Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the shift in the burden of delivery fees from consumers to merchants in the context of intense competition among small and medium-sized businesses in the delivery service industry [1][2][10]. Delivery Fee Dynamics - In the digital economy, various instant delivery platforms are thriving, leading merchants to adopt aggressive promotional tactics, including discounts and absorbing delivery costs to attract customers [2][10]. - Globally, delivery fees are typically paid by consumers, with models in countries like the US and UK emphasizing consumer awareness of delivery costs through membership systems [4]. - In China, however, delivery fees are increasingly borne by merchants, particularly small and medium-sized ones, as platforms encourage them to absorb these costs to boost sales [5][10]. Theoretical Background of Delivery Fees - Delivery fees have evolved from being a straightforward cost to a complex variable in market competition, influenced by logistics, labor costs, and platform algorithms [7][8]. - The rise of instant delivery services has further complicated the structure of delivery fees, which now include various factors such as rider costs and peak time surcharges [8]. Merchant Behavior Regarding Delivery Fees - Merchants are often compelled to absorb delivery fees to improve their visibility and competitiveness on platforms, leading to a reliance on discounts rather than quality improvements [10][11]. - This behavior creates a "path dependency trap," where merchants focus on short-term gains at the expense of long-term brand building and customer loyalty [11][12]. Long-term Strategies for Merchants - To escape the cycle of competing on price, merchants should focus on enhancing product quality and brand recognition, moving away from the reliance on delivery fee absorption [15]. - Large chain brands exhibit resilience against price wars due to established supply chains and brand equity, allowing them to maintain order volumes without resorting to aggressive pricing strategies [11]. Recommendations for Industry Improvement - The article suggests a multi-faceted approach to address the over-competition in delivery fees, including platform governance, regulatory oversight, merchant upgrades, and consumer education [14][16]. - Platforms should shift towards a value-oriented algorithm that prioritizes quality and service stability over immediate sales metrics, thereby reducing the pressure on merchants to absorb delivery costs [14]. - Consumers should be educated to recognize the value of quality service over the lowest price, fostering a culture of rational consumption [16]. Regulatory Perspective - Regulators are encouraged to enhance fair competition rules and transparency in cost allocation, ensuring that delivery fee structures are clear and equitable [17].

Core Insights - The investigation reveals significant food safety concerns in the takeout industry, particularly among businesses without dine-in options, due to low entry barriers and intense competition [1] - Regulatory measures are being implemented in various regions to enhance the management and food safety standards of takeout services [2] Group 1: Food Safety Concerns - Recent investigations have uncovered that many takeout businesses operate under unsatisfactory sanitary conditions, with food preparation processes not being transparent [1] - Issues such as multiple licenses for a single business and false addresses have been identified, leading to potential food contamination and the use of expired ingredients [1] Group 2: Regulatory Measures - Local authorities are introducing stricter industry standards to guide businesses in improving management and food safety, such as the implementation of the "Takeout Service Standards" in Chongqing and Hangzhou [2] - Food delivery platforms are enhancing their qualification audits and supervision measures, with companies like Meituan taking immediate action against businesses that misrepresent their operational addresses [2] - The State Administration for Market Regulation is drafting a set of basic requirements for takeout platform services, aiming to address existing issues and ensure food safety compliance [2]

Group 1 - President Xi Jinping announced China's new round of Nationally Determined Contributions at the UN Climate Change Summit, aiming for a 7%-10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, with non-fossil energy consumption exceeding 30% of total energy consumption [3] - The total installed capacity of wind and solar power is targeted to reach over 360 million kilowatts, six times that of 2020, and forest stock is expected to exceed 24 billion cubic meters [3] - The national carbon emissions trading market will cover major high-emission industries, and a climate-adaptive society is to be fundamentally established [3] Group 2 - Premier Li Qiang emphasized China's commitment to maintaining an open trade and investment market during a meeting with the President of the European Commission, urging fair competition and adherence to WTO rules [5] - The Chinese government will not seek new special and differential treatment in current and future WTO negotiations, reinforcing its role as a responsible developing country [5] - The People's Bank of China announced a 600 billion yuan MLF operation on