The document summarizes results from the 2016 Global Coworking Survey. On average, coworking spaces in the US have 110 members and 70 workstations, taking up about 10,000 square feet of space. Founders spend nearly $100,000 on average to start a coworking space, with over half coming from their own private capital. Promotion of coworking spaces usually begins at least a few months before opening.
The document summarizes results from the 2016 Global Coworking Survey. On average, coworking spaces in the US have 110 members and 70 workstations, taking up about 10,000 square feet of space. Founders spend nearly $100,000 on average to start a coworking space, with over half coming from their own private capital. Promotion of coworking spaces usually begins at least a few months before opening.
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.
Only people in tech-jobs work in coworking spaces? Think again. Not only do the coworking spaces keep changing, but also the members who work in them. In this report we’ll summarize the key demographics of these members. What are their jobs? Is the ratio of freelancers declining further? Do people who value flexible working hours in their jobs also have shorter relationships in their private lives? And what’s the average age of the members anyway? The following results of the Global Coworking Survey will give you some answers.
Page 3: number of members are as of October 2016 & October 2017
Read more: http://bit.ly/2017MEMBERS
Presentation of the first results of the Global Coworking Survey 2015-16 at Coworking Europe Milan, November 11, 2015
Due to a typographical error, 7,800 coworking spaces were projected for 2015, the correct projection was 8,700.
The document is a survey report on coworking spaces in 2018. Some key findings include:
- There were over 18,900 coworking spaces worldwide in 2018 serving over 1.69 million members, continuing an upward trend.
- Major trends for 2018 included more and larger coworking spaces, more corporate coworking, and a stronger focus on community building.
- Over 60% of coworking spaces anticipated higher member numbers, income, sense of community and events in 2018.
- The average coworking space had 45 members in 2018, continuing an upward trend since 2012.
Coworking spaces have grown significantly in recent years, with the number of spaces and coworkers doubling every two years. Most coworkers value the social aspects of coworking communities over business needs and expect to interact with other coworkers regularly. While many coworkers once worked alone, most now come to coworking spaces three or more times a week. Coworking provides benefits beyond productivity like increased happiness, creativity, and work-life balance. The majority of coworking spaces are located in commercial buildings over 21 years old and lease their space with average leases around 54 months.
The Coworking Revolution and the impact on real estate - Sophy Moffat, DTZ Coworking Conference
Coworking spaces have grown in popularity in response to the preferences of modern workers and businesses. They offer flexible short-term leases unlike traditional landlords, and provide trendy shared workspaces that are more appealing than corporate offices. Major property companies are partnering with coworking providers to jointly offer flexible workspace options, recognizing the growing demand for more collaborative work environments.
This document summarizes the results of the 2017 Global Coworking Survey. Some of the key findings include:
- There are around 14,000 coworking spaces worldwide hosting 1.2 million members. The average Asian coworking space hosts around 70 members, but there is a wide range, from very small to very large spaces.
- Employees are currently the main users of coworking spaces in Asia, while spaces in other regions tend to be dominated more by freelancers.
- Members in Asia are much younger on average than in other parts of the world. About one third of all members are female.
- Usage of coworking spaces in Asia tends to be higher than global averages, with more
The document summarizes results from the 2016 Global Coworking Survey. On average, coworking spaces in the US have 110 members and 70 workstations, taking up about 10,000 square feet of space. Founders spend nearly $100,000 on average to start a coworking space, with over half coming from their own private capital. Promotion of coworking spaces usually begins at least a few months before opening.
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.
Only people in tech-jobs work in coworking spaces? Think again. Not only do the coworking spaces keep changing, but also the members who work in them. In this report we’ll summarize the key demographics of these members. What are their jobs? Is the ratio of freelancers declining further? Do people who value flexible working hours in their jobs also have shorter relationships in their private lives? And what’s the average age of the members anyway? The following results of the Global Coworking Survey will give you some answers.
Page 3: number of members are as of October 2016 & October 2017
Read more: http://bit.ly/2017MEMBERS
Presentation of the first results of the Global Coworking Survey 2015-16 at Coworking Europe Milan, November 11, 2015
Due to a typographical error, 7,800 coworking spaces were projected for 2015, the correct projection was 8,700.
The document is a survey report on coworking spaces in 2018. Some key findings include:
- There were over 18,900 coworking spaces worldwide in 2018 serving over 1.69 million members, continuing an upward trend.
- Major trends for 2018 included more and larger coworking spaces, more corporate coworking, and a stronger focus on community building.
- Over 60% of coworking spaces anticipated higher member numbers, income, sense of community and events in 2018.
- The average coworking space had 45 members in 2018, continuing an upward trend since 2012.
Coworking spaces have grown significantly in recent years, with the number of spaces and coworkers doubling every two years. Most coworkers value the social aspects of coworking communities over business needs and expect to interact with other coworkers regularly. While many coworkers once worked alone, most now come to coworking spaces three or more times a week. Coworking provides benefits beyond productivity like increased happiness, creativity, and work-life balance. The majority of coworking spaces are located in commercial buildings over 21 years old and lease their space with average leases around 54 months.
The Coworking Revolution and the impact on real estate - Sophy Moffat, DTZ Coworking Conference
Coworking spaces have grown in popularity in response to the preferences of modern workers and businesses. They offer flexible short-term leases unlike traditional landlords, and provide trendy shared workspaces that are more appealing than corporate offices. Major property companies are partnering with coworking providers to jointly offer flexible workspace options, recognizing the growing demand for more collaborative work environments.
This document summarizes the results of the 2017 Global Coworking Survey. Some of the key findings include:
- There are around 14,000 coworking spaces worldwide hosting 1.2 million members. The average Asian coworking space hosts around 70 members, but there is a wide range, from very small to very large spaces.
- Employees are currently the main users of coworking spaces in Asia, while spaces in other regions tend to be dominated more by freelancers.
- Members in Asia are much younger on average than in other parts of the world. About one third of all members are female.
- Usage of coworking spaces in Asia tends to be higher than global averages, with more
The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Tre...Sightlines
In Sightlines’ State of Facilities in Higher Education report, in both 2013 and 2014, we cited warning signs of new challenges for colleges and universities. These trends have accelerated in 2015 and suggest that for many institutions the recovery, if it ever really occurred, was a temporary situation. Our 2015 report shows that enrollment and financial pressures require finance and facilities leaders to yet again find new ways to address the latest challenges.
In this webinar, we delve deeper into the trends that informed our analysis and provide insight into aligning space, capital, and operations. We also offered an opportunity for attendees to "Ask Sightlines" about the key facilities challenges they face and learn about innovative solutions at campuses across the country designed to address them.
Facilities in Jeopardy [Part 1] - Act Your AgeSightlines
Managing facilities can be like a game of Jeopardy: every answer comes in the form of a question. Knowing how to ask the right questions is essential. In this multi-part series, three experience business officers participate in a game of "Facilities Jeopardy", answering questions about how they invest limited capital in new versus aging space, manage facilities costs, and make the case for resources.
Part 1 - Act Your Age, asks Roger Bruszewski, Vice President of Finance and Administration at Millersville University, the key questions regarding balanced age profiles, predicting life cycles, and identifying critical facilities needs.
The document provides an explanation and examples of the partial products algorithm for multiplication. It explains that each factor is thought of as a sum of ones, tens, hundreds, etc. and each part is multiplied by each part of the other factor before adding the results. It includes step-by-step worked examples of multiplying numbers using the partial products method. It also includes a "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" style math game testing skills with place value, algorithms, and multiplication.
Making the Case for Future Facilities Funding_CAPPA 2015Sightlines
This session explores how The University of Arkansas was able to create a 15-year Facility Renewal & Stewardship Plan to address their keep-up and catch-up costs while planning for the future despite previously struggling to develop a cohesive strategy to address their alarming growth of deferred maintenance, which totaled approximately $245 million. With a sound project selection process in place and an innovative, yet modest, student facilities fee, The University of Arkansas has prevented the accumulation of additional deferral, while also reducing the backlog by over $75 million.
This session features Mike Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at The University of Arkansas, and Matt Bausher, Senior Director of Member Services at Sightlines.
Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities DemandsSightlines
Aging campus buildings; growing deferred maintenance; less capital funding; more debt – this is what campus leaders are predicting. While all campuses face challenges, the diversity in facilities needs and investment capacity vary from institution to institution. There is no single solution, but campuses that use performance metrics to diagnose their needs are developing strategies to meet their capital needs and improve operating effectiveness. A panel of senior Business Officers from three highly diverse campuses will demonstrate how they use data, analysis, and modeling to meet facility and financial challenges now and in the future.
