[Blockbuster breaking news! ] The "Double 11" lowest price caused controversy, and Jingdong and Li Jiaqi fell into a dispute] This year's e-commerce "Double 11" promotion has just kicked off, and major platforms are competing for consumers' attention and purchasing power. However, there is a controversy about the lowest price on the whole network heating up behind the scenes, which has aroused great attention and controversy. Recently, Jingdong's procurement and sales employee "Chu Sanfeng" broke the news in the circle of friends that because the price of a certain brand of oven on Jingdong was lower than the price of Li Jiaqi's live broadcast, he actually received a lawyer's letter from the brand Fang Hai's and was required to compensate for huge liquidated damages. This makes people wonder whether the "lowest price on the whole network" of the e-commerce platform is the platform's own pocket or a means of "borrowing flowers to offer Buddha"? The reason for the incident was that "Chu Sanfeng", an employee of Jingdong Procurement and Sales, published a shocking revelation in the circle of friends. He said that because the price of a certain brand of oven on JD.com was lower than the price sold by Li Jiaqi in the live broadcast, he not only received a lawyer's letter from the brand Fang Haishi, but was also required to compensate a huge amount of liquidated damages. This incident has aroused many concerns and questions, making people start to think about whether the "lowest price on the whole network" of the e-commerce platform is really as advertised.
JD.com's procurement and sales employee "Chu Sanfeng" mentioned the so-called "reserve price agreement" and "out-of-pocket payment" in the revelation, but the brand Fang Haishi later issued a statement to refute this. They denied signing a so-called "floor price agreement" with Li Jiaqi, and also denied that JD.com provided the subsidy out of its own pocket. This controversy has caused consumers to question the "lowest price on the whole network" more questions. It is worth thinking about whether the "either-or" behavior of individual super anchors has constituted an illegal act? Is it necessary for the relevant departments to manage this kind of "pseudo lowest price on the whole network" to provide consumers with a clean and transparent shopping environment? This issue has also sparked widespread discussion and attention. In general, the "lowest price on the whole network" of the e-commerce platform has caused a fierce controversy. The contradictions and disputes between brands, anchors, and platforms have exposed some problems in the e-commerce industry. We hope that the relevant authorities will strengthen supervision and provide consumers with a fair and transparent shopping environment, so that they can truly enjoy the benefits without being misled by false advertising. [What do you think of the "lowest price on the whole network" of the e-commerce platform? How do you think the relevant authorities should manage this behavior?
Feel free to leave a comment! Jingdong forced the price of Li Jiaqi's live broadcast room, and the Hai's brand faced a huge risk of compensation. However, the Hai's brand did not sign any "reserve price agreement", and in order to ensure the rights and interests of consumers, the Hai's brand pulled the lowest sales price across the network during the Double 11 period. The move sparked a controversy between consumers, e-commerce platforms and brand merchants, focusing on whether JD.com has pricing power over its own branded products and who bears the subsidy costs. In this controversy, whether JD.com has the pricing power of its own branded goods is an important issue. On the one hand, e-commerce platforms have the right to sell, so they should naturally also have the right to set prices. But on the other hand, brand merchants should also have some control over the price of their products. This kind of power confrontation will ultimately affect the interests of consumers, and if there are no clear regulations, the rights and interests of consumers are likely to be ignored. Due to the forced price follow-up of the Hai's brand, the issue of losses has also caused controversy. According to the analysis of Caijing, in order to attract more consumers, e-commerce platforms usually subsidize fees for brand merchants. However, there seems to be no definite regulation on who will bear the specific subsidy costs, whether it is an e-commerce platform or a brand merchant.
This ambiguity can be overwhelming for brand merchants, which can be a heavy burden for brands that are just starting out. Therefore, e-commerce platforms and brand merchants need to have clear regulations on the issue of subsidy fees. In this controversy, the most important thing is how to protect the rights and interests of consumers. Consumers are the ultimate goal of e-commerce platforms and brand merchants, and if the interests of consumers are neglected, then the entire e-commerce ecosystem will be threatened. Therefore, e-commerce platforms and brand merchants should prioritize the interests of consumers when formulating strategies. At the same time, the relevant authorities should also strengthen supervision to ensure that the behavior of e-commerce platforms and brand merchants is legal and compliant. In general, the battle between e-commerce platforms and brand merchants may cause the interests of consumers to suffer. Therefore, we should call on e-commerce platforms and brand merchants to jointly safeguard the interests of consumers and formulate clear regulations to ensure the healthy development of the e-commerce ecosystem. So, how do you think the interests of e-commerce platforms and brand merchants should be balanced? JD.com and the Hai's brand have a disagreement over pricing power. JD.com believes that as a self-operated commodity, JD.com has the right to price the commodity.
The Haishi brand said that the agreement signed by the two parties clearly stipulates that the business behavior should be based on the consensus of the two parties, and JD.com has no right to modify the price without authorization. The controversy has raised questions about pricing power between e-commerce platforms and brands. On e-commerce platforms, the partnership between the brand and the platform is very important. The platform helps brands scale up their sales by providing sales channels and resource support. Brands, on the other hand, attract more consumers through the platform and generate higher sales. However, the distribution of pricing power has become a difficult problem in the partnership. For brands, pricing power is an important means to maintain brand value and image. Brands often set prices based on product quality, brand reputation, and market demand to maximize profits. However, if e-commerce platforms have too much pricing power, brands may run the risk of price being pushed down, affecting brand image and profits. For e-commerce platforms, pricing power can help them gain a greater advantage in a highly competitive market. By flexibly adjusting prices, platforms can attract more consumers and increase sales. However, too much pricing power can lead to dissatisfaction among brand partners and even trigger a breakdown of the relationship.
On this issue, both sides have their own rights and interests to consider. Brands want to be able to maintain autonomy and maintain brand image and interests; E-commerce platforms, on the other hand, want to increase sales and market share by adjusting prices. How to weigh the interests of both parties and find a balance has become a key issue in the cooperation between e-commerce platforms and brands. To solve this problem, the e-commerce platform and the brand can reach a consensus through negotiation. The parties may clearly define the scope and limits of pricing power to ensure that the interests of both parties are fully protected. At the same time, regulators can also strengthen the supervision of e-commerce platforms and establish relevant rules and systems to protect the rights and interests of brands. In the context of the rapid development of the e-commerce industry, the relationship between e-commerce platforms and brands is becoming more and more close. Resolving pricing power disputes and promoting win-win cooperation between the two parties will not only help the development of e-commerce platforms, but also provide consumers with a better shopping experience. So, how do you think the pricing power should be distributed between e-commerce platforms and brands? How to balance the interests of both parties? Welcome to leave a message to discuss.