Is the bike-sharing industry on the verge of a price hike wave?
Recently, Meituan's bike-sharing service and DiDi's Qingju bikes announced adjustments to their pricing structures in certain regions, raising the base fare. The standard starting price has increased from 1.5 yuan for 30 minutes to a range of 1.88 to 1.99 yuan for 60 minutes, representing a maximum increase of over 30%, while the base duration has doubled. This move follows a similar price adjustment already implemented by the rival service, Hello.
This seemingly minor change has sparked controversy. Many users have pointed out that the primary advantage of shared bikes lies in short trips under three kilometers, which typically take less than half an hour. They argue that for a 15-minute ride, they previously paid for 30 minutes but are now forced to pay for a full hour, effectively constituting a disguised price increase.
Industry experts suggest that while this pricing shift may boost average revenue per ride in the short term, its ultimate impact on financial performance hinges on the level of user attrition and the elasticity of demand.
Survey Reveals Limited Demand for Long Rides
The recent price adjustments in select areas were not implemented simultaneously by all three companies but rather followed a staggered pattern.
According to public information, Meituan's new pricing rules took effect on June 19th. The base fare for weekdays and weekends was adjusted from 1.5 yuan per 30 minutes to 1.88 yuan per 60 minutes. The holiday base fare was standardized to 1.88 yuan per 60 minutes, down from the previous 2.5 yuan per 60 minutes.
DiDi's Qingju service introduced new rules where the weekday and weekend starting price changed from 1.5 yuan per 30 minutes to 1.99 yuan per 60 minutes. The holiday starting price shifted from the current 1.5 yuan per 30 minutes to 2.5 yuan per 60 minutes.
Prior to these adjustments by Meituan and DiDi, Hello had already increased its base fare, aligning its new pricing with Qingju's at 1.99 yuan for 60 minutes on weekdays.
Overall, the three major bike-sharing services have raised their weekday and weekend prices by 0.38 to 0.49 yuan, a maximum increase exceeding 30%, while simultaneously doubling the base riding duration to 60 minutes.
From a consumer perspective, while the duration has doubled for a price rise of only 20-30%, making it appear cost-effective on the surface, the reality of typical usage patterns may differ. Users widely question who would ride a shared bike for a full hour, emphasizing that the service's value is for short trips where rides are typically under 30 minutes. They feel compelled to pay for an hour's usage for much shorter trips, viewing it as a stealthy price hike.
A poll on social media supports this view: 61% of users stated their usage time is "within 15 minutes," with another 18% reporting "15-30 minutes." Only about 20% indicated they "would ride for more than 30 minutes." Consequently, many consumers perceive this as a numbers game that appears beneficial but actually increases their effective cost per minute, leading to a real payment increase of 20-30%.
Companies Defend Value Proposition Amid User Skepticism
Many consumers have indeed noticed that shared biking has become more expensive. In the poll, 46% of users acknowledged "the price has indeed increased," while 38% stated it's "too expensive" and they are "already planning to switch to other modes of transport." On social platforms, numerous users have commented that shared bike prices can sometimes be "more expensive than the subway or bus" and that "buying a bicycle is more cost-effective."
When questioned about whether the price adjustments were driven by cost pressures, representatives from DiDi, Meituan, and Hello did not provide a definitive response. Meituan's customer service stated the adjustment aims "to provide better green travel services," claiming the new rules meet the daily riding needs of most users. Hello's official response indicated that pricing is influenced by the overall industry operating environment and is adjusted periodically, but the adjusted prices remain "highly cost-effective," with prior announcements made to users. DiDi's Qingju customer service simply apologized for any inconvenience caused.
Push for Profitability Under Scrutiny
The immediate driver behind this collective price adjustment likely revolves around the pursuit of profitability. Although the official financial reports of Meituan and DiDi do not separately disclose the performance of their bike-sharing segments, some insights can be gleaned. Meituan's 2025 annual report showed annual revenue of 364.855 billion yuan, with its New Initiatives segment, encompassing services like bike-sharing, generating 104 billion yuan, a 19.1% year-on-year increase. However, this segment reported an operating loss of approximately 10.1 billion yuan, with the report citing "seasonal headwinds for businesses including bike-sharing" as a factor in the widening losses. For DiDi, its 2025 full-year revenue was 226.701 billion yuan, with a net profit attributable to owners of 1.005 billion yuan. Its Other Innovation Businesses segment, which includes Qingju bikes, reported revenue of 9.839 billion yuan but an adjusted loss of 2.63 billion yuan.
Industry observers note that this wave of price adjustments is fundamentally profit-driven, compounded by cost pressures. On one hand, operational and maintenance costs for bikes continue to rise. On the other, after the early-stage cash-burning competition, companies need to achieve self-sufficiency quickly, and raising prices is the fastest way to directly improve revenue. However, increasing the base fare while extending the duration can easily make short-trip users feel they are facing a "disguised price increase," as most users ride for less than 30 minutes, effectively raising their cost per minute. Overall, this represents companies seeking a balance between pricing and user acceptance.
Analysts further comment that such "stealth price hikes" may boost average revenue per ride in the short term, potentially solidifying profits for already marginally profitable companies like Meituan and helping loss-making units like Qingju reduce deficits. However, whether this truly improves overall performance depends on the extent of user churn and demand elasticity. If price increases lead to a significant drop in usage frequency, it could offset revenue gains. The bike-sharing industry still has some distance to go before reaching a "universal profitability" inflection point, largely due to continued reliance on capital investment, intense competition, and a singular profit model. Achieving stable profitability in the future is expected to require 2-3 years, necessitating refined operations, expansion into value-added services, or better synergy with parent company businesses.
Comments