Core Viewpoint - The current battle in instant retail, particularly in food delivery, is characterized by a significant increase in subsidies from major platforms, leading to record-high order volumes. However, the underlying reality suggests that the competition is not merely about subsidy scale but rather about the foundational infrastructure capabilities that determine the ultimate victor [3][6][15]. Group 1: Key Factors for Success - The decisive factors in the current food delivery war are fulfillment and supply capabilities, which have become the strongest leverage points [7]. - Recent order data shows that JD's food delivery surpassed 25 million orders last month, while Meituan's peak order volume increased from 90 million to 150 million within a short period, indicating a significant growth potential despite the high subsidy environment [8][9][10]. - Meituan's return on investment (ROI) from subsidies appears to be the highest among the three major platforms, suggesting that its operational efficiency is superior [10][11]. Group 2: Misconceptions in the Market - The misconception that food delivery is primarily a volume-driven business is challenged by the reality that fulfillment and supply capabilities are critical to success. The dynamics of local, non-standardized transactions in food delivery differ significantly from traditional retail [16][19]. - The historical pattern of subsidy wars in various sectors indicates that attracting users through subsidies often leads to low conversion rates and customer lifetime value (LTV), as these users are typically price-sensitive rather than genuinely interested in the service [27][28]. Group 3: The Dangers of Continuous Subsidy Wars - The ongoing subsidy wars are unsustainable and could lead to market distortions, undermining the health of the instant delivery ecosystem. The focus should shift from mere data competition to fostering a healthy development of the entire market [24][28][29]. - The two primary motivations for e-commerce platforms engaging in food delivery are to leverage high-frequency dining demand to drive low-frequency retail demand and to build a comprehensive instant delivery system. However, relying on strong subsidies is not a viable strategy for achieving these goals [25][26].

在最新一次冲单后，美团即时零售达到1.5亿订单，淘宝闪购达到8000万订单，再加上京东最后一次公布的2500万订单，总计日单量峰值或将近2.5亿，是 2024年的2倍以上。 为详细拆解近半年来外卖混战的底层逻辑，7月18日，壹览商业正式发布2025《外卖与即时零售双擎竞速，美团、京东与阿里战略布局全解析报告》（下 简称《报告》）。《报告》指出，这场以外卖为名义而发起的商业竞争，无论各方是主动发起还是被动加入，其背后是针对因外卖基础设施完善而衍生的 庞大的即时零售市场的争夺。 如今，三方都认为即时零售是各自的核心增量业务，让这场竞争变得更加直接、激烈。显然，这将是一场长期的竞争，除了"弹药"的充足与否，更多是考 验各方的耐心、细心和解决问题的决心。 《报告》认为，当前，美团、京东与阿里正面临新势力对各自传统业务的蚕食、优势领域用户增长乏力和利润增长空间压缩的三重冲击。三方均积极寻找 新的增长点并不约而同地将即时零售视作各自的核心增长方向，依托外卖和即时零售高频的特点实现自身各业态之间的协同，盘活全局已成为三家的共 识。 而美团近年来则面临着典型的"增长焦虑"：行业渗透率趋稳，用户天花板已现。在存量市场博弈中，美 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing subsidy war in the instant retail market is harming the quality of services provided by merchants, leading to a decline in consumer satisfaction and threatening the sustainable development of the industry [1][5][19]. Group 1: Industry Challenges - Instant retail platforms have engaged in aggressive promotional tactics, such as "18 off 18" and "0 yuan milk tea," resulting in significant order volumes, with Meituan reporting 1.5 billion orders on July 12 and Taobao Shanguo and Ele.me exceeding 80 million daily orders [2]. - Merchants are facing operational disruptions, profit margin compression, and declining service quality due to forced participation in price subsidies, with reported subsidy burdens ranging from 30% to over 70% [3][6]. - The average profit margin per order has decreased by 10% to 30% during subsidy campaigns, leading to increased management costs due to higher consumer complaints and compensation claims [6][7]. Group 2: Association's Initiatives - The China Chain Store & Franchise Association (CCFA) has called for an end to forced participation in price subsidies and the use of manipulative tactics such as "traffic bias" and "search downgrading" [3][10]. - The association advocates for a shift from price competition to value competition, emphasizing the need for reasonable profit margins to avoid a vicious cycle of declining quality and consumer loss [4][14]. - The CCFA's initiatives aim to establish a healthy industry ecosystem characterized by quality service, reasonable profits, and sustainable development [14][20]. Group 3: Recommendations for Improvement - The association suggests that platforms must standardize subsidy practices, ensuring transparency in algorithms and subsidy mechanisms to protect merchants' operational autonomy [10][11]. - Merchants are encouraged to maintain quality standards and avoid practices that harm consumer rights, setting reasonable profit margins to prevent negative business cycles [11][25]. - A diversified competitive landscape is recommended, leveraging digital transformation and supply chain optimization to enhance efficiency and reduce costs [12]. Group 4: Government and Regulatory Role - Local governments are concerned about the impact of the subsidy war on sustainable industry development and consumer engagement, advocating for a balanced approach to consumption and brand interaction [9][20]. - The CCFA emphasizes the need for government oversight to ensure fair competition and to prevent harmful practices that could undermine the industry [20][22]. - The association's recommendations align with national policies aimed at boosting consumption and supporting the transformation of retail and dining sectors [15][16].

