本报（chinatimes.net.cn）记者卢晓 北京报道 作为观察下半年消费趋势的重要窗口，每年的双十一大促都是电商行业集体面临的严峻考验。但身在其 中的参与者们，却并不期待这场考验尽早结束。 10月9日，抖音电商和京东的双十一大促相继正式开始，分别比去年早了9天和5天，苏宁易购则将双十 一大促连上了"国庆档"，天猫双十一大促虽然比去年晚了一天开启，但也比去年晚三天结束。 在战线越来越长背后，性价比依然是近年来各个消费市场的重要考量维度。伴随国补等一系列刺激消费 政策持续落地，低价依然是今年双十一消费热潮的最大关键词，但电商平台们显然各有自己要完成的小 目标。 战线越拉越长 作为电商平台年底的一场集体硬仗，双十一大促的战线一年更比一年长。 "现在付订金，晚上零点开价，双十一全程保价。"10月8日，北京消费者小王在抖音电商某家电品牌的 直播间中被主播这样的反复承诺打动。支付了20元订金后，随着次日零点抖音双十一大促正式开启，在 他领完国补和平台补贴后，原本售价约2700元的产品便宜了约560元，降价幅度超过20%。 低价背后的不同选择 看起来，低价依然是今年双十一大促的主旋律之一。电商平台们也都力求让发券、 ...

打开现在的购物软件，以前随手买的9块9包邮手机壳、指甲刀，现在要么悄悄涨了价，要么包邮门槛变 高了，之前满20块就能免邮，现在不少店得凑到30块才行，难道9.9包邮的时代，真要结束了？ 过去几年网上那么多低价包邮商品，看着是咱消费者占了便宜，实际上是快递行业在背后"赔本赚吆 喝"，快递公司为了抢生意，把单价压得越来越低，商家才敢搞9块9包邮，可现在不一样了，快递行业 的利润已经薄到快撑不下去，这种模式自然难以为继。 说实在的，低价包邮背后藏着不少糟心事，之前买过一个12块的充电线，虽说免运费，但等了足足四天 才到，拆开一看包装都破了，后来想退换，一问寄回去的运费要15块，比充电线本身还贵，最后只能自 认倒霉，看似省了几块运费，其实要承担时效慢、售后难的麻烦，这点大家应该都有体会。 未来，纯纯的9块9包邮可能真的越来越少，但也不是说低价快递就没了，更可能的是快递服务分了层： 要是买个不着急用的小物件，还是能找到便宜快递；但要是买生鲜、电子产品这种急需或者怕坏的东 西，快递费可能会贵点，但送得快、包装好，售后也省心。 对咱来说，不用纠结有没有9块9包邮，关键是看花的运费值不值这个服务。 快递行业窘境 9.9包邮 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the regulatory measures taken by various cities in China to curb low-price competition in the ride-hailing industry, focusing on the balance between platform competition and driver rights [1][5]. Regulatory Actions - Multiple cities, including Xi'an, have implemented regulations to ban low-price marketing strategies such as "one-price" and "special price" orders, effective from August 19 [1][6]. - The regulations aim to prevent price fraud and protect drivers from being forced into low-paying orders [1][6]. - Other cities like Guangdong, Henan, and Jiangxi have also introduced similar policies to combat low-price competition [1][6]. Impact on Drivers - Drivers have reported slight income increases since the implementation of these regulations, but overall earnings remain low due to high commission rates taken by platforms [2][3]. - The average daily operating hours for drivers in Zhengzhou is about 9.5 hours, with some earning less than 4,000 yuan per month after deductions [4]. - Drivers express frustration over the high commission rates, which have increased over time, leading to reduced net income despite a rise in order volume [3][4]. Platform Performance - Despite regulatory challenges, platforms like Didi have shown strong financial performance, with a core platform transaction volume exceeding 100 billion yuan in Q1 and a 15.9% year-on-year growth in Q2 [7][8]. - Didi's total transaction volume reached 1,096 billion yuan in Q2, with a significant contribution from its domestic business [7]. - Cao Cao Mobility reported a revenue of 9.456 billion yuan in the first half of the year, marking a 53.5% increase [8]. Industry Dynamics - The competition in the ride-hailing industry is shifting from aggressive price wars to a focus on service quality, posing new challenges for platforms [8]. - Regulatory interventions are seen as positive steps, but issues such as opaque pricing algorithms and the imbalance in bargaining power between platforms and drivers remain unresolved [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The income of ride-hailing drivers is ultimately determined by the income of individuals in other industries, while the pricing of ride-hailing services is dictated by market supply and demand rather than the drivers' labor input [1][12]. Regulatory Actions - Recently, Xi'an has banned "fixed-price" and "discount orders" in the ride-hailing market, effective from August 19, due to complaints from taxi drivers about unfair competition and disruption of market order [2]. - Other regions, including Jiangxi, Zhejiang, Henan, and Guangdong, have also taken steps to curb low-price competition to protect drivers' rights [2]. - Xi'an's decision is notable for its comprehensive ban on these pricing strategies, which is rare compared to other regions that have only issued warnings [2]. Market Dynamics - The ride-hailing market has been characterized by various "chaotic phenomena," but outright banning fixed-price orders is not seen as a viable solution [3]. - The term "involution" has been misused in discussions about competition, where low-price competition is often labeled as involution, obscuring the real issues [4][5]. - Low prices can lead to market expansion and are often a result of technological advancements and business model innovations [6][8]. Consumer and Driver Impact - Banning fixed-price orders may negatively impact both passengers and drivers, as passengers would