But this assumption is starting to reach its limits.

Urban mobility research has been pointing to a deeper issue for decades: the real driver of emissions and inefficiency is not the vehicle, but the structure of movement itself. What matters most is not how we move, but how much movement a city requires in the first place. The distances between where we live, work, and consume directly determine energy use and environmental impact.

This is why dense cities consistently perform better. Not necessarily because their transport systems are cleaner, but because they fundamentally require less movement.

It also explains why one of the most common interventions — increasing road capacity — keeps falling short. More capacity does not reduce congestion; it generates more traffic over time.

These patterns point to a structural constraint: systems that continuously add new movement will eventually run into physical, economic, and regulatory limits.

This is where logistics becomes critical.

Last-mile delivery today operates as an additional layer within the city. Each parcel typically generates a new movement — another route, another vehicle, another contribution to urban traffic. As volumes grow, this layer expands on top of existing mobility systems, increasing pressure on infrastructure that is already constrained.

At the same time, cities are evolving in a different direction. They are limiting vehicle access, introducing low-emission zones, reallocating public space, and trying to reduce congestion. This creates a growing tension: not because logistics is “wrong”, but because it is not yet fully aligned with how cities are changing.

This is not a reason to replace existing logistics systems.
In fact, those systems — national carriers, depots, hubs, locker networks — remain essential.

The shift is happening elsewhere.

Instead of building parallel delivery flows for every parcel, the opportunity is to better connect logistics with the movement that already exists in the city. To use available capacity more intelligently, to reduce unnecessary trips, and to integrate delivery into existing urban dynamics wherever possible.

This is not about removing infrastructure or rewriting the system from scratch.
It is about adding a layer of flexibility and optimization on top of it.

From this perspective, the role of logistics starts to change. It moves from a standalone activity toward a more integrated function within the city’s overall flow — still supported by existing networks, but operating with greater adaptability.

This is exactly the insight the entire Tourmix model is built on.

Not as a replacement for established logistics systems, but as a complementary layer that helps them operate more efficiently under new constraints. By leveraging movements that are already happening, reducing the need for additional dedicated trips, and fitting into the city instead of adding pressure to it, this approach aligns with the direction urban systems are already taking.

The question, therefore, is no longer whether logistics can be made slightly greener through incremental improvements.

It is how existing systems can be extended and optimized so they continue to function more effectively in cities where space is limited, regulation is tightening, and unnecessary movement is increasingly costly.

Under these conditions, integration is no longer just an innovation.
It becomes a practical necessity.

Last-mile logistics is now under structural pressure that forces a completely new operating logic. Persistent driver shortages mean supply cannot scale linearly with demand, while parcel volumes have become increasingly volatile, with strong daily and seasonal fluctuations. At the same time, delivery density is declining, meaning more parcels must be delivered to more dispersed locations, directly increasing unit costs. On top of this, urban restrictions such as low- and zero-emission zones are further constraining the traditional van-based model. This is not temporary—it is a new equilibrium.

In this context, fixed last-mile capacity becomes a risk. Overcapacity leads to losses, while insufficient capacity during peaks results in declining service levels. The system becomes both rigid and fragile. This is where the second wave of the sharing economy emerges—not as disruption, but as optimization.

Sharing Economy 2.0 does not replace infrastructure—it integrates into it. The backbone network remains intact, as does the locker and PUDO infrastructure, which is becoming increasingly dominant. Service providers retain control. The real shift happens at a much narrower but critical point: the last meter.

Here, a new buffer layer appears: flexible, integrated last-meter capacity that can absorb volatility without disrupting the system. This capacity is not fixed (no constant cost), but can scale up during peaks and contract when volumes are low. It is embedded into existing operations, not isolated, and its role is clear: not to replace the system, but to stabilize it.

With this shift, the sharing economy moves beyond its earlier narrative. It is no longer about community or side income. It becomes institutional risk management. For logistics providers, this is not optional—it directly addresses how to manage volatility without fixed costs, maintain service levels under constraints, and comply with urban and ESG pressures.