为规范市场秩序、促进行业规范健康发展，北京电子商务协会发出倡议：一、坚守合规底线，维护市场 公平；二、聚势平台赋能，助力商家共赢；三、践行社会责任，共筑健康生态。淘宝、饿了么相继转发 上述倡议。(新浪科技) ...

Core Viewpoint - The current battle in instant retail, particularly in food delivery, is characterized by a significant increase in subsidies and order volumes, but the real competition lies in the underlying infrastructure capabilities rather than just the scale of subsidies [2][4][24]. Group 1: Order Data and System Capabilities - Order data serves as a battle report, while system capabilities represent the true front line of competition [3]. - The latest order statistics show that JD's food delivery surpassed 25 million orders, while Taobao Flash Sale and Ele.me exceeded 80 million orders, and Meituan reached a peak of 150 million orders [7][8][12]. - Meituan's growth potential appears greater despite its larger base, as it has achieved significant order volume increases with lower subsidy levels compared to competitors [12][18]. Group 2: Key Differentiators - The primary differentiator among the three platforms is their fulfillment and supply capabilities, with Meituan leading in this area [11][12]. - JD's late entry has resulted in a longer construction period for its infrastructure, raising questions about its capital capacity [11]. - Taobao Flash Sale, while integrating resources from Ele.me, still faces limitations due to its smaller scale compared to Meituan [12]. Group 3: Misconceptions and Market Dynamics - The misconception that food delivery is a flow business is challenged by the reality that demand for food is constant and cannot be artificially created like retail products [17][24]. - The strategy of using subsidies to drive traffic and create social recognition is flawed in the context of food delivery, where supply and fulfillment must align with consumer demand [17][24]. - Historical patterns indicate that subsidy-driven customer acquisition often attracts price-sensitive users rather than genuine demand, leading to low conversion rates and customer lifetime value [23][24]. Group 4: Future Considerations - The ongoing subsidy wars are unsustainable and should not continue, as they distort market signals and can lead to supply imbalances and degraded user experiences [21][24]. - The focus should shift from mere order volume competition to enhancing the overall ecosystem of instant retail, emphasizing fulfillment capabilities and user experience [24][25].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing competition in the food delivery market, likening it to a war where companies are heavily investing to increase market share and order volume, with a focus on the strategic implications of this "war" for the industry as a whole [1][2][3]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - The food delivery market is experiencing intense competition, with companies planning to invest over 50 billion yuan to increase daily order volume from 100 million to 250 million [1]. - The competition is characterized by aggressive subsidies and marketing strategies, leading to concerns about the sustainability of such practices and the potential for market bubbles [2][5]. - The profit margins in the food delivery industry are low, with total industry profits last year amounting to 30 billion yuan, significantly lower than the 600 billion yuan in e-commerce profits [5][6]. Group 2: Strategic Positioning - Meituan, as the market leader, emphasizes its operational efficiency and ability to provide subsidies at a lower cost, positioning itself as a rational player in an irrational market [2][6]. - Competitors like Alibaba and JD.com are portrayed as challengers willing to disrupt the existing market structure through aggressive capital investment and subsidies [7][8]. - The article suggests that the competition has evolved from a focus on food delivery to a broader battle for control over local life infrastructure, likening it to controlling a city's road network [8][9]. Group 3: Future Outlook - The article posits that the current state of competition may lead to a "trench warfare" scenario, where the outcome depends on the efficiency of resource consumption rather than quick tactical victories [11][12]. - The potential for a ceasefire is contingent on the realization of unsustainable costs associated with continued competition, as companies face pressure from both internal and external factors [17][20]. - The concept of "sunk costs" plays a significant role in the decision-making of companies, making it difficult for them to withdraw from the competition without acknowledging previous investments as losses [18][21].