face higher costs and reduced choices [9][10]. - The demand for ride-hailing services may decrease if prices rise, which could ultimately harm drivers' earnings despite higher fares [11]. - There is a divide among drivers regarding fixed-price orders, with some preferring them for their efficiency and others opposing them due to perceived lower earnings [11][17]. Regulatory Perspective - Current regulatory approaches often view the ride-hailing market as an extension of the traditional taxi market, which fails to recognize the distinct nature of ride-hailing services [14][15]. - The ride-hailing market operates on a two-sided platform model, where increased participation from both drivers and passengers leads to lower costs and prices, a dynamic not present in traditional taxi services [15][16]. - The existence of fixed-price orders is seen as a necessary feature of the ride-hailing market, providing efficiency and certainty for consumers [16]. Future Considerations - The recent reduction in commission rates by several ride-hailing platforms indicates a potential for improved earnings for drivers if regulatory burdens are eased [17]. - The inconsistency and variability of regulations across regions complicate operational efficiency for ride-hailing platforms, suggesting that a shift in regulatory thinking may be necessary for the industry's growth [17].

Core Viewpoint - Recent price adjustments by express delivery companies in regions like Guangdong and Zhejiang indicate a shift in the market, with price increases of 0.3 to 0.7 yuan per parcel, impacting downstream merchants and potentially leading to higher costs for consumers [1][2] Group 1: Price Adjustments and Market Impact - Express delivery companies in Guangdong have set a minimum price of 1.4 yuan per parcel, affecting merchants who previously negotiated lower rates [1] - The increase in delivery costs is likely to be passed on to consumers, raising concerns about the overall service quality in the industry [1][2] Group 2: Industry Challenges - The express delivery market has been plagued by a "volume-price inversion" issue, where companies have relied on low prices to gain market share, resulting in declining profit margins despite increasing business volume [1][3] - Many express companies are reporting a decrease in revenue per parcel, with some falling below 2 yuan, highlighting the contradiction of "increasing volume without increasing revenue" [1] Group 3: Quality vs. Price - The ongoing low-price competition has created a negative cycle of low quality and high consumer complaints, as the pressure to reduce prices affects service quality and worker compensation [2] - The industry needs to align rising prices with improved service quality to ensure a responsible approach for consumers, merchants, and the industry as a whole [2] Group 4: Regulatory and Taxation Changes - Recent tax reforms have standardized the VAT for express services at 6%, reducing tax burdens on companies and allowing for more resources to be allocated towards service improvements [3] - The industry must move away from price wars and focus on operational optimization, service innovation, and breaking the cycle of homogeneous competition to achieve true quality enhancement [3]

Core Viewpoint - The emphasis on "anti-low-price competition" is not merely about raising prices, but rather about restoring fair competition mechanisms in the market [4][5] Group 1: Anti-Low-Price Competition - Various industry associations and government departments are advocating against low-price competition, which is seen as a form of "involution" [2] - The push for price increases is being driven by government actions and self-regulatory organizations, with some viewing it as a sign of effective "anti-involution" measures [2] - Not all price competition is considered "involutionary"; only "below-cost" pricing is typically opposed [2][3] Group 2: Market Dynamics and Price Intervention - Price interventions should not be arbitrary; they must adhere to legal frameworks such as fair competition reviews and anti-monopoly laws [3] - The current economic context in China, characterized by insufficient demand, complicates the sustainability of non-market price increases [3] - For example, in the photovoltaic industry, price increases at one level of the supply chain may not be feasible if downstream consumers cannot bear the costs [3] Group 3: Long-term Solutions - The core of "anti-involution" efforts should focus on enhancing the market's ability to allocate resources effectively, addressing issues like unfair competition and unreasonable subsidies [4] - Systematic adjustments and a longer timeframe are necessary to address the deep-rooted problems that contribute to low-price competition [4][5]

