Doordash, Inc. (DASH) 2024 Q1 法說會逐字稿

Thank you for standing by. My name is Eric, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the DoorDash Q1 2024 Earnings Call. (Operator Instructions)

感謝您的耐心等候。我叫 Eric，今天將擔任本次電話會議的接線員。此刻，我想歡迎各位參加 DoorDash 2024 年第一季財報電話會議。（接線員指示）

I would now like to turn the call over to Andy Hargreaves. Please go ahead.

我現在想將電話交給 Andy Hargreaves。請開始。

Thanks, Eric. Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for joining us for our Q1 2024 earnings call. I'm very pleased to be joined today by Co-Founder, Chair and CEO, Tony Xu; and CFO, Ravi Inukonda.

謝謝你，Eric。各位下午好，感謝各位參加我們 2024 年第一季財報電話會議。我很高興今天與我們的共同創辦人、董事長兼執行長 Tony Xu，以及財務長 Ravi Inukonda 一同出席。

We'll be making forward-looking statements during today's call, including our expectations for our business, financial position, operating performance, our guidance, strategies, capital allocation approach, and the broader economic environment. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described. Many of these uncertainties are described in our SEC filings, including our Forms 10-K and 10-Q. You should not rely on our forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. We disclaim any obligation to update any forward-looking statements, except as required by law.

在今天的電話會議中，我們將作出前瞻性陳述，包括我們對業務、財務狀況、營運表現、指引、策略、資本配置方式以及更廣泛經濟環境的預期。前瞻性陳述受到風險與不確定性影響，可能導致實際結果與所述內容存在重大差異。許多不確定性已在我們向 SEC 提交的文件中說明，包括 10-K 與 10-Q 表格。您不應將我們的前瞻性陳述視為對未來事件的預測。除法律要求外，我們不承擔更新任何前瞻性陳述的義務。

During this call, we will discuss certain non-GAAP measures. Information regarding our non-GAAP financial measures, including a reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures, may be found in our earnings release, which is available on our Investor Relations website. These non-GAAP measures should be considered in addition to our GAAP results and are not intended to be a substitute for our GAAP results.

在本次電話會議中，我們將討論若干非 GAAP 指標。關於我們的非 GAAP 財務衡量指標之資訊，包括將非 GAAP 指標與最直接可比的 GAAP 財務衡量指標進行調節（reconciliation），可在我們的財報新聞稿中查閱；該新聞稿可於我們的投資人關係網站取得。這些非 GAAP 指標應與我們的 GAAP 結果一併考量，並非用來取代我們的 GAAP 結果。

As a reminder, we're no longer providing full year financial outlook, and we disclaim any obligation to update our previous full year financial outlook.

提醒各位，我們已不再提供全年財務展望，且我們不承擔更新先前全年財務展望的任何義務。

Finally, this call is being audio webcasted on our Investor Relations website, and an audio replay will be available on our website shortly after the call ends.

最後，本次電話會議將於我們的投資人關係網站進行音訊網路直播，並且在會議結束後不久，我們的網站將提供音訊重播。

Eric, I will pass it back to you, and we can take our first question.

Eric，我把電話交還給你，我們可以開始第一個問題。

Your first question comes from the line of Nikhil Devnani with Bernstein.

您的第一個問題來自 Bernstein 的 Nikhil Devnani。

Tony, I wanted to ask about your logistics model versus some of the incumbents in the new verticals. As you build out bigger baskets within grocery, other categories of local commerce, it feels like you're competing more directly with the likes of Walmart and Amazon, which has some integrated models and significant fixed cost leverage at scale. So it seems that there's a chance the 3P model might always be at a somewhat disadvantaged on a cost-to-serve basis here and consumers are less paying higher prices for it.

Tony，我想請教你們的物流模式相較於新垂直領域中一些既有業者的差異。隨著你們在雜貨與其他在地商務類別中建立更大的購物籃（basket），感覺你們更直接地與 Walmart、Amazon 這類具備整合式模式、且在規模化下擁有顯著固定成本槓桿的業者競爭。因此，看起來第三方（3P）模式在單位服務成本（cost-to-serve）上可能始終處於某種劣勢，而消費者也較不願意為此支付更高的價格。

So would love to just get your perspective on, first, whether you agree with that or not and what levers you kind of have at your disposal to make the model more cost effective over time. Or should we think about your opportunity set as just being a smaller segment of the market that's willing to pay up perhaps for quicker deliveries or a broader selection within the context of a category like grocery, for example?

所以很想聽聽你的看法：第一，你是否同意這個觀點？以及你們有哪些可運用的槓桿，能讓這個模式隨時間變得更具成本效益？或者我們是否應將你們的機會集合視為市場中較小的一個區隔——例如願意為更快的配送或在雜貨等品類情境下更廣的選擇而支付溢價的那群人？

Yes. Nikhil, that's a good question. So I guess this is kind of how we've always thought about it. I mean I think, first and foremost, we think about it from the perspective of the customer and how they're going to judge us, right? And if you think about that, well, there are several factors. They're going to judge us based on what selection of retail offerings we give; certainly, the cost of getting fast delivery; as well as the quality of that delivery, both in terms of the timeliness, the accuracy and, especially with regards to something like grocery, whether or not we got exactly all of the items that they had specifically ordered in the condition that they would expect.

是的。Nikhil，這是個好問題。我想這大致上就是我們一直以來的思考方式。首先也是最重要的，我們會從顧客的角度來思考，因為他們會如何評價我們，對吧？如果從這個角度看，有幾個因素。他們會根據我們提供的零售選擇（selection）來評價我們；當然也會看快速配送的成本；以及配送品質，包括準時性、正確性，特別是像雜貨這種品類，是否能把他們明確下單的所有商品，以他們所期待的狀態完整送達。

And so if you think about DoorDash's journey or evolution in that process, it started by really introducing a new use case, both to consumers as well as to grocers alike, which was this top-up use case, right, where we solve for the middle-of-the-week run, where the items in your pantry that you consume the most often or the items that perhaps may have perished the earliest, such as fruits or berries or milks or yogurts or coffees, things like this. We really started with that category. And that not only solved a consumer problem that wasn't being addressed in the market at the time, it was also an incremental occasion for retailers. And that's why we're seeing quite a lot of pull.

因此，如果你回顧 DoorDash 在這個過程中的旅程或演進，一開始其實是向消費者與雜貨商引入一個新的使用情境，也就是所謂的「補貨（top-up）」情境：我們解決的是一週中段的臨時採買需求——你儲藏室裡最常消耗的品項，或可能最早腐壞的品項，例如水果、莓果、牛奶、優格、咖啡等。我們確實是從這個類別切入。這不僅解決了當時市場上尚未被滿足的消費者問題，也為零售商帶來增量的消費時點（incremental occasion）。這也是為什麼我們看到相當強的拉力（pull）。

We announced a lot of additions to the platform in Q1, whether it was with Ahold as well as more recently in Q2 with Wakefern, and we added several dozen retailers in the quarter. And so I think, certainly, we're seeing increasing pull from consumers and from retailers. And so on the selection front, I think we're making the mark.

我們在第一季宣布平台上新增了許多合作夥伴，不論是與 Ahold 的合作，以及更近期在第二季與 Wakefern 的合作；而且我們在該季度新增了數十家零售商。因此我認為，我們確實看到來自消費者與零售商的拉力正在增加。就選擇（selection）而言，我認為我們做得很到位。

On the logistics question specifically, I think of few things. One, we always thought that we had an advantage given just our Dasher density and the network that we've built up where the thesis would go, if you can build the largest network in the highest frequency category, in the category that has the most nodes for last mile delivery, i.e., there are more restaurants than there are any other category of local retail, then you would have a cost advantage. And that's certainly something that we've seen. I mean, in fact, I think the positive surprise in our grocery business has been that, even with smaller baskets and without a meaningful contribution from CPG ad dollars, we're actually seeing positive unit economics in our new verticals business. And so I think that's certainly proven out. And certainly, there's an advantage of the speed and the flexibility in which we can make this offering to consumers.

