秦朔朋友圈 . 秦朔朋友圈是由中国著名媒体人、财经观察家秦朔牵头创立的一个新媒体与专业服务品牌，包括微信公 众号、微博、视频节目、音频节目等。内容聚焦于经济、金融和商业领域，关注重点为全球和中国财经 商业热点、企业家精神、创新与发明创造、商业文明探索等。 以下文章来源于秦朔朋友圈 ，作者梁云风 作者： 梁云风 来源： 秦朔朋友圈 ------------------------------- 从巴西战场开始的 "内卷"警报 近日，德国《经济周刊》（ WirtschaftsWoche）聚焦中国社会难以摆脱的"内卷式"竞争，指出这 场看似充满活力的竞争，正在慢慢吞噬中国发展的耐力与方向。该报道以中国汽车行业为例，指出 中国汽车企业虽然卷赢了世界，但是却无可避免全行业深陷"价格战"，导致"劣币驱逐良币"的现象 频现。 现在，在国内卷完之后，中国企业出海更是出现了 "内卷外化"，专卷自己人的现象。 最近， 滴滴出行旗下的外卖平台 "99Food"因 搞 商户 "二选一"被美团起诉，指其在巴西通过 给 商户 巨额预付金（超 10 亿元人民币 ） ，与商户签订针对美团 Keeta的"二选一"排他协议， 阻 止美团进入巴西 ...

作为两家同为新进入者的中国企业，滴滴99Food与美团Keeta并未像意料之中一样，联手对抗市占率超 80%的本土巨头iFood。反而是老乡之间前拔弩张，陷入激烈内卷。 据悉，Keeta已起诉滴滴99Food，指其已接触超过100家餐饮连锁，以单个商户数百万元预付款的巨额成 本（共计金额超过10亿元），签订针对美团Keeta的排他性合约，甚至高价购买"Keeta"搜索关键词；美 团两度提诉反击，圣保罗法院已对滴滴购买"Keeta"关键词截流行为签发禁令。 9Food则起诉Keeta商标侵权，指控Keeta在品牌标识的颜色、图形和字体上模仿99Food，还称Keeta的ee 从后视镜里看，是99。 文 | 快刀财经 郑栾 在中国外卖大战之际，鲜有人注意到，巴西外卖市场也上演了一场"中国德比"。 这场耗资超10亿元的"阻击战"，不仅让美团Keeta上线受阻，更让本土巨头iFood坐收渔利。万万没想 到，中国企业就算出海了也要"内卷"到底。 01 巴西"内卷"：滴滴的狙击三板斧与美团的反击 曾经在中国外卖市场出现过的"强制二选一"，在18000公里外的巴西重现。讽刺的是，这次"巴西版二选 一"的主角，竟然也是两家中 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the phenomenon of "involution" in China's competitive landscape, particularly in the automotive and food delivery sectors, where companies engage in destructive price wars and self-sabotage rather than focusing on innovation and collaboration [1][20][39]. Group 1: Involution in the Automotive Industry - The German publication points out that despite Chinese automotive companies winning globally, they are trapped in a price war that leads to "bad money driving out good" [1]. - The article suggests that this competitive behavior is detrimental to the long-term sustainability and direction of the industry [1]. Group 2: Involution Externalization in Food Delivery - Chinese companies are now exporting their "involution" practices abroad, as seen in the case of Didi's food delivery platform, 99Food, which is engaged in exclusionary tactics against fellow Chinese company Meituan in Brazil [2][20]. - The competitive strategies employed by 99Food, such as the "choose one" policy for merchants, mirror past domestic practices and highlight a troubling trend of self-inflicted harm among Chinese firms [8][9]. Group 3: Legal and Competitive Actions - 99Food has been accused of unfair competition by Meituan, which claims that 99Food's actions in Brazil, including significant prepayments to merchants, are designed to stifle competition [3][10]. - The Brazilian legal system is involved, with Meituan filing lawsuits against 99Food for its aggressive tactics, including keyword advertising that misleads potential customers [12][14]. Group 4: Historical Context and Lessons - The article draws parallels to past failures of Chinese motorcycle companies in Southeast Asia, which engaged in price wars that ultimately led to their market share being overtaken by Japanese brands [21][22]. - It warns that the current food delivery sector may be repeating these mistakes, risking the overall reputation of Chinese brands in international markets [21][26]. Group 5: Call for Change in Competitive Strategy - The article advocates for a shift from "involution" to "co-creation," urging Chinese companies to focus on innovation and collaboration rather than destructive competition [30][40]. - It emphasizes the need for companies to adopt a mindset of creating new markets and demands, rather than merely competing for existing shares [31][32]. Group 6: Implications for Brand Image - The ongoing internal competition among Chinese firms could damage the overall image of Chinese brands, leading to stricter scrutiny and a less favorable business environment abroad [27][28]. - The article stresses that to succeed internationally, Chinese companies must demonstrate innovation and cooperation rather than engage in low-quality, price-driven competition [29][40].

Core Viewpoint - The competition between Chinese companies Didi's 99Food and Meituan's Keeta in the Brazilian food delivery market exemplifies a case of "internal competition externalized," where companies focus on undermining each other rather than addressing the dominant local player, iFood [2][12][16]. Group 1: Competitive Strategies - Didi has invested 1.1 billion RMB to implement a "choose one" strategy, offering high subsidies to local merchants to prevent them from collaborating with Meituan while allowing partnerships with iFood [1][4][8]. - Didi has engaged in various aggressive tactics, including purchasing keywords to confuse search results and filing lawsuits against Meituan for trademark infringement [3][10]. - The "choose one" clause designed by Didi explicitly prohibits merchants from working with Meituan but does not restrict partnerships with iFood, indicating a targeted exclusion strategy [7][8]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - iFood has responded to the entry of Chinese competitors by announcing a significant investment plan of 17 billion BRL (approximately 22 billion RMB) to strengthen its market position [15]. - The Brazilian food delivery market is valued at approximately 12 billion USD, with Didi previously holding a maximum market share of 5% [12]. - The competitive actions of Didi and Meituan have inadvertently benefited iFood, allowing it to stabilize its market position amidst the influx of Chinese companies [15][16]. Group 3: Implications of Internal Competition - The aggressive competition between Didi and Meituan reflects a broader issue of Chinese companies adopting a zero-sum mentality, focusing on eliminating competitors rather than creating value for consumers [16][18]. - This approach risks damaging the reputation of Chinese brands in international markets and may lead to regulatory scrutiny, as seen with iFood's past penalties for similar practices [13][17]. - The article emphasizes the need for Chinese companies to shift from destructive competition to value creation and collaboration in overseas markets to achieve sustainable growth [18][19].