This document presents statistics from the 2019 Global Coworking Survey. Some key findings include: - The average number of members per coworking space in the US was 112, with larger spaces found in more populated areas. - 89% of coworking members in the US said that being a member makes them feel good, the most popular statement about coworking communities. - 70% of coworking spaces in the US cited an enjoyable work atmosphere as their unique selling point. - Coworking spaces in the US forecast operating more efficiently in 2019, with mild increases expected in members but decreases in other areas like staffing and prices.

1. DEARALASKA,DEARHAWAII,YOU'RENOTFORGOTTENANDAREINCLUDEDINTHERESULTS.
2019 USA
COWORKING STATISTICS
FINAL RESULTS OF THE 2019 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
SUPPORTED BY
PRESENTED AT

2. COWORKING
MEMBERS

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. COWORKING
SPACES

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Distribution partners
Official supporters

19. More Coworking Data
YES, GIMME MORE
STATS!
WOULD YOU LIKE TO
SUPPORT THE
GLOBAL
COWORKING
SURVEY
AND RECEIVE MORE
STATISTICS?
COWORKINGSTATS.COM

20. A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT BY
More Research: CoworkingLibrary.com

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. (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. Thanks
For Reading!
© 2019 Carsten Foertsch, Deskmag