5- 10 is the most suitable.
Some people think that the "delivery threshold" should be abolished, which infringes on consumers' right to choose and may cause unnecessary food waste. Others think that "the wool is on the sheep, cancel the initial delivery price, and then increase the unit price ...".
In fact, to discuss whether to cancel the delivery threshold, we must first understand why the merchants should set the threshold. Let's take a look at the starting price in 20 yuan. What needs to be clear is that this money is not all business income, but also includes the technical service fee of the platform, the delivery fee of shared riders, and the red envelope deduction used by consumers. According to industry estimates, the delivery cost of each takeaway varies from 7 yuan to 15 yuan, for example, around Beijing and 9 yuan. In actual transactions, consumers bear about 3 yuan, and sometimes they are discounted to 1 yuan, or even free of charge. Then the remaining distribution costs generally need to be shared by merchants and platforms. This means that if the merchant does not set the distribution threshold, it is likely that even the distribution fee and commission of his rigid expenditure will not be earned back.
And why do most businesses set the delivery threshold in 20 yuan? According to media reports, because this is a break-even point that has been verified by countless people: if the threshold is low, businesses will lose money; If it is too high, consumers may turn to other homes because it is too expensive.
To tell the truth, as a consumer who often orders takeout and a "poor and busy family", the author is certainly happy to see the cancellation of the "takeaway threshold" and realize the freedom of "ordering whatever you want". However, as netizens commented at the beginning, as long as they have a little common sense, they know that wool is on sheep. Under the obvious cost constraints, merchants and platforms must be able to catch "wool" from here or there if they want to survive and develop. The constraint of "starting price" is of course a constraint, but at least we can get tangible goods. If we can't finish this meal, we can eat it next time. If we can't finish eating, we can share it with our companions. As for whether it will cause waste, it is actually a matter of personal life and consumption habits. And if you cancel the "delivery threshold", are you willing to raise the price of the dishes? Are you willing to increase the delivery fee? Are you willing to charge a high packing fee? To take a step back, would you be happy if the merchants quit the take-away platform because of canceling the "delivery threshold", resulting in fewer and fewer choices for us? After all, the catering industry itself is a meager profit industry, and this possibility cannot be ruled out.
Of course, when I say this, I don't mean that I firmly support the existence of the "launching threshold", but I think it is a matter that needs careful calculation and careful weighing, rather than simply "canceling" across the board.
It is true that some experts believe that our consumers are still used to paying for goods. With the continuous development of the consumer market, it is suggested that consumers gradually get used to paying for services. This suggestion is very reasonable. However, it takes a process to develop consumption habits, but for businesses and platforms, they are all facing current problems. As experts say, at present, our consumers are still more accustomed to paying for goods.
The rapid development of the take-away industry has set up a "fast track" between the catering industry and consumers, which has facilitated the lives of countless people and made many catering businesses embark on the benign development track of "double home". However, in order for an industry to grow healthily and stably, it is necessary to balance the interests of all parties on the basis of respecting market rules. Otherwise, it is easy to lose sight of one thing and lose sight of another. Press the gourd to float the ladle.