategy, which is not intended to limit brands' operations on other platforms [3] Group 2: Market Dynamics - The "price synchronization" mechanism implemented by JD.com is viewed as a method for price discovery and market stability, reducing price friction across channels and enhancing price transparency [4] - This mechanism aids brands in better planning their marketing investments and inventory management, ultimately stabilizing the supply chain and reducing profit volatility [4] - The ongoing discourse highlights the need for a balance between consumer rights and respect for multi-channel operations by merchants, which remains a challenge for e-commerce platforms [4] Group 3: Information Ecosystem - The timing of the negative discussions about JD.com during the critical "Double Eleven" period raises concerns, as many of these discussions lack authoritative sources and appear to be artificially amplified [5] - The dual role of information platforms as both content providers and competitors poses challenges, as it can lead to the misuse of public resources and distort public perception [5] - There is a call for transparency and fairness in competition, emphasizing that the digital economy can only thrive in an open environment that balances commercial value with social responsibility [6]