This document summarizes information about a multi-level marketing company called Max that sells glutathione supplements and provides compensation for associates who enroll others. It details the company's founding, leadership team, product details, and multiple compensation plans including retail profits, team commissions, matching bonuses, and other incentives to enroll new associates. Projected first and second year earnings under the compensation plan are provided in tables.
The document appears to be a quiz for a game show called "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" with multiple choice questions and potential prize amounts listed from $1 million to $100. It contains 15 multiple choice questions on various math, word, and logic problems for contestants to answer in order to win larger cash prizes.
The document discusses strategic capacity planning and management. It defines capacity and strategic capacity planning as determining overall capacity levels of facilities, equipment, and labor force. It discusses determining a best operating level to maximize output while minimizing costs. It also covers capacity utilization rate calculations, approaches to capacity expansion, determining capacity requirements, and using decision trees to evaluate capacity decisions. Short-term capacity options like overtime, additional shifts, and subcontracting are also summarized.
Exploring the State of Facilities - Your Chance to "Ask Sightlines"Sightlines
How does a campus turn back the clock on their facilities? How do we address growing backlog needs with limited or shrinking funds? What energy projects can reduce consumption and boost our bottom-line?
These are a few of the questions answered by Sightlines experts in this informative and engaging webinar as we offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Additionally, this interactive presentation:
- Explores the analysis that serves as the basis for our industry-leading database and the report it informs
- Shows data that goes beyond the broad trends
- Offers strategies for success and case studies showing innovative solutions to common facilities challenges
The document provides a statistical profile and cluster analysis of customers for Acme Company. It analyzes customers across various demographic variables like age, income, occupation, household type, and interests. Four key customer clusters are identified that differ in characteristics like income, education, and other attributes. The analysis aims to develop targeted marketing recommendations for Acme based on which customer segments are most likely to respond.
New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012Sightlines
Learn how national data trends show campus buildings are aging and campus backlogs are growing. And, that these trends will accelerate over the next ten years as building constructed in the 1960's turn 50 years old and capital funding from all sources continue to be limited.
Furthermore, learn how the partnership between Sightlines, LLC and University of Massachusetts - Amherst that began in 2005 resulted in more refined documented building conditions, creation of portfolios of projects, and engaged campus leadership in a priority setting process to reach consensus on a multi-year capital plan through the Integrated Facilities Planning process.
Analytics: From Reflective to PredictiveCasey Iannone
NCAIR 2016 Conference Presentation:
As the spotlight for increased transparency and accountability continue to shine upon higher education a need for more granular data regarding student retention and graduation has become a critical component in the decision making process for both faculty and staff. Developing an extensive program-level retention and graduation report is needed to inform faculty and staff as to the outcomes of their efforts and how to improve for the future. And while this kind of data is great for reflection and summative assessment, there has become an increasing need for data to become more predictive so preventative steps may be taken in a more formative assessment style. This session will explore the reporting of program-level retention and graduation and what the future holds for more predictive insights through the use of data mining and machine learning.
The document discusses the limitations of using velocity as a key metric in agile development. It argues that velocity is a lagging indicator that tells you what happened in the past rather than providing insight into the present. Relying too heavily on velocity to plan future work can be misleading if the conditions change. The document recommends using a balanced set of metrics including factors like quality, team well-being and flow through the development pipeline to get a more holistic view of project health and performance.
2014 AIR Reporting Program-level Retention and GraduationDavid Onder
AIR presentation on reporting program-level retention and graduation, looking at different visualization options. Presenters: Alison Joseph (Business Analyst) and David Onder
More Related Content
Similar to DESKMAG GCUC GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY PRESENTATION 2016 SLIDES
The State of Facilities in Higher Education: An In-Depth Look at the 2015 Tre...Sightlines
In Sightlines’ State of Facilities in Higher Education report, in both 2013 and 2014, we cited warning signs of new challenges for colleges and universities. These trends have accelerated in 2015 and suggest that for many institutions the recovery, if it ever really occurred, was a temporary situation. Our 2015 report shows that enrollment and financial pressures require finance and facilities leaders to yet again find new ways to address the latest challenges.
In this webinar, we delve deeper into the trends that informed our analysis and provide insight into aligning space, capital, and operations. We also offered an opportunity for attendees to "Ask Sightlines" about the key facilities challenges they face and learn about innovative solutions at campuses across the country designed to address them.
Facilities in Jeopardy [Part 1] - Act Your AgeSightlines
Managing facilities can be like a game of Jeopardy: every answer comes in the form of a question. Knowing how to ask the right questions is essential. In this multi-part series, three experience business officers participate in a game of "Facilities Jeopardy", answering questions about how they invest limited capital in new versus aging space, manage facilities costs, and make the case for resources.
Part 1 - Act Your Age, asks Roger Bruszewski, Vice President of Finance and Administration at Millersville University, the key questions regarding balanced age profiles, predicting life cycles, and identifying critical facilities needs.
The document provides an explanation and examples of the partial products algorithm for multiplication. It explains that each factor is thought of as a sum of ones, tens, hundreds, etc. and each part is multiplied by each part of the other factor before adding the results. It includes step-by-step worked examples of multiplying numbers using the partial products method. It also includes a "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" style math game testing skills with place value, algorithms, and multiplication.
Making the Case for Future Facilities Funding_CAPPA 2015Sightlines
This session explores how The University of Arkansas was able to create a 15-year Facility Renewal & Stewardship Plan to address their keep-up and catch-up costs while planning for the future despite previously struggling to develop a cohesive strategy to address their alarming growth of deferred maintenance, which totaled approximately $245 million. With a sound project selection process in place and an innovative, yet modest, student facilities fee, The University of Arkansas has prevented the accumulation of additional deferral, while also reducing the backlog by over $75 million.
This session features Mike Johnson, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities at The University of Arkansas, and Matt Bausher, Senior Director of Member Services at Sightlines.
Diverse Perspectives on Managing Facilities DemandsSightlines
Aging campus buildings; growing deferred maintenance; less capital funding; more debt – this is what campus leaders are predicting. While all campuses face challenges, the diversity in facilities needs and investment capacity vary from institution to institution. There is no single solution, but campuses that use performance metrics to diagnose their needs are developing strategies to meet their capital needs and improve operating effectiveness. A panel of senior Business Officers from three highly diverse campuses will demonstrate how they use data, analysis, and modeling to meet facility and financial challenges now and in the future.
This document summarizes information about a multi-level marketing company called Max that sells glutathione supplements and provides compensation for associates who enroll others. It details the company's founding, leadership team, product details, and multiple compensation plans including retail profits, team commissions, matching bonuses, and other incentives to enroll new associates. Projected first and second year earnings under the compensation plan are provided in tables.
The document appears to be a quiz for a game show called "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" with multiple choice questions and potential prize amounts listed from $1 million to $100. It contains 15 multiple choice questions on various math, word, and logic problems for contestants to answer in order to win larger cash prizes.
The document discusses strategic capacity planning and management. It defines capacity and strategic capacity planning as determining overall capacity levels of facilities, equipment, and labor force. It discusses determining a best operating level to maximize output while minimizing costs. It also covers capacity utilization rate calculations, approaches to capacity expansion, determining capacity requirements, and using decision trees to evaluate capacity decisions. Short-term capacity options like overtime, additional shifts, and subcontracting are also summarized.
Exploring the State of Facilities - Your Chance to "Ask Sightlines"Sightlines
How does a campus turn back the clock on their facilities? How do we address growing backlog needs with limited or shrinking funds? What energy projects can reduce consumption and boost our bottom-line?
These are a few of the questions answered by Sightlines experts in this informative and engaging webinar as we offer an in-depth discussion of the benchmarks, trends, and best practices introduced in our 2014 report The State of Facilities in Higher Education.
Additionally, this interactive presentation:
- Explores the analysis that serves as the basis for our industry-leading database and the report it informs
- Shows data that goes beyond the broad trends
- Offers strategies for success and case studies showing innovative solutions to common facilities challenges
The document provides a statistical profile and cluster analysis of customers for Acme Company. It analyzes customers across various demographic variables like age, income, occupation, household type, and interests. Four key customer clusters are identified that differ in characteristics like income, education, and other attributes. The analysis aims to develop targeted marketing recommendations for Acme based on which customer segments are most likely to respond.
New strategies for attacking deferred maintenance december 2012Sightlines
Learn how national data trends show campus buildings are aging and campus backlogs are growing. And, that these trends will accelerate over the next ten years as building constructed in the 1960's turn 50 years old and capital funding from all sources continue to be limited.
Furthermore, learn how the partnership between Sightlines, LLC and University of Massachusetts - Amherst that began in 2005 resulted in more refined documented building conditions, creation of portfolios of projects, and engaged campus leadership in a priority setting process to reach consensus on a multi-year capital plan through the Integrated Facilities Planning process.