至於物流這個問題，我會從幾點來看。第一，我們一直認為我們具備優勢，原因在於我們的 Dasher 密度以及我們建立起來的網路；其核心論點是：如果你能在最高頻的品類、也就是最後一哩配送節點最多的品類建立最大的網路——換句話說，餐廳數量比任何其他在地零售品類都多——那你就會有成本優勢。而這確實是我們所看到的。事實上，我認為我們雜貨業務的一個正向驚喜是：即使在購物籃較小、且沒有來自 CPG 廣告美元的顯著貢獻下，我們在新垂直業務仍然看到正向的單位經濟效益（unit economics）。所以我認為這點已經得到驗證。此外，我們也具備速度與彈性上的優勢，能把這項服務提供給消費者。

But to your point, there is a trade-off sometimes with cost. Now we believe that we'll make quite a lot of progress in terms of equalizing what we can do versus what else is out there. But there's also this other dimension, right, which is the selection. So on the one hand, third-party is more expensive on a point-to-point basis versus first-party. But then on the other hand, it's faster and it offers more selection. You can certainly get offerings from more stores, for example, than just one single store.

但如你所說，有時在成本上確實存在取捨。我們相信，未來在縮小我們與其他方案之間差距方面會取得相當大的進展。不過還有另一個面向，也就是選擇（selection）。一方面，第三方在點對點（point-to-point）的成本上確實比第一方更高；但另一方面，它更快、且提供更多選擇。例如，你可以從更多家商店取得商品，而不僅僅是單一一家店。

And so I think it's going to come down to what consumers prefer. We obviously are going to work on a model in which we can increase the amount of selection that we offer, reduce the cost in which that selection is made available, and improve the quality of the process. And I think on these dimensions, we've certainly done that. And I think that's why you see the results that we've outlined where I think it's a third straight quarter now where grocery has seen north of triple-digits growth year-on-year. And so certainly, I think we're seeing that retention and usage and high engagement from consumers. We believe that we're making quite a lot of progress on our fulfillment quality. And we're also making progress on the cost to serve. So all things are pointing in the right direction. So we're pretty excited about where things are headed.

因此，我認為最終將取決於消費者偏好。我們當然會持續打造一個模式：提升我們提供的選擇範圍、降低讓這些選擇可被取得的成本，並改善整個流程的品質。我認為在這些面向上，我們確實已經做到，而且也正因如此，你會看到我們所概述的結果——我想這已是連續第三個季度，雜貨年對年成長超過三位數。因此我們確實看到消費者的留存、使用，以及高度參與度。我們相信我們在履約品質（fulfillment quality）方面取得了相當大的進展，也在服務成本（cost to serve）方面持續改善。整體而言，各項指標都朝正確方向前進，所以我們對未來走向感到非常振奮。

Your next question comes from the line of Mark Mahaney with Evercore ISI.

您的下一個問題來自 Evercore ISI 的 Mark Mahaney。

If I could throw in two questions, please. First, on ad revenue, so it looks like you're a little nicely over $100 million run rate, just looking at some of your disclosures in here. Any color on how that's progressing? Are there any areas of strength for you, verticals you want to fill out? Just talk about the traction you're seeing so far. And then just a question, are we close to peak losses when it comes to other verticals and international markets?

如果可以的話我想問兩個問題。第一個關於廣告營收：從你們在這裡的一些揭露來看，年化營收（run rate）似乎已經略高於 1 億美元。能否分享一下進展情況？是否有任何對你們而言表現較強的領域、或你們想要補齊的垂直品類？請談談目前看到的動能。第二個問題是：在其他垂直領域與國際市場方面，我們是否已接近虧損高峰（peak losses）？

Sure. I can start on the ad question. Ravi, maybe you can take the question on investment capacity. So Mark, on ads, I don't know how maybe you're making the estimates, but our ads business is substantially larger than I think what you were quoting in the question. But I think the broader point on ads is that it's going really well. I think that it started by certainly serving the restaurants category. And we've seen, I mean, extreme adoption from all cohorts, whether it's small businesses to large enterprises. We're now working on building that product both in terms of just more self-serve capabilities as well as serving more reporting capabilities so that everyone can see exactly what's going on with their dollar spend. I think what's been encouraging is that we are offering leading and best-in-class return on ad spend while also seeing good engagement on the consumer front.

當然。我可以先回答廣告的問題。Ravi，也許你可以回答投資能力的問題。Mark，關於廣告，我不確定你是如何做出那些估算的，但我們的廣告業務規模其實遠大於我認為你在問題中所引用的數字。不過我認為關於廣告更重要的整體觀點是：進展非常順利。我認為它一開始確實是先服務餐廳品類。而我們看到——我是說——各個客群都有極高的採用率，無論是小型商家到大型企業。我們現在也在持續打造這個產品，一方面提供更多自助式（self-serve）能力，另一方面也提供更多報表（reporting）能力，讓每個人都能清楚看到他們每一塊錢的投放到底發生了什麼。我認為令人鼓舞的是，我們在提供領先、同級最佳的廣告投資報酬（ROAS）的同時，也在消費者端看到良好的互動參與。

We're also turning our attention to the CPG asset. Obviously, that's something that came after. Our ads effort is about 2.5 years old, something like that. The first 1.5 years was really setting ourselves up for the pull from the market, which probably, not surprisingly, came from the restaurant side. But especially as our grocery and retail sectors have been growing on the marketplace, we're seeing increasing pull from CPG advertisers. And so we do work with all the large CPG advertisers. We're now just building up the products to serve them to meet their demand.

我們也把注意力轉向 CPG 資產。顯然，那是後來才出現的。我們的廣告投入大約 2.5 年左右，差不多是這樣。前 1.5 年主要是在為市場端的拉動（pull）做好準備，而這個拉動很可能——不令人意外地——是從餐廳端開始的。但特別是隨著我們的雜貨與零售板塊在平台上持續成長，我們看到來自 CPG 廣告主的拉動正在增加。因此我們確實與所有大型 CPG 廣告主合作。我們現在只是加速建置產品，以便能夠服務他們並滿足其需求。

Yes, Mark, I'll take the second one. But just to what Tony talked about on the first one, right, we've not disclosed the ad revenue, but it is growing. It's growing fast. It's contributing to both revenue as well as EBITDA that you're seeing in the business. Our goal has always been how do we think about merchant ROAS as well as consumer conversion, and we believe we are best-in-class for both of those. Those are the constraints we're using to measure the quality of our ad business.

是的，Mark，我來回答第二個問題。不過先呼應 Tony 在第一個問題提到的，對，我們尚未披露廣告營收，但它正在成長，而且成長很快。它正在對你在業務中看到的營收以及 EBITDA 都做出貢獻。我們的目標一直是：如何同時兼顧商家的 ROAS 以及消費者的轉換率（conversion），而我們相信在這兩者上我們都是同級最佳。這些就是我們用來衡量廣告業務品質的約束條件（constraints）。

Mark, as it comes to your second question around quantum of investment, whether it's new verticals or a national business, when we operate and manage the business, we are not thinking about quantum of dollars. Our focus has always been are we growing order frequency, are we growing retention, are we growing unit economics across any investment that we make, whether it's a restaurant business or grocery or international business.

Mark，關於你第二個問題——投資規模（quantum of investment），不論是新垂直品類或全國性業務——當我們營運與管理業務時，我們並不是以投入多少美元來思考。我們的重點一直是：我們是否在提升下單頻率（order frequency）、是否在提升留存（retention）、以及是否在我們所做的任何投資上改善單位經濟（unit economics），不論那是餐廳業務、雜貨、或國際業務。

Just to give you a sense of performance for our new verticals business, I mean, grocery, Tony touched on this earlier, that business is growing at 100% year-on-year. We're the fastest growing. We're gaining share. Our focus has been to continue to drive more selection, improve the quality as well as make the product more affordable. When I look at the unit economics, last call, I made the comment that the unit economics have increased step-function change compared to last year. We've continued to improve the unit economics from that point. When I look at the third-party component of our new verticals portfolio, that business has been unit economic positive for several years. If you have a business that's growing very fast and the unit economics are continuing to improve, we like what we are seeing and we are continuing to invest behind that strategy.

為了讓你了解我們新垂直業務的表現，我是說，雜貨方面，Tony 先前也提到，該業務年增 100%。我們是成長最快的，我們正在提升市占。我們的重點是持續推動更多選擇（selection）、提升品質，並讓產品更可負擔。當我看單位經濟時，上次電話會議我曾評論，相較去年單位經濟出現了階梯式（step-function）的提升。從那之後我們仍持續改善單位經濟。當我看我們新垂直組合中的第三方（third-party）部分，那個業務在單位經濟上已經正向好幾年了。如果你有一個成長非常快、且單位經濟持續改善的業務，我們喜歡我們所看到的，因此我們會持續加碼投資這個策略。

Very similar dynamics on the international business where, if I look at the growth rate for our business compared to peers, we're growing substantially faster. In some cases, we're growing 5x to 6x faster, which is causing us to gain share in majority of the markets that we operate. Very similarly, on the unit economics, very good improvement year-on-year where the unit economics for the international business as a whole has been positive for a few quarters now. At the same time, the restaurant portion of our international business, there are several countries which are contribution margin profitable. So you put that together, right, like both the investment areas are growing nicely. They're improving in terms of unit economics. We like what we are seeing in both of those businesses. That's causing us to continue to invest. And I do expect the growth as well as unit economic improvement to continue through the rest of the year.

