Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the emergence of a differentiated digital platform, Meihuilai, which operates on a "community + supply chain" model, aiming to thrive in a competitive e-commerce landscape where traditional platforms dominate [1][7]. Group 1: Business Model - Meihuilai's business model integrates "community scenario operation," "AI-assisted product selection," and "offline service reach," creating a three-in-one ecosystem that diverges from conventional e-commerce practices [1][2]. - The platform relies on user relationships built through social groups rather than advertising, utilizing familiar recommendations and community leaders to establish low-cost, sustainable user connections [2][5]. - Meihuilai's revenue model is based on product sales, service sharing, and brand partnerships, focusing on direct supply from manufacturers to reduce costs and enhance profitability [5][6]. Group 2: Technology and Operations - The platform employs a self-developed AI product selection system that matches products to community user profiles, improving efficiency and accuracy in product recommendations [6]. - Meihuilai emphasizes the establishment of a local service network through community stations, enhancing the connection between online touchpoints and offline experiences [6][7]. - The operational framework allows service providers to monitor orders and earnings in real-time via the Meihuilai app, promoting a standardized digital management system [5][6]. Group 3: Market Positioning - Meihuilai distinguishes itself from traditional e-commerce platforms by focusing on community engagement and service-oriented growth rather than merely competing on price and traffic [6][7]. - The platform aims to provide not just a shopping experience but also a connection to local life, product experiences, and community relationships, fostering a holistic approach to commerce [7][8]. - Meihuilai's transparent operational structure and clear business logic contribute to its credibility and sustainability in the market [7].

Core Insights - The article highlights the success of merchants from lesser-known production areas leveraging high-quality content to turn unique products into nationwide bestsellers during the 618 shopping festival [1][2][6] Group 1: Event Highlights - The "Go to Foshan for Furniture" event saw a 169% year-on-year increase in GMV over 7 days, with 34 merchants breaking their own sales records [1] - The "Go to Lingnan to Pick Lychee" event achieved a staggering 7331% increase in live broadcast GMV in the first 5 days, with a year-on-year growth of 7112% [2] - The fruit merchant "Jiawo" showcased the largest lychee, creating a visually impactful experience that led to a top 3 ranking in fresh produce sales [2][4] Group 2: Merchant Performance - The furniture merchant "Yi Er Li Xiang Jia" achieved a sales record of 7.96 million, breaking both self-broadcast and audience engagement records for the category [1] - "Jiawo" experienced a 2000% increase in GMV and over 5 million cumulative exposures in their live broadcast [4] - The live broadcast featuring the character "Yang Guifei" attracted 6 million viewers, ranking first in the fresh produce category [4][6] Group 3: Content Strategy - Merchants utilized immersive content that showcased the growth environment, production processes, and real-life scenarios to build consumer trust and stimulate purchasing desire [6] - The integration of cultural narratives and historical context in live broadcasts helped consumers connect with the products on a deeper level [2][6] - The ongoing 618 promotion aims to further leverage content-driven strategies to enhance the visibility of unique local products across the nation [6]

"7折其实是给线下经销商的价格，'618'期间，平台零售价完全低于经销商采购价，经销商也挺难 的。"杨子君称。 "平台和算法机制让你不得不持续花钱。"对平台，食品商家杨 子君爱恨交织。 作者：冯雨晨 封图：图虫创意 面对"618"，食品商家杨子君开心不起来。 几年摸爬滚打下来，杨子君的经验是， 在这种大节点，产品不打折很难获得足够的流量，并且大 促节点 的 投流费用更多、更贵，还需要做站外引流。 他举例，在某平台的"618"活动中，产品在S级价格（大促价格）上打了9折后，叠加平台会员，再 加上满减券，实际打折力度为零售价格的7折，还要另外付费做直通车等营销，利润空间进一步压 缩。 幸运的是，他做起来了。 6年后，始终在一线的杨子君自认为，今天再走来时路，要做起来是很难的。 杨子君的公司今年在各电商平台的营销成本都在上涨，但在部分平台营销效益却已见顶。他回顾， 公司自2023年起在某平台的利润已接近于零，他预计2025年即使中台成本不摊销，在该平台还要 再亏十几个点。 "平台和算法机制让你不得不持续花钱。"对平台，杨子君爱恨交织。 权衡后，杨子君决定今年不参加该平台的"618"活动。 他也知道不参加活动，店铺在 ...

