Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

2019 USA Coworking Statistics

919 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Selected results of the 2019 Global Coworking Survey.

Veröffentlicht in: Daten & Analysen
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

2019 USA Coworking Statistics

  1. 1. DEARALASKA,DEARHAWAII,YOU'RENOTFORGOTTENANDAREINCLUDEDINTHERESULTS. 2019 USA COWORKING STATISTICS FINAL RESULTS OF THE 2019 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY SUPPORTED BY PRESENTED AT
  2. 2. COWORKING MEMBERS
  3. 3. Average Number of Members Per Coworking Space Location in the US 157 99 59 ≥ 1M Inhabitants Mean: 172, Median: 140 < 1M - 100K Inhabitant Mean: 111, Median: 80 < 100K Inhabitants Mean: 65, Median: 43 90GLOBAL +8 +10% 5% trimmed mean of absolute numbers, reported by coworking spaces, results are rounded. 99 Mean: 112 Median: 75+7% +6 compared to 2018 Share of coworking spaces (not members!) 26% 42% 32%COWORKING MEMBERS
  4. 4. COWORKING MEMBERS 1.8 < 1M - 100K INHABITANTS MEAN: 2.43, MEDIAN: 1.23 < 100K INHABITANTS MEAN: 1.48, MEDIAN: 1.14 1.9 1.4 ≥ 1M INHABITANTS MEAN: 2.92, MEDIAN: 1.12 By Number of Inhabitants Local to a Coworking Space Reported by Coworking Spaces Ratio of Memberships per Desk (Occupancy Rate) 5% trimmed mean. Results are rounded. = 165% Members per Desk1.65 +0.1 By Number of Inhabitants Local to a Coworking Space Reported by Members of Coworking Spaces ≥ 1M INHABITANTS MEAN: 0.54, MEDIAN: 0.50 < 1M - 100K INHABITANTS MEAN: 0.48, MEDIAN: 0.49 < 100K INHABITANTS MEAN: 0.48. MEDIAN: 0.50 0.54 0.47 0.47 Utilization Rate When Members Are Present at the Same Time 0.49 Members per Desk 0 = 49%
  5. 5. Reported by members. Results are rounded. The Most Popular Statement About Coworking Communities in the US What Is ? "I Put a Lot of Time Into Being Part of my Coworking Community." A "Being a Member of my Coworking Space Makes Me Feel Good." B "Members of my Coworking Community Care for Each Other" C COWORKING MEMBERS
  6. 6. Reported by members. Results are rounded. The Most Popular Statement About Coworking Communities in the US COWORKING MEMBERS "Being a Member of my Coworking Space Makes Me Feel Good." 89% B
  7. 7. 0 22.5 45 67.5 90 60% 64% 73% 80% 67% 77% 84% 89% USA GLOBAL "I Can Trust People In my Coworking Space." Reported by coworking space members, showing the share of members who agreed to the statements. Results are rounded. "Members of my Coworking Community Care for Each Other." "This Coworking Community Can Influence Other Communities." "Being a Member of my Coworking Space Makes Me Feel Good." COWORKING COMMUNITY SHARE OF MEMBERS WHO AGREE TO FOLLOWING STATEMENTS
  8. 8. Least Popular Statement About Coworking Communities COMMUNITY Reported by members. Results are rounded. 71% "I Often Meet Members After Work or on Weekends." COWORKING MEMBERS The Least Popular Statement About Coworking Communities in the US
  9. 9. Reported by coworking space members, showing the share of members who agreed to the statements. Results are rounded. "I Often Meet Members After Work or on Weekends." "I Put a Lot of Time Into Being Part of my Coworking Community." "Most Coworking Members Know Me." "When I Have a Problem, I Can Talk About It With Most Member in my Coworking Space." 0 22.5 45 67.5 90 30% 37% 54% 64% 29% 35% 53% 71% USA GLOBALSHARE OF MEMBERS WHO DISAGREE TO FOLLOWING STATEMENTS COWORKING COMMUNITY
  10. 10. COWORKING SPACES
  11. 11. COWORKING SPACES An Enjoyable Work Atmosphere 70% The Unique Selling Point of Coworking Spaces in the US Reported by coworking spaces. Results are rounded.
