每经记者｜范芊芊 每经编辑｜廖丹 2026年开年，现制茶饮咖啡行业就传来了并购的消息，现制酸奶品牌酸奶罐罐被茉酸奶收购，创始团队 悉数退出。作为收购方的茉酸奶在2025年底经历了股权变动，创始人退出，君乐宝旗下公司成为茉酸奶 第二大股东。 这一资本重组动作也是当下现制茶饮咖啡行业寻求新发展的缩影。国内市场逐渐迈过高速成长期，进入 存量竞争时代。头部品牌愈发成熟，朝着上市、供应链打造、出海等更精细化方向迈进，中尾部品牌要 么在加速整合，要么选择在小而精的赛道深耕。 《每日经济新闻》记者注意到，在新旧交替之际，回顾刚刚过去的2025年，国内茶饮咖啡市场经历了多 个关键节点：古茗、蜜雪冰城、霸王茶姬、沪上阿姨接连登陆资本市场；幸运咖、挪瓦咖啡接连迈入万 店时代；即时零售平台掀起的补贴大战增厚了品牌方的销售额，但也令加盟商叫苦不迭；茶饮咖啡品牌 的出海地从东南亚开始转战北美。 这些只是企业动作的呈现，还有更多看不见的变化正在悄悄展开。 复盘外卖补贴大战：存活者都是高产外卖店 如果说2025年茶饮咖啡行业的一个最大变量，那一定是由即时零售平台打起的补贴大战，茶饮咖啡成为 这场补贴大战重要参与方，客单价也是一降再降。 在 ...

Core Viewpoint - The implementation of the new national standard for food delivery platforms aims to end the detrimental "multi-loss" competition characterized by excessive subsidies, which has negatively impacted small businesses, platforms, and consumers alike [2][3][9]. Group 1: New National Standard - The new standard, issued by the State Administration for Market Regulation, mandates that delivery platforms cannot force merchants to participate in promotional activities or bear associated costs, ensuring transparency in fees [3][10]. - Delivery platforms have committed to adhering to the new standard, with companies like JD.com and Meituan emphasizing the importance of fair competition and protecting the rights of consumers, merchants, and delivery personnel [5][10]. Group 2: Impact on Merchants - Many merchants have reported that despite increased order volumes due to subsidies, their actual revenue has decreased, leading to a situation where they experience "growth without profit" [6][9]. - A study from Fudan University revealed that while the number of orders increased by 7% since July, the average revenue per order dropped by 4%, resulting in an overall profit decline of 8.9% for merchants [6][9]. Group 3: Platform Financial Performance - Major delivery platforms have reported significant losses due to the ongoing price wars, with Meituan's marketing expenses rising by 90.9% and operating losses reaching 19.8 billion yuan [8][9]. - Alibaba's sales and marketing expenses doubled, leading to an 85% drop in operating profit, while JD.com also faced substantial losses attributed to increased promotional spending [8][9]. Group 4: Market Dynamics and Consumer Impact - The price wars have created a "siphoning effect," where consumers are drawn to subsidized merchants, adversely affecting those who do not participate in the subsidy wars [9][10]. - Experts warn that the ongoing competition is leading to a decline in product quality, as businesses are forced to cut costs to survive, ultimately harming consumer interests [9][10]. Group 5: Regulatory Measures - Regulatory bodies are accelerating measures to address the chaos in the food delivery market, including guidelines to prevent platforms from abusing their market position through excessive subsidies [10][11]. - Recommendations include ensuring that small merchants retain pricing power and that platforms do not impose undue financial burdens on them [10][11].