Core Insights - Li Guoqing, the founder of Dangdang, announced a final settlement regarding property division with his ex-wife Yu Yu, marking the end of their long-standing divorce battle and indicating a shift towards focusing on AI applications [2][6] Company History - Li Guoqing and Yu Yu founded Dangdang in November 1999 after meeting in the U.S. in 1996, and the company became a significant player in China's e-commerce sector [2] - Dangdang went public on the New York Stock Exchange on December 8, 2010, with an IPO price of $16, opening at $24.5, and closing at $29.91, achieving a market capitalization of over $2.3 billion [2] Market Challenges - The company faced intense competition from giants like JD.com and Tmall, leading to a price war initiated by Li Guoqing on the day of the IPO, which escalated into a broader industry price war involving multiple platforms [3][4] - Despite initial success, Dangdang's market value stagnated due to missed investment opportunities and internal management conflicts between Li Guoqing and Yu Yu [4] Privatization and Management Conflict - Dangdang was privatized in September 2016, with a buyout price of $6.70 per American Depositary Share, allowing the company to focus on domestic market opportunities [5] - A public feud between Li Guoqing and Yu Yu began in late 2018, culminating in a series of legal disputes and public accusations, including Li Guoqing's dramatic takeover attempt in 2020 [5][6] Recent Developments - As of June 2023, Li Guoqing confirmed the completion of their divorce and the resolution of property division, with Yu Yu retaining 64.2% of Dangdang's shares and Li Guoqing holding 27.51% [6]

Core Insights - The article highlights the challenges faced by food merchants during major promotional events like "618," where discounting is essential for traffic but leads to reduced profit margins [1][3] - The increasing marketing costs on e-commerce platforms are squeezing profit margins for small and medium-sized businesses, prompting some to reconsider their participation in these promotional events [1][3][4] - The recent draft of the "Guidelines for Compliance with Charging Behavior of Online Trading Platforms" is seen as a potential relief for merchants, aiming to regulate platform fees and reduce the financial burden on businesses [4][10][11] Group 1: Marketing Costs and Strategies - Merchants are experiencing rising marketing costs on e-commerce platforms, with some reporting near-zero profits from their investments [3][5] - A specific case shows that the cost per thousand impressions (CPM) has surged by 57%, while the conversion rate has dropped by 17%, leading to a 38% decrease in return on investment [5][6] - Merchants are shifting their marketing strategies, with one company reducing its online-to-offline marketing ratio from 9:1 to 5:5, favoring offline channels due to lower costs and less dependency on platform algorithms [1][3] Group 2: Platform Fee Concerns - Merchants express frustration over opaque fee structures and repeated charges for the same promotional efforts, leading to questions about the fairness of platform practices [6][8] - The article discusses a specific case where a merchant faced unexpected costs due to a lack of transparency in the platform's advertising fee structure [6][8] - The draft guidelines aim to address these concerns by prohibiting unreasonable charges and ensuring that platforms provide adequate services for the fees collected [10][11] Group 3: Regulatory Developments - The article notes that regulatory bodies are increasingly focused on reducing the financial burdens on e-commerce merchants, with recent guidelines aimed at clarifying acceptable charging practices [10][12] - The guidelines outline specific unreasonable charging behaviors that platforms must avoid, such as double charging and lack of service provision [11][12] - Experts believe that these guidelines will enhance merchants' awareness of their rights and encourage platforms to adopt fairer practices [12]

本报讯 时下正值网络集中促销季，为规范促销经营行为，维护"618"期间网络交易秩序，保护消费者合 法权益，日前，市场监管总局向综合电商、直播电商、跨境电商等平台企业发布《"618"网络集中促销 合规提示》，重点包括严格落实平台主体责任、规范促销行为、化解网络消费纠纷等内容。 在落实平台主体责任方面，市场监管总局提示平台要切实落实审查核验义务，督促平台内经营者亮照、 亮证、亮标经营，确保经营者主体信息真实有效，提升线上经营行为透明度。 在规范促销行为方面，要求围绕促销工具、折扣展示、优惠发放、结算支付等关键环节，优化促销规 则。严禁不按规定明码标价、价格欺诈等侵害消费者权益行为。未取得拍卖许可不得以拍卖名义开展竞 价促销活动。严格区分跨境电商零售进口商品和非跨境商品，保障消费者知情权、选择权。 此外，电商平台要加强合规管理，发现违法违规问题及时向所在地县级以上市场监管部门报告，形成平 台自治与政府监管的良性互动，共同引导平台内经营者提高守法经营意识。 市场监管部门提示，"618"期间，广大消费者应保持理性消费心态，提高维权意识，遇到违法行为及时 向市场监管部门或有关主管部门投诉举报，依法依规维护自身合法权益。 ...