The key shift is conceptual. The question is no longer “Can the system be replaced?”, but “How can it be optimized without breaking it?” This is a more mature and scalable approach: it integrates instead of disrupts, complements instead of replaces, and delivers efficiency instead of promises.

The sharing economy has not disappeared—it has been absorbed into infrastructure. It is less visible, but far more relevant. The winners in the coming years will not be those building new platforms, but those who can optimize existing systems from within.

The hype cycle is over. The structural change has begun. We are ready to get started.

In the early 2010s, the model appeared not just as a business innovation, but as a structural economic shift. Platforms like Airbnb and Uber demonstrated that underutilized resources — homes, cars, time — could be transformed into global services through digital coordination.

The narrative was powerful: decentralization, community, democratized access. Between 2015 and 2020, global search trends pushed the term “sharing economy” to its peak. Among the most searched topics were car sharing, peer-to-peer models, crowdfunding, and blockchain. The platform economy became tightly intertwined with the venture capital boom and the era of “disruption.”

The turning point came around 2020. English-language search interest declined significantly. This does not indicate the disappearance of the model, but rather its normalization. What was once revolutionary has become an integrated part of the economy. Airbnb and Uber have become institutionalized players.

In Europe, the sharing economy quickly collided with regulatory realities. Cities such as Barcelona and Berlin introduced strict limitations on short-term rentals. The initial phase of unregulated innovation was followed by institutionalization.

In Hungary, search interest peaked between 2016 and 2018. Budapest became a prominent stage for the Airbnb boom, while Uber expanded rapidly before withdrawing under regulatory pressure. The revolutionary atmosphere was replaced by structured operation.

The most important insight, however, runs deeper: behind decentralized resource usage stood highly centralized platforms. Sharing economy 1.0 often did not aim to optimize existing systems, but to replace them. This is where friction began.

This is especially true in logistics.

Crowdshipping: The Illusion of Logistics

In theory, crowdshipping perfectly aligned with the logic of the sharing economy. Millions of commuters. Underutilized vehicle capacity. Flexible routes. Numerous studies highlighted the model’s potential.

In practice, however, very few models scaled meaningfully.

Why? Because logistics is not simply about matching supply and demand.
Logistics is infrastructure.

– high volume
– strict SLAs
– liability chains
– network optimization
– system integration

Most early crowdshipping models attempted to operate outside the network. They did not integrate into the core systems of carriers. They tried to replace the backbone.

But large operators cannot delegate control of their backbone to a loose, non-integrated crowd layer.

Crowdshipping did not fail because the core idea was flawed.
It failed because it tried to exist outside the infrastructure.

How can the principles of the sharing economy still work in logistics? How did we get to Sharing Economy 2.0? We’ll reveal all in our next blog post...

In the early 2010s, this looked like a genuine economic revolution. Companies such as Airbnb and Uber did not only introduce new services; they challenged existing industry structures. The narrative was powerful: decentralization, community, sustainability, and democratized access. At the time, the sharing economy was not just a business model — it was also an ideology.

Search trends illustrate this rise clearly. Global interest in the term “sharing economy” peaked between 2015 and 2020. The most frequently associated topics included Airbnb, Uber, car sharing, peer-to-peer models, crowdfunding, blockchain, and platforms like Lyft. During this period, the platform economy and the promise of decentralization merged with the broader technology hype cycle and the boom of venture capital investment. The sharing economy became one of the flagship narratives of the “disruption” era.

The turning point came around 2020. English-language searches for the term began to decline significantly. However, this does not signal the collapse of the model — rather, it reflects its normalization. What once seemed revolutionary has become integrated into everyday economic systems. Platforms like Airbnb and Uber are no longer experimental disruptors; they are institutionalized actors. The hype faded, but the model remained.

