So, when should you place your order, and during which periods should you expect longer delivery times?

When does parcel volume increase the most?

The busiest period clearly runs from the second half of November until Christmas. Black Friday, Cyber Monday, seasonal promotions and Christmas shopping generate enormous parcel volumes within a short time. Although courier companies prepare for this surge, the capacity of warehouses, sorting centres, vehicles and delivery staff cannot be increased indefinitely.

The busiest periods typically include:

• 11 November and the days around Black Friday;

• the two weeks following Black Friday;

• the final 10–14 days before Christmas;

• the period between Christmas and New Year, followed by early January, when exchanges and returns increase;

• the days before Easter and other long weekends;

• the back-to-school period, especially late August and early September;

• major national and international online sales campaigns.

A rise in parcel volume does not necessarily mean that every delivery will be late. However, the risk of congestion and delays of 24–48 hours increases significantly. DHL also recommends allowing more time during peak periods, as high shipment volumes can create bottlenecks across logistics networks.

When should you place your order?

If you need a parcel for a specific occasion, do not plan solely around the webshop’s best-case delivery estimate.

During normal periods, it is advisable to leave at least two or three additional working days. Around Christmas, Black Friday and other major sales events, place your order seven to ten working days in advance. For international parcels—especially those shipped from outside the EU—allowing a safety margin of two or even three weeks may be sensible.

If possible, avoid ordering on the final day of a promotion. At that point, the courier network may not be the only part of the process under pressure. The webshop itself may also be dealing with a backlog. A product may be in stock, yet the retailer might need several days to prepare and hand it over to the delivery company.

It is also worth checking whether the displayed timeframe refers to the expected delivery date or merely the expected dispatch date. There can be several days’ difference between the two.

What are the most common causes of delivery delays?

Delays are not always caused by one major incident. More often, several smaller disruptions add up.

Overloaded warehouses and sorting centres. When several times the usual parcel volume arrives within a short period, processing and forwarding shipments can take longer.

Incorrect or incomplete address details. A wrong postcode, missing floor or door number, or an incorrect phone number can prevent the parcel from being assigned to the right delivery route. FedEx also identifies inaccurate addresses and incomplete information as common causes of delays.

Unsuccessful delivery attempts. If the recipient is not at home, cannot be reached by phone or the courier cannot access the building, another delivery attempt must be arranged.

Traffic, road closures and severe weather. Congestion, accidents, snow, freezing rain and storms can disrupt not only the final delivery stage but also transport between cities and logistics hubs.

Limited staff or vehicle capacity. During peak periods, there may simply not be enough couriers and vehicles available to deliver every parcel on schedule.

Customs clearance issues. For orders arriving from outside the EU, missing documentation, an inaccurate description of the contents or unresolved customs duties and taxes can hold up the shipment.

Technical problems. A temporary outage affecting a logistics platform, label-printing system or data connection can slow down the processing of thousands of parcels within a short time.

You can also help your parcel arrive on time

Before placing an order, check your address and phone number carefully, monitor the shipment status and choose a delivery method that fits your schedule. If you know that you will not be at home during the day, a parcel locker, pickup point or preselected evening delivery window may be a more practical option.

The final few hundred metres are an especially sensitive part of the delivery process. This is where flexible solutions such as TOURMIX’s hybrid delivery model can help. By combining community-based and professional courier capacity, TOURMIX can also provide evening and weekend delivery options in Budapest. This can be particularly useful when conventional daytime delivery is difficult to fit into the recipient’s schedule.

The most important rule is simple: if a parcel absolutely needs to arrive by a specific date, do not place the order at the last possible moment. During the busiest weeks of the year, allowing just a few extra days can save you considerable inconvenience.

These days’s headline: normal commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has still not resumed. Along a maritime route that carries a significant share of the world’s oil supply in peacetime, only a handful of vessels are now passing through, compared with the previous 130–140 ships per day. In such circumstances, oil prices can rise dramatically almost overnight.