智通财经记者 | 肖芳 智通财经编辑 | 文姝琪 美团和淘宝闪购的外卖补贴大战在第四季度熄火，运力端也出现了新变化。 部分骑手向智通财经透露，今年7月，淘宝闪购在三里屯地区给成熟骑手开出的条件是每天只需要完成 20-30单，每周就可以额外获得1200元新人补贴，而一个骑手每天正常的接单量都在40-50单左右。这相 当于骑手正常跑单，一个月就可以额外获得5000元左右的收入。不少骑手无法拒绝更高收入的诱惑，从 美团跳槽至淘宝闪购。 智通财经还从三里屯地区的多位骑手处了解到，目前，美团的平均配送单价在9.5元，淘宝闪购的平均 配送单价在8.5元，京东秒送的平均配送单价在7元，骑手在美团的日均接单量在50单左右，在淘宝闪购 和京东秒送的日均接单量都低于美团。 综合计算，骑手在美团跑单的月收入比另外两个平台要高几千元，而这几乎是他们一个月的食宿花费。 图片来源：视觉 智通财经从多个知情人士处独家了解到，秋冬季以来，两个平台不仅在用户端的补贴减少，在骑手端的 补贴也大幅缩减。9月中下旬到11月，全国多地都出现了淘宝闪购骑手回流美团的情况，而在外卖大战 最为激烈的7月和8月，美团骑手则大量流向了淘宝闪购。 7月，淘宝闪购 ...

以下文章来源于Tech星球 ，作者张宁洢 Tech星球 . "现在一天能有十单就不错了" ， 店员告诉Tech星球。他指向空荡的柜台，"外卖补贴一停，冬天又来了，基本就没人点了，可能周边的人也喝腻 了，开始换别的牌子了。" 谈起几个月前的外卖大战，他告诉Tech星球，那几个月，算是这店开下来最"辉煌"的时候了。他说，那时一天起码七八十单，冲一下能过百 单 。这 家店开在文创产业园里，位置偏，不像写字楼下的店有稳定的客源。"那时候全靠平台的大额补贴和品牌拼命推流，单量才起来。" 并非所有店铺都像这家柠檬茶店一样，在补贴退潮后迅速滑入谷底。对于部分品牌而言，这更像一次剧烈的震荡，而后出现了些许回弹。 Tech星球，聚焦互联网前沿科技和新商业。 来源|Tech星球 作者| 张宁洢 2025年 5月 ，一场由平台巨额补贴掀起的外卖大战，席卷了整个茶饮市场，订单数字一度 高涨，街头巷尾的 茶饮店 成为了近半年来外卖骑手频繁 奔赴的目的地。 进入秋冬 季 ， 外卖补贴大战的 重点发生了转移，茶饮不再是热门品类，再加上秋冬本来就是淡季， 真正的生存 考验 开始 了 。一边是蜜雪冰城、 奈雪的茶等巨头通过外卖渠道实现业绩增长 ...

Core Insights - The intense "burning money war" in the food delivery sector has led to significant financial losses for major platforms, with nearly 800 billion yuan spent in just six months, resulting in a dramatic increase in daily orders from 100 million to 200 million [2][4][14] - The financial strain is felt most acutely by small and medium-sized businesses, which are unable to cover costs due to high commission fees and subsidies, leading to widespread closures [2][3][11] - Delivery riders face increased workloads and risks, with a significant rise in accident rates and insufficient social security coverage, despite some achieving high daily earnings through excessive labor [2][3][11] Financial Impact - Major platforms like Alibaba, Meituan, and JD.com have collectively invested over 1 trillion yuan, with Alibaba alone reporting losses exceeding 500 billion yuan [4][14] - The profitability of small businesses has been severely impacted, with some reporting net losses despite high sales due to the costs associated with platform fees and subsidies [2][3] Market Dynamics - The competition has devolved into a destructive cycle where platforms prioritize market share over sustainable business practices, leading to a structural crisis within the industry [6][10] - The ongoing battle for market dominance has resulted in a zero-sum game, where the focus on short-term gains undermines long-term innovation and service quality [11][14] Future Outlook - The current state of the industry is unsustainable, and potential outcomes include market consolidation and a shift in focus from price competition to value creation [12][13] - Regulatory changes and a focus on protecting labor rights may reshape the competitive landscape, pushing platforms to adopt more sustainable practices [13][14] - The future success of the industry will depend on the ability to transition from reliance on subsidies to enhancing service quality and operational efficiency [14]