國際業務也有非常類似的動態：如果我把我們的成長率與同業相比，我們成長明顯更快。在某些情況下，我們成長速度是 5 倍到 6 倍，這讓我們在大多數營運市場都在提升市占。同樣地，在單位經濟方面，年對年改善非常顯著，整體國際業務的單位經濟已經連續幾個季度為正。同時，在我們國際業務中的餐廳部分，有好幾個國家已經達到貢獻毛利（contribution margin）獲利。把這些放在一起看，對，兩個投資領域都成長良好，且單位經濟都在改善。我們喜歡在這兩個業務中看到的狀況，這也促使我們持續投資。我也預期在今年剩餘時間，成長以及單位經濟的改善都會延續。

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Morton with MoffettNathanson.

下一個問題來自 MoffettNathanson 的 Michael Morton。

First one maybe for Tony, just to follow on the Q and then a second question for Ravi. Tony, you've spoken a lot about the importance of selection and improving selection in the grocery business and you've added several new grocers recently. We'd love to know if there's any restricting factors in bringing all the nation's grocers onto the platforms. And then what's the time frame for having your selection at parity with the largest competitors?

第一個問題可能給 Tony，延續剛才的問答，然後第二個問題給 Ravi。Tony，你談了很多關於選擇（selection）的重要性，以及在雜貨業務中提升選擇，你最近也新增了幾家新的雜貨商。我們想了解，把全國所有雜貨商都導入平台是否有任何限制因素？另外，你們的選擇要達到與最大競爭對手同等（parity）的時間表是什麼？

And then for Ravi, we get a lot of investor inquiries looking into better understanding where the incremental investment dollars are going, especially with like Dash test for restaurant has hit the scale it has. Is there any way that you could kind of bucket for us or help us think about the different segments of investments within restaurant, new verticals and international, and if you still feel the same level of confidence about the inflection in the second half of '24?

接著給 Ravi，我們收到很多投資人詢問，希望更了解新增的投資資金流向哪裡，尤其是在餐廳的 Dash 測試已經達到目前規模之後。你是否能以某種方式幫我們分桶（bucket）或協助我們思考餐廳、新垂直與國際之間不同投資區塊？以及你是否仍對 2024 年下半年出現拐點（inflection）抱持同樣程度的信心？

Sure. I mean I can take the first one. I mean, I think, Michael, I guess, as an add-on or maybe, in part, a repeated message from the first question, we're seeing increasing, I guess, inbound interest on the retail segment. That's true in grocery. That's also true in other retail segment. We added, for example, Lowe's, which is our first retailer in the home improvement category. We're now quite active in terms of what we offer to consumers in the health and beauty category, the apparel category, the electronics category. So I think this goes much beyond grocery, I guess, would be the way I think about this. I mean I think to stop just at grocery would be certainly not what our customers would expect or what they would demand. It's also not what retailers want either.

當然。我可以先回答第一個。我想，Michael，我猜作為補充，或某種程度上重申第一個問題的訊息，我們在零售板塊看到越來越多的主動洽詢（inbound interest）。這在雜貨上是如此，在其他零售板塊也是如此。舉例來說，我們新增了 Lowe's，這是我們在居家修繕（home improvement）品類的第一個零售商。我們現在在健康與美容品類、服飾品類、電子產品品類，對消費者提供的內容都相當積極。所以我認為這遠不只雜貨而已——我大概是這樣看待的。我是說，如果只停留在雜貨，肯定不會是我們客戶所期待或所要求的；零售商也同樣不會只想要那樣。

And so I think increasingly, retailers and consumers alike are seeing DoorDash as a one-stop shop for buying everything inside the city. So we're actually seeing the opposite of resistance in terms of joining the platform. I think the question is just like how do we prioritize the road map, how do we make sure that the sequencing is right, so that we can get all of these things to work. Because a lot of times how we work with these retailers, it's not just adding them to the marketplace, which obviously serves one job of bringing them incremental demand, but we also work with them by helping them with their own platforms, right, like their own e-commerce capabilities and selling first-party to their own consumers in an increasingly digital way. And there's a lot of products there, too, in which we integrate. And so there's a lot of work in both first-party and third-party. It's more a matter of sequencing than it is anything.

因此我認為，零售商與消費者都越來越把 DoorDash 視為在城市裡購買所有商品的一站式平台（one-stop shop）。所以在加入平台這件事上，我們看到的其實是相反——不是阻力，而是更高的意願。我認為問題只是：我們如何排定產品路線圖（road map）的優先順序、如何確保推進順序（sequencing）正確，讓所有事情都能運作。因為很多時候我們與這些零售商合作，不只是把他們加入平台——那當然能帶來增量需求——我們也會協助他們經營自己的平台，對，就是他們自己的電商能力，並以更數位化的方式向他們自己的消費者銷售第一方（first-party）商品。而在那裡也有很多產品需要整合。因此第一方與第三方（third-party）兩邊都有大量工作要做。這更多是排序問題，而不是其他因素。

Yes, Mike, I'll take the second one, right? Maybe I'll broaden out the question a little bit. Look, I mean I feel really good about the progress we've made in the business not just in Q1 but the last several quarters. The business is growing quite nicely across all major lines of business, whether it's restaurant, grocery, new verticals or international. And like I said before in Mark's question, we're seeing improvement in unit economics across the board.

是的，Mike，我來回答第二個，對？也許我把問題稍微擴大一點。你看，我對我們在業務上取得的進展感覺非常好，不只是第一季（Q1），而是過去好幾個季度。業務在所有主要線別都成長得相當不錯，不論是餐廳、雜貨、新垂直或國際。而且就像我先前在回答 Mark 的問題時說的，我們看到各方面的單位經濟都在改善。

I do expect the second half EBITDA to be higher than the first half. What's driving that is the same thing that we saw in '23 as well as '22. I expect the volume to be higher in the second half across all lines of business. Unit economics are continuing to progress quite nicely. I do expect further improvement in unit economics. The investments we are making in H1, that will drive both scale as well as leverage in the second half. The scale plus the leverage, that's going to lead to increasing EBITDA in the second half compared to the first half. So overall, when I look at Q1 as well as the Q2 guide, I'm very pleased with the performance, and I expect the full year to be pretty strong as well.

我確實預期下半年 EBITDA 會高於上半年。推動因素與我們在 2023 年以及 2022 年看到的相同。我預期下半年在所有業務線的量（volume）都會更高。單位經濟也持續相當順利地進展。我確實預期單位經濟會進一步改善。我們在上半年（H1）所做的投資，將在下半年同時帶來規模（scale）與槓桿（leverage）。規模加上槓桿，將使下半年 EBITDA 相較上半年增加。因此整體而言，當我看第一季以及第二季指引（Q2 guide），我對表現非常滿意，我也預期全年表現會相當強勁。

Next question comes from the line of James Lee with Mizuho.

下一個問題來自瑞穗（Mizuho）的 James Lee。

My question is relating to regulations. Obviously, you guys saw a little bit of impact in Seattle and also in New York. How should we think about maybe other cities potentially moving to a similar wage policy? And also, how should we think about the EBITDA impact? You mentioned 1% impact on orders. I'm just wondering what is the impact on EBITDA?

我的問題與法規有關。顯然，你們在西雅圖以及紐約都看到了一些影響。我們應該如何看待其他城市可能也會採取類似的薪資政策？另外，我們應該如何看待對 EBITDA 的影響？你們提到對訂單有 1% 的影響。我想了解的是，對 EBITDA 的影響是什麼？

Sure. Maybe I can take the first part. And then, Ravi, you can take the part around the financial impact. I mean I think it's pretty clear in both Seattle and New York City, as maybe you have read, James, in our press release that I mean these regulations clearly are having the opposite impact of what they intend to do, right? I think they certainly support to help drive earnings. But instead, what's happening is it's making the service a lot less accessible and a lot less affordable, right? It's increasing costs, which makes it such that consumers have to pay more.

