Community group buying has its advantages, that is to say, it is really possible to reduce the current price by subtracting many intermediate links through this collective purchasing method, but it is really different in the short term or the long term. If it is really to establish such a channel so that everyone can buy fruits and vegetables at a cheaper price, it is certainly a good thing, but the terrible thing is that retailers are scattered now, and the market is gradually occupied by community group buying through a mode similar to low-price dumping. When you don't resist,
Retailers, that is, supermarkets selling fruits, vegetables and daily necessities near our village, have their own advantages everywhere and have higher credibility. If some young people may buy in the community, it is also an optional way, and the credibility should be no problem. After all, they are all protected by a big platform. They are middle-aged and elderly people who don't know much about the Internet. It is natural to feel why what they can buy at the supermarket gate must be bought online.
The point of competition between them is to seize the market. Everyone wants to occupy a higher market, each with its own advantages. Because community group buying is cheap and acceptable to young people, then retailers have better channels and middle-aged and elderly people can accept it. Now it depends on who can grasp the most critical part of middle-aged people. What is the attitude of middle-aged people towards these two things? If most middle-aged people think that community group buying is good and acceptable, then community group buying may occupy more market position in the future, but only young people can accept it.
Personally, the best state is that the two compete with each other, because the competitive market environment is beneficial to consumers. A completely monopolized market, no matter whether it is the total share of retailers or the group buying strategy, is unfavorable to ordinary consumers. In order to compete for more market share, the two compete with each other and remain evenly matched, which is beneficial to ordinary consumers, and the price can be open and transparent without monopoly profits.