Analytics: From Reflective to PredictiveCasey Iannone
NCAIR 2016 Conference Presentation:
As the spotlight for increased transparency and accountability continue to shine upon higher education a need for more granular data regarding student retention and graduation has become a critical component in the decision making process for both faculty and staff. Developing an extensive program-level retention and graduation report is needed to inform faculty and staff as to the outcomes of their efforts and how to improve for the future. And while this kind of data is great for reflection and summative assessment, there has become an increasing need for data to become more predictive so preventative steps may be taken in a more formative assessment style. This session will explore the reporting of program-level retention and graduation and what the future holds for more predictive insights through the use of data mining and machine learning.
The document discusses the limitations of using velocity as a key metric in agile development. It argues that velocity is a lagging indicator that tells you what happened in the past rather than providing insight into the present. Relying too heavily on velocity to plan future work can be misleading if the conditions change. The document recommends using a balanced set of metrics including factors like quality, team well-being and flow through the development pipeline to get a more holistic view of project health and performance.
2014 AIR Reporting Program-level Retention and GraduationDavid Onder
AIR presentation on reporting program-level retention and graduation, looking at different visualization options. Presenters: Alison Joseph (Business Analyst) and David Onder
Similar to DESKMAG GCUC GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY PRESENTATION 2016 SLIDES (16)
3. deskmag
US$
MEAN
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
13 %
14 %
30 %
30 %
57 %
56 %
UP TO 6 7 TO 12 MORE THAN 12 MONTHS
MEAN
8.5 MONTHS
8.3 MONTHS
INHABITANTS
BY POPULATION BY AGE
UP TO 12
13-35
36 & MORE
2,5 5 7,5 10
8,4
8,4
9,11,000,000 & MORE
999,999-100,000
99,999 & LESS
2,5 5 7,5 10
7,8
8,3
9,6
MONTHS OLD
BY INVESTMENT
UP TO 50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001+
4,25 8,5 12,75 17
16,3
7,7
6
CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING TIME
LAUNCHING A COWORKING SPACE
THE GESTATION PERIOD
OF A COWORKING SPACE TAKES
8.5 MONTHSON AVERAGE (MEAN)
4. deskmag
US$
MEAN
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
13 %
14 %
30 %
30 %
57 %
56 %
UP TO 6 7 TO 12 MORE THAN 12 MONTHS
MEAN
8.5 MONTHS
8.3 MONTHS
INHABITANTS
BY POPULATION BY AGE
UP TO 12
13-35
36 & MORE
2,5 5 7,5 10
8,4
8,4
9,11,000,000 & MORE
999,999-100,000
99,999 & LESS
2,5 5 7,5 10
7,8
8,3
9,6
MONTHS OLD
BY INVESTMENT
UP TO 50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001+
4,25 8,5 12,75 17
16,3
7,7
6
CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING TIME
LAUNCHING A COWORKING SPACE
5. deskmag
ORIGIN OF INVESTED CAPITAL*
*HARMONIZED TO 100%, MISSING SHARES ARE ADDED TO “OTHER”
** AMOUNTS OF LESS THAN US$1 AND MORE THAN US$1,000,000 ARE NOT CONSIDERED.
USA
≈
US$
98,000**
(MEAN)
US$
70,000**
(MEDIAN)
USA GLOBAL
8 %7 % 1 %
0 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
1 %
3 %
2 %
2 %
3 %
7 %8 %
11 %9 %
11 %
11 %
55 %57 %
OWN CAPITAL
CAPITAL FROM FRIENDS OR FAMILY
CREDIT FROM A PRIVATE BANK OR INSTITUTION
EQUITY CAPITAL FROM INVESTORS
CREDIT FROM FRIENDS OR FAMILY
GOVERNMENT GRANT
CREDIT FROM A PUBLIC INSTITUTION
PREPAID MEMBERSHIPS
CROWDFUNDING
OTHER
≈ US$
128,000
(MEAN)
US$
100,000
(MEDIAN)
≈ US$
81,000
(MEAN)
US$
48,000
(MEDIAN)
50 DESKS
& MORE
TODAY
49 DESKS
& LESS
TODAY
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
24 %30 %46 %
UP TO 50K 50K - 100K MORE THAN US$ 100K
FINANCING A COWORKING SPACE
FOUNDER(S) SPEND ALMOST
US$ 100,000
TO START A COWORKING SPACE
ON AVERAGE
MORE THAN HALF COMES FROM
THEIR OWN, PRIVATE CAPITAL
6. deskmag
ORIGIN OF INVESTED CAPITAL*
*HARMONIZED TO 100%, MISSING SHARES ARE ADDED TO “OTHER”
** AMOUNTS OF LESS THAN US$1 AND MORE THAN US$1,000,000 ARE NOT CONSIDERED.
USA
≈
US$
98,000**
(MEAN)
US$
70,000**
(MEDIAN)
USA GLOBAL
8 %7 % 1 %
0 %
2 %
1 %
1 %
1 %
3 %
2 %
2 %
3 %
7 %8 %
11 %9 %
11 %
11 %
55 %57 %
OWN CAPITAL
CAPITAL FROM FRIENDS OR FAMILY
CREDIT FROM A PRIVATE BANK OR INSTITUTION
EQUITY CAPITAL FROM INVESTORS
CREDIT FROM FRIENDS OR FAMILY
GOVERNMENT GRANT
CREDIT FROM A PUBLIC INSTITUTION
PREPAID MEMBERSHIPS
CROWDFUNDING
OTHER
≈ US$
128,000
(MEAN)
US$
100,000
(MEDIAN)
≈ US$
81,000
(MEAN)
US$
48,000
(MEDIAN)
50 DESKS
& MORE
TODAY
49 DESKS
& LESS
TODAY
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
24 %30 %46 %
UP TO 50K 50K - 100K MORE THAN US$ 100K
FINANCING A COWORKING SPACE
AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS
7. deskmag
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
2 %10 %
7 %
6 %
4 %
4 %25 %
22 %
53 %
67 %
AT LEAST A FEW MONTHS BEFORE OPENING A FEW WEEKS BEFORE
A FEW DAYS BEFORE AT THE OPENING DAY
AFTER THE OPENING N.A.
WHEN DID YOU START PROMOTING YOUR COWORKING SPACE?
THE HIGHER THE INVESTMENT, OR THE BIGGER THE SPACE
THE EARLIER THE PROMOTION STARTS BEFORE OPENING
NO. OF MEMBERS IN THE 1ST WEEK AFTER OPENING
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
22 %
29 %
20 %
20 %
36 %
35 %
21 %
16 %
0 1-4 5-9 10+ MEMBERS
MEAN
6.5 MEMBERS
MEDIAN: 4
6.1 MEMBERS
MEDIAN: 3
PROMOTING A COWORKING SPACE
2 IN 3
COWORKING SPACES
START THEIR PROMOTION
AT LEAST A FEW MONTHS
BEFORE OPENING
8. deskmag
PROMOTING A COWORKING SPACE
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
2 %10 %
7 %
6 %
4 %
4 %25 %
22 %
53 %
67 %
AT LEAST A FEW MONTHS BEFORE OPENING A FEW WEEKS BEFORE
A FEW DAYS BEFORE AT THE OPENING DAY
AFTER THE OPENING N.A.
WHEN DID YOU START PROMOTING YOUR COWORKING SPACE?