Core Insights - The research indicates that the recent subsidy wars among internet platforms have led to an increase in order volume for restaurants, but overall revenue has declined due to high subsidy costs and a shift from dine-in to takeout [1][2][3] Group 1: Impact on Restaurant Revenue - The study shows that since July, during the intensified competition phase, the average total order volume for restaurants (including takeout and dine-in) increased by 7%, while the average actual revenue decreased by approximately 4% [2] - In the context of stable takeout profit margins, the total profit for restaurants decreased by an average of 1.7% during the initial competition phase, with the decline expanding to 8.9% in the intensified phase [2] Group 2: Effects on Non-Participating Merchants - Non-participating merchants are also affected by a significant "siphoning effect," where customers shift to subsidized merchants, creating a dilemma of low profits if they participate and low orders if they do not [3] - Merchants that focus on dine-in services show greater resilience during the subsidy wars, with dine-in revenue declines being significantly smaller compared to those primarily focused on takeout [3] Group 3: Differentiation Among Merchants - Brand chain merchants have a higher participation rate in the subsidy wars and experience greater benefits in takeout revenue, while independent stores face more substantial losses [3] - The negative impact of large takeout subsidies on dine-in services has spillover effects, potentially reducing foot traffic in surrounding restaurants and other service sectors [3] Group 4: Regulatory Recommendations - The research suggests establishing a regulatory framework for platform subsidy behaviors, defining reasonable limits and boundaries for subsidies to prevent market price distortion [4] - It emphasizes the need to protect the pricing autonomy and operational rights of small and medium-sized merchants to avoid excessive subsidy burdens [4]

Core Insights - The competition in the food delivery market has intensified since July, leading to a 7% average increase in total daily orders for merchants, while their actual revenue has decreased by approximately 4% [1][2] - A study conducted by Fudan University highlights the impact of the subsidy war on restaurant merchants, indicating that while large subsidies stimulate consumer demand, they do not translate into increased revenue for merchants, resulting in a "gain in traffic, loss in profit" scenario [1][2] Summary by Sections Impact of Subsidy Wars - Since the onset of the subsidy wars in April, the average total profit for merchants has decreased by 1.7% during the competition period, with a more significant decline of 8.9% during the intensified competition phase [2] - Merchants that participate more heavily in subsidies see an increase in orders but also experience a greater decline in profits [3] Merchant Dynamics - Non-participating merchants are also affected by a "siphoning effect," where consumers shift to subsidized merchants, forcing them to reconsider their strategies [3] - Merchants focusing on dine-in services show greater resilience compared to those primarily reliant on delivery, with dine-in revenue declines being significantly smaller [3] Market Regulation - The National Market Regulation Administration has urged major platforms like Ele.me, Meituan, and JD to regulate promotional behaviors and foster a healthier ecosystem for consumers, merchants, and delivery personnel [4] - The study recommends establishing a regulatory framework for platform subsidies to protect small merchants and ensure fair pricing practices [4]

