Orders cascaded like paper waterfalls, riders scrambled beyond deliveries to pack items, and exhausted staff summoned owners for crowd control as platform subsidies ignited unprecedented chaos. Beverage shops routinely pulled thousands of daily orders with five-figure revenues while rider incomes surged 111%. Platforms flaunted records: Meituan’s instant retail orders smashed 150 million daily, while Taobao Flash Sales and Ele.me jointly cleared 80 million orders. Yet this traffic tsunami primarily benefited platforms. Restaurants strained under operational chaos, absorbing consumer frustration while profits remained razor-thin.

Amid the frenzy, beverage shops became pressure cookers. One chain employee described weekends with "thousand-cup avalanches," where riders and self-pickup customers mobbed stores simultaneously. Franchisees like Xiao Yang (pseudonym) witnessed order volumes doubling beyond capacity, forcing last-minute walkouts or refunds. Despite Meituan reporting rider subsidies exceeding 120 yuan daily and Ele.me noting 78% year-on-year rider growth, restaurant margins barely budged. Beijing beverage franchisee Li Yi (pseudonym) revealed net profits stagnated despite 30% order surges, while complaint rates spiked 10% amid delivery delays.

Operationally, stores buckled. A leading tea brand manager quadrupled staffing yet failed to manage peak-hour rushes. Suppliers reported doubled ingredient demand but hesitated to stockpile, anticipating post-subsidy demand crashes. Jiahe Yipin founder Liu Jingjing warned this "billion-yuan subsidy war" cannibalizes dine-in traffic while forcing restaurants to shoulder promotion costs—squeezing profits amid fixed rents and labor expenses. She cautioned that habituating consumers to below-cost pricing threatens long-term industry health, potentially triggering quality degradation and safety risks.

The battle’s sustainability drew skepticism. Xiao Diao Li Tang CMO Liu Zheng dismissed subsidies as fleeting "wool-pulling" stimulants failing to build brand loyalty. Many consumers blindly chased cheapest options like plain teas, generating zero repeat business. Industry analyst An Guangyong deemed it a superficial "traffic show" neglecting core issues like supply chains and user retention. Zhang Xinyuan from Kefangde智庫 echoed the "no winners" verdict: platforms bleed cash, service quality plummets, and consumer experiences deteriorate.

Financially, the war rattled investors. While Alibaba, Meituan, and JD.com shares rose on July 15, yearly performances diverged sharply—Alibaba gained 40% as Meituan dropped 17%. Mutual funds heavily backed Alibaba (76.5 billion yuan held) and Meituan (19.7 billion yuan), yet JD.com drew minimal institutional interest. Brokerages split on outcomes: China Galaxy predicted top tea brands like Nayuki (up 31% in July) would benefit, while CITIC Securities foresaw packaging demand spikes. Conversely, Goldman Sachs projected catastrophic losses—410 billion yuan for Alibaba and 260 billion yuan for JD.com over 12 months—as platforms sacrifice margins for market share.

Critics urge recalibration. Liu Jingjing demanded platforms cease coercing restaurants into subsidies and slash unreasonable commissions. Regulatory intervention against predatory pricing, she argued, must restore equilibrium where quality and fair pricing drive sustainable growth—not subsidy-fueled chaos devouring the industry’s vitality.