Core Viewpoint - The current competition among major platforms in the instant retail sector should not be viewed solely through the lens of "low price = internal competition," but rather as a market-driven approach that promotes consumption and stimulates domestic demand [1][9]. Group 1: Instant Retail Market Dynamics - On July 14, Taobao Flash Sale and Ele.me announced their daily order volume surpassed 80 million, while Meituan reported 150 million orders, and JD.com announced over 25 million orders, bringing the total daily orders in this sector to approximately 250 million [2]. - The ongoing debate about whether this instant retail battle is leading to a price war is prevalent, with platforms like Meituan and Taobao Flash Sale attempting to distance themselves from the concept of "internal competition" by promoting substantial subsidies [3][4]. - The emergence of the flash sale model is a response to the saturation of traditional e-commerce and aims to create new demand rather than merely competing for existing market share [5]. Group 2: Consumer Behavior and Market Growth - The flash sale model has resulted in a significant increase in daily order volume, from around 100 million before JD.com entered the market to approximately 250 million now, indicating a market increment of over 100 million orders [5]. - The core value of flash sales is not just speed but the reconfiguration of the "people-goods-scene" logic, enhancing consumer experience from delayed delivery to immediate purchase [5]. - The competition is not limited to food delivery but encompasses a broader range of services and products, leading to the concept of "big consumption" that transcends traditional categories [6]. Group 3: Impact on Domestic Consumption - The current economic strategy emphasizes expanding domestic demand and boosting consumption, with platforms leveraging flash sales to stimulate consumer spending [7]. - Service-oriented consumption has a higher frequency of demand compared to durable goods, making it a critical area for driving consumption growth [8]. - The flash sale subsidy strategy has significantly increased demand for high-frequency consumption scenarios, effectively acting as a distributor of consumption vouchers [9].

Core Insights - Instant retail is thriving in first- and second-tier cities but remains largely unnoticed in lower-tier markets, indicating a significant disparity in consumer engagement and market penetration [2][4][22] Group 1: Market Dynamics - A young consumer from a top 100 county is unaware of instant retail, highlighting a lack of exposure and usage in these regions [3] - In contrast to the bustling promotions in urban areas, such as "Crazy Saturday," consumers in county towns show little interest in similar offers, indicating a disconnect between urban marketing strategies and rural consumer behavior [5][19] - Despite significant investments from major companies in instant retail, the actual consumer demand in many county markets remains stagnant, with preferences leaning towards offline shopping and traditional purchasing methods [4][10] Group 2: Consumer Behavior - Consumers in county towns prioritize price and personal relationships over convenience, often opting to buy directly from local vendors rather than using online platforms [8][10] - The perception of instant retail is that it does not meet the needs of local consumers, who prefer to verify the quality of products in person, especially for fresh produce [10][22] - Seasonal spikes in online consumption occur during holidays when urban residents return to their hometowns, but this does not translate into sustained demand for instant retail services [19][21] Group 3: Business Challenges - Instant retail platforms face significant challenges in penetrating county markets due to a lack of established supply chains and consumer awareness [12][22] - Many local businesses are hesitant to join online platforms due to limited online demand and the complexities of managing inventory and delivery logistics [13][15] - The