Thailand’s food-delivery heavyweights are lining up behind a government proposal to resurrect the co-payment scheme that many restaurateurs remember fondly — and for good reason. Industry leaders say the programme, which was credited with turbocharging small restaurant sales up to fivefold during its previous run, could be just the jolt the country’s dining sector and wider economy need as growth cools.
“Grab is fully behind the government’s plan,” Chantsuda Thananitayaudom, managing director of Grab Thailand, told reporters. “We’re ready to collaborate through marketing campaigns and financial support once it’s confirmed.” Grab, she noted, took part in the scheme three years ago when participating merchants reported dramatic spikes in orders and revenue.
Big names, practical ideas
On September 9, executives from major delivery platforms including Grab and LINE MAN Wongnai met with Bhumjaithai Party deputy leader Siripong Angkasakulkiat and representatives from the Thai Restaurant Association to discuss bringing the co-payment model back. The meeting also explored trimming the gross profit fees that delivery apps take — an issue that small restaurants say can make or break thin margins.
LINE MAN Wongnai chief executive Yod Chinsupakul proposed a tweak to how the subsidy could be handed out: instead of a one-off payout, distribute it in weekly instalments. “Allocate the support weekly and you create sustained spending — not just a single-week spike,” Yod explained. The idea is simple and clever: stretch the stimulus so restaurants get a steadier stream of customers, rather than a single glut that fades as quickly as it arrived.
Why the scheme matters now
The urgency is easy to see on the ground. Yod pointed to a troubling slide in sales across the country — restaurant receipts fell about 14% nationwide in Q2, with even steeper drops in parts of Bangkok. In central districts like Banthat Thong, some restaurateurs reported plunges of roughly 35%. For many owners, 2025 is shaping up to be one of the toughest years in memory.
That’s why memories of the co-payment programme’s previous successes are so potent. During the scheme’s earlier iteration, small restaurants reportedly saw sales jump between 1.7 to four times, while delivery-only businesses averaged around a 2.5x bump. In some pockets, the lift was described as “transformational” — orders surged, kitchens scrambled, and owners finally caught up on rent and bills.
Practical safeguards and faster rollout
Yod stressed that the scheme can be designed to reduce fraud. Requiring customers to co-pay and limiting participation to verified merchants helps keep the support targeted at legitimate businesses, he said — a point also highlighted in coverage by Bangkok Post. To speed implementation if the plan is approved, LINE MAN Wongnai has offered its updated restaurant database to the government, which could streamline merchant registration and get subsidies flowing sooner.
Platforms have also shown flexibility in the past. During earlier rounds of the scheme, delivery apps cut fees at the government’s request to ensure more of the subsidy reached the restaurants. While no final deal was reached at the September 9 meeting, the willingness to collaborate was clear.
Not just about meals — it’s about momentum
Beyond boosting individual restaurants, the co-payment scheme is being pitched as a way to nudge consumer confidence and spending at a time when the broader economy is losing steam. Think of it as a two-for-one: diners get a cheaper meal, restaurateurs get more customers, and the circulation of cash picks up a little pace.
Whether the new version will match — or even improve on — the previous scheme’s outcomes depends on the details: distribution cadence, merchant verification, fee adjustments, and anti-fraud measures. Yod’s weekly-disbursement idea is one smart attempt to make the policy more than a flash-in-the-pan fix.
What comes next
With Grab’s public backing and LINE MAN Wongnai offering technical help, the pieces are in place for a quick roll-out if policymakers decide to proceed. Restaurants across Bangkok and beyond are watching closely. For many small owners, the co-payment programme isn’t just another subsidy; it’s potentially the difference between staying afloat and struggling through another tough quarter.
As Thai food platforms, politicians, and restaurateurs continue to negotiate the finer points, one thing is clear: the appetite for relief is real, and the delivery apps appear ready to help serve it up.
Photo credits: ThaiPR.Net; Bangkok Post
This co-payment plan could be a lifeline for small eateries in my neighborhood; last time it really filled the tables and helped owners pay rent. I’m glad Grab and LINE MAN are cooperating, but details on merchant verification and fee cuts matter a lot. Fingers crossed the government avoids bureaucracy and rolls it out fast.
Fast rollouts always sound good until fraud eats half the budget and legitimate shops get left behind. We’ve seen poorly designed subsidies before turn into favors for big players. Verification is the make-or-break piece here.
Exactly — that’s why I hope they use LINE MAN’s updated database and strict KYC, not just a rushed sign-up portal where bots and clones game the system. Small business owners I know would rather a slower, fair process than a flashy but leaky one.
From an economic standpoint, targeted temporal subsidies can give a short-term boost to consumption without large inflationary impact, provided leakage is minimal. Weekly disbursements could smooth demand, but policymakers must model fiscal multipliers and substitution effects carefully.
Are you saying the scheme won’t cause price hikes from platforms or restaurants passing costs to consumers? That’s my fear if it’s not regulated tightly.
There is a risk of pass-through, yes, but empirical studies suggest temporary vouchers mostly increase quantity rather than permanently raise prices; transparency and monitoring reduce opportunistic pricing. Still, enforcement is essential.
Good to hear there’s data, but I still want to see the enforcement plan before cheering. Too many promises, not enough teeth in policy.
I agree — enforcement and merchant verification should be public so consumers and owners trust the program. If it’s transparent, more diners will participate and the plan will actually help.