好的。也許我可以先回答第一部分。然後，Ravi，你可以回答財務影響的部分。我的意思是，我認為在西雅圖和紐約市都很明顯，正如你可能在我們的新聞稿中讀到的，James，這些法規顯然正在產生與其原本意圖相反的影響，對吧？我想它們本來當然是要幫助提高收入。但相反地，現在發生的是，這讓服務變得更不容易取得、也更不負擔得起，對吧？它提高了成本，使得消費者必須支付更多。

Merchants are making less as a result, and drivers are getting fewer work opportunities. I mean that's what you see in both Seattle and New York, I mean to the effect where I think Dashers, merchants and consumers in Seattle are lobbying their lawmakers and regulators and elected officials to overturn the regulation. So I think that's the unfortunate part of what's actually happening, which is it's literally having the opposite impact. Although this probably could have been predicted as I think we've been telling lawmakers and regulators alike.

結果商家的收入變少，外送員的工作機會也變少。我的意思是，這就是你在西雅圖和紐約都看到的情況，甚至到了我認為西雅圖的 Dashers、商家與消費者正在遊說他們的立法者、監管機構與民選官員推翻該法規的程度。所以我認為不幸的是，實際發生的就是它真的產生了相反的影響。雖然這大概是可以預見的，因為我想我們一直在告訴立法者與監管者。

But I think to the broader question that you're asking, this is kind of what we've been saying since, I guess, going public, and honestly, what we predicted even 10 years ago when we started the company, that most governments and lawmakers want to be productive, participants in working with businesses to provide a service that serves to existing cities. I mean why wouldn't you? I mean, think about the billions of dollars or tens of billions of dollars that you're adding to the local economic GDP or the fact that you're offering a service that consumers love and a place where anyone can really earn extra income on their own time. I mean, who wouldn't want that? And so I think most governments think like that, and that's true across the world, not just here in the U.S.

但我想就你提出的更廣泛問題而言，這有點像我們自從（我猜）上市以來一直在說的，而且老實說，甚至在 10 年前我們創立公司時就預測過：大多數政府與立法者都希望成為與企業合作、提供服務、服務既有城市的積極參與者。我的意思是，為什麼不呢？想想你為地方經濟 GDP 增加了數十億美元甚至數百億美元，或是你提供了一項消費者喜愛的服務，以及任何人都能在自己的時間賺取額外收入的機會。我的意思是，誰不想要呢？所以我認為大多數政府都是這樣想的，而且這在全球各地都成立，不僅僅是在美國。

But there are a handful of cities, you listed a couple of them, where they're antagonists to this perspective. And in some ways, they would prefer the opposite of creating positive GDP inside their cities. But I think that's still limited to the handful of cities, on one hand, that we've kind of forecasted both 10 years ago when we started the company as well as what we've been saying ever since going public.

但也有少數城市——你列舉了其中幾個——對這種觀點抱持對立態度。在某些方面，他們更偏好與在城市內創造正向 GDP 相反的結果。但我認為這仍然只限於少數城市；一方面，這也是我們在 10 年前創立公司時就做過的預測，以及自上市以來一直在說的。

Yes, James, on the second point, right, we're not disclosing the exact EBITDA impact from both New York and Seattle in Q1. That said, we did absorb a meaningful amount of cost in the quarter. Look, I mean, our approach to regulatory market has not changed, right? First and foremost, our priority is to ensure that we're making the business more efficient, which we did in Q1. We did pass on some fees to consumers. I do expect that every market that we operate in, over time, will have sustainable unit economics. I do expect us to reduce the cost that we are taking in Q1 to go down over the course of the rest of the year. It's not going to be a step-function change. It will be gradual over time. But we expect both markets to be sustainable from a unit economic perspective going forward.

是的，James，關於第二點，對吧，我們不會披露第一季紐約與西雅圖的確切 EBITDA 影響。不過，我們在本季確實吸收了相當可觀的成本。你看，我們對監管市場的做法沒有改變，對吧？首先也是最重要的，我們的優先事項是確保讓業務更有效率，而我們在第一季做到了。我們也把部分費用轉嫁給消費者。我確實預期，隨著時間推移，我們營運的每個市場都會具備可持續的單位經濟。我也預期，我們在第一季承擔的成本會在今年剩餘時間逐步下降。這不會是階躍式的變化，而是會隨時間逐步改善。但我們預期，從單位經濟的角度來看，兩個市場未來都將是可持續的。

Your next question comes from the line of Brian Nowak with Morgan Stanley.

下一個問題來自摩根士丹利（Morgan Stanley）的 Brian Nowak。

Maybe let me go back to that last comment you just made about market therein, you're looking to have sustainable unit economics. Can you help us understand a little bit more on the international side? You have all these countries that you're investing in, in the international side. I know a lot of times, scale is important to driving durable profitability in food delivery. Competitive dynamics are an advantage. Just walk us through, like how should we think about sort of the different countries and how you're managing the international portfolio just to make sure that all the markets that you're in can actually get to profitability over time?

也許我回到你剛才最後那句話，關於你們希望市場能有可持續的單位經濟。能否協助我們更了解一下國際業務？你們在國際端投資了這麼多國家。我知道很多時候，規模對於推動外送業務的長期獲利能力很重要，而競爭動態也是一種優勢。請帶我們梳理一下：我們應該如何看待不同國家，以及你們如何管理國際投資組合，以確保你們所在的所有市場都能隨時間真正達到獲利？

Yes. Brian, I can start. And feel free, Ravi to chime in. I mean we're very pleased with our international portfolio. I mean now it's about 29 countries outside of the U.S. So to your point, it's certainly an expanding portfolio, which makes it more complex to manage. But at the same time, the business is a minimum efficient scale business where in each ZIP code or a collection of ZIP codes or locale, if you can achieve minimum efficient scale, every order that comes after that point kind of becomes dollars that you can use to eat up all the investments that you've made in the market. So we feel pretty good about where things are heading.

是的，Brian，我可以先開始。Ravi 也歡迎補充。我的意思是，我們對國際投資組合非常滿意。現在美國以外大約有 29 個國家。所以如你所說，這確實是一個持續擴張的組合，使管理變得更複雜。但同時，這個業務是一個「最低有效規模」的業務：在每個郵遞區號（ZIP code）或一組郵遞區號或某個地區，只要你能達到最低有效規模，之後的每一筆訂單基本上就會變成你可以用來消化你在該市場投入的所有投資的美元。因此，我們對發展方向感到相當樂觀。

I mean we are continuing to expand. I mean I think that's really the story of international right now in the sense that we're not even in the geographies that we are in, in 100% or even close to 100% of the population. And so we have a long ways to go in terms of getting to the cities that we want to reach. We certainly have a long ways to go in adding merchant selection in restaurants, outside of restaurants. We have a lot of work to do to bring the product portfolio that we've kind of built over the years equally or evenly across every country. But we like what we see, right?

我的意思是，我們仍在持續擴張。我想這就是目前國際業務的故事：即使在我們已經進入的地理區域，我們也尚未覆蓋到 100% 的人口，甚至離 100% 還很遠。因此，在觸及我們想要到達的城市方面，我們還有很長的路要走。我們在增加商家選擇上也還有很長的路要走——不僅是餐廳，也包括餐廳以外。我們還有很多工作要做，將多年來建立的產品組合在每個國家更一致、更均衡地推出。但我們喜歡我們所看到的，對吧？

I mean like if you think back to the investment thesis we had when we teamed up with Wolt, for example, which certainly added very quickly our international portfolio, it was really just two things, right? One was, if we were to team up with the product and the company that had built the leading product when it came to retention, order frequency; and number two, that we can find the best operating team to be singularly focused on running the international business, that, that would be the most capital-efficient way to grow outside of the U.S. And certainly, both of those dimensions have been true. I mean I think on the business side, I think Ravi may have mentioned this, but we're growing many times faster than our peers, and that's been sustained over the last 2 to 3 years, and that continues to be the case.