THE HIGHER THE INVESTMENT, OR THE BIGGER THE SPACE
THE EARLIER THE PROMOTION STARTS BEFORE OPENING
NO. OF MEMBERS IN THE 1ST WEEK AFTER OPENING
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
22 %
29 %
20 %
20 %
36 %
35 %
21 %
16 %
0 1-4 5-9 10+ MEMBERS
MEAN
6.5 MEMBERS
MEDIAN: 4
6.1 MEMBERS
MEDIAN: 3
9. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF COWORKING SPACES
SHARE OF NEW MEMBERS
LAST YEAR - PER SPACE ON AVERAGE
UNTIL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED - OCT/NOV 15
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA
53% 48%
GLOBAL
34 %
28 %
COWORKING SPACES
WHICH ARE 12 MONTHS
OLD & YOUNGER
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA GLOBAL
CURRENT DURATION OF MEMBERSHIP
REPORTED BY MEMBERS, INCL. MEMBERS WHO CHANGED TO A NEW SPACE
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
6 %
7 %
17 %
28 %
27 %
29 %
66 %
66 %
54 %
FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS
13-35 MONTHS
36 MONTHS OR LONGER
MEAN
13.5 MONTHS
19.7 MONTHS
12.2 MONTHS
USA
10. deskmag
SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
38 %
45 %
22 %
30 %
40 %
25 %
UP TO 24 MEMBERS 25 TO 49 MEMBERS
50 OR MORE MEMBERS
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
34 %
43 %
31 %
25 %
35 %
33 %
UP TO 24 DESKS 25 TO 49 DESKS 50 OR MORE DESKS
NO. OF MEMBERS PER SPACE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
NO. OF DESKS/WORKSTATIONS PER SPACE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA GLOBAL
75.8109.7
MEDIAN
MEAN
40
MEDIAN
30
MEAN
MODE
30
MODE
30
63.9
MEDIAN
35
MEAN
70.2
MEAN
MEDIAN
40
USA
GLOBAL
AN AVERAGE COWORKING SPACE
IN THE U.S. HOSTS
110 MEMBERS
WITH CARE, LOVE AND
70 WORKSTATIONS
11. deskmag
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
38 %
45 %
22 %
30 %
40 %
25 %
UP TO 24 MEMBERS 25 TO 49 MEMBERS
50 OR MORE MEMBERS
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
34 %
43 %
31 %
25 %
35 %
33 %
UP TO 24 DESKS 25 TO 49 DESKS 50 OR MORE DESKS
NO. OF MEMBERS PER SPACE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
NO. OF DESKS/WORKSTATIONS PER SPACE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA GLOBAL
75.8109.7
MEDIAN
MEAN
40
MEDIAN
30
MEAN
MODE
30
MODE
30
63.9
MEDIAN
35
MEAN
70.2
MEAN
MEDIAN
40
USA
GLOBAL
SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES
12. deskmag
SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES - IN FT2
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
16 %
17 %
20 %
30 %
65 %
53 %
LESS THAN 5000 SQFT
5000 - 9999 SQFT
10000 SQFT AND MORE
250000 %
500000 %
750000 %
1000000 %
2013-14 2015-16
9647
4834
*WITHOUT LESS THAN 1 AND WITHOUT 1000SQFT AND MORE PER DESK
MEDIAN
3800
MEDIAN
4600 +21%
200000 %
400000 %
600000 %
800000 %
2013-14 2015-16
7958
4069
MEDIAN
3500 + 13%
MEDIAN
3100
+96%
+100%
USA - MEAN
GLOBAL MEAN
37,5 75 112,5 150
130
146 +32
+16
32,5 65 97,5 130
100
121 +21
+10
PER DESK*
MEAN
PER DESK*
MEDIAN
A PLAYGROUND FOR WORK IN
10,000 FT2
WITH
140 FT2
PER MEMBERON AVERAGE
13. deskmag
SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES - IN FT2
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
16 %
17 %
20 %
30 %
65 %
53 %
LESS THAN 5000 SQFT
5000 - 9999 SQFT
10000 SQFT AND MORE
250000 %
500000 %
750000 %
1000000 %
2013-14 2015-16
9647
4834
*WITHOUT LESS THAN 1 AND WITHOUT 1000SQFT AND MORE PER DESK
MEDIAN
3800
MEDIAN
4600 +21%
200000 %
400000 %
600000 %
800000 %
2013-14 2015-16
7958
4069
MEDIAN
3500 + 13%
MEDIAN
3100
+96%
+100%
USA - MEAN
GLOBAL MEAN
37,5 75 112,5 150
130
146 +32
+16
32,5 65 97,5 130
100
121 +21
+10
PER DESK*
MEAN
PER DESK*
MEDIAN
THE AVERAGE SIZE
OF A COWORKING SPACE
HAS DOUBLED
WITHIN TWO YEARS
14. deskmag
SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES - IN FT2
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
16 %
17 %
20 %
30 %
65 %
53 %
LESS THAN 5000 SQFT
5000 - 9999 SQFT
10000 SQFT AND MORE
250000 %
500000 %
750000 %
1000000 %
2013-14 2015-16
9647
4834
*WITHOUT LESS THAN 1 AND WITHOUT 1000SQFT AND MORE PER DESK
MEDIAN
3800
MEDIAN
4600 +21%
200000 %
400000 %
600000 %
800000 %
2013-14 2015-16
7958
4069
MEDIAN
3500 + 13%
MEDIAN
3100
+96%
+100%
USA - MEAN
GLOBAL MEAN
37,5 75 112,5 150
130
146 +32
+16
32,5 65 97,5 130
100
121 +21
+10
PER DESK*
MEAN
PER DESK*
MEDIAN
15. deskmag
UTILIZATION OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
16 %
25 %
5 %
8 %
17 %
20 %
38 %
35 %
24 %
12 %
UP TO 0.5 MORE THAN 0.5 UP TO 1 MORE THAN 1 UP TO 2
MORE THAN 1.5 UP TO 2 MORE THAN 2
MEMBERS PER DESK
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
MEAN
1.63
1.38
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
26 %
18 %
30 %
27 %
26 %
34 %
18 %
21 %
UP TO 50 SQFT MORE THAN 50 SQFT - 100 SQFT
MORE THAN 100 SQFT - 200 SQFT MORE THAN 200 SQFT
SQUARE FEET PER MEMBER*
141
sq ft
167
sq ft
MEAN
*WITHOUT LESS THAN 1 AND WITHOUT 1000 SQFT AND MORE PER MEMBER
MEDIAN
95 SQFT
MEDIAN
112 SQFT
16. deskmag
UTILIZATION OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
14 %
7 %
23 %
17 %
40 %
45 %
20 %
29 %
4 %
1 %
UP TO 20% MORE THAN 20% UP TO 40% MORE THAN 40% UP TO 60%
MORE THAN 60% UP TO 80% MORE THAN 80%
UTILIZATION RATE OF DESKS AT THE SAME TIME
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
0,15
0,3
0,45
0,6
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
49 %52 %52 %
USA - MEAN BY YEAR
0,15
0,3
0,45
0,6
1,000,000+ 999,999-100,000 99,999-
50 %54 %49 %
USA - MEAN BY POPULATION 2015-16
MEAN
52.02%
57.92%ONLY EVERY OTHER
MEMBER WORKS
AT THE SAME TIME
17. deskmag
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
14 %
7 %
23 %
17 %
40 %
45 %
20 %
29 %
4 %
1 %
UP TO 20% MORE THAN 20% UP TO 40% MORE THAN 40% UP TO 60%
MORE THAN 60% UP TO 80% MORE THAN 80%
UTILIZATION RATE OF DESKS AT THE SAME TIME
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
0,15
0,3
0,45
0,6
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
49 %52 %52 %
USA - MEAN BY YEAR
0,15
0,3
0,45
0,6
1,000,000+ 999,999-100,000 99,999-
50 %54 %49 %
USA - MEAN BY POPULATION 2015-16
MEAN
52.02%
57.92%
UTILIZATION OF COWORKING SPACES
18. deskmag
4.5
PEOPLE
FULL-TIME
(MEDIAN: 1)
0.8
PEOPLE
INTERNS
(MEDIAN: 0)
3.6
PEOPLE
PART-TIME
(MEDIAN: 1)
0,25
0,5
0,75
1
40 %
53 %
0,25
0,5
0,75
1
32 %
64 %
FOUNDERS
FULL-TIME
OPERATORS
PART-TIME
OPERATORS
FULL-TIME
OPERATORS
PART-TIME
OPERATORS
USA
GLOBAL
COMPARED TO THE GLOBAL AVERAGE OF
≈ 10 PEOPLE
5.2
PEOPLE
FULL-TIME
(MEDIAN: 2)
1.2
PEOPLE
AS INTERNS
(MEDIAN: 0)
4.0
PEOPLE
PART-TIME
(MEDIAN: 1)
≈9PEOPLE WORK FOR A
COWORKING SPACE ON AVERAGE
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
AS INTERNS 0,075 0,15 0,225 0,3
7 %
20 %
27 %
3 OR MORE
PEOPLE WORK
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
AS INTERNS 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
10 %
27 %
39 %
3 OR MORE
PEOPLE WORK
FOUNDERS
THE PERSONNEL OF COWORKING SPACES
THE AVERAGE
US COWORKING SPACE
IS HOSTED BY
