Core Viewpoint - The current food delivery market is characterized by aggressive cash-burning strategies from major companies, reminiscent of past industry battles, raising concerns about sustainability and long-term viability [1][3][19] Group 1: Market Dynamics - The food delivery war has intensified, with JD.com achieving 1 million daily orders in just 40 days by offering zero commission and providing social insurance for delivery personnel [3] - Alibaba has invested 50 billion yuan to compete, while Meituan has allocated 100 billion yuan to support the restaurant ecosystem, which is 2.8 times its projected net profit for 2024 [3] - The competitive landscape has shifted from a dominant player to a triopoly involving JD.com, Alibaba, and Meituan, with Alibaba recently surpassing Meituan in daily order volume [17] Group 2: Historical Context - The current situation mirrors the "group buying war" of a decade ago, where companies like Groupon rapidly gained traction but ultimately faced a collapse due to unsustainable practices [5][11] - The group buying sector saw a rapid influx of competitors, with over 5,000 sites emerging in just six months, leading to a chaotic and unsustainable market environment [7][9] - By 2012, 80% of group buying websites had shut down, with only 176 remaining, highlighting the risks of aggressive cash-burning strategies [13][15] Group 3: Business Strategies - Meituan's success can be attributed to its focus on user retention and service quality rather than merely competing for market share through subsidies [15] - Current giants are criticized for prioritizing short-term gains through subsidies instead of fostering a healthy business ecosystem that benefits merchants and consumers alike [19] - The industry is urged to shift from a cash-burning model to one that emphasizes value creation, such as better support for delivery personnel and lower fees for merchants [19]

Core Viewpoint - The intense competition among major internet companies like Meituan, Alibaba, and JD.com in the instant retail sector is leading to unsustainable subsidy wars, which may result in resource wastage and long-term negative impacts on the industry [1][2][4] Group 1: Impact on Consumers - Consumers are experiencing a surge of attractive offers such as "0 yuan milk tea," but this has led to instances of wasted resources, with many orders going unclaimed [1] - The phenomenon of "fake demand" is emerging, where consumer impulsiveness driven by subsidies does not translate into actual consumption [1] Group 2: Impact on Delivery Workers - Delivery workers are facing increased workloads due to the surge in orders, with some reporting delivery counts as high as 80 to 100 orders in a single day, leading to potential health risks [1][2] Group 3: Impact on Small Businesses - Small businesses may benefit from increased traffic due to platform subsidies, but they also bear part of the subsidy costs, leading to situations where order volume increases without corresponding revenue growth [2] - The influx of orders can degrade service quality, negatively affecting consumer perception and long-term brand viability for small businesses [2] Group 4: Impact on Platforms - Platforms are under significant financial pressure due to high subsidy costs, which could lead to short-term profit declines and potential stock price impacts [2] - For instance, Morgan Stanley estimates that Alibaba's investment in related businesses has reached approximately 10 billion yuan, with further increases expected, raising questions about the sustainability of this subsidy model [2] Group 5: Broader Industry Implications - The ongoing subsidy wars are affecting the entire retail ecosystem, with competitors like Pinduoduo and Kuaishou potentially feeling the pressure to join the fray, which could lead to further industry "involution" [3] - The focus on order volume growth over value creation could undermine the long-term benefits for consumers, delivery workers, businesses, and platforms alike [3][4] Group 6: Recommendations for Sustainable Growth - To avoid a detrimental cycle of competition, platforms should prioritize technological innovation and service quality rather than relying solely on price-based strategies [3][4] - Regulatory bodies and industry associations should implement reasonable policies to mitigate the negative effects of excessive competition, ensuring consumer rights and protecting the interests of small businesses and delivery workers [3][4]