September 25, marking a net injection of 300 billion yuan for the month, continuing a trend of high liquidity [5][6] Group 3 - Alibaba announced a collaboration with NVIDIA on Physical AI, with plans to invest 380 billion yuan in AI infrastructure and the launch of seven large model products, including Qwen3-Max, the largest and most capable model to date [4] - The Chinese Ministry of Commerce introduced 14 measures to promote digital consumption, including trials for smart connected vehicles and drone delivery services [6] Group 4 - The A-share market saw significant gains, with the Shanghai Composite Index rising 0.83% to 3853.64 points, and the ChiNext Index increasing by 2.28% [8] - The Hong Kong Hang Seng Index rose 1.37%, with notable gains in tech stocks like Alibaba and SMIC, while medical stocks faced declines [8] - Chery Automobile announced its H-share final offering price at 30.75 HKD per share, set to officially list on September 25 [8] Group 5 - The State Administration for Market Regulation is seeking public opinion on new standards for food delivery platforms, addressing issues like competition and delivery personnel rights [11] - The National Press and Publication Administration approved 145 domestic games and 11 imported games in September, indicating a positive trend in the gaming industry [12] Group 6 - The global crude steel production in August was 145.3 million tons, a year-on-year increase of 0.3%, while the cumulative production from January to August saw a decline of 1.7% [23] - The UK government faced challenges in issuing new bonds, with the latest five-year bond auction seeing the lowest oversubscription rate in nearly two years [20]

Core Points - Dongguan has announced a phased lifting of the "Five Stops" measures (suspension of classes, work, production, transportation, and business) due to the diminishing impact of Typhoon Haikashan, with the emergency response level adjusted from Level I to Level III [1] - Various sectors including education, construction, and transportation are set to resume operations starting September 25, with specific guidelines for different types of work [2][3] Group 1: Education Sector - All educational institutions including primary, secondary, and higher education will gradually resume classes from September 25 [2] - The resumption includes kindergartens, vocational schools, and various training institutions [2] Group 2: Construction Sector - Construction activities at various sites will resume in an orderly manner from September 25, with certain types of work such as fishing vessels and high-altitude operations remaining suspended until further notice [2] Group 3: Industrial and Commercial Sector - Industrial parks, production bases, and factories will restart operations from September 24 [3] - Markets, shopping malls, supermarkets, and restaurants will also reopen, with major retailers like Rainbow, Walmart, and Hema Fresh confirming their reopening [3] - Essential supplies such as vegetables and meat are reported to be sufficient, encouraging citizens to shop in a staggered manner to avoid crowding [3] Group 4: Transportation Sector - Various transportation modes including public transport and highways will resume operations from September 24, with rail services starting on September 25 [3] Group 5: Safety Measures - Authorities will guide institutions and businesses to conduct safety checks before resuming operations, ensuring that potential hazards are addressed [5] - Continuous monitoring of weather conditions is advised for both businesses and citizens to ensure safety [5]

Core Viewpoint - The draft "Basic Requirements for Service Management of Food Delivery Platforms" has been publicly released for feedback, aiming to regulate service management, enhance service quality, and reduce operational burdens on merchants in the food delivery industry [1] Group 1: Regulatory Focus - The draft focuses on key issues such as platform fees and promotional activities, which are essential for guiding food delivery platforms towards standardized service management [1] - The initiative is intended to promote fair competition among platform enterprises by encouraging transparency and orderly practices [1] Group 2: Institutional Framework - The national standard plan for the "Basic Requirements for Service Management of Food Delivery Platforms" is overseen by the National Platform Economy Governance Standardization Technical Committee, with the Market Supervision Administration as the supervising authority [1] - Key drafting organizations include the China Standardization Research Institute, the China Cybersecurity Review and Certification Center, and the Market Supervision Big Data Center [1]