9 PEOPLEINCL. THE FOUNDERS
19. deskmag
THE PERSONNEL OF COWORKING SPACES
4.5
PEOPLE
FULL-TIME
(MEDIAN: 1)
0.8
PEOPLE
INTERNS
(MEDIAN: 0)
3.6
PEOPLE
PART-TIME
(MEDIAN: 1)
0,25
0,5
0,75
1
40 %
53 %
0,25
0,5
0,75
1
32 %
64 %
FOUNDERS
FULL-TIME
OPERATORS
PART-TIME
OPERATORS
FULL-TIME
OPERATORS
PART-TIME
OPERATORS
USA
GLOBAL
COMPARED TO THE GLOBAL AVERAGE OF
≈ 10 PEOPLE
5.2
PEOPLE
FULL-TIME
(MEDIAN: 2)
1.2
PEOPLE
AS INTERNS
(MEDIAN: 0)
4.0
PEOPLE
PART-TIME
(MEDIAN: 1)
≈9PEOPLE WORK FOR A
COWORKING SPACE ON AVERAGE
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
AS INTERNS 0,075 0,15 0,225 0,3
7 %
20 %
27 %
3 OR MORE
PEOPLE WORK
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
AS INTERNS 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
10 %
27 %
39 %
3 OR MORE
PEOPLE WORK
FOUNDERS
20. deskmag
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
INTERNS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
10 %
14 %
7 %
17 %
25 %
17 %
36 %
43 %
73 %
38 %
19 %
0 PEOPLE 1-2 3-9 10 OR MORE PEOPLE
FULL-TIME
PART-TIME
INTERNS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
6 %
8 %
4 %
14 %
19 %
17 %
47 %
55 %
76 %
33 %
18 %
0 PEOPLE 1-2 3-9 10 OR MORE PEOPLE
USA
GLOBAL
THE PERSONNEL OF COWORKING SPACES
21. deskmag
$$$*ONLY REVENUES BETWEEN US$ 1& US$ 500,000 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
USA
SEPTEMBER
2015
≈ US$
42,100*(MEAN)
US$
9,500*(MEDIAN)
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
13 %35 %52 %
UP TO US$ 10,000
US$ 10,001 - 50,000
MORE THAN US$ 50,000
1,000,000+
999,999-100,000-
99,999- 2250000 % 4500000 % 6750000 % 9000000 %
US$ 24.100
US$ 32.200
US$ 71.900
REVENUE BY LOCATION (NO. OF INHABITANTS) MEDIAN
US$ 10,500
US$ 10,500
US$ 6,500
UP TO 29 MEMBERS
30 MEMBERS & MORE
2000000 % 4000000 % 6000000 % 8000000 %
US$ 50.300
US$ 26.700
REVENUE BY NO. OF MEMBERS PER COWORKING SPACE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
MEDIAN
US$ 4,600
US$ 15,000
COWORKING SPACES REALIZE
AN AVERAGE INCOME OF AROUND
40,000 US$
PER MONTH
MONTHLY INCOME (SEPTEMBER 2015)
22. deskmag
$$$*ONLY REVENUES BETWEEN US$ 1& US$ 500,000 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED
USA
SEPTEMBER
2015
≈ US$
42,100*(MEAN)
US$
9,500*(MEDIAN)
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
13 %35 %52 %
UP TO US$ 10,000
US$ 10,001 - 50,000
MORE THAN US$ 50,000
1,000,000+
999,999-100,000-
99,999- 2250000 % 4500000 % 6750000 % 9000000 %
US$ 24.100
US$ 32.200
US$ 71.900
REVENUE BY LOCATION (NO. OF INHABITANTS) MEDIAN
US$ 10,500
US$ 10,500
US$ 6,500
UP TO 29 MEMBERS
30 MEMBERS & MORE
2000000 % 4000000 % 6000000 % 8000000 %
US$ 50.300
US$ 26.700
REVENUE BY NO. OF MEMBERS PER COWORKING SPACE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
MEDIAN
US$ 4,600
US$ 15,000
MONTHLY INCOME (SEPTEMBER 2015)
23. deskmag
USA GLOBAL
10 %12 %
5 %5 %
6 %4 %
4 %3 %
5 %
3 %
7 %
5 %
12 %
12 %
14 %
12 %
38 %
44 %
RENT OF LOCATION
OPERATING COSTS
WAGES FOR STAFF
MAINTAINANCE
WAGES OF OWNERS
EXTERNAL MARKETING
EQUIPMENT
FOOD & DRINKS
OTHER
USA GLOBAL
2 %2 % 1 %0 %
1 %1 %
1 %
0 %
2 %4 %
3 %3 %
16 %
20 %
8 %
6 %
9 %
9 %
17 %
20 %
40 %
34 %
RENTING DESKS
PRIVATE OFFICES
MEETING SPACE(S)
EVENT & CLASS ROOM(S)
COMB. MEMBERSHIP PLANS
VIRTUAL OFFICE SERVICES
SPONSORING
FOOD & DRINKS
TICKETS TO EVENTS
PUBLIC SUPPORT
OTHER
SHARE OF INCOME STREAMS*
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
SHARE OF EXPENSES*
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
*HARMONIZED TO 100%, MISSING SHARES ARE ADDED TO “OTHER”
89% 82%
LOCATION RENTED BY LOCATION RENTED BY
COMPARED TO DESK RENTAL
FLAT RATE
MEMBERSHIP
IS ON THE RISE
INCOME & EXPENSES OF COWORKING SPACES
24. deskmag
USA GLOBAL
10 %12 %
5 %5 %
6 %4 %
4 %3 %
5 %
3 %
7 %
5 %
12 %
12 %
14 %
12 %
38 %
44 %
RENT OF LOCATION
OPERATING COSTS
WAGES FOR STAFF
MAINTAINANCE
WAGES OF OWNERS
EXTERNAL MARKETING
EQUIPMENT
FOOD & DRINKS
OTHER
USA GLOBAL
2 %2 % 1 %0 %
1 %1 %
1 %
0 %
2 %4 %
3 %3 %
16 %
20 %
8 %
6 %
9 %
9 %
17 %
20 %
40 %
34 %
RENTING DESKS
PRIVATE OFFICES
MEETING SPACE(S)
EVENT & CLASS ROOM(S)
COMB. MEMBERSHIP PLANS
VIRTUAL OFFICE SERVICES
SPONSORING
FOOD & DRINKS
TICKETS TO EVENTS
PUBLIC SUPPORT
OTHER
SHARE OF INCOME STREAMS*
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
SHARE OF EXPENSES*
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
*HARMONIZED TO 100%, MISSING SHARES ARE ADDED TO “OTHER”
89% 82%
LOCATION RENTED BY LOCATION RENTED BY
INCOME & EXPENSES OF COWORKING SPACES
25. deskmag
PROFITABILITY AND BUSINESS TYPE OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
8 %
6 %
2 %16 %
10 %
75 %
84 %
FOR PROFIT NON FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENTAL OTHER & N.A.
BUSINESS TYPE OF COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
23 %
27 %
41 %
36 %
36 %
37 %
PROFITABLE ZERO NOT PROFITABLE
PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES (WITHOUT N.A.)
1 IN 4
COWORKING SPACES IS
NOT PROFITABLE
26. deskmag
PROFITABILITY AND BUSINESS TYPE OF COWORKING SPACES
$$$USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
8 %
6 %
2 %16 %
10 %
75 %
84 %
FOR PROFIT NON FOR PROFIT GOVERNMENTAL OTHER & N.A.
BUSINESS TYPE OF COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
23 %
27 %
41 %
36 %
36 %
37 %
PROFITABLE ZERO NOT PROFITABLE
PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES (WITHOUT N.A.)
27. deskmag
PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES
27
UP TO 12 MONTHS OLD
13 - 36 MONTHS
OLDER THAN 36 MONTHS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
27 %
63 %
38 %
42 %
23 %
57 %
30 %
13 % PROFITABLE
ZERO
NOT PROFITABLE
BY AGE OF COWORKING SPACE
1,000,000 & MORE
999,999 TO 100,000
LESS THAN 100,000
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
37 %
26 %
19 %
32 %
44 %
30 %
32 %
30 %
51 %
BY POPULATION OF LOCATION
UP TO 24 MEMBERS
25 TO 49 MEMBERS
50 MEMBERS & MORE
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
16 %
30 %
45 %
26 %
42 %
42 %
58 %
27 %
13 %
BY NO. OF MEMBERS PER COWORKING SPACE
MEANS:
AVERAGE AGE
39.8 MONTHS
39.6 MONTHS
29.8 MONTHS
AVERAGE NO.
OF MEMBERS
149.8
128.9
51.4
OLDER SPACE &
MORE MEMBERS
= HIGHER
PROFITABILITY
28. deskmag
$$$
PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES
UP TO 12 MONTHS OLD
13 - 36 MONTHS
OLDER THAN 36 MONTHS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
27 %
63 %
38 %
42 %
23 %
57 %
30 %
13 % PROFITABLE
ZERO
NOT PROFITABLE
BY AGE OF COWORKING SPACE
1,000,000 & MORE
999,999 TO 100,000
LESS THAN 100,000
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
37 %
26 %
19 %
32 %
44 %
30 %
32 %
30 %
51 %
BY POPULATION OF LOCATION
UP TO 24 MEMBERS
25 TO 49 MEMBERS
50 MEMBERS & MORE
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
16 %
30 %
45 %
26 %
42 %
42 %
58 %
27 %
13 %
BY NO. OF MEMBERS PER COWORKING SPACE
MEANS:
AVERAGE AGE
39.8 MONTHS
39.6 MONTHS
29.8 MONTHS
AVERAGE NO.