At the same time, a geographical shift became visible. Over the past five years, search growth has mainly come from Spanish, Chinese, and Indian language queries. This suggests that the concept and narrative of the sharing economy are now gaining renewed momentum in emerging markets. In many developed economies the debate has largely settled, while in other regions the narrative is still being formed.

In Europe, the sharing economy quickly collided with regulatory realities. Short-term rental platforms, for example, created housing tensions in several major cities. Barcelona and Berlin introduced strict regulations on Airbnb-type services. After an initial period of relatively unregulated innovation, platforms were forced to adapt to urban and national legal frameworks. In Europe, the sharing economy did not disappear — it became institutionalized and partially domesticated.

In Hungary, search trends peaked between 2016 and 2018. The two most frequently searched terms in this context were Airbnb and Uber. Budapest became a particularly visible stage for these dynamics: the boom in short-term apartment rentals and the rapid expansion of Uber reshaped perceptions of urban mobility and tourism within a short period. Regulatory responses followed quickly. Uber exited the market, while Airbnb operations were placed under stricter rules. The initial revolutionary atmosphere was replaced by a more regulated and pragmatic reality.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that the original promise of the sharing economy — that sharing would replace ownership as the dominant model — has only partially materialized. Behind decentralized resource use stand highly centralized platforms. Behind the community narrative often stand capital-intensive global corporations. The model did not disappear, but it lost much of its early idealism.

Today we speak less about the sharing economy and more about the platform economy. Car sharing, micromobility, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer marketplaces have become part of everyday life. The decline in search trends does not signal declining relevance; it indicates that the concept has moved beyond the hype phase and become a structural element of modern economies.

The key question today is no longer whether the sharing economy exists, but where it is heading next. Can it create genuine community value, or will it remain primarily an efficient intermediary model? Can it build more sustainable systems, or does it simply reshape existing inequalities?

The hype cycle is over. The real test is happening now — more quietly, with fewer searches, but with far greater economic weight.

The hype around the sharing economy faded because the 1.0 model attempted to replace existing systems. The 2.0 model focuses on optimizing them. And this is exactly what happens in the Tourmix model: we integrate what already works within existing logistics systems, while optimizing it through flexibility and distributed capacity.

What do these customers actually want? First, they still care about speed, but not in the old, one-dimensional “as fast as possible at any cost” way. Many people are happy with next-day or even two-day delivery – as long as it’s reliable. What really triggers frustration is the vague promise of “2–5 business days” and the feeling of waiting in the dark. A conscious customer doesn’t necessarily need a parcel in three hours; they need to know when to expect it and to trust that the promise will be kept.

That’s where precise time windows and real flexibility come in. The days of “we’ll drop by sometime between 8:00 and 18:00, please stay home” are numbered. People want deliveries to fit into real life: the school run, office hours, gym sessions, train trips, co-working days. A good delivery option today lets them choose where and roughly when their parcel arrives – home, office, locker, café – and ideally makes it easy to adjust if plans change. Conscious customers don’t see this as a luxury anymore; they see it as basic respect for their time.

On top of that, there’s a clear shift towards wanting a green option at checkout. More and more shoppers are aware that every van, every extra trip, every failed delivery attempt has a footprint. They may not know the exact CO₂ numbers, but they feel the logic: fewer vehicles, fewer empty kilometres, less pointless circling for parking is better for their city. Crucially, though, most of them don’t want to pay a big premium for it. The message they’re sending is: “I’ll happily choose the greener option – as long as it’s clearly marked, easy to understand, and not dramatically more expensive.” In other words, sustainability should be a smart default, not a luxury add-on.

This creates a challenge – and an opportunity – for brands and logistics partners. The challenge: conscious customers are raising the bar (speed, time windows, flexibility, green choices), while keeping a tight ceiling on what they’re willing to pay for delivery. The opportunity: those same customers reward companies that manage to align convenience, transparency and responsibility. They remember when a delivery fits into their day instead of forcing them to rearrange it. They notice when there’s a clearly labelled low-emission option. And they are increasingly choosing – and returning to – brands where the delivery experience feels modern, human and in tune with the city around them.