Meanwhile, the Russia–Ukraine war continues, creating persistent uncertainty around Europe’s energy supply. Electricity generation is not immune to unpredictable external conditions either. During prolonged droughts, periods of low river levels or unusually high water temperatures, some nuclear power plants may have to reduce their output because sufficient water at an appropriate temperature is not available for safe cooling. This is also a relevant risk in Hungary, as the Paks Nuclear Power Plant relies on water from the Danube for cooling.

But what connects all of these events?

The Strait of Hormuz, the Russia–Ukraine war and Paks may appear to be three entirely separate issues. In reality, they all highlight the same vulnerability: a logistics company’s operating costs can be influenced by geopolitical and environmental events over which it has no control.

The situation in the Strait of Hormuz affects the global supply and price of oil. The Russia–Ukraine war influences the security and cost of Europe’s energy supply. Droughts, low river levels and extreme heat can reduce available electricity generation capacity.

All three ultimately affect logistics companies in the same way: through more expensive and less predictable energy.

How Can We Plan for Years Ahead When Energy Prices Can Change Within Weeks?

Wars, closed trade routes, extreme weather, volatile oil and electricity prices, and unpredictable exchange rates have created a level of uncertainty in energy and fuel markets not seen for years.

A logistics company can still make a fleet investment intended to last for many years. It can purchase hundreds of diesel vans or invest in electric vehicles and the charging infrastructure required to operate them. In neither case, however, can it know with certainty how much that fleet will cost to run by the time the investment pays for itself.

Nobody can reliably predict the price of a litre of diesel or a kilowatt-hour of electricity five years from now. Nor can anyone foresee which new conflict, trade restriction, extreme weather event or regulatory change will rewrite today’s calculations.

A logistics company cannot influence when normal shipping will resume through the Strait of Hormuz, how long the Russia–Ukraine war will continue or how much water will flow through the Danube.

It can, however, decide how exposed its operations should be to these factors.

Diesel or Electric? Perhaps That Is Not the Most Important Question

The logistics industry often responds to energy-market uncertainty by replacing diesel vehicles with electric ones.

Electric vehicles have an important role to play in the transformation of urban logistics. They reduce local air pollution and, when powered by an appropriate energy mix, can also lower carbon emissions. But an electric van is still a van.

It still occupies road space, searches for parking, contributes to traffic, requires charging infrastructure and visits delivery addresses one by one. The vehicle’s powertrain has changed, but the underlying operating model has not.

Replacing a diesel fleet with an electric one does not eliminate exposure to energy markets either. Instead of depending primarily on oil prices, the company becomes increasingly dependent on electricity prices, grid capacity and the availability of charging infrastructure.

This does not necessarily remove energy-market exposure. To some extent, it simply shifts that exposure from one energy source to another.

In this environment, the most important question is therefore not whether a logistics company should purchase a diesel or an electric fleet.

The real question is how it can redesign its operations to require less energy, fewer dedicated vehicles and fewer unnecessary vehicle movements.

We Are Not Trying to Predict the Future Price of Energy

TOURMIX approaches the problem from a different direction.

We are not trying to predict whether diesel or electricity will be cheaper five years from now. We are reducing the amount of energy that needs to be used on the last mile in the first place.

Instead of replacing one uncertain energy source with another, we reduce the overall level of the delivery model’s exposure to energy markets.

Parcels are transported in bulk to a locker, collection point or urban consolidation location. From there, they are delivered by local people who are already travelling towards the recipient—on their way home from work or university, on foot, by bicycle or using public transport.

We do not organise a new vehicle movement around every individual parcel. We connect the parcel to a journey that is already taking place.

The difference may appear small at first, but it is fundamental.

In the traditional model, every additional address generates additional vehicle kilometres, energy consumption and costs. In the TOURMIX model, a significant share of the final delivery leg is incorporated into an existing journey. The parcel can therefore reach the recipient without requiring a dedicated van trip in every case.

Lower Energy-Market Exposure, More Resilient Operations

TOURMIX is not entirely independent of energy markets. The first stages of the parcel’s journey still require vehicles, warehouses and energy.