Transparency is great, but small restaurants need quick cash now; bureaucracy kills momentum. Weekly payouts sound reasonable and practical to me.
As a small restaurant owner, weekly support would let me keep staff and buy supplies without panic. Monthly lump sums are useless when bills come every week.
That’s short-term relief speaking, but are we nurturing dependency? What happens when subsidies stop—restaurants could be weaker and customers retrench.
Better to have breathing room and get through a bad quarter than to debate abstract dependency while shops close. We need pragmatic help.
You can design exit strategies — tapering, eligibility based on revenue recovery, or coupling with training and cost-reduction incentives to avoid creating permanent reliance. Policymakers should plan for that now.
Tapering sounds fine on paper, but enforcement again. My worry is cronies getting first dibs while genuine mom-and-pop places wait months.
That’s why I liked the idea that LINE MAN offered their database. It can speed verification and limit fake signups if done right. Put the tech to work for fairness.
Thanks everyone for such a detailed thread — this is exactly the kind of scrutiny we need from the public. If platforms, government, and restaurateurs keep talking like this, the rollout stands a better chance.
I saw my local noodle stall boom last time around; customers came back for weeks after the subsidy. Small vendors don’t want charity, they want customers, and this is a cheap way to give them some. Platform fees still bite though.
Cheap for whom? The fiscal cost adds up and may mean higher taxes or cuts elsewhere later. Stimulus must be carefully timed and limited.
If the multiplier is high, the short-term spending could actually help tax receipts in the medium term. But I hear you—measure the cost-effectiveness please.
Agreed on measuring multipliers; but don’t forget distributional effects. Who benefits more: urban middle-class app users or struggling rural vendors?
In other countries, vouchers were tweaked to favour underserved areas and small merchants, so it’s possible to nudge distribution. It requires intentional design, not just blanket handouts.
Weekly payouts? Genius. Keeps customers ordering regularly and eateries breathing. Why didn’t anyone think of this sooner?
Glad to see public enthusiasm — weekly allocation is meant to sustain demand and avoid glut. We also offered our database to speed verification and cut red tape.
Thanks for jumping in, Yod. Will merchants pay less commission this round or is that still on the negotiating table?
We discussed trimming gross profit fees at the meeting and platforms have shown flexibility before. Final decisions depend on the government’s framework and subsidy design.
So it sounds like words, not guarantees. Platforms are voluntary; we’ve seen fee promises evaporate when the heat’s off.
I hear you, Linda. We aim for concrete commitments once the policy specifics are settled and will work with authorities to ensure more support reaches merchants.
Does this mean my parents can order cheaper food every week? That’s cool. I hope small shops don’t disappear though, they make the best snacks.
Kids notice the things that matter — cheaper meals help families. But also teach your folks to support their favorite local spots even after the subsidy ends.
I will. I already drew a menu for our favorite stall to remind my family where to reorder from.
The reported 14% drop in Q2 is worrying and justifies targeted interventions, but we must compare this tool with alternatives like payroll subsidies or VAT cuts. Which policy gives the best bang for the baht?
VAT cuts are broad and benefit the wealthy too; targeted co-payments hit the suppliers and consumers in the food sector directly. Choice depends on political priorities and speed of implementation.
Agreed, targeted tools can be more efficient. My point is only that we should model alternatives before locking in large fiscal commitments.
How about ensuring the subsidy helps informal vendors who never registered with platforms? Otherwise it’s just corporate PR for apps. Many street vendors were left out last time.
Inclusion is hard but doable; maybe a hybrid model with on-ground registration and platform verification could work. Mobile teams could help register informal vendors quickly.
On-ground registration sounds expensive but necessary. If we exclude the street food scene, the policy loses its cultural and economic impact.
Delivery-only places saw a 2.5x bump previously, but kitchens were overwhelmed and quality dropped. Supply chain and staffing need to be part of the plan, not just demand stimulation.
Good point — sudden demand without support can harm reputation. Maybe part of the subsidy could subsidize hiring or training for tiny kitchens.
Bundling short-term demand boosts with capacity-building measures increases long-term resilience. It’s slightly costlier but more sustainable.
I worry about market concentration — discounts might push customers to only use big-platform partners, squeezing out independent channels. Competition policy should be considered.
True, subsidies tied to specific platforms can entrench market power. Authorities should ensure neutrality or require cross-platform acceptance to avoid anti-competitive outcomes.
So the government needs to design the scheme to be platform-agnostic or penalize exclusivity. Otherwise we’ll solve one problem and create another.
Platforms competing to offer better merchant terms could be good though; not all consolidation is bad if it benefits merchants and consumers.
Competition can be good, but when subsidies tilt the playing field, it becomes manipulation rather than market forces. Neutrality is key.
Politicians love these visible giveaways before budgets. My concern is political timing and whether this is more about votes than economics. Still, I’d take the help for my family’s cantina.
It’s both politics and necessity; when economic indicators are weak, visible support is expected. The public sees tangible benefits quickly with such a scheme.
Then let’s demand transparency and sunset clauses. If it works it can be repeated, but with clear metrics.
What about the long-term fiscal cost and potential for governments to overuse this tool? One good idea can become a recurring entitlement. Cautious here.
That’s a valid macro concern. Build in explicit sunsets, performance reviews, and conditionality to avoid policy creep and ensure the tool is used only when needed.
If it saves one auntie’s stall, I’m in favor. Not a deep economist, just a neighbor who wants to keep our local flavors alive.