In practical terms, this means that the future of delivery in Europe isn’t about ever more aggressive “instant” promises. It’s about designing delivery as part of the product experience: clear choices, honest ETAs, smarter use of existing city movement, and green options that don’t feel like a sacrifice. The conscious customer is already here. The question is whether our delivery systems are willing to become just as conscious in return.

Today, last mile freight already punches far above its weight. Vans and urban delivery vehicles take up a disproportionate share of road space compared to their size, stopping and starting, idling in traffic, circling for parking and making frequent short trips. Various studies estimate that urban freight can account for up to 40% of city transport emissions and around 30% of congestion, even though it’s only a fraction of the vehicles on the road. Now layer on top the steady rise of e-commerce: more home deliveries, more same-day promises, more convenience – and more vehicles needed to keep that machine running.

If we scale today’s model into tomorrow, the numbers start to look alarming. Projections for major cities suggest that by 2030, the number of delivery vehicles on the road could increase by more than 30%, and last mile emissions could rise in the same order of magnitude if nothing changes in how we deliver. More vans in the same streets at the same time doesn’t just mean a few extra minutes of delay. It means systematically slower traffic, higher fuel use, more idle-time emissions from engines running while standing still, and higher exposure to air pollution exactly where people live, walk, work and play.

The “emissions bomb” metaphor is not about a sudden explosion – it’s about a predictable build-up. Every new next-day option that relies on a dedicated van, every one-parcel trip that could have been consolidated, every unoptimised route is a small addition to a problem we already understand very well. Left alone, these additions compound. Cities are then forced to react with bans, low-emission zones, stricter access rules and higher costs for the most polluting vehicles. In other words: if the sector doesn’t move first, regulation will move for it – and usually in a way that makes the old model even harder to operate.

The good news is that this trajectory is not fixed. The same last mile that becomes a burden if we copy-paste today’s habits into 2030 can become a leverage point if we redesign it. Smarter route optimisation, consolidation into micro-hubs, a shift towards cargobikes and other micromobility, and models like crowdshipping that use journeys people already make – all of these reduce the number of “extra” kilometres we inject into the city. The question is no longer whether last mile emissions will grow if we do nothing. They will. The real choice is whether we treat the last mile as a ticking problem to manage later, or as a front line where smart, green, human-centred solutions can make cities more liveable right now, and keep that 2030 curve from bending the wrong way.

Crowdshipping is a delivery model that uses people who are already on the move to transport parcels. Instead of sending out a dedicated van just to deliver your order, the system looks for someone who is already going in that direction – a student, a parent, an office worker, a retiree – and gives them the option to take a parcel with them as a small detour. If the city is already full of movement, why add even more vehicles?

In a traditional courier setup, the chain looks like this: depot → van → long route → back to depot. Even if optimised, it still relies on dedicated vehicles making special trips just for parcels.
Crowdshipping flips the logic: instead of asking “How many vans do we need?”, it asks “Who is already moving along this route?” Parcels are matched to existing journeys, saving time, space and traffic.

From the customer’s point of view, the experience feels familiar: delivery windows, tracking, notifications, flexible handover locations. The difference is not in the app, but in the city:
fewer vans, less congestion, fewer inefficient short trips.
For the delivery person (a “crowd courier” or “Mixer”), it’s extra income from a route they already planned to take.

So why now? Because last-mile delivery problems are getting worse: growing e-commerce, emission zones, parking limits, and increasing concern about noise, air quality and congestion.
At the same time, many urban deliveries are small, light and flexible – they don’t truly need a van. Crowdshipping turns everyday movement into a “hidden logistics network.”

Technology finally makes this possible at scale: real-time location data, routing, identity checks, ratings and instant payments. The city was always moving like this – now we can coordinate it.

Crowdshipping is not a solution for everything. Large, heavy or sensitive goods still need specialist vehicles.
But for a large share of urban deliveries – small parcels, short distances, flexible timing – using existing movement is simply smarter.
That’s why crowdshipping is increasingly seen as a key element of future city logistics:
cleaner, more flexible, and more aligned with how cities actually move.