The difference lies in the degree of energy-market exposure.

If oil prices rise, fewer van-based address visits are affected by the increase. If electricity prices rise, there is a smaller dedicated electric fleet to charge. If grid or charging capacity becomes constrained, the final delivery stage is less dependent on that infrastructure.

This is not only an environmental advantage. It also provides direct business protection against:

• fluctuations in fuel and electricity prices;

• the high fixed costs of vehicle fleets;

• the need to build charging infrastructure;

• and unpredictable parcel volumes.

Logistics companies must deal with more than volatile energy prices. Parcel volumes are also difficult to forecast. A new van remains a fixed cost even when there are temporarily fewer parcels to deliver. During seasonal peaks, however, existing capacity can quickly become insufficient.

A community-based delivery model can respond more flexibly to changes in demand. Increasing capacity does not necessarily require the purchase of additional vehicles and the installation of new charging points every time volumes peak.

Using Less Energy Does Not Mean Offering Less Convenience

More efficient urban logistics should not require customers to give up home delivery.

TOURMIX aims to combine the efficiency of parcel lockers and collection points with the convenience of delivery to the door. Parcels can be taken onwards by local community couriers in the evening or at weekends, when traditional daytime courier routes are less aligned with recipients’ daily lives.

Fewer dedicated vehicle movements therefore do not necessarily mean a lower level of service. On the contrary, they can enable more personalised delivery that fits more naturally into customers’ routines.

So What Do the Strait of Hormuz, the Russia–Ukraine War and Paks Have in Common?

All three are factors beyond our control that can directly affect logistics costs through the price or availability of energy.

We cannot eliminate uncertainty. Nor can we guarantee the future price of oil, diesel or electricity.

What we can decide is how exposed urban delivery should be to those prices.

TOURMIX is not betting on which energy source will become the winner over the coming years. It is building a delivery model that requires less energy and fewer dedicated vehicle movements on the last mile in the first place.

We are not eliminating uncertainty in energy markets. We are reducing the degree to which our operations are exposed to it.

But what about free home delivery?

Over the past few years, free home delivery has become almost an expectation rather than a bonus. Platforms like Temu and SHEIN have built much of their rapid growth around this promise. Yet even SHEIN has struggled to maintain this model as new U.S. tariffs have significantly increased the cost of shipping into the American market, forcing the company to absorb losses to keep offering free delivery. Premium retailers often do the same above a certain order value, and many of us have added one more item to our shopping cart simply to reach the free shipping threshold. 

But the question remains:
If the customer isn't paying for delivery, who actually is?
The answer is: **all of us.
**Not necessarily through our wallets, but through the cities we live in.

"Free" delivery isn't free

A parcel still has to travel from point A to point B, regardless of whether the customer pays an extra delivery fee. It still requires warehouses, vehicles, drivers, energy, parcel lockers, pickup points and digital infrastructure.

Those costs don't disappear.
They simply show up somewhere else.

Economists call these externalities—costs created by an activity that are not paid directly by the people generating them, but instead are borne by society as a whole.

The Cost of Congestion

Every additional home delivery can mean another vehicle trip through the city.

As e-commerce continues to grow, so does the number of delivery vehicles on urban streets. While each van delivers multiple parcels, the increasing preference for doorstep delivery still results in significantly more traffic overall.

The consequences are familiar:

• more congestion,

• longer travel times,

• and less predictable journeys.

This is closely related to the concept of induced demand. The easier and cheaper a service becomes, the more people use it. As demand grows, so does the pressure on the system designed to support it.

The Cost of Noise and Air Pollution

Traffic doesn't just take up space. It also creates noise and pollution.

Even as more electric delivery vehicles enter our streets, the challenge doesn't disappear. An electric van still occupies road space, contributes to tyre wear, adds to congestion and relies on the same urban infrastructure.

Sustainability is therefore not only about what kind of vehicle we use, but also about whether that vehicle trip is necessary in the first place.

The Cost of Public Space

The most valuable resource in a city isn't energy.
It's space.

