Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the issues faced by merchants in the platform economy, including forced subsidies, unreasonable rules, and the impact on industry health and merchant rights [1][2][3] Merchant Complaints - Merchants report being forced to participate in subsidy programs without prior notice, leading to financial losses [2][3] - Specific examples include merchants being required to subsidize customer discounts, sometimes below cost, which can lead to a decline in product quality [2][3] - Instances of merchants being unknowingly enrolled in promotional activities have been documented, raising concerns about transparency [2][3] Platform Practices - Some platforms are accused of coercing merchants into exclusive agreements, limiting their ability to operate on multiple platforms, which may violate antitrust laws [3][4] - The presence of intermediaries and aggressive sales tactics by platform representatives can lead to unfair practices against merchants [4][5] Industry Regulations - Regulatory bodies have previously penalized platforms for monopolistic behaviors, yet issues persist, indicating a need for stricter enforcement [3][10] - Recent regulatory changes aim to prevent platforms from forcing merchants to sell below cost and to ensure fair competition [10][11] Flow Anxiety and Cost Pressures - Merchants experience "flow anxiety," feeling pressured to invest heavily in advertising and promotions to remain competitive, which can detract from product quality [7][9] - The reliance on paid promotions creates a cycle of increasing costs without guaranteed returns, leading to a detrimental impact on smaller merchants [7][9] Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest that platforms need to enhance rules and innovate regulations to create a healthier market environment for merchants [9][11] - Proposed measures include establishing better communication channels between platforms and merchants, as well as creating a fairer system for managing promotional activities [11]

Core Viewpoint - The platform economy, as a vital part of the digital economy, is facing challenges where merchants report unfair practices by platforms, such as forced subsidies and unreasonable rules, which harm both merchant interests and industry health [1][2]. Merchant Complaints - Merchants have reported being forced into subsidy programs without prior notice, leading to situations where they must provide discounts that reduce their profits below cost [2][3]. - Specific examples include a merchant who discovered he was unknowingly participating in a subsidy program, resulting in significant financial losses [2]. - Another merchant faced pressure to choose between platforms, indicating a "choose one" scenario that could violate antitrust laws [4]. Regulatory Environment - The National Market Regulatory Administration has been drafting guidelines to address these issues, with a focus on fair practices in the food delivery sector [4][10]. - Previous actions against platforms for monopolistic behavior highlight ongoing regulatory scrutiny, with calls for compliance with e-commerce laws [10]. Industry Practices - Some platforms employ tactics that indirectly force merchants into unfavorable agreements, such as requiring exclusive contracts that limit competition [4][5]. - The existence of "price adjustment assistants" on platforms allows for unilateral changes to merchant pricing without consent, raising concerns about transparency and fairness [5][10]. Flow Anxiety and Competition - Merchants experience "flow anxiety," feeling pressured to invest heavily in advertising and promotions to remain competitive, which can lead to reduced product quality [7][8]. - The competitive landscape is skewed, where larger merchants can outspend smaller ones on advertising, creating an uneven playing field [8][9]. Recommendations for Improvement - Experts suggest that platforms need to enhance rules and innovate regulations to create a healthier market environment, focusing on fair treatment of merchants [9][10]. - Proposed measures include establishing mechanisms for merchant representation and feedback, as well as creating a more transparent system for flow distribution [12].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the "choose one from two" (二选一) accusation against Ctrip, highlighting the risks of monopolistic behavior in the OTA (Online Travel Agency) sector and its impact on market dynamics [4][5][19]. Group 1: Market Dynamics and Competition - Ctrip is currently facing scrutiny after being questioned by the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Bureau, with media focusing on its pricing strategies and potential monopolistic practices [5][19]. - The OTA industry is more complex than the food delivery sector, involving higher consumer decision costs and a longer supply chain, which could lead to greater risks if monopolistic behavior is established [9][10]. - Ctrip's market dominance is significant, with projections indicating it will hold a 56% market share in 2024, far