news

content sources: notesman

editor| xiaoxiaotypesetting| sweet mash

recently, an incident that has been on the internet hot search list many times - a food delivery rider in hangzhou accidentally stepped on the railing while delivering food in a park, and was subsequently stopped by the property security guard. as he was in a hurry to complete the delivery task and worried about affecting the delivery of other orders, the food delivery rider even knelt down to the security guard.

as online public opinion subsided, the heated discussions and controversies sparked by the incident also came to a temporary end.

but every time we think of the scene of the delivery man kneeling down, we always feel sad.

in order to avoid complaints and keep their jobs, workers have to completely give up their dignity. it is really difficult for this generation of workers.

but what makes us sad is:it is not an isolated case that people give up their dignity and kneel down out of necessity for a job.

in 2019, a courier received a complaint because a customer's package was damaged and was fined 2,000 yuan by the company. he even faced the risk of being fired.

in order to gain the customer's understanding, the courier knelt down at the customer's home, but the other party still refused to give in and demanded that the courier company fire him.

it is true that in reality there are some consumers or on-duty personnel who deliberately make things difficult for deliverymen or couriers, but as an intermediary platform, is there really no problem at all?

when conflicts arise between workers who implement specific tasks for the platform and consumers or third parties, what responsibilities should the platform bear?

as a middleman in the market, you can’t just push things cleanly and leave the problems to public opinion to solve every time, right?

in 2020, an article titled "delivery riders, trapped in the system" went viral on the internet, truly describing the various difficult situations faced by delivery riders under the platform's algorithms.

in a nutshell: "delivering food is like racing with death, competing with traffic police, and making friends with red lights."

in 2024, an article titled》once again, it deeply restored the current situation and strange phenomena of fines for couriers under the complaint mechanism set by courier companies and e-commerce platforms:

the harder consumers try to report problems, the more complaints the couriers receive. "in a system that prioritizes user experience and efficiency, complaints were not designed to be canceled."

people's joys and sorrows are not shared, but the delivery riders trapped in systems and algorithms, and the couriers trapped in complaints and fines, had the deepest resonance and empathy at this moment.

1. why did the platform come about?

before sorting out the relationship between platforms and merchants, let us go back to the era when there were no platforms.

in an era dominated by the traditional offline economy, if a brand wants to expand its market and penetrate its channels, it needs to go through multiple links such as manufacturers, distributors at all levels, and retailers before it can reach end consumers. with each additional link, the profit of the product needs to be distributed.

therefore, in order to protect their own interests, merchants at all links must add the cost burden of the circulation link to the selling price of goods, but ultimately, it is the end consumers who pay the bill.

since the production and sales ends are far apart, it is difficult for merchants to obtain first-hand feedback from consumers. once goods are unsalable or the prices are increased by middlemen, the final profit for the merchants will be very limited, and they will not be able to make concessions on the selling price.

what should i do then?

obviously, a platform that can connect consumers and merchants is needed at this time.

whether it is a food delivery platform, a ride-hailing platform or an e-commerce platform, these platforms were originally established to solve problems and provide a place for both supply and demand sides of the market to facilitate transactions between the two parties.

you have to know that when the platform was first established, it only had a simple cooperative relationship with the merchants, that is, the merchants supplied goods and the platform attracted traffic, and the platform did not have the right to speak to restrict the merchants. what's more, at the beginning, major platforms needed to curry favor with merchants to settle in and endorse the platforms.

at that time, merchants simply used the power of the platform to break the limitations of geography and time, and seek broader market opportunities to achieve economies of scale.

to some extent, the platform plays the role of a middleman, so merchants can give up prices while ensuring profits, and the platform is also able to seek traffic growth with the help of merchants' price discounts.

however, a turning point came quietly.

in the early days, the platform relied on huge capital subsidies to quickly mature the e-commerce and food delivery markets, and cultivate user minds and merchants' usage habits.

to date, both major e-commerce platforms and local life service providers have firmly locked in consumer habits, making it impossible for transactions and transaction-related services to escape the control of the platforms.

