A Few More Thoughts post Tour Village
Now that the Tour Down Under has wrapped up and everyone’s back home, bikes unpacked and legs finally starting to feel human again, I’ve had a bit more time to reflect on what actually happened on the ground this year, particularly inside the Tour Village.
The honest version is this, numbers were down. Sales were down, yes, but more importantly, visitation was down, and that was noticeable from day one.
There were a few contributing factors. One of the most obvious was the physical setup of the Village. Compared to previous years, there was significantly less seating and social space. In the past, people would roll in, grab a drink, sit down, meet friends, talk bikes, talk rubbish, and stay for a while. This year, that linger factor just wasn’t there. A lot of people came in, did a lap, and left.
That changes behaviour very quickly. When people don’t hang around, they don’t browse. When they don’t browse, stands get fewer meaningful conversations, and sales naturally follow.
But the bigger shift became clearer as the week went on.
I’m in more Tour Down Under WhatsApp groups than is probably healthy. Clubs, teams, mates from interstate, industry chats. And the same messages kept popping up. “Let’s go to the Rafa pop-up today.” “We’ll do the Village on Thursday.” “Skipping the Village and heading into town instead.”
In previous years, the Village was part of the daily rhythm. People would come back four, five, sometimes six times across the week. This year, it felt more like a planned visit. One day for the Village, other days for pop-ups around town.
The outcome was predictable. Fewer people in the Village on any given day, fewer repeat visits, and fewer chances for exhibitors to actually engage properly with the audience.
It’s important to say this clearly. This isn’t a crack at pop-ups. They absolutely have a place, and some of them are brilliant. They’re creative, well executed, and in many cases very on-brand. But fragmentation has consequences. When the audience is spread thin across multiple locations, nobody really wins.
And here’s the part that hasn’t been talked about much. Some of those pop-ups were also extremely quiet. A few brands invested heavily and didn’t see the foot traffic they were expecting either. So this isn’t a story of pop-ups winning and the Village losing. It’s more nuanced than that.
What it really points to is an ecosystem issue.
If the Tour Village becomes something people visit once instead of somewhere they return to throughout the week, its value proposition changes dramatically. That affects exhibitors, organisers, and ultimately the sustainability of the event itself.
The answer isn’t banning pop-ups or forcing brands back into the Village. That’s unrealistic and probably misses the point. The answer is evolution. Better social spaces. More reasons to stay. More reasons to come back. Smarter integration between the Village and the wider city activations. Less competition between models, more collaboration.
The Tour Down Under is too important to Australian cycling to let its core experience slowly hollow out through a series of well-intentioned but disconnected decisions.
This year didn’t feel like a failure. It felt like a signal. And signals are only useful if we’re willing to listen to them.
PS:
A few people asked on the last post whether I use AI to help write these blogs.
I do.
The ideas, conversations, observations and opinions are mine. They come from being on the ground, talking to people, and paying attention. AI just helps me tidy things up, structure it properly, and say it more clearly than I sometimes can after a long day on my feet.
I’m comfortable with that. It’s no different to working with an editor, and it’s a tool I think more people will start using openly over time.
If you’re interested in the ideas, have a read and join the conversation. That’s the part that matters.