From a distance, it looks simple: you click “Order now”, and a few days later a box appears in your hands. Up close, it’s a long chain of decisions and compromises. Trucks and vans leave depots earlier and earlier, drivers fog up their windscreens with their own breath as they race daylight, and routes get tighter than ever. When everyone orders “for Friday, please”, the city feels it: more vehicles, more stops, more time spent searching for parking, and more stress when one delayed truck dominoes into hundreds of late deliveries.

Cities are not really designed for this kind of spike. Narrow streets, school traffic, Christmas markets, construction sites, tourists, weather – they all collide with the sharp peak of e-commerce. In December, a residential block can see multiple vans on the same street in the same hour, all essentially doing the same thing: carrying similar-sized boxes from different depots to the same doorbells. It’s convenient for the customer, but it’s not exactly efficient for the city. Noise, traffic, emissions and the feeling that “everything is clogged” are part of the invisible price of our festive shopping habits.

The good news is that the city is already full of movement. Students going to class, parents on the school run, office workers commuting, people visiting friends, heading to the gym, crossing town for a Christmas drink. In a traditional model, this everyday movement is completely ignored by logistics. The parcel and the person exist in parallel worlds. But what happens if you start treating those existing routes as an asset, not as background noise? Suddenly the question changes from “How many more vans do we need?” to “How much of this can we solve using what is already in motion?”

This is where community-based delivery models step in. Instead of adding another vehicle to the rush, we match parcels to people who are already going that way. A student heading home after class can bring a package to a neighbour. Someone leaving the office can drop off a gift on the way to the metro. There is no extra trip, no extra traffic jam created just for a single box – only a small detour on an existing route. For the recipient, the experience is still simple: a clearly communicated time window, a friendly handover, and the relief of ticking one more thing off the Christmas list. For the city, it means fewer redundant kilometres and a bit more breathing room in the most intense weeks of the year.

The Christmas parcel avalanche will not disappear; if anything, it will keep growing as more of our festive shopping moves online. But we can decide how that avalanche travels through our streets. We can keep layering vans on top of vans, or we can start weaving parcels into the natural rhythm of the city – into the lives of people who are already in motion. A better use of the energy that already flows through our urban days.

What exactly is an LEZ?

A Low Emission Zone is a part of the city where only vehicles that meet specific environmental standards are allowed to enter. These requirements usually include cleaner Euro 5 or Euro 6 diesel engines, hybrid cars or fully electric vehicles. London already operates the Ultra Low Emission Zone, while Berlin, Paris and Milan also restrict older diesel vehicles. Budapest is preparing to follow.

Why are cities introducing LEZs?

There are three core reasons.

The first is public health. Air pollution shortens thousands of lives every year across Europe, especially in densely populated areas. Reducing emissions is essential for cleaner and safer cities.

The second reason is traffic. Too many delivery vans slow everything down and create unnecessary noise. Cities simply function better with fewer heavy vehicles on the road.

The third is climate policy. The European Green Deal sets ambitious emission reduction targets. Cleaner transport plays a central role in achieving them.

What does this mean for logistics?

Logistics companies will feel the impact sooner than many expect. Older diesel vans will lose access to the busiest parts of cities, which means fleets need to be updated. Electric vehicles help, but they require higher investment, new charging infrastructure and more administrative work.

At the same time, new urban delivery models are gaining momentum. Bike couriers, micro-mobility tools and community-based delivery services offer cleaner and often faster alternatives to traditional vans.

Why is this becoming so urgent?

Most major European cities will introduce some version of an LEZ between 2025 and 2030. This marks a shift that affects every business that relies on last-mile delivery. Consumer behaviour is also changing. Many customers already prefer green delivery options and reward brands that offer them. Companies that adapt early gain a clear advantage.

How does TOURMIX fit into this?