merchants have gradually developed serious platform dependence. while they crave traffic, they are ultimately swallowed up by the traffic and become "slaves" of traffic.

when the platforms have the initiative and control, the balance of traffic begins to tilt. low prices, event price cuts, publicity and promotion...

the platform will give traffic to whoever pays more, forcing merchants to face massive price wars and advertising wars.

at the same time, commission costs, traffic costs and customer acquisition costs are getting higher and higher. even if merchants have high shipment volumes, their profits are squeezed, and they fall into the trap of increasing revenue but not profits.

it can be said thatmerchants used the fertile soil of their own traffic to grow the platform, but eventually became workers of the platform.

2. why does the platform become a harvester?

economist yanis varoufakis, who once served as greek finance minister, profoundly interpreted the relationship between platforms, merchants, and consumers in his new book "technological feudalism" in 2024, comparing it to "feudal monarchs, small landlords, and tenants" under traditional feudalism:

merchants and consumers are all "working hard" for the platform; merchants who are dependent on the platform are well aware that their customer acquisition and business survival depend entirely on the single operation of the "cloud lord".

“this absolute control led by technology constitutes the foundation of technological feudalism.”

the "full trusteeship" model of domestic e-commerce overseas reflects this point vividly.

the so-called "full trusteeship" means that merchants only need to supply goods, and the platform is responsible for marketing, logistics, after-sales and many other aspects.

at this point, the merchants become the role of "suppliers", and the pricing and operating rights of the front-end goods are in the hands of the platform. the merchants settle with the platform at the supply price, and the difference between the retail price and the supply price is pocketed by the platform. however, the merchants still have to bear various product and infringement responsibilities and risks on their own.

in other words, what will happen if the platform takes the initiative to initiate a price war?

for merchants, if they do not lower prices, it means being restricted or even eliminated by the platform, while lowering prices means reduced profits or even losses.

faced with this dilemma, what should businesses do?

if the platform restricts traffic, it may lead to inventory accumulation, and the future path of merchants will only become more difficult.

therefore, merchants have no choice but to join the fierce "price war". the business that could originally make a dollar profit has turned into 50 cents, 10 cents, or even "losing money to gain publicity".

on the other hand, if the platform's strategy is to focus on low prices, it will inevitably attract a large number of low-quality goods and a large number of low-quality merchants.once a large number of bad currency merchants appear on the platform, it will inevitably cause all merchants on the platform to fall into a cycle of internal circulation and vicious bidding. at this time, internal circulation will become an unsolvable problem.

the self-satisfaction brought about by price wars is ultimately short-lived. this strategy may achieve good results in the short term, but it will definitely not be a virtuous business cycle.

some people believe that part of the money spent by e-commerce platforms overseas actually comes from domestic revenue. to put it more extremely, some e-commerce platforms are subsidizing foreign consumers with domestic profits.

if e-commerce platforms go overseas and simply rely on extremely low prices to open up overseas markets, will those "law-abiding" merchants who have been squeezed to the limit be able to withstand the pressure and provide the platform with the impetus for continued growth?

it's difficult.

because only when businesses make reasonable profits will they have the motivation to create better products and consumers can have a better experience.

this dilemma is not only happening in the e-commerce field.

the commission rate of food delivery platforms is also a hot topic of public concern, because the commission rate is indeed too high.

a customer once bought a takeaway meal worth 54.4 yuan, which also included a delivery fee of 18.1 yuan. but how much money did the merchant actually get?

