日前，市场监管总局与国家网信办联合发布《网络交易平台规则监督管理办法》（下称《平台规则监管办 法》）与《直播电商监督管理办法》，剑指"仅退款""全网最低价"乱象及直播电商假冒伪劣、虚假营销等 突出问题。 新规纠偏"仅退款""全网最低价"乱象 网络交易平台规则是治理平台内交易秩序的核心载体，关乎各方主体切身权益。2025年以来，"仅退款""全网 最低价"等平台规则中存在的制定随意、规则滥用、执行不透明问题得到了初步纠治。为进一步明确平台企业 在平台规则方面的责任义务，《平台规则监管办法》应运而生。 市场监管总局网监司司长朱剑桥介绍，《平台规则监管办法》坚持问题导向，从四方面强化平台企业责任约 束： 针对《平台规则监管办法》对于提升规则透明度的作用，朱剑桥回应，新规要求平台规则制定、修改、执行遵 循公开公平公正原则，细化相关要求保障各方权利。 具体来看，一是完善公示要求。平台应当持续公示平台规则或链接，规则内容需清晰明了、便于阅读理 解，并以字体加粗等显著方式提示经营者、消费者注意收费、争议解决等重要内容；平台制定、修改一 般性规则的，需至少在实施前七日公示，修改重要规则的应当提前十五日公示。 二是细化意见征集要 ...

一是聚焦程序公开，增强治理透明度。明确平台规则制定、修改的公示、征求意见、过渡期设置等要求，保障商家、消费者的参与权与知 情权。 二是聚焦执行公正，提升治理公平性。延伸监管至规则执行环节，明确申诉保障、纠纷解决、人员培训等要求，防范规则滥用。 日前，市场监管总局与国家网信办联合发布《网络交易平台规则监督管理办法》（下称《平台规则监管办法》）与《直播电商监 督管理办法》，剑指"仅退款""全网最低价"乱象及直播电商假冒伪劣、虚假营销等突出问题。 新规纠偏"仅退款""全网最低价"乱象 网络交易平台规则是治理平台内交易秩序的核心载体，关乎各方主体切身权益。2025年以来，"仅退款""全网最低价"等平台规则中存在的 制定随意、规则滥用、执行不透明问题得到了初步纠治。为进一步明确平台企业在平台规则方面的责任义务，《平台规则监管办法》应运 而生。 市场监管总局网监司司长朱剑桥介绍，《平台规则监管办法》坚持问题导向，从四方面强化平台企业责任约束： 三是聚焦突出问题，保障各方权益。禁止平台以规则不合理限制商家自主经营、收取不合理费用、违规"罚款"、减损会员权益等行为。 四是聚焦社会共治，建立平台规则监督机制。平台规则量大面广， ...