reliance on third-party delivery services and the high costs associated with instant retail make it less appealing for local merchants, who often find better margins in traditional sales [15][22] Group 4: Future Outlook - Despite the current challenges, major companies like Meituan are still considering the potential of county markets, with plans to focus on these areas in the future [17][19] - The growth of instant retail in county areas is expected to be gradual, with a need for market education and infrastructure development to align consumer habits with service offerings [22][24] - The success of community group buying models in some counties suggests that there is potential for growth in instant retail, provided that it can adapt to local consumer preferences and economic conditions [22][24]

当盛夏的热浪席卷城市，一场比天气更炽烈的即时零售"三国杀"正硝烟弥漫。上个周末，美团公布的日 订单先是超1.2亿，接着突破1.5亿单，此前，京东宣布只用75天日订单量从0到2500万单，阿里透露淘宝 闪购、饿了么日订单达8000万，以上数据昭示着，外卖行业的补贴大战已经进入白热化阶段。 当传统电商纷纷跨入本地生活场域，本地服务巨头却反向切入全品类零售，美团、京东和淘宝闪购三方 正在从履约网络、商户结构与流量入口等多个维度展开贴身肉搏。三大巨头都剑指"即时零售"这一万亿 市场，但大战背后呈现出三大平台怎样的差异化作战思路？南都试着从战略动机和业务基因中找寻答 案。 外卖业务"钱难赚"，美团欲寻找第二只"现金奶牛" 美团是这场外卖"补贴大战"中唯一一个没有涉及传统货架电商的平台，对于这场即时零售的"三国杀"， 美团从一开始就呈现出势在必得。据报道，7月5日的首次日订单高峰，美团对于淘宝闪购发起的猛攻采 取了"放开限制、全力补贴"的策略，结果就是美团的夏季消费高峰提早了整整一个月，以1.2亿日订单 纪录证明了自己在外卖赛道的攻防优势。而在下一个周末，美团即时零售的订单量再创新高达到1.5 亿。横向比较此次参战的三大 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of fair competition in the market and highlights the negative impacts of aggressive price subsidy wars initiated by certain platforms, which disrupt market order and threaten the sustainable development of the industry [1][2]. Group 1: Market Competition and Subsidy Wars - The China Chain Store & Franchise Association has called for the regulation of low-price subsidy competition to maintain market fairness and protect consumer rights [1]. - A recent initiative from the restaurant industry association in Zunyi urged delivery platforms to stop extreme subsidy practices, which have led to a vicious cycle of businesses facing losses if they do not participate in the subsidy wars [1][2]. - The ongoing delivery subsidy wars have resulted in increased orders and consumer benefits, but they also pose risks to the quality of goods and services [1][2]. Group 2: Regulatory and Self-Regulatory Measures - Industry associations advocate for timely intervention by market regulators against monopolistic behaviors such as "choose one from two," price manipulation, and other unfair competition practices [2][3]. - If the subsidy wars lead to consumer rights violations, it is deemed a violation of business conduct, warranting strong condemnation and self-regulatory investigations by associations [2][3]. - The complexity of the decision-making process for businesses regarding participation in subsidy activities necessitates careful analysis to avoid oversimplifying the relationship between subsidies and business challenges [2][3]. Group 3: Distinguishing Competition Types - It is crucial to differentiate between normal market competition and "involution" type of harmful competition, as the latter involves damaged participants and infringement behaviors [3]. - Normal market competition should enhance the welfare of all participants, while harmful competition leads to losses for some, thus requiring legal protection for the former [3][4]. - The article stresses the need for a legal framework to uphold fair competition, referencing laws such as the Anti-Monopoly Law and the Consumer Rights Protection Law [3][4]. Group 4: Enhancing Consumer Rights - Strengthening market self-regulation and introducing collective litigation and dispute resolution mechanisms are essential for empowering consumers in the marketplace [4]. - Consumers must have more avenues to protect their rights and balance power in transactions, which is vital for fostering genuine fair competition [4]. - The article concludes that a robust legal system is fundamental to distinguishing between harmful competition and fair practices, ultimately promoting a market environment that benefits all participants [4].