Core Points - Meituan Waimai has launched a "Worry-Free Opening" service to support new restaurant businesses with free online store decoration, exclusive support for new stores, free AI management tools, and cash support [1][2] - Research indicates that nearly 70% of new merchants applying to join the platform are newcomers to the restaurant industry, prompting Meituan to provide comprehensive support in onboarding, store decoration, and operations [1] - The "Intelligent Onboarding Assistant" launched in July utilizes large model capabilities to guide merchants through the onboarding process, ensuring a smoother experience [1] - Meituan has helped over one million small and medium-sized new merchants upgrade their store images through its free decoration service, making it the only platform in the industry to offer this service continuously for several years [1] Financial Support Initiatives - Meituan plans to increase funding and resources to help restaurant merchants avoid low-price and chaotic competition, allowing them to focus on product and service quality for long-term business success [2] - The company has initiated a Small Store Support Fund, providing up to 50,000 yuan in support to small restaurants, with the first batch of funds already distributed to merchants this autumn [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, termed "Supply-Side Reform 2.0," highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as the core contradiction driving economic challenges in China [5]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are characterized by structural imbalances in supply and demand, leading to decreased capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increased economic downward pressure [7]. - Industrial capacity utilization has significantly declined, with a drop from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 during the supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 in the anti-involution phase [7]. - Industrial prices have seen substantial declines, with the Producer Price Index (PPI) entering negative growth for 54 months during the supply-side reform and continuing negative growth for 34 months since October 2022 in the anti-involution phase [9]. - Corporate profits have decreased, with a 2.3% decline in industrial profits in 2015 during the supply-side reform, and a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 during the anti-involution phase [12]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with GDP growth slowing from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, and stabilizing around 5% during the anti-involution period [14]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs, with anti-involution facing more severe demand shortages due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market, while supply-side reform had resilient demand supported by post-crisis recovery [18][22]. - Industry characteristics vary, as supply-side reform focused on traditional industries like steel and coal, whereas anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies [25][27]. - The underlying causes differ, with supply-side reform driven by excess capacity from previous stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a range of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including real estate adjustments and technological shifts [36][37]. - Implementation paths diverge, with supply-side reform relying on administrative measures to cut excess capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [45][49].

Group 1 - The "anti-involution bull" is seen as a crucial opportunity for the market to switch between the two halves of the bull market, with the first half driven by financial re-inflation and the second half by real asset re-inflation, leading to a return of blue-chip stocks driven by both valuation and performance [2][11][12] - The recent policy shift from the central government marks a significant turning point for "anti-involution," which is expected to drive inflation recovery and facilitate the transition between the two halves of the bull market [2][11][14] - The improvement in local government finances has provided the central government with the confidence to implement policies effectively, as evidenced by the recovery in land auction activities and the narrowing decline in land transfer revenues [2][11][14] Group 2 - The recent two months have seen a strengthening of policy determination from the top down, alongside an increase in corporate willingness to cooperate from the bottom up, alleviating previous market concerns regarding the execution of "anti-involution" policies [3][28][29] - The central government's intervention has shifted from industry association-led self-regulation to more direct involvement, with significant policy announcements aimed at curbing irrational competition in key sectors such as photovoltaics and new energy vehicles [3][29][32] - Corporations, particularly in the photovoltaic sector, have begun to respond positively to "anti-involution" initiatives, with major companies committing to production cuts and inventory control to align with industry-wide efforts [3][33][34] Group 3 - Industries that are expected to benefit from "anti-involution" include glass fiber, coal, energy metals, cement, commercial vehicles, and wind power equipment, identified through various criteria such as state-owned enterprise ratios and industry concentration [3][38] - The report emphasizes the importance of monitoring price elasticity and tax implications in identifying potential beneficiaries of the "anti-involution" strategy, with a focus on cyclical resource products [3][38]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as a core issue, leading to declining capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increasing economic downward pressure [5][15]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are driven by structural supply-demand imbalances, resulting in significant declines