我的意思是，如果你回想一下我們與 Wolt 合作時的投資論點，例如，這確實非常快速地擴大了我們的國際投資組合，當時其實就兩件事，對吧？第一，如果我們與一個在留存、下單頻率等方面打造出領先產品的公司與產品合作；第二，如果我們能找到最好的營運團隊，專注於經營國際業務，那將會是美國以外最具資本效率的成長方式。而且這兩個面向確實都成立。我的意思是，在業務面，我想 Ravi 可能提過，我們的成長速度比同業快很多倍，而且這在過去 2 到 3 年一直維持，現在仍然如此。

And then on the second point around the management team, Miki and the team have done a phenomenal job of running, obviously, the Wolt portfolio but then also adding on countries in the DoorDash portfolio outside of the U.S. And so they've done a really good job across all of those dimensions, which frees up management bandwidth to focus on, obviously, the core U.S. restaurants business but then also adding other legs of growth, whether it's the platform business, the new verticals business, the ads business and, obviously, other initiatives we're investing in for the future. So I think all of that is teaming up really nicely.

然後在管理團隊這一點上，Miki 和團隊做得非常出色——顯然是在經營 Wolt 的投資組合，同時也把美國以外 DoorDash 投資組合的國家納入並擴展。所以他們在所有這些面向都做得非常好，這也釋放了管理層的精力，讓我們能專注於——顯然——美國核心餐廳業務，同時也發展其他成長支柱，不論是平台業務、新垂直業務、廣告業務，以及——顯然——我們為未來投資的其他計畫。所以我認為這一切都配合得非常好。

You've also had this nice cross-team learning dynamic where we're certainly introducing things to the Wolt team and those markets for the first time, which is adding both top and bottom line impact, and conversely, the other direction. So I think when I look at how things are going internationally, they're going pretty well.

你們也看到很好的跨團隊學習動能：我們確實把一些事情首次引入 Wolt 團隊與那些市場，這同時帶來營收端與獲利端的影響；反過來也是如此。所以當我看國際業務的進展時，我認為進展得相當不錯。

Yes. Look, I mean, Brian, I'll just add a couple of points to what Tony talked about. What we're managing the business towards each and every individual market, it's retention, order frequency and unit economics. When I look at the dashboard where we look at this by city, we have done a major improvement across all 3 metrics. We've seen a material progress on all 3 metrics over the course of the last couple of years.

是的。你看，我是說，Brian，我就補充幾點 Tony 剛才談到的內容。我們在每一個個別市場推動業務時，管理的重點是留存、下單頻率與單位經濟效益。當我看我們按城市拆分的儀表板時，這三項指標都出現了重大改善。過去幾年裡，我們在這三項指標上都看到了實質性的進展。

And the proof is in the pudding, right? Like I talked about the fact that there are several countries within the Wolt portfolio as well as our international portfolio but the core restaurant business is actually contribution margin profitable. And the unit economics across the international portfolio is actually profitable for the last several quarters in a row. As we continue to add more selection, as we continue to make the product more affordable, we are starting to see that response, right? Like MAUs are growing at a double-digit rate. Order frequency continues to be at an all-the-time high. This is what gives us confidence that the business is doing really well as well as we are gaining share compared to peers.

而且成果就擺在眼前，對吧？就像我提到的，Wolt 組合以及我們的國際組合裡有好幾個國家，但核心的餐廳業務其實在貢獻毛利（contribution margin）層面已經是獲利的。而且國際組合的單位經濟效益在連續好幾個季度也都是獲利的。隨著我們持續增加更多選擇、持續讓產品更可負擔，我們開始看到那個回饋，對吧？例如 MAU 以雙位數速度成長。下單頻率持續維持在歷史新高。這些都讓我們有信心，業務表現非常好，同時相較同業我們也正在提升市占。

Your next question comes from the line of Eric Sheridan with Goldman Sachs.

下一個問題來自高盛（Goldman Sachs）的 Eric Sheridan。

Maybe one big picture one, if I can. When you think about the SKU of an incremental investment dollar in the business, how do you measure where the better dollar might be spent between either end-demand generation and driving further GOV growth and penetration in new verticals compared to $1 of investment in platform innovation, product innovation and how that maybe sets the platform up over the medium to long term? Would love to get some broader thoughts on evolution of that SKU and relative ROI?

如果可以的話，我想問一個更宏觀的問題。當你們思考在業務中新增投入的每一美元（incremental investment dollar）的「SKU」時，你們如何衡量這一美元更應該花在需求端的拉動、推動 GOV 進一步成長以及新垂直品類滲透，還是花在平台創新、產品創新上，並且這如何在中長期為平台打下基礎？很想聽聽你們對這個「SKU」演進以及相對 ROI 的更廣泛看法。

Sure. Eric, I mean, I can maybe start. I guess, in some ways, it hasn't changed in the sense that it almost always starts with what new products are we going to build to solve problems for customers better, right? The difference is that the surface area in which we apply that thinking has grown pretty tremendously. Obviously, 4 years ago or 4.5 years ago, it was really applied towards one kind of line of thinking, the U.S. restaurants business, which was upsized, but it was still just more of a singular business unit.

當然。Eric，我可以先說。我想在某些方面其實沒有改變，因為幾乎總是從「我們要打造哪些新產品，才能更好地替客戶解決問題」開始，對吧？不同的是，我們把這種思考應用的範圍（surface area）已經大幅擴張。很明顯，4 年前或 4 年半前，這主要是用在一條思路上，也就是美國餐廳業務；那個業務規模變大了，但仍然更像是一個相對單一的事業單位。

But then when I think about kind of the legs of the stool today, you obviously have the U.S. restaurant business, which has been severalfold bigger. But then you kind of have like 3 more that we've added that are now at scale. You have the platform business, the new verticals business, the international business. And then you kind of have a small thing that's just getting started, it's like I think 2.5 years old, which is the ads business.

但如果我看今天的「三腳凳」支柱，你當然有美國餐廳業務，而且規模已經大了好幾倍。接著我們又新增了大概 3 個、現在也都已經達到規模化的業務：平台業務、新垂直業務、國際業務。然後還有一個剛起步的小業務，我想大概 2.5 年歷史，就是廣告業務。

But it's still the same idea where we found that the most capital-efficient way to think about the next dollar invested tends to be what product can we build to solve some problem better. Either it's the same problem, but we're solving it better and finding basically the next level of product market fit for the next cohort of customers who obviously have higher expectations than the previous cohort or it's solving a problem for the first time. When we entered, for example, the grocery segment 3.5 years ago, where that was meeting customers for the first time in that category. And so that's in general kind of how we think about it.

但核心想法仍然一樣：我們發現，思考下一美元投入最具資本效率的方式，往往是「我們能打造什麼產品，把某個問題解得更好」。要嘛是同一個問題，但我們解得更好，基本上為下一批客戶找到下一層級的產品市場契合（product-market fit），因為新一批客戶的期待顯然比上一批更高；要嘛就是第一次去解一個問題。比如我們在 3.5 年前進入雜貨（grocery）品類時，就是在那個類別第一次與客戶建立連結。所以整體而言，我們大致是這樣思考的。

And then there's like other types of capital allocation decisions, right? When you start thinking about whether it's M&A or possible buybacks and things like this, but those tend to be slightly different computations and calculations. But with respect to like generally how we've done things, it tends to be how do you spend the incremental dollar by best solving the next job to be done for the customer.

然後還有其他類型的資本配置決策，對吧？當你開始思考是否要做併購（M&A）或可能的庫藏股回購（buybacks）之類的事情時，那些通常是稍微不同的計算與評估。但就我們一般做事的方式而言，通常是：如何把新增投入的一美元，用在最能解決客戶下一個待完成任務（job to be done）的地方。

Yes. Maybe Eric, I'll just add to what Tony talked about. For us, our business ultimately depends on making the product better for our consumers, merchants and Dashers. So when we think about where to invest dollars, the first dollar is always going to go to making the product better. And it's adding selection, whether it's improving the quality or continuing to meet the product more affordable.

是的。Eric，我也補充 Tony 剛才談到的內容。對我們來說，我們的業務最終取決於讓產品對消費者、商家以及 Dashers（外送員）都變得更好。所以當我們思考資金要投在哪裡時，第一美元永遠會先用在把產品做得更好。這包括增加選擇、提升品質，或持續讓產品更可負擔。

We are very scientific. We're very disciplined when it comes to measuring ROI. We obviously look at all aspects of that. We measure that both on a short term as well as a long-term basis. But sometimes, we just had ambitious goals and give the teams the flexibility to continue to innovate, with the goal being if we build the best product, consumers are going to come back. They're going to order more with us, which builds scale. And ultimately, that drives long-term free cash flow generation in the business.

