A few years ago I would have laughed at anyone telling me that there is a serious market for ten-dollar drills, two-dollar dresses, and one-dollar pairs of shoes shipped from a warehouse on the other side of the planet.
TEMU doesn't sell those things. They're more expensive than that, but subsidised by VC capital from PDD Holdings, Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. It's a very boring 'spend the VC bucks to get the customers' play, and when they've got the customers they'll jack up the prices and lose the customers again. It's Uber-for-cheap-stuff basically.
>They're more expensive than that, but subsidised by VC capital
They're being subsidized? How do you explain their fat margins, $15.4B of profits on $54.0 of revenue? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinduoduo
Maybe there's some loss leader going on, but comparing it to "VC capital" (venture capital... capital?) doesn't make much sense, any more than calling costco's rotisserie chicken and hotdogs "subsidised by VC capital" doesn't make much sense.
Temu was hardly the first online store for cheap Chinese goods of varying or dubious quality either. Does anyone remember DealExtreme.com? They were around before Aliexpress.
Yeah, parent's comment doesn't make any sense. Temu is a marketplace, they aren't manufacturing these products. I doubt Blackrock is investing in random bottom-tier manufacturers in Yongkang.
I'm not 100% sure but I also heard China subsidizes shipping of packages, to boost their economy.
I worked as a mailman a while back, most days there would be more packages in grey plastic wrap (from China) than actual mail. And you could tell that the stuff that was inside usually cost less than the shipping would have cost if you paid full price.
Shipping is also subsidized by all of us on this end. International postage agreements were never intended to cover a massive unidirectional deluge of low-value packages. The costs of all the additional logistics are ultimately externalized to the taxpayer, and China totally exploits this. It’s exactly the reason the EU set a tariff for low-value parcels in particular.
It's not hardly an exploit when the taxpayer is the one benefiting
This amounts to a subsidy of Chinese manufacturing over local manufacturing.
I can’t see how a market distortion is a net benefit to the importing country.
It seems self-destructive.
If everyone bought from Temu then the net benefit would be zero relative to just including it in the price right?
In practice the value flows from people who don't buy cheap crap from China to people who do.
One might even refer to it as a "public service".
It’s a classic negative externality. Not every taxpayer partakes in this pathological consumerism.
Imagine how dysfunctional society would be if we each individually got back precisely the value to capital we put in.
Subsidizing giant Chinese webshops over local vendors and supporting unsustainable consumption of single-use plastic garbage is not exactly the sort of public service that governments are supposed to provide.
I think the parent comment is incorrect, however this is true for some products. Solar panels being the one I know for a fact, because we buy them at work. We pay less than it costs them to manufacture them because the Chinese government subsidizes it. (Granted, after tariffs we're probably hitting that manufacture price again, but that money doesn't go to them obviously.)
> TEMU doesn't sell those things.
Oh? https://imgur.com/a/tjAdSQL
GP means that TEMU is just the marketplace. They aren't actually selling you the drill, just facilitating the sale.
If someone says to you "You can buy this widget that costs $10 to make for $5" that doesn't mean they they're selling it for $5. It means there's more going on and that the $5 price take is not the full story.
You may choose to ignore that and believe someone is selling you something for $5 but that doesn't make it true.
In the case of Temu, they're selling it for $5 of your money, and $5 of someone else's money, in order to capture you as a customer in the hope that you continue to buy things when they increase the price to $6, then $8, then $10, $15, $30 and so on in the future.
This is the Uber playbook, and if you have a solid product that people want and you can spend VC money long enough to build a trusted brand (or ideally keep prices artificially low until the competition gives up and you have a monopoly) it's very lucrative. I don't see it working for Temu myself. They sell things people don't need so as soon as the prices go up they'll probably fail. That said, Amazon see them as enough of a threat to launch Haul, so what do I know?
> You may choose to ignore that and believe someone is selling you something for $5 but that doesn't make it true.
Sir, I suggest you use the word "sell" in its usual way, not your own definition of it. If someone takes $5 and gives you in exchange the merchandise and right of ownership on it, then that indeed does mean they "sell it for $5". The fact that something else is going on doesn't make it false.
I suggest that the passage that you read begins with a claim that seems unreasonable ("but I've bought a $2 dress from Temu!"), and then explains its thesis in order to make you view that claim in a different way ("VC capital paid for half of that dress!") I also would like to mention that this is a very common and unremarkable way to begin an argument.
All that aside, I’m happy that VCs are paying for my stuff! I have no idea why they keep doing that. They’ve studied my behaviour so they should already know I’ll delete {app_name} as soon as I get a better deal elsewhere. (Better yet, I’ll keep both and let them fight!)
Maybe they can capture the market for a brief moment, but if they do have a long term strategy, I’m not seeing one.
I'm not? It drowns out any competition and all we are left with is a single company with a monopoly that speed runs enshitification where consumers lose.
None of that changes the fact that they are indeed selling it to me for $5 today, so the sentence you quoted is indeed accurate.
The use of 'loss leaders' has a long history, so is your point that Temu's use of loss leaders may be illegal?*
(*I poked around a bit, and this may be possible, especially in California.)