Every loading bay, parking space or curbside stop used by delivery vehicles is public space that could otherwise be used for trees, wider sidewalks, cycling infrastructure or places where people can simply spend time.

As cities become denser, every square metre becomes more valuable. This raises an increasingly important question: Does every parcel really require another dedicated vehicle trip?

Taxpayers Pay Too

Maintaining roads, managing traffic, cleaning public spaces and dealing with the health impacts of air pollution all come at a cost. These expenses don't appear as a separate line on your online checkout.
But society still pays for them.

The Solution Isn't to Stop Home Delivery

Online shopping is here to stay. If anything, it will continue to grow. The real challenge is how we can provide the same level of convenience while putting less pressure on our cities.

This is one reason why parcel lockers and pickup points are becoming increasingly popular. A single stop can replace dozens—or even hundreds—of individual doorstep deliveries. Home delivery also has a future.
But perhaps not in the way we know it today.

If the same parcel can be delivered with fewer dedicated vehicle trips—or by people who are already travelling through the city anyway—the same service can have a much smaller impact on urban life.

The Real Question

Free home delivery is convenient.
But nothing is truly free.

The real question isn't who pays for delivery.
It's how we pay for it.
In time lost in traffic.
In hotter streets covered with asphalt.
In noisier neighbourhoods.
In public space occupied by vehicles instead of people.
And in cities that struggle to cope with ever-growing delivery demand.

The sustainable city of the future won't be the one that eliminates home delivery. It will be the one that delivers the same convenience with fewer vehicles, fewer emissions and less pressure on urban life.

Of course, this usually does not refer to the official air temperature. The weather forecast may say 34–36°C, but surfaces, sun-exposed areas and the way we experience heat can feel much more extreme. A dark asphalt road, a square without shade or a street made up mostly of concrete and parked cars can become truly unbearable in the summer sun.

One of the main reasons for this is the urban heat island effect. Natural surfaces such as soil, grass, trees and water evaporate moisture, provide shade and help cool their surroundings. In cities, however, these surfaces are often replaced by asphalt, concrete, paving stones, glass, metal and dense buildings. These materials absorb heat during the day and release it slowly in the evening, which means cities often cannot cool down properly even at night.

This is not just a question of comfort. Heat affects people’s wellbeing and can be especially dangerous for the elderly, children, people with chronic illnesses and those who work or move around a lot in the city. A bus stop without shade, a long walk under direct sunlight or a busy inner-city street in summer is no longer a minor inconvenience. It is a question of urban quality of life.

So what can be done?

One of the simplest answers is shade. More trees, more shaded sidewalks, shaded bus stops and better-designed public spaces. It makes a real difference whether you can walk along a street with at least some shade along the way, or whether you have to stay in direct sunlight the whole time. Urban trees are not only beautiful; they are real cooling infrastructure.

The choice of surfaces also matters. Instead of dark, heat-absorbing materials, cities need lighter, more permeable surfaces that heat up less. Wherever possible, fully paved areas should be reduced, and more space should be given back to plants, soil and water. A city does not become modern by covering every square metre in concrete.

The third major issue is traffic. The more vehicles there are on the roads, the more heat, noise, congestion and emissions they create. Urban logistics is particularly important in this regard, because the demand for parcel delivery is constantly growing. We order more and more online, more deliveries take place, and if every parcel creates another separate vehicle movement, it puts even more pressure on the city.

This is why a sustainable city is not only about having more trees or more green spaces. It is also about how we use our streets. How much space do vehicles take up? How many vans drive the same routes? Can we solve the same task more intelligently, with fewer vehicles and fewer unnecessary movements across the city?

At TOURMIX, this is where we can contribute to more liveable cities. The core of our model is that we involve local people in parcel delivery who are already moving around the city anyway. This means that certain deliveries do not require more and more vehicles on the roads. Fewer vehicles in urban traffic can mean lower exhaust emissions, less pressure on the city and more liveable streets.