■热评：所谓"全网最低价"，是部分平台企业利用自身在市场中的支配地位，要求入驻商家在本平台的 销售价格不得高于其他竞争性平台。这种看似为消费者谋福利的做法，实则是一种变相的垄断行为，其 本质是平台企业为了自身利益最大化，通过不正当手段干预市场竞争。 平台企业拥有制定规则、掌握数据、利用算法、分配流量的管理者属性。在利益的驱使下，部分平台企 业为了巩固自身地位，排斥竞争对手，利用自身优势对商家施加不合理要求。商家在平台面前往往处于 弱势地位，为了能够在平台上生存和发展，不得不接受平台的要求，一定程度上纵容了"全网最低价"现 象。 "全网最低价"的危害是多方面的。对于商家而言，失去了自主定价的权利，利润空间被挤压。为了满足 平台"全网最低价"要求，有的商家只能降低产品质量或减少服务投入。消费者表面上享受到了低价商 品，实际上却可能因为平台的垄断行为而失去更多选择机会。当不同平台之间的价格比较失去意义，市 场公平竞争的环境就会被破坏，消费者权益也难以得到充分保障。"全网最低价"扰乱了正常的市场竞争 秩序，最终可能影响整个行业的健康发展。 （来源：衢州日报） 转自：衢州日报 ■新闻速递：市场监管总局近日举行新闻发布会 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the recent controversy surrounding Li Jiaqi's live-streaming sales, particularly regarding discrepancies in product information that have led to consumer dissatisfaction and trust issues [2][6][13]. Group 1: Product Discrepancies - Consumers have reported receiving products with different fiber content than advertised, specifically a discrepancy between 45% and 47% viscose in the same product line [5][7]. - The issue has raised suspicions of selling outdated inventory, as many consumers believe they received older versions of products instead of the new ones [7][9]. - Official responses from the brand have indicated that variations in product composition can occur based on batch differences, but consumers remain unconvinced and have filed complaints [7][13]. Group 2: Consumer Complaints - The number of complaints related to Li Jiaqi's live-streaming has surged, exceeding 20,000, which is significantly higher than other leading live-streamers [15]. - Complaints include issues with receiving expired or near-expiry products, as well as a lack of transparency regarding product freshness and production dates [9][11]. - The increase in complaints reflects a growing dissatisfaction among consumers who feel misled by the perceived quality and freshness of products sold during live streams [15][17]. Group 3: Trust and Brand Image - The trust that consumers had in Li Jiaqi as a "price killer" has been undermined, leading to a perception that the quality of products is no longer guaranteed [17]. - The article suggests that the decline in perceived value and trust could have long-term implications for the live-streaming sales model, particularly for top influencers like Li Jiaqi [17][13]. - Industry analysts note that the erosion of trust in Li Jiaqi's brand could signal broader challenges for live-streaming commerce, especially if transparency and consumer rights are not prioritized [13][17].

Core Viewpoint - The recent Double Eleven event has seen Li Jiaqi facing backlash due to discrepancies in pre-sale and actual product prices, leading to rumors of significant financial losses for his livestreaming sessions [2][3]. Group 1: Price Discrepancies and Consumer Reactions - Consumers reported that pre-sale prices in Li Jiaqi's livestream were higher than the actual market prices, with some differences reaching 50-60 yuan [2]. - A specific example highlighted a face mask that was sold for 308 yuan during pre-sale, while the same product was available for 291 yuan in the market, resulting in a 17 yuan difference [2]. - Li Jiaqi quickly denied these claims during his livestream, labeling them as false [3]. Group 2: Brand and Platform Dynamics - The situation was exacerbated by brands offering sudden limited-time subsidies, which made the total payment lower than the pre-sale prices in Li Jiaqi's livestream [3]. - This incident reflects a shift in power dynamics where brands are regaining pricing authority, moving away from the previous model where Li Jiaqi was seen as the provider of "the lowest prices" [5][19]. Group 3: Historical Context and Changes in Influence - Li Jiaqi's past controversies, such as the Flower West incident, indicate a loss of empathy towards consumers, which has affected his popularity and sales [7][9]. - The decline in sales during the Double Eleven event compared to previous years suggests a significant drop in consumer trust and engagement [9]. - The overall market for livestream e-commerce is entering a phase of saturation, with growth rates declining significantly from previous years [23]. Group 4: Shift Towards Brand Self-Broadcasting - Brands are increasingly investing in self-broadcasting rather than relying solely on top influencers, with a notable rise in the number of merchants achieving high sales through their own channels [23][24]. - Data indicates that a significant portion of sales during major events is now coming from brand self-broadcasting, reflecting a broader industry trend [23][24]. Group 5: Platform Changes and Industry Evolution - Platforms like Douyin and Taobao are adjusting their strategies to support mid-tier and emerging influencers, reducing reliance on top-tier streamers [25][30]. - The competitive landscape is evolving, with a notable decrease in the dominance of super influencers, as seen with the recent withdrawal of prominent figures like Xinba [37].