  12. 12. COWORKING SPACES: UNIQUE SELLING POINTS IN THE US above the global average Enjoyable work atmosphere 70% Attractive design & fit-out 58% Well- situated location 63% Thriving community 53% on the global average Low prices 34% Good service 51% Other (selection): free parking, multi-location access, internet speed, wellness emphasis below the global average Many events 18% Reported by coworking spaces. Results are rounded.
  13. 13. COWORKING SPACES: PROFITABILITY & BUSINESS SITUATION compared to 2018 in percentage points - *excluding seasonal variations - new question in the 2019 survey, without n.a. 28% 28% 44% profitable zero profit - zero loss unprofitable Profitability (Within the Past 12 Months) -8 -3 +11 Current Business Situation* 5% 42% 52% good satisfactory bad 60% 54% 45% ≥ 1M Inhabitants < 100K Inhabitants < 1M - 100K Inhabitants 60% 39% 39% ≥ 1M Inhabitants < 100K Inhabitants < 1M - 100K Inhabitants 14% 10% 25% ≥ 1M Inhabitants < 100K Inhabitants < 1M - 100K Inhabitants Global: 17% 15% 23% Profit Margin of Profitable Coworking Spaces* (Within the Past 12 Months After Taxes) 16%5% trimmed mean Mean: 17%, Median: 12% Global: 5% trimmed mean: 17%, Mean: 19%, Median: 15% !! Reported by coworking spaces, results are rounded.
  14. 14. COWORKING SPACES: MARKET SATURATION & COMPETITION 8% 15% 23% 30% 25% 18%"Competition with other coworking spaces is a big challenge" 25% 50% 75% 100% 12% 15% 13% 87% 68% 49% 2% 17% 38% USA +10 -9 -3 -6 -6 -4 10% 20% 30% 40% 3% 22% 31% "Competition with other coworking spaces is a big challenge" compared to 2018 in percentage points - reported by coworking spaces, without n.a. USA Global 25% 50% 75% 100% 17% 13% 61% 69% 21% 18% Too many coworking spaces Just right Too few coworking spaces +4 +1 -6 -6+7-1
  15. 15. COWORKING SPACES 2019 FORECAST Simplified Forecast: Coworking Spaces Will Operate More Efficiently. USA 0 25 50 75 100 1% 1% 3% 2% 2% 1% 65% 17% 10% 51% 9% 28% 59% 58% 44% 56% 3% 22% 31% 2% 35% Strongly increasing Mildly increasing No change Mildly decreasing Strongly decreasing Number of Members Average Pricing Revenue Profitability Number of Staff Members Reported by coworking spaces, results are rounded.
  16. 16. USACOWORKING SPACES 0 25 50 75 100 22% 22% 32% 33% 28% 34% 19% 11% (Rather) well affected No change (Rather) badly affected Don't know Long-term Impact Short-term Impact 19% < 1M - 100K INHABITANTS < 100K INHABITANTS≥ 1M INHABITANTS Positive Impact On the Short Term Positive Impact On the Long Term 27% 19% 13% By number of inhabitants local to a coworking space 9% 6% EXPECTED IMPACT OF A POTENTIAL FINANCIAL CRISIS Reported by coworking spaces, results are rounded.
  17. 17. Main supporters essensys.tech "Essensys is a simple, easy to use software platform that helps you manage your workspace from lead to cash and everything in between. Workspaces can attract and retain customers, grow additional income streams and gain business insight to make quicker decisions. We focus on ensuring that your workspace can deliver the best customer experience.” "Nexudus is a leading white-label platform to help coworking space operators with their day-to-day tasks. Today, hundreds of spaces around the world use Nexudus to spend less time typing and chasing invoices, keeping their communities engaged and up- to-date, or controlling who is in and out of the space and how it is used. Nexudus is made for and by their active community of users." nexudus.com yardi.com THE MAIN SUPPORTERS LISTED ABOVE HELPED TO DISTRIBUTE THE SURVEY AND FINANCIALLY SUPPORTED THE OVERALL PROMOTION OF THE SURVEY. OUR DISTRIBUTION PARTNERS HELPED TO DISTRIBUTE THE SURVEY ON A GLOBAL SCALE. OFFICIAL SUPPORTERS HELPED TO DISTRIBUTE THE SURVEY WITHIN THEIR OWN COWORKING SPACE NETWORKS. The all-new Yardi KUBE is the most comprehensive workspace management platform. Drive top line revenue, reduce costs and efficiently grow your Coworking space while delivering a phenomenal member experience.