OF MEMBERS
149.8
128.9
51.4
29. deskmag
LAYOUT OF COWORKING SPACES
TYPE OF SPACES AT COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
3 %
4 %
3 %
8 %
5 %
17 %
16 %
18 %
23 %
49 %
51 %
OPEN SPACE PRIVATE OFFICES MEETING SPACES
EVENT SPACES CLASS ROOMS OTHER
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
>5K 5-10K >10K
30 %24 %20 %
40 %48 %55 %
SHARE OF OPEN SPACES & PRIVATE OFFICES (USA)
BY CITY POPULATION BY SIZE OF SPACE BY PROFITABILITY
INHABITANTS SQ FT
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
>1M 900K-100K <100K
22 %
22 %25 %
47 %55 %50 %
0 %
23 %
45 %
68 %
90 %
++/+ 0 -/--
21 %17 %29 %
46 %53 %52 %
THE RETURN OF
PRIVATE OFFICES &
DEDICATED DESKS
30. deskmag
LAYOUT OF COWORKING SPACES
TYPE OF SPACES AT COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
3 %
4 %
3 %
8 %
5 %
17 %
16 %
18 %
23 %
49 %
51 %
OPEN SPACE PRIVATE OFFICES MEETING SPACES
EVENT SPACES CLASS ROOMS OTHER
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
>5K 5-10K >10K
30 %24 %20 %
40 %48 %55 %
SHARE OF OPEN SPACES & PRIVATE OFFICES (USA)
BY CITY POPULATION BY SIZE OF SPACE BY PROFITABILITY
INHABITANTS SQ FT
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
>1M 900K-100K <100K
22 %
22 %25 %
47 %55 %50 %
0 %
23 %
45 %
68 %
90 %
++/+ 0 -/--
21 %17 %29 %
46 %53 %52 %
31. deskmag
LAYOUT OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
1 %13 %
15 %
28 %
39 %
25 %
23 %
23 %
15 %
9 %
8 %
DEDICATED DESKS ONLY MORE DEDICATED THAN FLEXIBLE DESKS
ROUGHLY 50/50 MORE FLEXIBLE THAN DEDICATED DESKS
FLEXIBLE DESKS ONLY OTHER
TYPE OF DESKS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
>1M 900K-100K<100K
17 %20 %
32 %
0 %
13 %
25 %
38 %
50 %
>5K 5-10K >10K
45 %
33 %30 %
0 %
13 %
25 %
38 %
50 %
++/+ 0 -/--
24 %31 %
42 %
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES WITH DEDICATED DESKS*
*SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES WITH
MORE THAN 50% UP TO 100% DEDICATED DESKS
BY CITY POPULATION BY SIZE OF SPACE BY PROFITABILITY
INHABITANTS SQ FT
32. deskmag
DISTRIBUTION OF COWORKING SPACES IN THE U.S.
4 %
3 %
17 %
77 %
URBAN
SUBURBAN
RURAL
OTHER
33 %
36 %
31 %
1,000,000 & MORE
999,999 TO 100,000
99,999 & LESS INHABITANTS
30 %
41 %
30 %
33 %
36 %
31 %
2011-12
2013-14
2015-16
2015-16
BY NO. INHABITANTS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES- W/O N.A.
BY LANDSCAPE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
1,000,000+
999,999 - 100,000
99,999-
10 20 30 40
2
7
39
2
11
26
USA
GLOBAL
NO. OF COWORKING SPACES
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS OF A CITY
MEAN - REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
LESS THAN A THIRD
OF ALL COWORKING SPACES ARE LOCATED
IN CITIES OF
1 MILLION+
33. deskmag
DISTRIBUTION OF COWORKING SPACES IN THE U.S.
4 %
3 %
17 %
77 %
URBAN
SUBURBAN
RURAL
OTHER
33 %
36 %
31 %
1,000,000 & MORE
999,999 TO 100,000
99,999 & LESS INHABITANTS
30 %
41 %
30 %
33 %
36 %
31 %
2011-12
2013-14
2015-16
2015-16
BY NO. INHABITANTS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES- W/O N.A.
BY LANDSCAPE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
1,000,000+
999,999 - 100,000
99,999-
10 20 30 40
2
7
39
2
11
26
USA
GLOBAL
NO. OF COWORKING SPACES
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS OF A CITY
MEAN - REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
34. deskmag
DISTRIBUTION OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
4 %
3 %
17 %
76 %
URBAN
SUBURBAN
RURAL
OTHER
21 %
53 %
27 %
1,000,000 & MORE
999,999 TO 100,000
99,999 & LESS INHABITANTS
19 %
50 %
31 %
15 %
47 %
38 %
2011-12
2013-14
2015-16
2015-16
BY NO. INHABITANTS
REPORTED BY MEMBERS- W/O N.A.
BY LANDSCAPE
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
35. deskmag
LOCATION OF COWORKING SPACES
36 % 55 %
VACANT
NOT VACANT
NOT SURE & N.A.
2015-16 2013-14
17 %19 %
21 %16 %
63 %64 %
COMMERCIAL BUILDING
INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
OTHER
36 %
49 %
BUILDING TYPE
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
VACANT LOCATION
FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS
BEFORE MOVING IN
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
2013-14
2015-16
2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
8 %
4 %
18 %
19 %
27 %
26 %
23 %
31 %
24 %
20 %
UP TO 20 YEARS OLD 21 TO 50 YEARS
51 TO 100 YEARS OLDER THAN 100 YEARS
NOT SURE OR N.A.
AGE OF BUILDING
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
36. deskmag
LEASE TERM OF COWORKING SPACES
WHOLE LEASE TERM
REST LEASE TERM
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %
17 %
23 %
35 %
27 %
31 %
32 %
17 %
14 %
UP TO 11 MONTHS 12-35 MONTHS
36-59 MONTHS 60-119 MONTHS
120 MONTHS & LONGER
MEAN
61.7 MONTHS
LENGTH OF LEASE TERMS IN MONTHS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
MEDIAN: 60
40.8 MONTHS
MEDIAN: 36
1,000,000 +
999,999 - 100,000
99,999 -
2000 % 4000 % 6000 % 8000 %
32
38
52
47
59
80
WHOLE LEASE TERM REST LEASE TERM
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS PER LOCATION
IN MONTHS - REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
1 IN 5
COWORKING SPACES
MOVED TO
A NEW LOCATION
AT LEAST ONCE
THE AVERAGE LEASE TERM IS
5 YEARS
AND EXPIRES IN
3.5 YEARS
37. deskmag
LOCATION OF COWORKING SPACES
WHOLE LEASE TERM
REST LEASE TERM
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %
17 %
23 %
35 %
27 %
31 %
32 %
17 %
14 %
UP TO 11 MONTHS 12-35 MONTHS
36-59 MONTHS 60-119 MONTHS
120 MONTHS & LONGER
MEAN
61.7 MONTHS
LENGTH OF LEASE TERMS IN MONTHS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
MEDIAN: 60
40.8 MONTHS
MEDIAN: 36
1,000,000 +
999,999 - 100,000
99,999 -
2000 % 4000 % 6000 % 8000 %
32
38
52
47
59
80
WHOLE LEASE TERM REST LEASE TERM
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS PER LOCATION
IN MONTHS - REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
1 IN 5
COWORKING SPACES
MOVED TO
A NEW LOCATION
AT LEAST ONCE
38. deskmag
DEMAND FOR COWORKING SPACES IN THE U.S.
1,000,000+
999,999-100,000
99,999-
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
2 %
3 %
15 %
14 %
39 %
74 %
66 %
42 %
10 %
18 %
17 %
TOO MANY COWORKING SPACES
JUST RIGHT
TOO FEW COWORKING SPACES
DON'T KNOW & N.A.
DEMAND FOR COWORKING SPACES
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
THE HIGHEST DEMAND
FOR MORE
COWORKING SPACES
IS IN
CITIES OF 1 MILLION+
39. deskmag
DEMAND FOR COWORKING SPACES IN THE U.S.
1,000,000+
999,999-100,000
99,999-
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
2 %
3 %
15 %
14 %
39 %
74 %
66 %
42 %
10 %
18 %
17 %
TOO MANY COWORKING SPACES
JUST RIGHT
TOO FEW COWORKING SPACES
DON'T KNOW & N.A.