我們在衡量 ROI 方面非常科學、也非常自律。我們當然會看所有面向，並且同時以短期與長期的角度衡量。但有時候，我們也會設定有企圖心的目標，並給團隊持續創新的彈性；目標是：如果我們打造出最好的產品，消費者就會回來、也會更常跟我們下單，進而帶來規模。最終，這會推動公司長期自由現金流的產生。

Your next question comes from the line of Andrew Boone with JMP Securities.

下一個問題來自 JMP Securities 的 Andrew Boone。

Tony, can you talk about the drivers of the platform services acceleration that you've seen over the last year?

Tony，你能談談過去一年你們看到的平台服務（platform services）加速成長的驅動因素嗎？

Sure. I mean I think there's been many things there. But I would say it's really probably like two thematic things where, one, we're continuing to offer fulfillment services through DoorDash Drive, which is the first product we launched as part of the platform services portfolio, just into more places, right, whether that's more countries, more verticals. I think it's really encouraging to see that every retailer out there, whether they sell food or sell other items, recognizes the importance of delivery and also how that's net beneficial to their companies because the omnichannel customer is more valuable than any other customer who shops exclusively in one channel.

當然。我想有很多因素。但我會說大概有兩個主題：第一，我們持續透過 DoorDash Drive 提供履約（fulfillment）服務——這是我們在平台服務組合中推出的第一個產品——並把它擴展到更多地方，對吧？不論是更多國家、更多垂直品類。我覺得很令人鼓舞的是，所有零售商，不管是賣食品還是賣其他商品，都意識到配送的重要性，也意識到這對他們公司是淨利多，因為全通路（omnichannel）客戶的價值高於只在單一通路購物的任何其他客戶。

And second, it's really just new products, right? We're always building new things. If you think about what platform services or division of the business is, it's to effectively enable any retailer to do what DoorDash does on its marketplace for their own customers, right? And so that goes much beyond fulfillment. You're going to have to do everything from online ordering, all the way to customer support, right? And there's a lot of activities in between that you kind of have to get right. So the second is just always building new products.

第二，就是新產品，對吧？我們一直在打造新東西。如果你想想平台服務這個業務/部門的本質，是有效地讓任何零售商都能為他們自己的客戶做到 DoorDash 在自家市集（marketplace）上所做的事情，對吧？所以這遠不只是履約。你必須做從線上點單（online ordering）一路到客戶支援（customer support）等所有事情，對吧？中間還有很多環節都必須做到位。所以第二點就是持續打造新產品。

So I think this is a nice example of, I think, the answer to the previous question around capital allocation, which is how do we make sure that we solve this job and how big is that job for the customer, how much is it worth, and solve it as deeply as we can and then move on to the next job, right? But that's really what we've seen in platform services. And it's just really great to see, I think, for every retailer, a physical retailer, that's just increasingly becoming more and more aggressive in investing in digital.

所以我認為這是一個很好的例子，也呼應前一題關於資本配置的答案：我們如何確保把這個「工作」解好、這個工作對客戶有多大、值多少，並且盡可能深入地解決它，然後再往下一個工作前進，對吧？這就是我們在平台服務看到的情況。而且我覺得很棒的是，對每一家零售商、實體零售商而言，他們正在越來越積極地加大對數位化的投資。

Your next question comes from the line of Ron Josey with Citi.

下一個問題來自花旗（Citi）的 Ron Josey。

I wanted to, maybe, Tony, take it back to take rates and sort of where we stand. I think in the press release, you talked about reduced average delivery time, defect rates, net consumer fees per order lower. So I was curious if you could talk just about the contributions of these changes or these improvements to overall take rates. And on the scale of, call it, where we are in the continuum of how things are going, sort of how much more is there that can just improve? And I'm sure the answer is infinite, but when we think about defect rates coming down, I think that was a pretty material impact on take rates. So any insights there would be helpful, just on delivery time, defect rates, just overall efficiencies.

我想，或許 Tony，我們回到抽成率（take rates）以及我們目前所處的位置。我記得在新聞稿裡，你們提到平均配送時間縮短、瑕疵率（defect rates）下降、每筆訂單的消費者淨費用（net consumer fees per order）更低。所以我想請你談談，這些變化或改善對整體抽成率的貢獻。以及從一個尺度來看——姑且說我們在整個演進的連續光譜（continuum）上處於什麼位置——還有多少空間可以繼續改善？我相信答案可能是無限，但當我們想到瑕疵率下降時，我認為那對抽成率有相當實質的影響。所以如果能分享一些洞見會很有幫助，包含配送時間、瑕疵率、整體效率等。

And as a follow-up to Andrew's question on platform services, just curious, we've been highlighting it for the past couple of quarters, would love to hear just are we seeing more adoption amongst restaurants today versus a few years ago?

另外，延續 Andrew 關於平台服務的問題，我也好奇：你們過去幾個季度一直在強調這塊，我很想聽聽，我們今天是否看到餐廳端的採用度（adoption）比幾年前更高？

Sure. I can take both of them. I think the first question was around just how do we see like, I guess, benefits to the consumer product improving over time. And I mean, look, this is one of those things where it's really a game of inches, and then you're just following the laws of compound interest, which tend to get underestimated, right? And so you're totally right. I mean, like consumers demand improvements across the board. They always want lower prices, faster deliveries, higher accuracy, more selection, better customer support. That is always going to be true.

當然。我可以兩個都回答。我想第一個問題大概是在問，我們如何看待消費者產品隨時間推移所帶來的、我猜是對消費者的好處提升。我的意思是，你看，這類事情真的就是一寸一寸地推進，然後你其實是在遵循複利法則，而這往往會被低估，對吧？所以你完全說得對。我的意思是，消費者會要求全方位的改善。他們永遠想要更低的價格、更快的配送、更高的準確度、更多的選擇、更好的客服支援。這永遠都會是真的。

And I think the thing that just, at least for me, been a lesson learned over almost now 11 years, but over 10 years of doing this, is that we always underestimate, I think, how far these things can go. And I think that's kind of just fighting human nature, right? I mean because I think human nature wants to know that there's some marginal return that becomes a concave function. And I think what ends up happening is you get surprised either by the next technology platform or you just get surprised by how compounding works. And so that's at least been my experience so far. And so we're always going to keep pushing the envelope. And so far, we keep seeing more ways to make improvements to the product, in part because that's what customers expect. And that's actually why I've always believed that customer expectations have always been, candidly, the most difficult form of competition.

而我認為，至少對我來說，在將近 11 年、但其實超過 10 年的實作過程中學到的一個教訓是：我們總是低估了這些事情最終能走多遠。我覺得這某種程度上是在對抗人性，對吧？因為我認為人性會想知道存在某種邊際報酬，並且它會變成一個凹函數。但最後發生的情況是，你要嘛被下一個技術平台驚訝到，要嘛被複利如何運作驚訝到。至少到目前為止，這就是我的經驗。所以我們會一直推動界線。而到目前為止，我們持續看到更多能改善產品的方法，部分原因是客戶就是這樣期待的。也正因如此，我一直相信，坦白說，客戶期待一直是最難應付的一種競爭形式。

I think your second question was around platforms and are restaurants may be adopting more now than before. I think it's a few things. So I think when it comes to adopting products that help retailers, physical retailers, become more digital, it's one of the things where it's a journey and sometimes the journey takes nonlinear steps, if that makes any sense. Because if you think about it from the perspective of the merchant, I mean, they have so many years of running a physical business, and it's such a big part of their businesses still today, that they kind of just have to get it right, right? And if that goes wrong, or any shock to that system, then it's a really big impact to the overall company and the people who work there.

我想你的第二個問題是關於平台，以及餐廳是否可能比以前更願意採用。我認為有幾個因素。我覺得當談到採用能幫助零售商、實體零售商變得更數位化的產品時，這是一段旅程，而這段旅程有時會以非線性的步伐前進——如果這樣說得通的話。因為如果你從商家的角度來看，他們經營實體業務已經很多年了，而且直到今天這仍然是他們業務中非常大的一部分，所以他們某種程度上必須把它做對，對吧？如果那裡出錯，或是那個系統受到任何衝擊，就會對整體公司以及在那裡工作的人造成非常大的影響。

And so sometimes, these things just kind of have like a natural rhythm that may take a little bit longer than you would expect. But I think what's encouraging is just that the appetite is moving in one direction. And so a lot of times, the timing of these kinds of changes, whether it's rolling out new products or doing more with us on fulfillment, or whether it's in restaurants or other categories, that's like maybe less predictable. But what is known is that the direction of travel is always in the direction of greater digital, greater convenience.