9.42 yuan.

where did the price difference go?

the platform took most of it.

first, the platform will deduct the activity subsidy from the completed orders. in addition, it will charge a commission from the merchant according to a certain percentage, plus the delivery service fee. at this time, the merchant’s profits have been squeezed to the point where there is not much left.

in other words, the takeaway food in the hands of consumers may seem expensive, but the money received by the merchants who actually provide the service to you is pitifully small.

if you were a consumer, would you feel unfairly treated?

merchants are even more miserable about this. the costs of food, labor, and rent are high, and coupled with the high commission rate of the platform, it is almost unprofitable. however, if merchants completely abandon the online platform, they will not be able to obtain these small profits.

it is not easy for the riders either. although there is a delivery fee in the order, they actually only get 3-5 yuan per order, which is much less than the delivery fee paid by the customer. in order to make more money, the riders can only extend their working hours, which is very stressful.

with such a business model, merchants earn small profits, riders extend their working hours indefinitely, and consumers receive goods at heavy discounts. naturally, all the profits in between go into the pocket of the platform.

such an unfair deal will only arouse public doubts.

merchants and riders who provide services on the platform have spoken out, accusing the platform of using its market advantages to exploit them and calling on everyone to pay attention to and change the status quo.

the food delivery platform originally wanted to attract merchants to join in order to achieve a win-win situation for consumers and merchants. however, when the platform becomes a monopolist and takes away most of the profits, what can it do even if it causes merchants to suffer heavy losses?

the imbalance in the profit distribution mechanism will not only affect the enthusiasm of merchants, but also be detrimental to the long-term development of the platform.

after all, without the active participation and support of merchants, how can the platform continue to develop healthily?

as a product delivery person, if you can only passively accept the platform's rules, cater to the ever-shrinking delivery time, and accept the ever-decreasing delivery fees, when will this internal competition end? how long can the food delivery group hold on?

as consumers, they are still very sensitive to prices. although they are willing to pay more for the convenience they can enjoy, they will not turn a blind eye to the platform's opaque charges and excessive prices.

as a medium, the food delivery platform should be responsible for maintaining market order and protecting the interests of all parties. this includes ensuring that the charges are transparent and reasonable, and improving the quality of service. in this way, we can use the food delivery platform with more confidence and satisfaction.

it is not difficult to find that while pursuing the maximization of its own interests, the food delivery platforms have ignored the living space of merchants and the labor rights and interests of riders, while keeping information opaque to consumers.

how long can this business model of serving consumers by extremely exploiting suppliers last?

will consumers, sandwiched between major platforms and merchants, be the winners of this game?

actually, not necessarily.

in the case of extreme involution, despite the availability of low-priced e-commerce platforms, some consumers find that the goods they purchase are not worthy of their name;

although there are super low-priced takeouts to fill their stomachs, consumers only realize what "photo fraud" means after placing an order and receiving the takeout.

for the platform, if it fails to handle the relationship between itself and consumers, and between itself and merchants, and only focuses on reaping the benefits, once a conflict arises between consumers and merchants, the platform will definitely be pushed to the forefront at the first moment.

as long as there is buying and selling, there will always be harm. how to balance the platform and merchants(server)the interests of the three parties, namely, and consumers, are issues that many platforms cannot avoid.

on the business stage, good business is by no means a cruel fight of zero-sum game, but a magnificent symphony of win-win for all parties.

a good platform should not be a harvester that harvests consumers and then merchants, eating up all the participants at both ends of the industry just to present gorgeous financial data during the financial reporting season, leaving behind the "blood and corpses" of merchants and the curses of consumers.

this business model will not last long.

the platform should be a solid bridge connecting merchants and consumers.

merchants on the platform use their craftsmanship to create high-quality products and services, providing consumers with full satisfaction.

consumers are full of expectations and enthusiasm, giving back to businesses with their actual consumption choices, and feeding back the flowers of business with their actions;

the platform should carefully nurture the relationship between the two parties to make the interaction between buyers and sellers smoother.

a healthy platform ecosystem needs to deeply bind the long-term interests of consumers, merchants and platforms together to achieve a win-win situation for all parties.

if the platform abuses its monopoly position, deceives consumers to gain trust, and squeezes out merchants(server)to gain profits, how is such a platform different from the "evil dragon"?

a dragon slayer should not become a dragon, and a problem solver should not become the problem itself.

after all, business itself should not be a carnival for one person and silence for the masses.