Whether community group buying can last is certainly worth discussing-many people have a bad habit of not discussing the problem well and being labeled as soon as they come up. Recently, I don't know where a demon wind blows, and many people keep their mouths shut. This is the evil of capital. For example, the following one.
draw
The cost of take-away meals has become more expensive, and the US Mission has monopolized it; Didi's price increase accuses Didi of being the only one. Then pretend to reflect deeply: in the early years, capital was heavily subsidized to monopolize the market, raise prices and make huge profits. We are still too young.
There are too many good days and I am used to bad habits. There is no capital to enter the takeaway market. What did you do at dinner on the weekend? Have you forgotten all about it? There are only two choices: either cook at home or eat out. Now take out your mobile phone and click it a few times. You can choose from dozens of restaurants nearby and deliver them to your door within 30 minutes. Capital has obviously improved life, but now it has become "evil". What is the reason?
Of course I know what they mean: delivery is a good deal and the price can't be too expensive. Is it evil to spend money to subsidize in those days and now occupy the market and harvest hard?
First of all, it must be pointed out that the meal delivery fee belongs to the category of enterprise management, which depends on consumers' willingness to pay, labor supply and demand and enterprise management strategy. If it's too expensive, don't order takeout. Cook at home or go to the store to eat. No one will stop you. In other words, even diners who eat in the store are enjoying the benefits of take-away prosperity-take-away makes the catering industry prosperous, and there will be more choices for eating out.
Commercial subsidies are not that complicated. In the pre-Internet era, merchants solicited customers to advertise and spent money on various media. Now, in addition to advertising, it is better to spend money to cultivate user habits. The industry calls it "user education"-in the final analysis, it is still marketing, similar to the previous "50% discount for guests who open a room".
In the market competition, businesses naturally want to kill their opponents and become the final winners. It's not that easy. Subsidies like Jinshan Hai Yin need huge sums of money, but the effect is not good. There is no difference in room service, the key is the price. Many users are surrounded by several businesses in bonus hunter and have little loyalty. This is doomed, it is difficult for the winner to win, and it is difficult to maintain high profits.
There are many hills on the Internet in China, and the amount of funds is abundant. Once there is a gap, it will take several months from capital to product to listing. As long as there is competition, there is no monopoly. The so-called "market monopoly" is nothing more than consumers voting for winners. They laughed at the end, indicating that they did their best and deserved praise, not abuse.
Take "Meituan Takeaway", the king of today's take-away market, as an example, which is very understandable. 20 13, Meituan take-out was launched. Up to now, it has invested tens of billions of dollars, winning from the highly competitive market and becoming the king of the takeaway market. It is said to be the king, with only 60% market share. It can never eliminate "Hungry", let alone a bunch of small takeaway companies. After years of "subsidy war", the pattern of the take-away market is 63 1 (60% for the US delegation, 30% for the hungry, and 10% for other companies).
In 20 19, under the pressure of investors, Meituan, which had suffered losses for many years, contracted subsidies and sought profits. How "profiteering" does Meituan, which occupies the top spot in the market? Tens of millions of odd numbers will be distributed every day, and the gross profit of each order will be divided equally, less than 1 yuan, and the net profit will be 20 cents. This is hard work. More like money.
The market position of Meituan takeaway is very important. Why not raise the commission substantially? Not to mention the resistance of consumers and businesses, we just need to look at giants such as Ali, JD.COM, SF, Didi and so on, and we know that things are not easy. Once the hard position of Meituan Takeaway collapsed, its long-term investment hit Shui Piao.
Who is the biggest beneficiary of the takeaway subsidy war? Consumers order takeout at a low price, which is equivalent to taking the investor's red envelope; Millions of food delivery workers have jobs to support their families. Now the income of food delivery staff has declined, but it still exceeds the average wage in the city. The beneficiaries are also catering enterprises, which sell more and have stronger anti-risk ability-catering enterprises and take-away platforms are cooperative, not what many people call "squeezing".
I really want to ask those Marquez, where is the "evil of capital" they keep saying?
After talking about the takeaway platform, let's briefly talk about the online car. Last weekend, it snowed in Beijing, so it was difficult to take a taxi when going out. You need to increase the dispatching fee (disguised price increase) to get a taxi. I saw someone pretending to reflect on Weibo: capital is evil. There was no online car ride six or seven years ago. How to call a taxi in snowy weather? I really want to experience it. I don't need to cross it. You can feel it when you run to the train station and wave to stop the car.
The biggest value of the network car is to break the control and increase the market supply; The second is to provide quality services with skilled hands. The online car can have a distinct price fluctuation, adjust supply and demand, and make the car more efficient. Helpless, some bookworms cursed the price increase and denounced the monopoly, so the nominal price was frozen-which led to the queue. Fortunately, the platform is smart, and it has invented the forms of "sending dispatching fees to drivers" and "sending red envelopes to drivers" to make the price play a role with twists and turns.
Like a take-away platform, it is difficult to maintain a "market monopoly" by relying on the network to get a car. After seven years of hard work, Didi has occupied 90% of the market and still dare not relax. Its larger rivals are "Cao Cao" and "Meituan", while the smaller ones are local platforms (such as Beijing Shouqi and Shanghai Xiangdao) and a large number of invisible "black cars". As for the ride, Didi doesn't even have a market advantage.
Didi does not dare to make profits lightly, and its market position is not stable enough; Didi will definitely make a profit in the future, but it is difficult to maintain "profiteering". People are sensitive to transportation costs, and Didi needs to maintain its price advantage to curb potential competitors. Such a company will go public in the future, and its gross profit margin must be very low. What about profiteering?
Many people enjoy the benefits of capital, but keep their mouths shut about the "evil of capital", which is a typical inconsistency between words and deeds. They can take a taxi instead of ordering takeout-it was a beautiful era of "no capital invasion". However, they just want to eat with a bowl, put down chopsticks and scold their mother, looking righteous. At this point, how similar critics are to their grandfathers.
This atmosphere has changed a lot in the past two years in the miles where young people gather. In the early years, Ma Yun's video barrage was "Ma Yun's father" and "Give me money", which was vulgar, but finally harmless; In the last year or two, there have been shouts of murder, such as "down with capitalists", "capital exploitation" and "capital with blood", which are thrilling. Have they ever thought about the meaning of these slogans? If we really overthrow the capital and criticize Ma Yun, it will be beyond redemption.