TOURMIX naturally aligns with a low-emission future. Our model does not rely on vans or a traditional vehicle fleet. Deliveries are handled by people who already move through the city. Students, cyclists, parents and retirees make use of their existing routes, which keeps additional emissions close to zero.

Webshops do not need to invest in new vehicles or infrastructure. They simply gain access to a delivery option that is clean, flexible and already compatible with future urban rules.

Low Emission Zones are reshaping the way goods move through cities. They encourage cleaner streets and healthier communities, and they ask businesses to rethink the systems they depend on. Sustainable delivery is not only possible but already practical, and companies that embrace it benefit from a head start.

TOURMIX is ready for this future, and we are building it together with the partners who join us.

A fenntarthatóság és a személyesség találkozása

A TOURMIX küldetése, hogy a városokat közösségi házhozszállítással tegye élhetőbbé: a forgalom, a szennyezés és a zajszint csökkentése mellett az emberi kapcsolódásokat tűzték a zászlójukra. A futárok, vagy ahogy ők nevezik, a mixerek minden kiszállításnál arra törekszenek, hogy személyre szabott élményt biztosítsanak. A mixerek minden esetben tudják, hogy milyen feladótól visznek ki csomagot, így a “Kellemes olvasást!” vagy “Viseld egészséggel!” jellegű jókívánságok a házhozszállítás elengedhetetlen részévé váltak.

Zöld mixernek állnak a hírességek

A november 1. és november 20. között futó kampányhoz öt magyar híresség csatlakozott. A TOURMIX megrendelői ajtót nyithatnak Gundel-Takács Gábor műsorvezetőnek, Bartus Marci “Trendrakó” tartalomgyártónak, Dé:Nash “Nashmeshter” rapper és asztalosnak, Garát Zsombor válogatott jégkorongozónak, vagy Jakabos Zsuzsanna olimpikonnak. A TOURMIX társalapítója, dr. Bagdy Márk szerint az influenszerek is a sajátjuknak érzik a kezdeményezést:

“Jó látni, hogy ismert emberek is hisznek abban, amiben mi: hogy a városi logisztika lehet egyszerre zöld, közösségi és jókedvű. Többüknek saját webshopja is van, így személyesen is tapasztalják, mennyire fontos, hogy a csomagok fenntartható módon, mégis emberi figyelemmel érkezzenek meg.” – hangsúlyozta dr. Bagdy Márk.

A kampányban a TOURMIX számos partnerwebshopja részt vesz, az érdeklődők a teljes listát ezen a linken találhatják meg: https://tourmix.delivery/coupons

A fenntarthatósággal mindenki jól jár

A közösségi kiszállítás nemcsak a környezetünknek kedvez. Amellett, hogy a TOURMIX célja csökkenteni a logisztika környezeti lábnyomát — hiszen világszinten ez az ipar jelenleg a szén-dioxid kibocsátások 24%-ért felel1 — a kényelmes és egyedi igényekhez alkalmazkodó szolgáltatás is fontos számukra. A vásárlók rugalmasan választhatnak a megadott idősávok közül, így a szokásostól eltérően akár kora reggeli, késő esti, vagy hétvégi időpontokban is átvehetik a csomagjaikat. A mixerek számára a TOURMIX rugalmas keresetkiegészítési lehetőséget kínál: az egyetemisták körében kifejezetten népszerű a személyre szabott időbeosztásban végezhető munka, de találkozhatunk a futárok között nyugdíjasokkal, vagy olyan városlakókkal is, akik a mindennapi útjaik során szívesen hozzájárulnak egy fenntarthatóbb jövőhöz egy-egy csomag kézbesítésével. A legszorgalmasabb mixerek akár havi 60 ezer forint extra jövedelemre is szert tehetnek a futárkodással. A zöld logisztikai startup hosszútávon minden városi ember kényelméhez hozzájárul a csomagszállító autók mennyiségének csökkentésével, parkolóhelyek megtakarításával, valamint a zaj- és kipufogógőz mérsékletével.

