Aggregate food order platforms have entered the Hong Kong market in recent years offering delivery service, in partnership with restaurants, for a variety of tasty takeaway from humble street food curry fishballs to fancy French cuisine for consumers who do not want to dine out. But behind the convenience to consumers and the rich diversity of choices lies a price consumers must pay. Besides surcharge for the delivery service, the prices of meals ordered through these platforms are generally higher than the takeaway at the restaurants. From trial purchases from 9 food order platforms by the Consumer Council, the results revealed that over 60% of the meals ordered were more expensive than the restaurant takeaway, with price markups ranging from 3% to a high 86%. Also varying considerably were punctuality and accuracy of delivery service. Before ordering meals, consumers should first check out the prices to assess if you are still willing to pay for the extra cost just to have the food delivered to your doorsteps.
In the survey in September this year, the Council ordered meals from 5 aggregate food platforms and 4 eatery chain platforms a total of 91 times to evaluate the quality of their delivery service, including ease of use, punctuality, conditions of food when delivered, details of fees and charges, and adequacy of customer service. The eatery chain platforms offer a delivery service that covers a much wider geographical area whereas the aggregate order platforms focus mainly in the commercial districts serving mainly office workers.
The Council found an array of problems the food order platforms are facing, for instance, unilaterally cancelling purchase orders, double charging the same items as well as a wide variation in punctual delivery with the most serious delay lasting about 51 minutes, by the time the meals arrived their conditions were sometimes less than satisfactory. In response to consumer query, they would shift the blame to the other party – the food order platform, the partner restaurant or the delivery staff. The Council urges the traders to clearly delineate the respective parties’ responsibility and be accountable for service improvement. Should it occur that the meals cannot be delivered promptly, they should notify the customers proactively and to provide means of contact for enquiries and offer immediate assistance.
All 4 eatery chain order platforms surveyed offer free meal delivery: 3 require spending of a certain amount otherwise a delivery charge $15 is payable; and the other a minimum consumption charge. In the case of the 5 aggregate platforms, 4 levy a delivery charge of $20 while the other, depending on the different restaurants, varies from free delivery to a high $150 delivery charge. But consumers should also be aware that all food platforms may adjust the delivery charge according to the district and weather conditions. Some raised it to $35 for delivery to the Yuen Long district while some charged $40 due to inclement weather.
Although aggregate food order platforms offer a variety of restaurants for the choice of customers, each purchase order is confined to only food from 1 restaurant. Ordering food from more than 1 restaurant will require separate orders and additional delivery charges.
Price mark-ups from 3% to 86%
Apart from delivery charge, consumers should take heed of the price markup in the majority of meals ordered through these platforms. Among the 137 food items ordered, 83 items or 61% of the food were found to be more expensive than that of the takeaway at the restaurants. The meals offered by 3 of the eatery chain order platforms all had their prices marked up higher. In the case of an ice cream by a fast food outlet its takeaway price was $11 but when ordered through the platform for delivery it rose to $20.5, an increase of 86%.
About half of the food (43% to 54%) offered by 4 aggregate food platforms and the other one (11%) all had their prices marked up, the extent of the price markups was between 3% and 56%. Aggregate platforms are able to offer a wide selection of meals with some highly priced items. Thus, although the extent of their price markups may not be as high as that of the eatery chains, the money in absolute terms could be much more. Take the example of a takeaway sushi, the price at the restaurant was $128 but when ordered through the platform it went up to $200, an increase of 56% ($72).
In addition to pricing, the punctuality with which meals are delivered is also important to consumers. The survey found that in general eatery chains are more punctual. One restaurant achieved a nearly 90% punctuality rate, the best among all, with an average 5.5 minutes in the estimated and actual delivery time. Among the aggregate platforms their punctuality rates varied widely from 20% to 75%, the variation between actual and estimated time of delivery was on average 7.6 to 18.3 minutes; 1 platform was found with the worst performance in both punctuality and delay duration.
Punctuality differs greatly 14% of order unilaterally cancelled
Besides, out of a total of 91 meal orders, 78 were successful but 12 were cancelled by the restaurants. Between the 2 aggregate order platforms, one had 5 out of 13 orders cancelled while another had 7 out of 15 orders cancelled. In one case, the order was not confirmed after a lapse of 2 hours but upon enquiry the restaurant concerned had closed down already.
In the event the food delivered was not what was ordered, all platforms undertook they would make re-delivery of the food ordered. If the customers opted for refund, all but one, which indicated it would have to contact the restaurant first, undertook they would make refund. But some platforms would only credit the refund into the customer’s account for next purchase.
The survey also found none of the 5 aggregate food order platforms issued any printed receipts or sales memo upon food delivery. 4 would subsequently send email or e-receipt to the consumer account but one would not issue any receipts whatsoever. In the event of a dispute, for instance, if the amount or the order is incorrect, it would be difficult to be verified instantly without a receipt, compounding the problem of consumers seeking redress.
In respect of the quality of food, 95% of the Council staff interviewed were satisfied but some orders also come with problems. For instance, 30% of the food were judged not ideal in terms of temperature including pizza turning cold, sushi becoming warm and ice cream melting; another 30% of the food were found toppled over leaking food gravy, etc.
Food delivery service provides great convenience but also raises some environmental issues. It unavoidably will create massive waste including much non-decomposable packaging materials or containers such as plastic cutlery and plastic meal boxes, etc. There is a tendency for excessive package by many restaurants in order to ensure the food in their best condition when delivered. For example, in addition to using a plastic bowl to hold the soup, it would be wrapped further with a food film to prevent soup leakage, and each item of food will also be separated with cardboards in the packaging. The Council proposes the restaurants to review the entire packaging and delivery process, looking for a more environmentally-friendly method in delivering meals that would not only enhance quality but also reducing the production of plastic and cardboards waste. The platforms can also consider allowing consumers to opt for more simple packaging or recyclable packaging in support of sustainable consumption.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.