Investment Rating - The report maintains an "Outperform" rating for the industry [2][6][21] Core Insights - The external competition environment differs significantly between Luckin Coffee and Yum China, impacting their profit margins amid the delivery subsidy war [5][15][16] - Yum China's revenue and profit have improved through leveraging delivery services, while Luckin Coffee has seen high revenue growth but profit pressure due to rising delivery costs [4][6][21] - The report emphasizes that online delivery and offline dining can coexist, suggesting that a balanced approach is ideal for maximizing revenue and customer experience [6][21] Summary by Sections Company Performance - Luckin Coffee reported a revenue of 15.29 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 50.2%, with an operating profit of 1.78 billion yuan, up 12.9%. However, net profit decreased by 2.7% to 1.28 billion yuan due to increased delivery costs, which rose by 211.4% to 2.89 billion yuan, accounting for 18.9% of total revenue [4][7][11] - Yum China achieved a revenue of 3.206 billion USD, a 4.4% increase, with an operating profit of 400 million USD, up 7.8%. Net profit fell by 5.1% to 282 million USD, primarily due to investment losses rather than operational issues. Delivery sales increased by 32%, making up 51% of restaurant revenue [4][11][21] Competitive Strategies - The report highlights that Yum China's membership sales, which account for about 60% of its revenue, help mitigate the impact of third-party delivery commissions. In contrast, Luckin Coffee is enhancing its own app capabilities to retain customer traffic and reduce reliance on third-party platforms [5][15][16] - The report suggests that both companies' strategies in the delivery market provide valuable lessons for other dining enterprises, with Yum China's approach being particularly effective in maintaining profit margins [6][21] Recommendations - The report recommends focusing on companies like Xiaocaiyuan, Guoquan, Guming, Mixue Group, Haidilao, and Yum China, while suggesting to pay attention to Green Tea Group, Dashishi, Tongqinglou, Guangzhou Restaurant, Jiumaojiu, Chabaidao, and Hushang Ayi [6][21][22]

Core Insights - Yum China reported a strong performance for Q3 2025, with total revenue increasing by 4% year-on-year to $3.2 billion, and operating profit rising by 8% to $400 million [1][2][3] - The company achieved positive same-store sales growth for the second consecutive quarter, with a net addition of 536 stores, bringing the total to 17,514 [1][2][3] Revenue and Profitability - Total revenue for Q3 reached $3.2 billion, with system sales also up by 4% and same-store sales increasing by 1% [2][3] - The restaurant profit margin expanded to 17.3%, with operating profit growing by 8% year-on-year [2][3] - KFC's system sales grew by 5% and same-store sales by 2%, while Pizza Hut's system sales increased by 4% and same-store sales by 1% [2][3] Store Expansion - The company accelerated its store expansion, adding 536 new stores in Q3, with a total of 17,514 stores now [1][8] - KFC and Pizza Hut have 12,640 and 4,022 stores respectively, with a goal to reach 20,000 stores by the second half of 2026 [8][12] - Franchise stores account for 41% of KFC and 27% of Pizza Hut, aiding in expansion into new cities [11][12] Delivery and Customer Trends - Delivery sales grew by 23% year-on-year, now accounting for 51% of total sales, up from 40% in the previous year [4][7] - Average transaction value for Pizza Hut decreased by 13% to 70 yuan, while same-store transaction volume increased by 17% [3][4] - KFC's average transaction value was 38 yuan, with plans to introduce lower-priced meal options [4] Strategic Developments - Yum Brands announced a strategic review of Pizza Hut, indicating potential changes to enhance shareholder value [17][18] - Yum China expressed confidence in Pizza Hut's operations in China, emphasizing a cautious approach to potential investment opportunities [18][20] - The company is exploring new store formats and product categories, including partnerships with large enterprises for franchise expansion [11][12][17]

Group 1 - JD Group's founder and chairman Liu Qiangdong participated in a live streaming event, marking the restart of "user meetups" and showcased cooking skills by preparing a local dish [2] - In the second quarter of 2025, JD Group reported a revenue of 356.7 billion RMB (approximately 49.8 billion USD), reflecting a year-on-year growth of 22.4%, surpassing market expectations and setting a record for growth rate in nearly three years [2] Group 2 - JD has firmly stated its opposition to "zero-yuan purchases" that create market bubbles, emphasizing a commitment to avoid maliciously inflating order volumes to demonstrate market position [3] - In the second quarter, JD's food delivery business achieved a daily order volume exceeding 25 million, covering 350 cities and involving over 1.5 million quality dining establishments [3] - JD has signed labor contracts with nearly 150,000 full-time delivery riders, providing them with social insurance benefits, and has partnered with numerous leading companies to offer high-quality dining solutions [3]