DEMAND FOR COWORKING SPACES
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
40. deskmag
INTERACTION AMONG COWORKING SPACES
15 %
30 %
45 %
60 %
LOCAL & REGIONAL NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL
15 %
27 %
49 %
15 %
30 %
45 %
60 %
LOCAL & REGIONAL NATIONAL INTERNATIONAL
7 %25 %
45 %
LOCAL & REGIONAL INTERACTION
NATIONAL INTERACTION
INTERNATIONAL INTERACTION
50,4 %
65,3 %
79,6 %
38,7 %
58,1 %
81,4 %
USA GLOBAL
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES WHICH INTERACT WITH
OTHER COWORKING SPACES
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES WHICH INTERACT WITH OTHER
COWORKING SPACES MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA GLOBAL
41. deskmag
EXPANSIONS PLANS OF COWORKING SPACES
FOR 2016
62 %
58 %
USA
GLOBAL
EXPANSIONS PLANNED IN 2016
‘YES’ COMBINED - REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
FOR 2012
67 %
61 %
FOR 2014
58 %
60 %
YES,
WE WILL
EXPAND
1 MIO & MORE 999,999 - 100,000 99,999 & LESS
59 %52 %64 %
PROFITABLE ZERO NOT-PROFITABLE
59 %36 %
81 %
UP TO 17 MONTHS 18-35 MONTHS 36 MONTHS & OLDER
55 %67 %63 %
BY CITY SIZE
BY PROFITABILITY
BY AGE OF SPACE
60% PLAN
TO EXPAND THIS YEAR
42. deskmag
EXPANSIONS PLANS OF COWORKING SPACES
FOR 2016
62 %
58 %
USA
GLOBAL
EXPANSIONS PLANNED IN 2016 IN THE U.S.
‘YES’ COMBINED - REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
FOR 2012
67 %
61 %
FOR 2014
58 %
60 %
YES,
WE WILL
EXPAND
1 MIO & MORE 999,999 - 100,000 99,999 & LESS
59 %52 %64 %
PROFITABLE ZERO NOT-PROFITABLE
59 %36 %
81 %
UP TO 17 MONTHS 18-35 MONTHS 36 MONTHS & OLDER
55 %67 %63 %
BY CITY SIZE
BY PROFITABILITY
BY AGE OF SPACE
43. deskmag
EXPANSIONS PLANS OF COWORKING SPACES
TYPE OF EXPANSION PLANS FOR 2016
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
EXPANSION INSIDE THE SPACE
EXPANSION WITH MORE LOCATIONS
EXPANSION TO A LARGER LOCATION
OTHER
NO EXPANSIONS PLANNED
10 % 20 % 30 % 40 %
31 %
8 %
12 %
36 %
27 %
35 %
9 %
8 %
36 %
23 %
USA
GLOBAL
28%
OF COWORKING SPACES
IN THE US
HAVE EXPANDED INSIDE
THEIR CURRENT LOCATION
IN THE PAST
AT LEAST ONCE
45. deskmag
TOP 10 REASONS TO CHOOSE A COWORKING SPACE
A COMMUNITY
INTERACTION WITH OTHERS
GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY
GOOD INTERNET CONNECTIONS
BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
A CLOSE DISTANCE TO MY HOME
RANDOM DISCOVERIES
A CLEAN WORKSPACE
LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE
EVENTS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
45 %
49 %
50 %
52 %
58 %
59 %
60 %
62 %
75 %
76 %NORTH AMERICA
INTERACTION WITH OTHERS
A COMMUNITY
LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE
BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
RANDOM DISCOVERIES 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
48 %
58 %
58 %
71 %
74 %GLOBAL
COMMUNITY
REMAINS THE MOST
IMPORTANT REASON TO
JOIN A COWORKING SPACE
46. deskmag
TOP 10 REASONS TO CHOOSE A COWORKING SPACE
A COMMUNITY
INTERACTION WITH OTHERS
GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY
GOOD INTERNET CONNECTIONS
BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
A CLOSE DISTANCE TO MY HOME
RANDOM DISCOVERIES
A CLEAN WORKSPACE
LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE
EVENTS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
45 %
49 %
50 %
52 %
58 %
59 %
60 %
62 %
75 %
76 %NORTH AMERICA
INTERACTION WITH OTHERS
A COMMUNITY
LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE
BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
RANDOM DISCOVERIES 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
48 %
58 %
58 %
71 %
74 %GLOBAL
47. deskmag
A COMMUNITY
INTERACTION WITH OTHERS
GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY
GOOD INTERNET CONNECTIONS
BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
A CLOSE DISTANCE TO MY HOME
RANDOM DISCOVERIES
A CLEAN WORKSPACE
LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE
EVENTS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
45 %
49 %
50 %
52 %
58 %
59 %
60 %
62 %
75 %
76 %NORTH AMERICA
INTERACTION WITH OTHERS
A COMMUNITY
LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE
BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE
RANDOM DISCOVERIES 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
48 %
58 %
58 %
71 %
74 %GLOBAL
TOP 10 REASONS TO CHOOSE A COWORKING SPACE
48. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
AGE GROUPS
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
5 %
1 %
9 %
7 %
13 %
28 %
25 %
19 %
36 %
37 %
39 %
22 %
25 %
28 %
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ YEARS OLD
MEAN MEDIAN
38.9 36
37.8 36
36.8 35
0 %
1.000 %
2.000 %
3.000 %
4.000 %
≥1M 900K-100K <100K
38,337,634,2
0 %
1.250 %
2.500 %
3.750 %
5.000 %
FREELANCER EMPLOYEE
34,142,6
0 %
1.000 %
2.000 %
3.000 %
4.000 %
DEDICATED DESK FLEXIBLE DESK
37,934,7
AVERAGE AGE IN YEARS
BY CITY POPULATION
BY PROFESSIONAL
STATUS
BY USED DESK TYPE
THE AVERAGE COWORKER
IS GETTING YOUNGER
49. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
AGE GROUPS
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
5 %
1 %
9 %
7 %
13 %
28 %
25 %
19 %
36 %
37 %
39 %
22 %
25 %
28 %
18-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60+ YEARS OLD
MEAN MEDIAN
38.9 36
37.8 36
36.8 35
0 %
1.000 %
2.000 %
3.000 %
4.000 %
≥1M 900K-100K <100K
38,337,634,2
0 %
1.250 %
2.500 %
3.750 %
5.000 %
FREELANCER EMPLOYEE
34,142,6
0 %
1.000 %
2.000 %
3.000 %
4.000 %
DEDICATED DESK FLEXIBLE DESK
37,934,7
AVERAGE AGE IN YEARS
BY CITY POPULATION
BY PROFESSIONAL
STATUS
BY USED DESK TYPE
50. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %
4 %
3 %
7 %
36 %
47 %
38 %
22 %
20 %
19 %
SINGLE
IN A RELATIONSHIP (BUT NOT MARRIED)
MARRIED
SEPARATED, DIVORCED OR WIDOWED
OTHER & N.A.
STATUS OF RELATIONSHIP
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
7 %4 %5 %
34 %37 %
51 %
12 %17 %
12 %
47 %42 %
32 %
FREELANCER
ENTREPRENEUR (W/ EMPLOYEES)
EMPLOYEE
OTHER & N.A.
JOB STATUS (USA)
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
38% 36%
38%41%
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
SHARE OF
FEMALE
MEMBERS
2015-16
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA GLOBAL
EMPLOYEES TAKE OVER
FREELANCERS
51. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
USA
GLOBAL
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %
4 %
3 %
7 %
36 %
47 %
38 %
22 %
20 %
19 %
SINGLE
IN A RELATIONSHIP (BUT NOT MARRIED)
MARRIED
SEPARATED, DIVORCED OR WIDOWED
OTHER & N.A.
STATUS OF RELATIONSHIP
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
7 %4 %5 %
34 %37 %
51 %
12 %17 %
12 %
47 %42 %
32 %
FREELANCER
ENTREPRENEUR (W/ EMPLOYEES)
EMPLOYEE
OTHER & N.A.
JOB STATUS (USA)
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
38% 36%
38%41%
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
SHARE OF
FEMALE
MEMBERS
2015-16
REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES
USA GLOBAL
52. deskmag
WORKING BEHAVIOURS OF MEMBERS
I’M ABLE TO DECIDE HOW I WORK
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
1 %1 %
2 %
3 %
34 %
42 %
64 %
53 %
ALWAYS OFTEN NEITHER OFTEN NOR SELDOM
SELDOM NEVER N.A.
I’M ABLE TO DECIDE WHERE I WORK
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
1 %
4 %
3 %
2 %
4 %
32 %
30 %
62 %
63 %
ALWAYS OFTEN
NEITHER OFTEN NOR SELDOM SELDOM
NEVER N.A.