  18. 18. Distribution partners Official supporters
  19. 19. More Coworking Data YES, GIMME MORE STATS! WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUPPORT THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY AND RECEIVE MORE STATISTICS? COWORKINGSTATS.COM
  20. 20. A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT BY More Research: CoworkingLibrary.com
  21. 21. 2019 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY BACKGROUND PAGE 21 TIME OF CONDUCTION: THE 2019 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY WAS ACTIVE ONLINE FROM JANUARY 24 - MARCH 18, 2019. THE FINAL RESULTS ARE ANALYZED USING IBM SPSS, AND ARE CHECKED USING QUALITY STANDARDS TO REMOVE BOTS OR FAKE PARTICIPANTS. THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS NOR IN THE COUNTING OF PARTICIPANTS. PARTICIPANTS: 2019: 2668 -- 2018: 1980 -- 2017: 1876 -- 2016: 1679 -- 2014: 1270 -- 2013: 1206 -- 2012: 913 BY GROUPS IN 2019: COWORKING SPACES (OPERATORS OR STAFF MEMBERS): N=1240 MEMBERS: N=879 PLANNED/FUTURE COWORKING SPACES: N=137 REMAINING PARTICIPANTS ARE PRIMARILY FORMER COWORKING SPACE MEMBERS OR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED IN A COWORKING SPACE. THE GLOBAL RESULTS OF THIS REPORT ARE BASED ON THE PARTICIPANTS WHO REPRESENT COWORKING SPACES (N=1240) AND MEMBERS (N=879). FOR THE US, 198 COWORKING SPACES & 129 COWORKING MEMBERS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED.
  22. 22. (ARITHMETIC) MEAN, 5% TRIMMED MEAN, MEDIAN… WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DIFFERENT AVERAGE VALUES? ISN’T THERE A SIMPLER WAY? SURE THERE IS! BUT REDUCING A SKEWED DEVELOPMENT TO A SINGLE VALUE WOULD NOT PROVIDE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF THE COWORKING LANDSCAPE, WHICH HAS BECOME MORE DIVERSE IN RECENT YEARS. IN FACT, THE VALUES PRESENTED HEREIN ARE THREE OF DOZENS OF STATISTICAL MEASURES; SO, WE ARE STILL KEEPING IT QUITE SIMPLE. THE (ARITHMETIC) MEAN IS THE MOST COMMON AVERAGE TO REPORT CENTRAL TENDENCIES; HOWEVER, IT IS NOT ROBUST IF IT IS INFLUENCED BY OUTLIERS (EXTREME CASES, WHICH ARE MUCH LARGER OR SMALLER THAN MOST OF THE OTHERS). FOR EXAMPLE, THINK OF AN UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME, WHERE 10% OF PEOPLE IN YOUR COUNTRY “EARN” 90% OF ALL INCOME. IF YOU TOOK THE MEAN OF THAT INCOME, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WOULD SEE A HUGE GAP BETWEEN THE MEAN VALUE AND THE AMOUNT IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS. THUS, THESE NUMBERS, UNFORTUNATELY WOULD NOT REFLECT THEIR REALITY. THE COWORKING MARKET IS, OF COURSE, NOT THAT UNEQUAL; HOWEVER, THERE ARE COWORKING SPACES (CHAINS) THAT CAN BE IDENTIFIED AS OUTLIERS, AND ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN THE MAJORITY OF OTHER COWORKING SPACES. THEREFORE WE ONLY HIGHLIGHT THE (ARITHMETIC) MEAN WHEN PRESENTING RESTRICTED SCALES, SUCH AS AGE, BECAUSE LIFE IS STILL LIMITED, OR IN STAR RATINGS (1-10). FOR OPEN, UNLIMITED SCALES WE PREFER THE 5% TRIMMED MEAN. IT CUTS THE HIGHEST AND LOWEST 5% OF CASES, AND REFLECTS THE AVERAGE REALITY MUCH BETTER THAN THE ARITHMETIC MEAN IN THOSE CASES - WE CAN ALSO AVOID TYPOS IN THE CASE THAT A PARTICIPANT ACCIDENTALLY ENTERS TOO MANY ‘ZEROS’. THE MEDIAN SEPARATES THE UPPER HALF FROM THE LOWER HALF (IT IS SIMPLY THE VALUE IN THE MIDDLE). IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT MOST STATISTICS PRESENTED HEREIN ARE GROUPED, AND PRESENT THEIR SHARE TO REFLECT THE WHOLE REALITY. HOW TO READ THE STATISTICS? PAGE 222019 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY PAGE 22
  23. 23. Thanks For Reading! © 2019 Carsten Foertsch, Deskmag

×