Of course, this alone will not make the city cool overnight. There is no single miracle solution to urban heat. We need more trees, more shade, better surfaces, smarter urban planning and more sustainable transport and logistics solutions.

Can we redesign our cities to stay livable in a warming climate? The direction is clear: if we want cities not to feel like 50°C in summer, we need less overheated asphalt, fewer unnecessary vehicle movements and more human-centred solutions.

The city of the future will not be truly sustainable just because it looks greener on paper. It will be sustainable if people can still walk through it in summer.

1. Cities are becoming decision-makers in parcel delivery
   Urban logistics used to be mainly an operator-driven question: how to deliver faster, cheaper and at higher volumes. Now cities are increasingly shaping how parcels can move: which vehicles can enter, during which time windows, with what emissions, and under what traffic conditions. This fundamentally changes the logic of last-mile delivery. The winners of the future will not simply be those who put more vehicles on the road, but those who build city-compatible models: with lower traffic impact, lower emissions, more flexible capacity and better data sharing.

2. Parcel lockers are important, but they do not solve everything
   Locker, PUDO and hub infrastructure will be essential. They help consolidate parcels, reduce failed deliveries and improve network efficiency. Kanguro, for example, is building an AI-powered out-of-home network where parcels are automatically assigned to optimal pickup points, with the aim of reducing costs, traffic and improving customer experience. (kanguro.com) But lockers are not enough in every situation. Customers will still need flexible doorstep delivery, especially for premium, evening, weekend, gifting or convenience-driven use cases. So the question is not whether lockers or home delivery will win. The real question is how the two can be connected. The real opportunity is to use fixed infrastructure — lockers, PUDOs and microhubs — as consolidation points, while flexible local capacity handles the final doorstep layer.

3. AI will not only mean route planning, but operational coordination
   In logistics, AI has often been understood mainly as route optimisation. That will remain important, but in the coming years AI will play a much broader role: capacity planning, exception handling, network management, customer communication, integrations and predictive decision-making. Synkka AI, for example, positions itself as a final-mile integration platform. Its goal is to connect delivery platforms, aggregators, 3PLs, WMS systems and carriers, and to turn a fragmented delivery ecosystem into a more coordinated system. (deliver.events) This points to one of the most important trends: future logistics systems will not consist of isolated players, but interconnected layers. The value will not only come from who delivers the parcel, but from who can coordinate actors, data and capacity in real time.

4. Fleet operations will increasingly become a question of data and battery intelligence
   As electric fleets expand, logistics companies will not only need to operate vehicles. They will also need to manage batteries, charging cycles, range, maintenance risk and availability. Datakrew points exactly in this direction: it supports mobility and logistics players with EV battery intelligence, fleet visibility and AI-based workflows. Its solutions include predictive maintenance, charging optimisation, route optimisation and driver behaviour monitoring. (datakrew.com) This matters because electrification alone will not solve the problems of urban logistics. If the same number of vehicles remain on the roads, only with electric drivetrains, congestion, capacity peaks, parking issues and failed deliveries will still remain. Electric fleets are a necessary direction, but not a sufficient solution. Real progress requires better operations, better use of data and fewer unnecessary movements.

5. Robotics will not replace people overnight — first, it will support them
   Robotics and autonomous solutions will become increasingly important in logistics, but not necessarily by suddenly removing human work. It is more likely that in the next phase, robotics will first appear in supporting physical work, moving goods within warehouses and hubs, and handling repetitive carrying and transport tasks. Levtek’s platform, for example, is built around three development stages: first it can be used as a vehicle, then it becomes a collaborative load-carrying co-worker, and eventually it can operate autonomously. The solution aims to move people, tools and goods more efficiently in logistics, industrial and warehouse environments. (levtek.io) This is an important message: autonomy is not necessarily one big leap, but a gradual transition. For logistics operators, the most valuable solutions will be those that already improve productivity today, while being able to evolve toward higher levels of autonomy later.