Core Insights - Recent rumors suggest that JD.com has implemented a high-pressure pricing strategy during the Double 11 shopping festival, with claims that Midea Group was fined 5 million yuan for pricing issues [1] - JD.com clarified that these rumors stem from its requirement that prices on its platform must not exceed those on other platforms, aimed at maintaining competitive pricing [1] - JD.com's sales data indicates strong performance for Midea air conditioners during the Double 11 event, with multiple products topping sales charts [1] Group 1: JD.com Pricing Strategy - JD.com has been accused of imposing fines on brands like Midea for pricing discrepancies, with a reported fine of 5 million yuan [1] - The company stated that its pricing policy is designed to ensure competitive pricing on its platform, particularly in light of competition from platforms like Douyin [1] - An insider from Midea Group refuted the claims of fines, labeling them as false information [1] Group 2: Double 11 Sales Performance - This year marks the 17th year of the Double 11 event, with new trends emerging such as a shift away from "lowest price" promotions and a focus on AI technology integration [4] - Tmall reported significant sales figures, with 9 imported brands achieving over 100 million yuan in sales and 927 brands seeing sales double year-on-year [4] - Xiaohongshu reported a 77% increase in the number of buyers within the first 48 hours of Double 11, with sales exceeding 1 million yuan for 155% more products compared to last year [4] - Douyin's first-day sales data showed a 75% increase in the number of merchants, with brands achieving 800% growth in sales over 100 million yuan [4] Group 3: JD.com Financial Performance - JD.com reported a revenue of 356.7 billion yuan for Q2 2025, marking a 22.4% year-on-year increase, the highest growth rate in three years [5] - The core retail business generated 310.1 billion yuan in revenue, with a 20.6% growth rate and an operating profit of 13.9 billion yuan, achieving a record operating margin of 4.5% for any major promotional quarter [5]

Group 1 - Recent rumors about JD's aggressive pricing strategies during the Double 11 shopping festival have circulated widely on social media, with claims that Midea Group was fined 5 million yuan by JD for pricing issues, which have been confirmed as false by insiders [1][3] - There are indications of platform manipulation behind the spread of these rumors, as multiple self-media accounts have published similar misleading information regarding JD's "choose one" strategy [1][3] - JD's customer service has clarified that they have not received any notifications regarding the "choose one" policy, and former employees have defended the company, stating that JD is focused on providing low prices for users, unrelated to the alleged strategy [4] Group 2 - This year's Double 11 shopping festival marks a shift in e-commerce strategies, with platforms moving away from complex promotions and focusing on simplification, AI technology integration, and deep retail integration [4] - JD has extended its promotional period to 37 days, while competitors like Taobao and Tmall are focusing on a "big consumption + AI" strategy, and platforms like Douyin and Xiaohongshu are adopting differentiated approaches to join the competition [4]

Core Viewpoint - The main challenge facing the Chinese economy is to expand consumption and increase its contribution to GDP, as current consumption levels are significantly lower than the international average, leading to potential economic issues [3][4] Consumption Quality and Economic Impact - The current consumption quality is declining, which is evident from the low Consumer Price Index (CPI) of -0.1%, indicating a potential quality issue in consumer goods [4][5] - The "all-network lowest price" strategy in e-commerce may attract consumers but can lead to a decrease in product quality as suppliers lower prices to survive, resulting in a negative impact on economic growth [5][6] Information Asymmetry and Market Dynamics - The concept of "lemon markets" illustrates the consequences of information asymmetry, where buyers focus on price rather than quality due to the difficulty in assessing product quality [5][7] - Providing consumers with more information about product quality is essential to mitigate the issues arising from low-price competition [6][8] Research Findings on Brand and Quality Indices - A study conducted with Sun Yat-sen University developed two indices: the Consumption Brand Index and the Brand Purchasing Power Index, which measure brand quality and consumer spending [6][9] - The average Consumption Brand Index increased from 59.4 in Q1 2023 to 63.4 in Q1 2025, indicating a positive trend in brand quality despite overall pessimism about consumption [9][10] Regional Analysis of Brand Indices - The Brand Purchasing Power Index shows stronger purchasing power in eastern coastal regions, while the average Consumption Brand Index is unexpectedly high in certain northern regions [10][11] - Factors such as the proportion of migrant workers and employment in non-private sectors significantly influence brand purchasing power and average brand indices [11][12] Emerging Consumer Trends - New consumer trends are emerging, with brands like Pop Mart gaining popularity among younger consumers, indicating a shift towards quality and emotional experience in consumption [12][13] - The research highlights the importance of focusing on product quality information rather than solely on price signals, suggesting that both brand quality and consumer experience are crucial in the digital economy [13]