Forrás:

1: https://www.carboncare.org/en/climate-change

Fő a praktikusság

Az e-commerce jelentősége világszinten megkérdőjelezhetetlenné vált: az előrejelzések szerint idén az online vásárlások globális értéke el fogja érni a 7.4 trillió amerikai dollárt. A webshopos rendelések itthon is egyre népszerűbbek, a tavalyi évben 15%-os növekedést mutattak a 2023-as évhez képest. Nem meglepő, hogy egyre többen választják ezt a vásárlási formát, hiszen számos előnnyel jár. A legegyértelműbb ezek közül a kényelem: egyrészt nem kell kimozdulnunk otthonról ahhoz, hogy beszerezzük a szükséges termékeket, másrészt felesleges köröket is megspórolhatunk vele. Az interneten leggyakrabban rendelt árucikkek listáját látva is kijelenthetjük, hogy a praktikusság az egyik elsőszámú előnye az online vásárlásnak. A rendszeresen használt termékek folyamatos újratöltése, a nehezen szállítható, különleges odafigyelést igénylő áruk házhoz rendelése, vagy a különleges élethelyzethez alkalmazkodó logisztika is gyakori okot szolgáltat arra, hogy a plázák és szupermarketek helyett webshopokban vásároljunk be. A kényelem azonban természetesen lelkiismereti kérdéseket is felvet: mindannyian érezzük, hogy a csomagszállítás terhet jelent a bolygóra, ezért egyre nagyobb az igény az olyan környezetbarát logisztikai megoldásokra, mint a TOURMIX.

A szépségért nem kell szenvedni!

A TOURMIX adatai szerint a vásárlók 30%-a szépségápolási és egészségügyi termékeket rendel rajtuk keresztül, ezzel a kozmetikumok a dobogó első helyét foglalhatják el. A drogériák helyett egyre többen szerzik be online a rendszeresen használt bőrápolási termékeiket, dekorkozmetikumaikat, vagy vitaminjaikat.

A második legnépszerűbb kategóriának az élelmiszerek és az italok bizonyultak, a rendelések 17%-ával. Az étkezés terén egyre gyakoribbak a speciális igények vagy intoleranciák, a különleges hozzávalók pedig nem feltétlenül érhetőek el minden üzletben. Az egzotikus élelmiszerek és gourmet különlegességek is gyakran könnyebben beszerezhetőek az erre szakosodott webshopokon, mint az üzletekben.

A harmadik leggyakoribb a babatermékek (15%). A kisgyermekes családok számára kifejezetten fontos a rugalmas és kényelmes házhozszállítás, így a bevásárlás online lebonyolításával időt és energiát spórolhatnak a friss szülők.

A kultúra is házhoz megy

A három legnépszerűbb kategória az otthon és lifestyle termékek (14%), a divatáruk (13%) és a könyvek (11%) csoportját utasította maga mögé. A kényelem itt is nagy szerepet játszik: a bútorok, vagy nagyméretű sporteszközök megvásárlása sokkal egyszerűbb, ha egy futár szállítja házhoz. A divatáruk terén a vásárlók egyértelműen a fenntartható, hazai, kézműves vonalat keresik - nem meglepő tehát, hogy a tudatos vásárlók számára a környezetbarát szállítás is fontos prioritás. Bár első ránézésre meglepőnek tűnhet, hogy a könyvek is felkerültek a top hatos listára, megállapítható, hogy még mindig az egyik legnépszerűbb ajándék és kikapcsolódási forma. A ritkább, antikvár példányok, esetleg idegen nyelvű könyvek esetén pedig szintén a nehéz beszerezhetőség játszik szerepet az online rendelések népszerűségében.

A legnépszerűbb kategóriák:

• Szépségápolás és egészségügyi termékek (30%)

• Élelmiszerek és italok (17%)

• Babatermékek (15%)

• Otthon és lifestyle termékek (14%)

• Divatáruk (13%)

• Könyvek (11%)