in industrial capacity utilization. For instance, industrial capacity utilization fell from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 before supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 during the anti-involution phase [5][6][13]. - Industrial prices have also seen substantial declines. During the supply-side reform period, the Producer Price Index (PPI) experienced negative growth for 54 consecutive months starting from March 2012. Similarly, the PPI has been in negative growth since October 2022, continuing for 34 months as of July 2025 [6][10]. - Corporate profits have declined due to falling demand and prices. In 2015, industrial profits fell by 2.3%, marking the first negative growth since 1998. In the anti-involution period, industrial profits have been in negative growth since 2022, with a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 [7][10]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with declining capacity utilization and industrial prices leading to reduced corporate revenues and profits, which in turn decrease investment and increase unemployment. GDP growth fell from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, while the growth rate has stabilized around 5% during the anti-involution period [13][19]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs significantly. While both periods face demand shortages, the anti-involution phase is characterized by a more severe demand shortfall due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market. In contrast, the supply-side reform period saw resilient demand supported by post-financial crisis recovery and real estate market upturns [16][19]. - The industry characteristics also vary. Supply-side reform primarily targeted traditional industries like steel and coal, while anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies. This shift indicates a new phenomenon where "involution" competition is prevalent across various industries [21][24]. - The reasons behind the two phases differ. Supply-side reform was largely a response to overcapacity resulting from stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a wider array of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including the deep adjustment in the real estate sector and the transition to new production forces [30][32]. - The implementation paths diverge as well. Supply-side reform focused on traditional industries with administrative measures to cut capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [40][43].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing "takeaway war" among major platforms, characterized by high subsidies and discounts, has led to record-breaking order volumes but raises questions about its long-term sustainability and impact on the restaurant industry [2][10]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - Since April, platforms have collectively invested nearly 1 trillion yuan in subsidies, creating a "catfish effect" that initially benefits consumers and merchants but may not lead to sustainable profits for smaller businesses [2][3]. - The competition has shifted from a marketing strategy to a prolonged battle, altering the market landscape and creating a complex "butterfly effect" where many restaurants report losses despite increased sales [2][3]. Group 2: Impact on Small Businesses - Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an unequal competitive environment, where participation in subsidy programs erodes profits, while non-participation risks marginalization [3][4]. - The reliance on single platforms for revenue limits the operational autonomy of these businesses, and the ongoing price wars may force unique local eateries out of the market [3][4]. Group 3: Consumer Choices and Market Diversity - The apparent increase in consumer choices may actually lead to a reduction in market diversity, as smaller brands struggle to compete against large chains offering standardized products [4][10]. - The heavy reliance of many businesses on a few platforms diminishes the overall resilience of the restaurant retail system, raising concerns about the long-term health of the industry [4][10]. Group 4: Long-term Industry Implications - The "takeaway war" is not just a battle for market share but also a test of platforms' social responsibility and their role in fostering a healthy ecosystem for all business sizes [4][11]. - A shift from a "traffic-driven" mindset to a "symbiotic" approach is necessary for sustainable growth, ensuring that all types of businesses can thrive while providing quality service to consumers [4][11]. Group 5: Challenges of Price Competition - Price-based competition leads to management challenges for restaurants, as increased order volumes can strain resources and result in higher operational costs without corresponding revenue growth [8][10]. - The focus on low prices does not incentivize quality improvements among merchants, potentially harming innovation and customer satisfaction [8][10]. Group 6: The Need for Structural Change - The current "involution" competition model, characterized by short-term survival tactics, risks long-term industry decline and inefficiency [11][12]. - Emphasizing technological innovation and management efficiency is crucial for sustainable growth, rather than relying on aggressive price competition [12].