Group 1 - The recent halt of low-price marketing strategies in Xi'an's ride-hailing industry reflects a broader trend across various sectors to resist low-price competition and malicious underpricing practices [1][2] - Industry associations and government bodies are increasingly advocating for price increases as part of the "anti-involution" movement, which is seen as a positive development by some commentators [1][2] - The concept of "anti-low-price competition" is becoming a priority for various industries in addressing "involution," with immediate effects expected from interventions by government and associations [1][2] Group 2 - Not all price competition is considered "involutionary," as economic theory recognizes price as a crucial dimension of market competition; only "below-cost" pricing is typically opposed [2][3] - The enforcement of "anti-low-price competition" must align with fair competition reviews, price laws, and antitrust regulations to avoid unintended consequences such as price cartels [2][3] - The current economic climate in China, characterized by insufficient demand, complicates the sustainability of non-market price increases across industries [2][3] Group 3 - The emphasis on "anti-low-price competition" aims to restore fair market competition rather than simply increase prices; enhancing market mechanisms can lead to higher prices and improved profit margins for companies [3][4] - A simplistic approach of merely raising prices may backfire, as price is a signal of market supply and demand, and improper interventions can disrupt market dynamics [3][4] - Addressing "involution" requires systemic adjustments to tackle issues like unfair competition, unreasonable government subsidies, and restrictive industry entry barriers, which necessitates time and comprehensive strategies [3][4]

Core Viewpoint - The company, AUX Electric Co., Ltd., has submitted its IPO application to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange for the second time, facing challenges such as high debt, reliance on ODM, and shortcomings in R&D despite revenue growth and increased market share [1][2]. Company Development Path - AUX previously attempted to list on the New Third Board in 2016 but delisted in 2017 due to insufficient market liquidity. From 2018 to 2023, the company sought to list on the Shanghai Stock Exchange but did not submit an application after completing advisory services [2]. Market Position - AUX has been in the air conditioning industry for over 30 years but remains a latecomer compared to established giants [3]. Competitive Strategy - Initially, AUX adopted a low-price strategy to compete with much larger rivals, which boosted sales and brand recognition but also led to backlash from competitors, particularly Gree Electric Appliances [4]. Legal Battles - AUX has faced multiple lawsuits from Gree, resulting in significant financial penalties. Despite these challenges, AUX's performance has exceeded market expectations [5][7]. Financial Performance - AUX's revenue for 2022, 2023, and projected 2024 is RMB 19.53 billion, RMB 24.83 billion, and RMB 29.76 billion, respectively, with net profits of RMB 1.44 billion, RMB 2.49 billion, and RMB 2.91 billion [8][10]. Growth Comparison - AUX's revenue growth of 52.39% and net profit growth of 101.80% from 2022 to 2024 contrasts sharply with larger competitors like Midea, Haier, and Gree, which have significantly higher revenue and profit figures [10]. Profitability Challenges - AUX's gross margins are lower than those of its competitors, with figures of 21.3%, 21.8%, and 21.0% from 2022 to 2024, indicating limited pricing power and vulnerability to cost fluctuations [10][11]. R&D Investment - AUX's cumulative R&D expenses from 2022 to 2024 are less than RMB 2 billion, with a 2024 R&D expense of RMB 710 million, significantly lower than its competitors [11]. Debt Levels - AUX's debt ratio remains high, with figures of 88.3%, 78.8%, 84.1%, and 82.5% from 2022 to 2025 Q1, alongside substantial dividend payouts that raise concerns about financial sustainability [12][14]. Revenue Sources - The majority of AUX's revenue comes from overseas markets, with overseas sales contributing 42.9%, 41.9%, and 49.3% of total revenue from 2022 to 2024, primarily from ODM business [15]. Market Share Decline - AUX has lost its leading position in online sales, now ranking fifth, while competitors like Midea and Gree dominate the online market [16].