Core Viewpoint - The main challenge facing the Chinese economy is how to expand consumption and increase its contribution to GDP, as current consumption levels are significantly lower than the international average, leading to potential economic issues [3][4]. Group 1: Consumption and Economic Growth - Consumption accounts for only about 56 yuan of every 100 yuan of GDP, which is approximately 20 yuan less than the international average [3]. - The low consumption ratio not only affects the quality of life but may also lead to oversupply and excess capacity in the economy [3]. - Recent months have shown a relatively strong growth in social retail sales, likely due to government initiatives aimed at boosting consumption [3]. Group 2: Quality vs. Price - The phenomenon of "price competition" in e-commerce, such as "lowest price" strategies, can lead to a decline in product quality as suppliers are forced to lower prices to survive [4][5]. - The "lemon market" concept illustrates how information asymmetry can lead to a situation where high-quality products are undervalued, resulting in a market that gradually deteriorates in quality [4][5]. - Continuous price declines can create a negative feedback loop that may lead to macroeconomic issues, including economic recession [7]. Group 3: Brand and Quality Information - A recent study developed two indices and a ranking system to provide consumers with quality information alongside price, aiming to address the "lemon market" problem [5][8]. - The study found that the online consumption brand index has been slowly rising, indicating that "consumption downgrade" is not a universal trend [8][10]. - Significant differences exist across industries regarding brand recognition and consumer focus, with some sectors like electronics and beauty products being more brand-conscious than others like women's fashion [10][11]. Group 4: Regional Insights - The brand purchasing power index shows that eastern coastal regions have the strongest purchasing power, while the average brand index is unexpectedly high in certain inland areas [11][12]. - Cities with a high proportion of non-private employment tend to have higher brand indices, suggesting that employment type influences consumer behavior and brand perception [12][13]. - Emerging brands and new consumption trends, such as premium pet food and experiential products, indicate a shift in consumer preferences towards quality and emotional engagement [14].

Core Insights - The 618 shopping festival has transformed into a prolonged pressure test for the industry, raising questions about its necessity and effectiveness [4][13][14] - Small and medium-sized merchants are struggling under the weight of platform-imposed discounts and coupons, leading to a chaotic pricing structure [4][5][11] - The traditional reliance on "super anchors" for sales is diminishing, with brands shifting towards self-broadcasting and a more stable promotional system [10][11][15] Group 1: Industry Dynamics - The 618 event lasted 37 days, marking it as the longest promotional period in history, but resulted in exhaustion rather than excitement for participants [2] - Merchants are burdened by overlapping discounts and coupons from platforms, complicating their pricing strategies and negatively impacting sales [4][5] - The cancellation of the "full reduction" strategy has led to consumer confusion, as many find themselves better off with direct discounts rather than complex coupon systems [5][6] Group 2: Consumer Behavior - Consumers are increasingly frustrated with the complexity of the shopping process, feeling that they are forced into a "mathematical" approach to shopping [5][6] - The perception of "lowest prices" has diminished, with many users now conducting cross-platform price comparisons before making purchases [11][12] - Instant retail services are gaining traction, providing immediate delivery options that challenge the traditional pre-sale and tail payment model [12] Group 3: Strategic Shifts - Major platforms are moving away from dependence on top influencers, focusing instead on brand self-broadcasting and collaborative promotional strategies [10][11][15] - The shift towards a more rational consumer mindset is evident, with 76% of online shoppers comparing prices across platforms before purchasing [11] - The 618 festival is evolving from a simple sales event to a comprehensive industry evaluation, testing supply chain stability, customer service, and technological capabilities [14][15]