Core Insights - The "618" e-commerce promotion is facing backlash from small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) due to excessive fees imposed by platforms, which are eroding their profits [1][2] - The promotional event, intended to benefit all parties, is instead leading to dissatisfaction among SMBs, who feel that platforms prioritize their own growth over the interests of smaller merchants [1][3] - The current e-commerce landscape favors top brands, with a small percentage of them generating a significant portion of the Gross Merchandise Volume (GMV), leaving SMBs at a disadvantage [2][3] Group 1: Issues Faced by SMBs - SMBs are reporting high and unclear service fees during the "618" event, with one merchant citing 26 different fees on a single order, leading to confusion and frustration [1] - The promotional strategies of some platforms are perceived as detrimental to SMBs, as they face a dilemma of either participating and incurring losses or opting out and losing visibility [1][2] - The trend of platforms favoring top brands is evident, with only 1% of brands contributing 30%-40% of GMV on one platform, highlighting the challenges SMBs face in competing [2] Group 2: Platform Business Model Concerns - Platforms are increasingly using a "pay for traffic" model, where higher spending on advertising leads to more visibility, effectively sidelining many SMBs [2] - The reliance on high commissions and forced promotions to maintain financial performance is raising concerns about the sustainability of the e-commerce ecosystem [2][3] - The current practices of platforms may lead to a decline in product diversity and quality, as SMBs struggle to remain profitable, ultimately harming consumer experience and platform reputation [3]

从蓬勃发展的电商巨头到前沿探索的硬科技先锋，从逐步升温的文旅产业到更加传统的物流板块，在上 海开展业务的本土、跨国企业正以创新的招聘策略、深度的产教融合和具有竞争力的发展平台，积极破 解人才供需的结构性矛盾。 上海展现出强大的"人才磁场"效应。 从蓬勃发展的电商巨头到前沿探索的硬科技先锋，从逐步升温的文旅产业到更加传统的物流板块，在上 海开展业务的本土、跨国企业正以创新的招聘策略、深度的产教融合和具有竞争力的发展平台，积极破 解人才供需的结构性矛盾。 企业将"揽才"与"稳就业"紧密结合，为培育新质生产力提供坚实支撑。这一点在硬核科技领域尤其突 出，一家企业负责人对记者表示："企业现在确实是求贤若渴。" 电商对AI人才求贤若渴 这股人才争夺战的热潮，在电商领域表现得尤为突出。 海外市场的激烈角逐与人工智能技术的深度应用，正驱动着企业对特定领域人才的渴求急剧升温。记者 了解到，拼多多、饿了么等总部扎根上海的电商平台，纷纷将校招和实习计划作为人才储备的关键战 场，释放出对"出海"干将与AI人才的强烈信号。 进入夏天，拼多多的"招新"也如火如荼进行中。记者关注到，在拼多多官方招聘渠道，大量校招、实习 岗位正在释出，涉 ...

Core Viewpoint - The current situation of excessive fees charged by Taobao has become a significant burden for merchants, particularly those engaged in cross-border e-commerce, leading to widespread dissatisfaction and financial strain [1][2][4][8]. Group 1: Fee Structure and Merchant Experiences - A Guangdong cross-border e-commerce merchant reported that a 184 yuan order was subjected to 26 different service fees, including various unclear charges [2][4]. - Merchants have expressed confusion over the numerous fees, with many unaware of their meanings or purposes, leading to frustration and financial losses [4][7]. - Some merchants have shared experiences of unexpected deductions, such as a Zhejiang merchant who was charged 3000 yuan without using any related services [4][8]. Group 2: Impact of Fee Adjustments - In response to market changes, Taobao has adjusted its fee policies, including a 0.6% basic software service fee introduced in September of the previous year, which is waived for small sellers with annual sales below 120,000 yuan [7]. - Despite the exemption for some small sellers, many merchants report that hidden fees continue to accumulate, resulting in no significant reduction in overall costs [7][10]. - The lack of effective communication regarding these policy changes has left many merchants confused and struggling to adapt [7][10]. Group 3: Consequences for Merchants - The unclear and excessive fees have led some merchants to experience minimal profits or even losses, with one merchant stating that after deductions, their profit from a 405 yuan transaction was reduced to only 344.83 yuan [8][10]. - The financial pressure has forced some merchants to close their services or exit the platform entirely, as seen in the case of a merchant who stopped selling after incurring high fees on a single order [10]. - The current fee practices threaten the mutual benefit relationship between the platform and merchants, potentially harming the overall health of the e-commerce ecosystem [10].

Group 1 - The core issue highlighted is the increasing dissatisfaction among merchants regarding various fees imposed by Taobao, which are perceived as excessive and unclear, leading to reduced profits and even losses for businesses [1][4][9] - A merchant from Guangdong reported that a single order of 184 yuan incurred 26 different platform service fees, raising concerns about the transparency and justification of these charges [1] - Another merchant from Zhejiang mentioned an unexplained deduction of 3000 yuan in commission, indicating a lack of clarity on the origin of these fees, which many merchants echoed in their comments [4] Group 2 - Merchants have noted that even the "Tao Coins" redemption service is now subject to service fees, prompting suggestions for those who do not require the service to disable it, while others must continue to accept these charges [9] - Recent adjustments to Taobao's fee policies were made to adapt to market changes, including the introduction of a "basic software service fee" as part of a broader trend in the e-commerce industry [10] - Legal experts have pointed out that the current situation reflects a power imbalance where smaller merchants have limited influence compared to larger platforms, emphasizing the need for more transparent fee structures to promote healthy industry development [10]