6. Carbon measurement will become a business requirement, not a marketing extra
   For a long time, sustainability in logistics was a communication advantage. Now it is increasingly becoming a matter of measurement, compliance and business decision-making. It is no longer enough to say that a delivery model is greener. It must be measured, audited and made comparable. ZeroPact’s LCA and Product Carbon Footprint software promises automated carbon and lifecycle analysis, including scalable measurement of last-mile CO₂ emissions. The company highlights ISO 14067 compatibility, GLEC-based last-mile emissions measurement and capabilities connected to digital product passports. (zeropact.co) For logistics companies, this creates a dual opportunity. First, they can prove their sustainability performance more accurately. Second, they can use emissions data to make better operational decisions: which route, delivery method, hub structure or partner actually results in a lower environmental impact.

7. Flexibility will become one of the most important competitive advantages Parcel volumes are becoming less predictable. Peak season is no longer limited to Christmas. Flash campaigns, weather events, urban restrictions, e-commerce promotions and customer expectations can all create sudden demand spikes. In this environment, fixed capacity alone is risky. Too many owned vehicles and too much fixed labour become expensive when volumes are low. Too little capacity damages customer experience when demand suddenly increases. This is why flexible local capacity will become a key issue. In future last-mile systems, fixed networks and dynamic capacity will work together: depots, PUDOs and lockers will provide the stable backbone, while local couriers, community-based capacity and intelligent dispatch systems will provide adaptability.
   **
   What does this mean for TOURMIX?**

   For TOURMIX, the direction is clear. The next phase of last-mile delivery is not about home delivery and parcel lockers competing with each other. Nor is it about solving every problem with electric vans or robots. The next phase is about orchestration. Existing infrastructure must be used better. Local capacity that is already moving through the city must be activated. Lockers, PUDOs and hubs must be connected with flexible doorstep delivery. Operators, webshops, cities and customers must be managed within a more intelligent system. The future of logistics does not necessarily mean more vehicles. It means fewer unnecessary movements, more data, better coordination, measurable sustainability and more city-compatible operations.

   This is where some of the most exciting logistics innovations of the coming years will emerge.

And yet, all of these frustrations are connected to the same thing: whether a city is functioning sustainably — or not.

Because sustainability at an urban level is not just about emissions or bike lanes. At its core, it is about whether a city can continue functioning well under growing pressure. Whether millions of people can move, work, consume, and live together without the system slowly breaking under its own weight.

And that breakdown rarely happens suddenly.

In many ways, cities are like relationships. Most relationships do not fall apart overnight. They slowly deteriorate when nobody actively works on them. Small tensions accumulate, communication becomes less effective, frustrations become permanent, and eventually dysfunction starts to feel normal.

Cities work the same way.

Traffic gets slightly worse every year. Commutes become longer. Infrastructure becomes more overloaded. Public spaces become more crowded. Housing moves further away from where people actually live and work. None of these changes feel catastrophic on their own, but together they gradually reduce quality of life.

Urban mobility research has pointed to this problem for years. Increasing road capacity does not solve congestion long term because additional capacity generates additional traffic. At the same time, cities built around longer distances structurally require more energy, more transport, and more movement.

The issue is not simply that cities are growing. It is that they are becoming increasingly movement-intensive — and movement has a cost.

If a city is not sustainable, people still pay for it. Just differently:

• in time spent in traffic

• in stress

• in health impacts

• in rising living costs

• and eventually through stricter regulations and limitations

This is why many cities are introducing low-emission zones, congestion pricing, parking restrictions, and stronger public transport policies. Not because sustainability became fashionable, but because cities are running into physical limits.

Space is finite. Infrastructure is finite. Attention and time are finite too.

The pattern is consistent: sustainable cities are not built on constant awareness campaigns or perfect individual decisions. They are built on systems where the better choice becomes the easier choice.

And this matters more than ever because cities are entering a period where inefficiency itself is becoming unsustainable.

This is especially visible in logistics. E-commerce keeps growing, but every additional delivery adds another layer of movement into already overloaded cities. The challenge is no longer simply how to make these systems greener, but how to make them fit into urban environments without continuously increasing congestion and pressure.