所以有時候，這些事情會有一種自然的節奏，可能會比你預期的花更久。但我認為令人鼓舞的是，胃口正在朝著同一個方向移動。所以很多時候，這類改變的時點——不論是推出新產品、或是在履約（fulfillment）上與我們做更多合作，或是不論是在餐廳或其他類別——可能比較難以預測。但可以確定的是，前進的方向永遠是更數位化、更便利。

Your next question comes from the line of Bernie McTernan with Needham & Company.

下一個問題來自 Needham & Company 的 Bernie McTernan。

Great. Just wanted to ask, the core U.S. restaurant business decelerated slightly in the quarter on a pro forma or ex leap year basis. What was the major driver of that? I know law of large numbers can be playing a factor here. And if you'd be willing to share if it was still a double-digit grower ex leap year in the first quarter?

很好。我想問一下，美國核心餐廳業務在本季以備考（pro forma）或排除閏年影響（ex leap year）的基礎來看，增速略有放緩。主要驅動因素是什麼？我知道大數法則可能在這裡起作用。另外，如果你願意分享的話，第一季在排除閏年影響後是否仍是雙位數成長？

Yes, Bernie, I mean, I'll take this one. I mean I look at the performance of the business in Q1, I mean I was really pleased with the overall progress and performance of the business. I mean the U.S. restaurant business is large at this point. It's growing. It's gained share in the quarter, not just in Q1, but when I look at over the course of the last year. When I look at users and order frequency, both have continued to grow quite nicely. Users, last quarter, we talked about the fact that we have more than 37 million consumers on the platform. That number has continued to grow since that point. The growing users at double-digit rates. Order frequency continues to be at an all-time high.

是的，Bernie，我來回答這題。我的意思是，我看第一季（Q1）的業務表現，我對整體進展和表現非常滿意。我的意思是，美國餐廳業務現在規模已經很大了。它仍在成長。本季它提升了市占，不只是 Q1，而是我回顧過去一整年也是如此。當我看用戶數與下單頻率，兩者都持續相當不錯地成長。用戶方面，上季我們提到平台上有超過 3,700 萬名消費者。從那之後，這個數字仍在成長，用戶以雙位數的速度成長。下單頻率也持續處於歷史新高。

When I look at the underlying cohort performance, I mean, it's very strong. DashPass subscribers continue to be at record highs as well. But look, I mean, we've invested to continue to expand the size and scope of the platform and the opportunity in front of us. When you look at new verticals, that business is growing. Grocery, we talked about that business is doubling for 3 straight quarters in a row. International business is growing quite nicely. Our strategy of having multiple categories in multiple countries is going to allow us to really drive strong growth for many years to come.

當我看底層的同批用戶（cohort）表現，確實非常強勁。DashPass 訂閱者也持續創下新高。但你看，我們已經投入資源，持續擴大平台的規模與範圍，以及我們面前的機會。當你看新垂直領域（new verticals），那塊業務在成長。雜貨（grocery）方面，我們談過那塊業務已經連續 3 個季度翻倍成長。國際業務也成長得相當不錯。我們在多個國家經營多個品類的策略，將使我們在未來很多年都能真正推動強勁成長。

Your next question comes from the line of Lee Horowitz with Deutsche Bank.

下一個問題來自德意志銀行（Deutsche Bank）的 Lee Horowitz。

Great. I just wanted to ask on the macro environment a little bit. You've heard from a number of restaurants chains this quarter indicating incrementally weak consumer demand environment, with inflation perhaps being in place higher for longer, finally catching up to the consumer. Can you comment at all maybe what you're seeing in the overall macro environment in terms of overall demand into the restaurant business and how that may be impacting sort of your outlook for the 2Q and the rest of the year?

很好。我想稍微問一下總體環境（macro environment）。本季你已經聽到不少連鎖餐廳表示，消費者需求環境逐步走弱，通膨可能「更高、更久」地維持，終於開始追上消費者。你能否評論一下你們在整體總體環境中、就餐廳業務的整體需求所觀察到的情況，以及這可能如何影響你們對第二季（2Q）與今年剩餘時間的展望？

Yes, I can take that. I mean, in general, we're not seeing, I think, the signs of strain on the consumer. But I think it perhaps has something to do with the segment that we operate in, which is digital and delivery. I do understand that there are some headwinds that certain merchants face when it comes to in-store traffic. But when it comes to all things digital, we're actually not seeing I think those same signs of strength. I mean, even, for example, in the U.S. restaurants business, I mean, the growth is pretty consistent over the last 6 quarters. So that's, whatever, 18 months or something that, at that roughly has true for. And so we tend to see that to be true there. We even see it true in other categories, even categories like grocery where you're still seeing very sticky or very high inflation in terms of input prices, which has led to high prices on grocery items. But I think on the digital side, we tend to see pretty strong demand. And that's why you see a relatively stable growth.

是的，我可以回答。整體而言，我們沒有看到我認為的消費者吃緊跡象。但我想這可能與我們所處的細分領域有關，也就是數位與外送。我確實理解，某些商家在門市來客（in-store traffic）方面面臨一些逆風。但當談到所有數位相關的事情時，我們其實沒有看到我認為同樣的壓力跡象。我的意思是，即便以美國餐廳業務為例，過去 6 個季度的成長相當一致。也就是說，大概 18 個月左右，這個趨勢大致成立。所以我們往往看到那裡是如此。我們甚至在其他類別也看到同樣情況，即便像雜貨這種品類，你仍然看到投入成本（input prices）方面非常黏著或非常高的通膨，導致雜貨商品價格偏高。但我認為在數位端，我們往往看到相當強勁的需求。這也是為什麼你會看到相對穩定的成長。

Yes. Just to add to that, right, like demand continues to be very strong. You can see that in the cohorts as well. When I look at the 2023 cohorts, they're as strong as any of the other cohorts we've seen. I talked earlier on the previous question, order frequency has continued to set at an all-time record in Q1. And when we look at the newer cohorts, they're actually joining the platform at higher order frequency compared to many of the other cohorts. DashPass also had a very good quarter. Last year, we ended DashPass with over 18 million subscribers. That number has continued to grow. So when I look at the growth across all 3 lines of business, we are really pleased, all 3 lines of business growing double digits, very strong as well as gaining share across the board.

是的。再補充一下，對吧，需求仍然非常強勁。你也可以從同批用戶（cohorts）中看到這點。當我看 2023 年的 cohorts，它們和我們看過的任何其他 cohorts 一樣強。我在前一題也提到，下單頻率在 Q1 持續創下歷史新高。而當我們看較新的 cohorts，它們加入平台時的下單頻率，實際上比許多其他 cohorts 更高。DashPass 也有一個非常好的季度。去年我們以超過 1,800 萬名訂閱者結束 DashPass，那個數字仍在成長。所以當我看三條業務線的成長，我們真的很滿意——三條業務線都以雙位數成長，非常強勁，同時也在各方面提升市占。

Your next question comes from the line of Ken Gawrelski, Wells Fargo.

下一個問題來自 Wells Fargo 的 Ken Gawrelski。

This is Alec Brondolo on for Ken. You noted earlier in the call that the investment that you're going to make in New York City, in Seattle, around the minimum wage was going to decrease through the year. I'm sure there's a consumer fee component of that, but it also sounds like there's probably operational changes that you're making in those markets to improve profitability. So could you maybe speak to those, to the level of specificity, anyway you can?

我是代 Ken 提問的 Alec Brondolo。你先前在電話會議中提到，因最低工資而在紐約市、在西雅圖要做的投資，會在今年內逐步下降。我確定其中有一部分是消費者費用（consumer fee）的因素，但聽起來你們也可能在那些市場做了一些營運上的調整，以改善獲利能力。所以你能否談談那些調整——在你能提供的具體程度範圍內？

And then maybe secondly, I think that thinking about Dasher supply since COVID, it seems like it's been a little cyclical. In '21, when people are getting stimulus checks, Dasher supply was tight and it seems like it's been very favorable over the last 12 to 18 months. Could you maybe just speak to your outlook for Dasher supply? Should it remain healthy over the next year or two? Any potential changes to the supply environment would be helpful, too.