surpassing competitors like Tongcheng (15%) and Meituan (13%) [16][18]. Group 2: Pricing Strategies and Merchant Impact - Ctrip's commission structure places significant financial pressure on hotel merchants, with basic commissions ranging from 12% to 15%, and total costs potentially nearing 30% [11][12][13]. - Merchants have reported that Ctrip's "price adjustment assistant" and "golden card" system may effectively force them into a "choose one from two" scenario, limiting their pricing autonomy and market choices [22][34]. - The article suggests that Ctrip's operational strategies may create a closed market where it dictates terms, impacting the competitive landscape for merchants [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the regulatory scrutiny faced by travel platforms like Ctrip due to their pricing algorithms that manipulate hotel prices, impacting merchants' profits and raising concerns about unfair competition [1][11][12] Regulatory Actions - On September 17, 2025, the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration conducted an administrative interview with Ctrip, citing unreasonable restrictions on platform operators through service agreements and technical means [1] - This was the second regulatory interview for Ctrip within 43 days, indicating a pattern of scrutiny from authorities [1] - The Guizhou Market Supervision Administration previously addressed similar issues with Ctrip and other travel platforms, pointing out practices like "choose one from two" and price manipulation [3] Pricing Algorithm Concerns - Ctrip's "Pricing Assistant" tool, designed to help hotels remain competitive, has been criticized for forcing merchants to lower prices below those on other platforms or face reduced visibility [5][9] - Merchants report that the tool modifies prices without prior notification, leading to operational disruptions [6][9] - Some larger hotel brands have implemented systems to counteract these price changes, while smaller hotels lack the resources to resist algorithmic control [6][11] Impact on Merchants - The pricing strategies employed by platforms create a dilemma for hotel operators, who must choose between granting access to their pricing tools or risking reduced exposure on the platform [5][6] - Merchants express frustration over being used as promotional tools for platforms, often leading to unprofitable pricing [9][11] Industry Implications - The ongoing regulatory pressure reflects a broader issue of profit redistribution between platform economies and traditional businesses, where platforms gain excessive bargaining power at the expense of merchants [11][12] - The article emphasizes the need for a fair and transparent platform economy that respects the rights of all parties involved to ensure sustainable development [12]

Core Viewpoint - The article highlights the manipulation of hotel prices on travel booking platforms, driven by an algorithmic tool called "Price Adjustment Assistant," which undermines the pricing autonomy of small and medium-sized businesses while consolidating the market power of these platforms [2][5][8]. Group 1: Price Fluctuations and Consumer Experience - Consumers have reported erratic price changes on booking platforms, leading to suspicions of unfair practices [3][4]. - Many users feel that the price variations do not align with market demand, and some have expressed frustration over not receiving the expected value for their expenditures [3][4]. - Hotel operators have also experienced unexpected price adjustments made by platforms, which they claim result in financial losses [4][5]. Group 2: Impact on Small and Medium-Sized Businesses - The "Price Adjustment Assistant" tool allows platforms to automatically modify hotel prices without notifying the operators, impacting their business operations [4][5]. - Some hotel owners have reported that their prices are adjusted to be lower than competitors, often without their consent, which can lead to unsustainable business practices [4][6]. - The platforms' commission rates, typically ranging from 10% to 15%, further exacerbate the financial strain on these businesses [6][8]. Group 3: Regulatory Concerns and Market Dynamics - Regulatory bodies have begun to take action against platforms like Ctrip for violating e-commerce laws and engaging in unfair competition practices [5][8]. - The article discusses the dual role of platforms as both arbiters and participants in the market, which creates a conflict of interest and can lead to market chaos [7][8]. - Experts suggest that new regulations aimed at curbing unfair competition will take effect soon, which may help restore balance in the market [8][9]. Group 4: Recommendations for Improvement - Industry experts recommend that regulatory authorities conduct audits of platform algorithms to ensure compliance with market regulations and to understand the extent of data manipulation [9]. - There is a call for platforms to enhance user experience while also addressing the legitimate concerns of small and medium-sized businesses [8][9].