In the end, sustainability is not really about “saving cities.”

It is about keeping them functional, livable, and manageable over the long term. By optimizing existing systems

Because cities rarely stop working all at once.

Like relationships, they slowly become harder and harder to live in when nobody actively maintains them.

When cities try to become more sustainable, they almost always run into the same question: should citizens be treated like rational adults who respond to incentives, or like participants who need to be guided, nudged, and educated? Should greener choices be cheaper, supported by subsidies and grants, promoted through awareness campaigns, or enforced through restrictions and regulation?

In reality, every city experiments with all of these tools. But the ones that succeed don’t rely on a single lever. They redesign the system in a way where the sustainable choice becomes the natural choice — often without requiring constant decision-making from individuals.

A good example of this is Copenhagen, which is often described as one of the world’s leading cycling cities. What’s less discussed is that this didn’t happen because people were convinced to care more about the environment. It happened because cycling is simply the easiest and most convenient way to move around the city. A majority of daily commutes are done by bike, supported by dedicated cycling highways and infrastructure that prioritizes cyclists even in small details. One often-cited example is that in winter, bike lanes are cleared before car roads — not as a symbolic gesture, but as a clear indication of what the system prioritizes. The result is straightforward: people choose the most efficient option available to them.

A similar logic can be observed in Amsterdam, although the approach is slightly different. Amsterdam didn’t eliminate cars, nor did it rely on large-scale persuasion campaigns. Instead, it made car usage less practical. Parking is limited and expensive in central areas, streets are designed in a way that naturally favors cyclists and pedestrians, and alternatives are heavily supported. Around major transport hubs, vast amounts of bike parking have been built, not as an add-on, but as core infrastructure. Driving is still possible, but it is no longer the most logical default choice.

In Vienna, the focus has been on affordability and accessibility rather than restriction. The city introduced a widely known public transport pass that costs roughly one euro per day, making it one of the most accessible systems in Europe. This is combined with a dense, reliable network and a housing policy that places a large portion of residents close to transport nodes. The effect is not that people are forced to abandon cars, but that they simply don’t need to rely on them in the first place.

Other cities have taken a more direct approach. In Paris, large-scale changes were implemented in a relatively short period of time. Hundreds of kilometers of bike lanes were added, key streets were pedestrianized, and car traffic was significantly reduced. These decisions were often controversial at the time, but they reshaped everyday movement in the city. The concept of the “15-minute city” was not just discussed, but actively implemented through zoning and infrastructure decisions that reduced the need for long-distance travel.

Barcelona offers another perspective through its “superblocks” model, which redefines how urban space is used. Instead of focusing only on transport, entire groups of city blocks are reorganized to limit through traffic. Streets inside these zones are transformed into shared spaces, where pedestrians and community activities take priority, while cars are redirected to the perimeter. This is less about influencing individual choices and more about structurally changing how the city functions.

Finally, Stockholm demonstrates the impact of pricing as a policy tool. By introducing congestion charges in the city center, Stockholm directly addressed traffic levels and air quality. Although initially unpopular, the system gained acceptance as its effects became visible. It showed that when costs are aligned with actual impact, behavior tends to adjust accordingly.

Looking across these examples, a consistent pattern emerges. Cities do not become sustainable by relying primarily on awareness campaigns, subsidies, or individual goodwill. These tools can support change, but they rarely drive it on their own. Instead, sustainable cities reshape the environment in which decisions are made. They reduce unnecessary movement by bringing functions closer together, make sustainable options more convenient and accessible, and introduce constraints where needed to limit inefficient behavior.

In this sense, the question of whether to treat citizens as fully rational decision-makers or to guide them through policy becomes less relevant. The most effective cities do both — but more importantly, they design systems where individual decisions require less effort and have fewer negative consequences.

In the end, sustainability at the urban level is not the result of millions of conscious, well-informed choices. It is the result of a system where the default option is already aligned with long-term goals. When that happens, people don’t need to be convinced to act sustainably.

They simply follow the path that makes the most sense.

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%)