然後第二點，我想談談自 COVID 以來的 Dasher 供給情況，看起來似乎有點週期性。21 年大家領到紓困支票時，Dasher 供給偏緊；而過去 12 到 18 個月看起來又非常有利。你們能否談談對 Dasher 供給的展望？未來一到兩年是否應能維持健康？另外，若供給環境可能出現任何變化，也請分享。

Sure. I mean I can start maybe on the question. I think in general, when it comes to regulatory, it's honestly just making the best with what you have, right? I mean we know what customers expect. They want the widest selection. They want the lowest prices, the best quality and the best levels of support. So that's what you should expect us to do in any market. And then also at the same time, I think we'll work with regulators to show them, I think, the impact of some of the work that they've contributed. And especially when it's gone opposite of what they hope to achieve, we certainly want to show them those results, too.

當然。我可以先從這個問題開始。我認為整體來說，談到監管，老實說就是在既有條件下做到最好，對吧？我們知道客戶期待什麼：他們要最廣的選擇、最低的價格、最好的品質，以及最好的支援水準。所以在任何市場，你都可以期待我們朝這些方向去做。同時，我想我們也會與監管機構合作，向他們說明我認為他們所推動的一些工作所帶來的影響。尤其當結果與他們希望達成的目標相反時，我們當然也希望把這些結果呈現給他們。

Yes. Just to add to what Tony talked about, on Seattle, New York, you're right, I mean we did absorb costs in Q1. I do expect the amount of cost that we'll absorb to reduce as we go through the rest of the year. That's largely being driven by further improvements in efficiency, whether it's logistics, quality, credits and refunds. We're going to take a look at the entire P&L and see where we are going to continue to drive efficiency, which will ultimately drive improvement in unit economics. And at the same time, our goal is to ensure that all the markets that we operate in have sustainable unit economics. But again, there, it's going to be gradual, but that's the goal for us in general.

是的，補充 Tony 剛才提到的，關於西雅圖、紐約，你說得沒錯，我們在第一季確實吸收了成本。我預期我們吸收的成本金額會在今年剩餘期間逐步下降。這主要是由進一步的效率提升所驅動，不論是在物流、品質、點數補償（credits）與退款方面。我們會檢視整個損益表（P&L），看看我們將在哪些地方持續推動效率，最終帶動單位經濟（unit economics）的改善。同時，我們的目標是確保我們營運的所有市場都具備可持續的單位經濟。不過同樣地，這會是循序漸進的，但這就是我們整體的目標。

And I think the second point around Dasher supply, supply chain continues to be very healthy. When I look at Dasher costs, we've driven leverage and efficiency despite absorbing some of the regulatory costs on a year-over-year basis. As I look ahead, for us, efficiency largely comes from improvements that we are going to make on the product side. If you look at over the course of the last year, we've made a number of improvements, whether it's redesigning the Dasher app, updating the way Dashers earn on the platform, all of that is driving increase in Dasher attention, which is making Dasher acquisition more efficient. And at the same time, we are seeing more hours from existing Dashers, which is making Dasher Pay also more efficient. We have a long list of improvements that we continue to plan to make, which will make Dasher cost overall more efficient across the board.

我想第二點關於 Dasher 供給，供給端仍然非常健康。當我看 Dasher 成本時，即使我們在年對年基礎上吸收了一些監管成本，我們仍推動了槓桿與效率。展望未來，對我們而言，效率主要來自我們在產品端將要做的改進。回顧過去一年，我們做了多項改善，例如重新設計 Dasher App、更新 Dasher 在平台上的賺取方式；這些都在提升 Dasher 的投入度（attention），使得 Dasher 招募（acquisition）更有效率。同時，我們也看到既有 Dasher 投入更多工時，這也讓 Dasher Pay 更有效率。我們還有一長串持續規劃中的改進，將使整體 Dasher 成本在各方面都更有效率。

Your next question from the line of Douglas Anmuth with JPMorgan.

下一個問題來自 JPMorgan 的 Douglas Anmuth。

Ravi, you talked about higher EBITDA in the back half relative to the first half. I was just hoping you could help us understand what drives the confidence in better unit economics and then the returns on those first half investments. And also, can you just shed a little more light on the step-up in R&D spending in 1Q and how we should think about that through '24?

Ravi，你提到下半年 EBITDA 會高於上半年。我想請你協助我們理解：是什麼驅動你對更佳單位經濟的信心，以及上半年那些投資的回報？另外，你能否再多說一點第一季研發（R&D）支出增加的原因，以及我們應該如何看待這在 24 年的走勢？

Yes. Doug, I'll take the second half question first and then talk about the R&D spend and the outlook for the rest of the year. First, I mean, the formula is relatively simple, what we've used historically. We've seen that in '23 as well as '22. What you see in the business today is the core restaurant business continues to grow quite nicely, double digits, as well as continued improvement in terms of overall profitability. At the same time, you're seeing the growth in new verticals, whether it's grocery or other parts of the portfolio, as well as the international business where we're continuing to improve the unit economics. I mean a third-party component of the new verticals portfolio is unit economic profitable for a few quarters now. Same is true with international where the entire international portfolio is unit economic profitable for a few quarters now.

好的，Doug，我先回答下半年的問題，接著再談研發支出以及今年剩餘時間的展望。首先，我們歷來採用的公式相對簡單；你在 23 年以及 22 年也都看得到。你現在在業務上看到的是，核心餐廳業務持續相當不錯地成長，達到雙位數，同時整體獲利能力也持續改善。與此同時，你也看到新垂直領域的成長，不論是雜貨（grocery）或投資組合中的其他部分，以及我們在國際業務上持續改善單位經濟。我的意思是，新垂直領域投資組合中的第三方（third-party）部分，已經連續幾個季度達到單位經濟獲利。國際業務也是如此，整個國際投資組合也已連續幾個季度達到單位經濟獲利。

We do expect to drive further efficiency, whether it's Dasher cost, a, the regulatory costs where we absorb the cost that's going to continue to reduce over the course of the year. Quality has been a key area of focus for us. Credits and refunds are going to get more efficient. Our ads business is growing. If you combine that with the investments we're making in H1, which will drive not only scale but also leverage, I do expect volume to increase as we go through the rest of the year as well as unit economics to improve as we go through the rest of the year. The combination of both of those is going to have second half EBITDA be higher than the first half. The reason I'm confident is we've done this before. 2023 is exactly the same pattern as well as in '22. And when I'm looking at the business, whether it's Q1 or Q2 guide over the rest of the year, I feel very good about both the top line as well as the bottom line.

我們確實預期會進一步推動效率，不論是 Dasher 成本、以及我們所吸收的監管成本，這些吸收的成本會在今年過程中持續下降。品質一直是我們的重點領域。點數補償與退款也會變得更有效率。我們的廣告業務正在成長。若再加上我們在上半年所做的投資，這些投資不僅會帶來規模，也會帶來槓桿效益，我確實預期隨著今年剩餘時間推進，交易量（volume）會增加，單位經濟也會改善。兩者結合將使下半年 EBITDA 高於上半年。我之所以有信心，是因為我們以前做過。2023 年就是完全相同的模式，22 年也是。當我看這門生意，不論是第一季或第二季指引到今年剩餘時間，我對營收端（top line）以及獲利端（bottom line）都感到非常樂觀。

And the second point on R&D., I mean, look, Doug, our goal is not just to drive strong growth in '24, right, but for many years to come. We're fortunate that we are operating in large segments where we still find great opportunities to invest. The key investment we are making is continuing to improve the product. As we improve the product, you're seeing that impact of both retention going up as well as order frequency going up. For us, we are adding head count this year. We're going to be thoughtful. We're adding engineers to help us improve the product. When I look at the rest of the year, I would expect OpEx levels to be similar to what you're seeing in Q1, but longer term, our goal is to continue to drive leverage on OpEx as we continue to grow the business.

第二點關於研發（R&D），Doug，你看，我們的目標不只是推動 24 年的強勁成長，還要在未來很多年持續成長。我們很幸運，因為我們所處的都是規模很大的市場區隔，仍然能找到很好的投資機會。我們最關鍵的投資是持續改善產品。隨著我們改善產品，你會看到留存（retention）提升、下單頻率也提升。對我們而言，我們今年會增加人力編制。我們會審慎進行；我們正在增加工程師，以協助我們改善產品。展望今年剩餘時間，我預期營業費用（OpEx）水準會與你在第一季看到的相近；但長期而言，隨著我們持續擴大業務，我們的目標是持續在 OpEx 上推動槓桿效益。

Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes today's call. Thank you all for joining, and you may now disconnect your lines.

各位女士、先生，今天的電話會議到此結束。感謝各位參與，現在您可以掛斷電話。