Core Viewpoint - The automatic price adjustment feature of Ctrip has caused significant frustration among hotel operators, leading to regulatory scrutiny and potential changes in the online travel industry landscape [2][10][18]. Group 1: Ctrip's Automatic Price Adjustment - Hotel operators have reported that Ctrip's "automatic price adjustment" feature frequently alters room prices without their consent, often resulting in prices that do not even cover costs [2][6]. - The process to disable this feature is complicated and time-consuming, leading to further dissatisfaction among hotel managers [10][12]. - Regulatory bodies have taken notice, with the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration recently addressing Ctrip for violating e-commerce laws by unreasonably restricting merchants' pricing rights [11][18]. Group 2: Regulatory Actions and Industry Response - Ctrip has faced multiple regulatory meetings, indicating a growing intolerance from authorities regarding its practices [3][5]. - The regulatory body has mandated Ctrip to rectify its practices, including revising contract terms and optimizing its pricing tools to protect merchant rights [11][18]. - New competitors like JD.com and Douyin are entering the market, offering favorable terms to hotel operators, which could shift the balance of power away from Ctrip [13][14][17]. Group 3: Market Dynamics and Future Outlook - The entry of new players is seen as a positive development for hotel operators, providing them with more options and reducing reliance on a single platform [17][20]. - The competitive landscape is expected to evolve, focusing more on service quality, technological innovation, and ecosystem development [18][20]. - As the market transforms, consumers may benefit from more transparent pricing and improved service quality, marking a shift away from the previous dominance of platforms like Ctrip [20].

Core Viewpoint - Ctrip reported a net profit of 4.8 billion yuan in Q2, a significant increase from 3.8 billion yuan in the same period last year, leading to scrutiny from regulatory authorities due to alleged price manipulation practices [1][5]. Group 1: Financial Performance - Ctrip's net profit for Q2 reached 4.8 billion yuan, marking a 26% year-on-year increase [5]. - The fastest-growing segment for Ctrip in Q2 was "accommodation booking," generating 6.2 billion yuan in revenue, up 21% year-on-year [5]. - In contrast, the combined profit of the top two hotel groups in the industry was only 1.83 billion yuan, highlighting the disparity in profitability [5]. Group 2: Regulatory Scrutiny - Ctrip was summoned by the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration for violating e-commerce laws and regulations, specifically regarding unreasonable restrictions on transaction prices [3][4]. - This marks the second time within 45 days that Ctrip has faced scrutiny for price manipulation, following a previous meeting with the Guizhou Market Supervision Administration [4]. Group 3: Industry Impact - Hotel operators expressed satisfaction with the regulatory actions against Ctrip, as they believe the platform has been profiting excessively at their expense [4][5]. - The regulatory body has imposed three corrective measures on Ctrip, including revising contract terms, optimizing pricing tools, and establishing a long-term compliance mechanism, which may lead to a restructuring of operational costs [4]. Group 4: Pricing Practices - Ctrip's "pricing assistant" tool has been criticized for automatically adjusting hotel prices without consent, often leading to lower prices that harm hotel profitability [22][31]. - The tool operates by monitoring competitor prices and adjusting hotel rates accordingly, which has led to complaints from hotel owners about loss of pricing autonomy [22][25]. - Many hotel operators have reported that the pricing assistant can change rates multiple times a day, creating significant operational challenges [22][25]. Group 5: Market Position - Ctrip holds a dominant position in the hotel and travel market, with a GMV market share of 56%, indicating that over half of the market transactions occur through its platform [34]. - The platform's strong market presence allows it to exert significant pressure on hotel operators, who feel compelled to comply with its pricing and commission structures [34].