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing "takeaway war" driven by massive subsidies from platforms is creating significant operational pressure on restaurants, leading to a decline in profitability despite an increase in order volume [2][11][13]. Group 1: Impact on Restaurants - Many restaurants are facing a dilemma: participating in platform marketing activities can increase sales but decrease profit margins, while not participating risks lower visibility and fewer orders [3][11]. - A survey indicated that restaurants may pay up to 40% of the order value in various fees, including service and promotional costs, which severely impacts their profitability [2][11]. - The owner of a rice bowl restaurant reported a drastic drop in daily revenue from 6,000 yuan to around 1,000 yuan after the subsidy war began, highlighting the unsustainable nature of current operations [5][6]. Group 2: Financial Strain - The financial burden on restaurants is exacerbated by fixed costs such as rent and labor, which remain high even as revenues decline [6][9]. - For example, a restaurant selling a dish for 21.8 yuan ends up with only 4.11 yuan after deducting various fees, while the total cost of providing that dish is around 10 yuan [6][9]. - The overall profitability of many restaurants has decreased, with some reporting a 10% drop in dine-in revenue compared to the previous year [11]. Group 3: Industry Response - The China Chain Store & Franchise Association has called for a halt to the price subsidy wars, citing the negative impact on market fairness and the sustainability of the restaurant industry [13][14]. - Multiple industry leaders have expressed concerns that the current low-price competition model is damaging the quality of service and products, ultimately harming consumer interests [13][14]. - The government is also taking action by urging major platforms to comply with existing laws and promote fair competition to ensure a healthy ecosystem for consumers, merchants, and delivery personnel [14]. Group 4: Long-term Considerations - Despite the short-term appeal of low prices, consumers ultimately prefer high-quality products and services, indicating that the current strategy may not be sustainable in the long run [15][16]. - Restaurants with both dine-in and takeaway services tend to perform better, as consumers feel more secure ordering from establishments they can physically visit [15].

Core Viewpoint - The ride-hailing industry is experiencing intense price competition, leading to regulatory scrutiny and calls for better market practices to protect drivers' rights and ensure fair pricing [1][2][3]. Group 1: Regulatory Actions - Multiple cities, including Qingyuan, Yingtan, and Ningbo, have held meetings to address low-price competition among ride-hailing platforms, indicating a growing concern over market practices [1][4]. - The Qingyuan Transportation Bureau has specifically called out platforms like Didi and Huaxiaozhu for receiving numerous complaints from drivers regarding low order prices and high commission rates [2][3]. - Regulatory bodies are urging platforms to establish reasonable pricing systems and to stop using unfair pricing tactics to gain market share [3][4]. Group 2: Market Conditions - As of May 31, 2025, there are 385 licensed ride-hailing platforms in China, with a 5.9% increase in order volume to 7.70 billion orders [5]. - The ride-hailing market is facing oversupply issues, with platforms resorting to low-price strategies during off-peak times, which has led to a decline in operational levels [5][6]. - The average hourly income for ride-hailing drivers has dropped by approximately 12.9%, from 31 yuan to around 27 yuan, reflecting the impact of increased competition [5][6]. Group 3: Industry Trends - The industry is transitioning from a phase of rapid growth to one of market saturation, with warnings issued about oversupply and the need for drivers to be cautious about entering the market [6][7]. - Companies are exploring new growth avenues, including autonomous vehicles and international market expansion, despite many still operating at a loss [7]. - Analysts suggest that the reliance on low-price competition is unsustainable, and the market may evolve towards oligopoly, service differentiation, and intelligent capacity management [7].