Regulatory Developments - The Cyberspace Administration of China has penalized Weibo and Kuaishou for damaging the online ecosystem, citing issues such as the promotion of celebrity gossip and a tendency towards sensationalism [2][3] - The Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration has conducted an administrative interview with Trip.com, addressing violations of the E-commerce Law and unfair competition practices, particularly regarding price manipulation of hotel listings [4][5] AI and Technology Innovations - Kuaishou's Keling AI has launched a new digital human feature that can generate 1080p videos up to one minute long, allowing users to create videos using a character image and audio [8] - Zhejiang University and Huawei have released the DeepSeek-R1-Safe foundational model, which boasts a nearly 100% success rate in defending against harmful content and maintains a performance loss of less than 1% compared to its predecessor [9] - Meta has introduced its first consumer-grade smart glasses, the Meta Ray-Ban Display, featuring a color display, camera, and various interactive capabilities [10] - Apple is expected to enter the smart glasses market within the next 12 to 16 months with a non-display model, aiming to compete with Meta's offerings [11] User Engagement Insights - OpenAI's ChatGPT has reported over 700 million weekly active users, with 73% of conversations unrelated to work, highlighting a diverse range of usage topics [12]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing issues between hotels and Ctrip regarding the platform's pricing intervention, highlighting complaints from multiple hotels about unauthorized price adjustments and the challenges faced in canceling the pricing assistant feature [1][3][6]. Group 1: Issues Faced by Hotels - Multiple hotels in Zhengzhou and Wuhan reported that Ctrip's pricing assistant was interfering with their pricing strategies, leading to forced price reductions without prior consent [1][6]. - Hotel managers expressed frustration over the inability to effectively communicate with Ctrip to resolve these pricing issues, often leading to a cycle of temporary cancellations of the pricing assistant that would be reinstated shortly after [3][7]. - One hotel manager noted that the platform had previously reduced room prices by over 50%, significantly impacting their revenue during peak holiday periods [3][7]. Group 2: Actions Taken by Hotels - After persistent communication, one hotel manager was able to cancel the pricing assistant, but expressed uncertainty about how long this would last, indicating a lack of trust in the platform's practices [3][6]. - Another hotel manager decided to delist their hotel from Ctrip after repeated unsuccessful attempts to negotiate pricing, citing excessive and frequent price adjustments as the primary reason [6][8]. - The article mentions that hotels are now exploring alternative platforms to reduce reliance on Ctrip, indicating a shift in order sources from a previous 4:6 ratio to 3:7 in favor of other platforms [8].

Core Viewpoint - Ctrip (9961.HK) is facing regulatory scrutiny from the Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration due to allegations of unreasonable price manipulation through its "Price Adjustment Assistant" tool, which has been reported to force hotels to comply with price changes without consent [1][2][3] Regulatory Actions - The Zhengzhou Market Supervision Administration conducted an administrative interview with Ctrip on September 17, following a report from multiple hotels regarding forced price adjustments [1] - Ctrip has been ordered to respect merchants' autonomy and rectify issues related to forced activation of the "Price Adjustment Assistant" tool, which modifies hotel prices without consent [1][3] Business Operations - The "Price Adjustment Assistant" is an automated pricing tool that lowers hotel prices on Ctrip if they are higher than competitors, which has raised concerns about its unilateral nature [2][3] - Ctrip's response to the allegations has been to claim that the tool is intended to help hotels adapt to local market prices and enhance competitiveness [3] Financial Performance - Ctrip has shown strong financial performance, with projected revenues of 445 billion yuan and 533 billion yuan for 2023 and 2024, respectively, and net profits of 99 billion yuan and 172 billion yuan [4] - In Q2 2025, Ctrip's revenue reached 148.43 billion yuan, a year-on-year increase of 16%, with net profit rising by 26% to 48.46 billion yuan [4] Market Position - Ctrip holds a dominant position in the domestic OTA market, with a GMV market share of 56% in 2024, providing significant exposure and traffic for hotels [6] - The company has been criticized for squeezing hotel profit margins while maintaining a low-price image to attract users [3][6] Industry Dynamics - The hotel industry is experiencing challenges, with a 11.8% year-on-year increase in total hotel supply, while demand is undergoing structural adjustments, leading to intensified competition [7] - Major hotel chains like Jinjiang Hotels and others have reported declines in revenue and net profit, indicating a tough operating environment [7][8] Competitive Landscape - Competitors like JD.com are seizing the opportunity to expand their presence in the hotel industry by offering lower commission rates and alternative supply chain services [9] - Ctrip has initiated changes in response to industry backlash, including a "de-involution" campaign aimed at restructuring its review system and optimizing recommendation logic [10]