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
3 %
5 %
53 %
50 %
44 %
43 %
EMPLOYEES ONLY
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
11 %
5 %
3 %
5 %
47 %
35 %
39 %
55 %
EMPLOYEES ONLY
IN COWORKING SPACES
EMPLOYEES HAVE ALMOST
THE SAME DISCRETION
AS FREELANCERS
53. deskmag
I’M ABLE TO DECIDE HOW I WORK
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
1 %1 %
2 %
3 %
34 %
42 %
64 %
53 %
ALWAYS OFTEN NEITHER OFTEN NOR SELDOM
SELDOM NEVER N.A.
I’M ABLE TO DECIDE WHERE I WORK
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
1 %
4 %
3 %
2 %
4 %
32 %
30 %
62 %
63 %
ALWAYS OFTEN
NEITHER OFTEN NOR SELDOM SELDOM
NEVER N.A.
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
3 %
5 %
53 %
50 %
44 %
43 %
EMPLOYEES ONLY
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
11 %
5 %
3 %
5 %
47 %
35 %
39 %
55 %
EMPLOYEES ONLY
WORKING BEHAVIOURS OF MEMBERS
54. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
2015-16 2013-14
14 %16 %
1 %
3 % 4 %
5 % 6 %
5 % 6 %3 %
9 %5 %
2 %4 % 1 %
4 %
10 %7 %
9 %
5 %
19 %
15 %
19 %
27 %
IT (SOFTWARE ENGINEER, WEB DEVELOPER)
CONSULTING
PR, MARKETING, SALES, ADVERTISING
DESIGN (GRAPHIC, WEB, PRODUCT, GAME)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (EVENTS, COMMUNITY, CULTURE)
RESEARCH (SCIENTIST, ANALYST, RESEARCHER)
WRITING (JOURNALIST, WRITER, COPYWRITER, BLOGGER)
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT (INCL. FOUNDERS)
EDUCATION (COACHING, TRAINING, TEACHING)
HIGHER MANAGEMENT
ART (FILMMAKER, PAINTER, PHOTOGRAPHER, MUSIC...)
OTHER
PROFESSIONS OF MEMBERS
REPORTED BY MEMBERS - BASED ON OPEN RESPONSES - MANY MEMBERS DESCRIBED MORE THAN ONE JOB PROFILE
THEREFORE, RESULTS ARE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE
USA
ALMOST ALL MEMBERS
STILL WORK IN THE
CREATIVE INDUSTRY
55. deskmag
DEMOGRAPHICS OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES
2015-16 2013-14
14 %16 %
1 %
3 % 4 %
5 % 6 %
5 % 6 %3 %
9 %5 %
2 %4 % 1 %
4 %
10 %7 %
9 %
5 %
19 %
15 %
19 %
27 %
IT (SOFTWARE ENGINEER, WEB DEVELOPER)
CONSULTING
PR, MARKETING, SALES, ADVERTISING
DESIGN (GRAPHIC, WEB, PRODUCT, GAME)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (EVENTS, COMMUNITY, CULTURE)
RESEARCH (SCIENTIST, ANALYST, RESEARCHER)
WRITING (JOURNALIST, WRITER, COPYWRITER, BLOGGER)
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT (INCL. FOUNDERS)
EDUCATION (COACHING, TRAINING, TEACHING)
HIGHER MANAGEMENT
ART (FILMMAKER, PAINTER, PHOTOGRAPHER, MUSIC...)
OTHER
PROFESSIONS OF MEMBERS
REPORTED BY MEMBERS - BASED ON OPEN RESPONSES - MANY MEMBERS DESCRIBED MORE THAN ONE JOB PROFILE
THEREFORE, RESULTS ARE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE
USA
56. deskmag
USA
81%
OF MEMBERS ARRIVE AT
THEIR COWORKING SPACE
WITHIN 20 MINUTES
18 MINUTES 2 MINS
LESS THAN
TWO YEARS
AGO
3 MINS
FASTER THAN
GLOBAL AVERAGE
19%
51%
22%
8%
THE AVERAGE
COMMUTING TIME TO
A COWORKING SPACE
22,5 %
45 %
67,5 %
90 %
1 MIO & MORE 999,999 - 100,000 99,999 & LESS
88 %
81 %76 %
THE SMALLER THE CITY
THE FASTER THE WAY
LOCATION SIZE BY POPULATION
ARRIVAL WITHIN 20 MINUTES
GETTING TO A COWORKING SPACE
COWORKING SPACES
ARE GETTING CLOSER
TO HOME
57. deskmag
USA
81%
OF MEMBERS ARRIVE AT
THEIR COWORKING SPACE
WITHIN 20 MINUTES
18 MINUTES 2 MINS
LESS THAN
TWO YEARS
AGO
3 MINS
FASTER THAN
GLOBAL AVERAGE
19%
51%
22%
8%
THE AVERAGE
COMMUTING TIME TO
A COWORKING SPACE
22,5 %
45 %
67,5 %
90 %
1 MIO & MORE 999,999 - 100,000 99,999 & LESS
88 %
81 %76 %
THE SMALLER THE CITY
THE FASTER THE WAY
LOCATION SIZE BY POPULATION
ARRIVAL WITHIN 20 MINUTES
GETTING TO A COWORKING SPACE
58. deskmag
USE OF COWORKING SPACE BY COMMUTING TIME
5 TIMES A WEEK OR MORE OFTEN
1-4 TIMES A WEEK
LESS THAN ONCE A WEEK
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
46 %
18 %
12 %
54 %
82 %
88 %
UP TO 20 MINUTES MORE THAN 20 MINUTES
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
45 %
37 %
29 %
55 %
63 %
71 %
USA GLOBAL
3 TIMES A WEEK OR MORE OFTEN
2 TIMES A WEEK OR LESS OFTEN
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
33 %
15 %
67 %
85 %
0,175 0,35 0,525 0,7
44 %
31 %
57 %
69 %
FREELANCERS
EMPLOYEES
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
15 %
28 %
85 %
72 %
0,175 0,35 0,525 0,7
32 %
32 %
68 %
68 %
2015-16
59. deskmag
INCOME & EXPENSES OF MEMBERS
AVERAGE PRICE OF A MEMBERSHIP
PER MONTH IN THE U.S.
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
INCOME COMPARED TO
THE COST OF LIVING
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
US$
305
FULL-TIME
24-7
US$
199
WORKDAY
HOURS
US$
134
LIMITED NO.
OF DAYS
USA GLOBAL
4 %
5 %
2 %1 %
13 %9 %
46 %
45 %
30 %34 %
5 %5 %
VERY HIGH
RATHER HIGH
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE
RATHER LOW
VERY LOW
N.A.
0,25
0,5
0,75
1
77 %
62 %
94 %
“GOOD PRICE FOR VALUE”: Ø 85%
LOCAL DAILY EXPENSES: US$ 9
AMOUNT OF SPENT MONEY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
OF A COWORKING SPACE - REPORTED BY MEMBERS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
28 %27 %23 %22 %
$ 0-4 $ 5-9 $ 10-14 $15+
HIGHEST VALUE IS SEEN
IN FULL-TIME MEMBERSHIP
60. deskmag
INCOME & EXPENSES OF MEMBERS
AVERAGE PRICE OF A MEMBERSHIP
PER MONTH IN THE U.S.
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
INCOME COMPARED TO
THE COST OF LIVING
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
US$
305
FULL-TIME
24-7
US$
199
WORKDAY
HOURS
US$
134
LIMITED NO.
OF DAYS
USA GLOBAL
4 %
5 %
2 %1 %
13 %9 %
46 %
45 %
30 %34 %
5 %5 %
VERY HIGH
RATHER HIGH
SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE
RATHER LOW
VERY LOW
N.A.
0,25
0,5
0,75
1
77 %
62 %
94 %
“GOOD PRICE FOR VALUE”: Ø 85%
LOCAL DAILY EXPENSES: US$ 9
AMOUNT OF SPENT MONEY IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD
OF A COWORKING SPACE - REPORTED BY MEMBERS
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
28 %27 %23 %22 %
$ 0-4 $ 5-9 $ 10-14 $15+
61. deskmag
INCOME & EXPENSES OF MEMBERS
INCOME COMPARED TO
THE COST OF LIVING
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
FREELANCERS
EMPLOYEES
USA
GLOBAL
USA
GLOBAL
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
-37 % -28 % -19 % -9 % 0 % 9 % 19 % 28 %
18 %
22 %
20 %
-23 %
-23 %
-27 %
VERY & RATHER HIGH VERY & RATHER LOW
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
-37 % -28 % -19 % -9 % 0 % 9 % 19 % 28 %
23 %
18 %
16 %
-32 %
-23 %
-36 %
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
-50 % -33 % -15 % 2 %
8 %
14 %
14 %
-43 %
-34 %
-31 %
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
-50 % -33 % -15 % 2 %
11 %
6 %
5 %
-42 %
-33 %
-48 %
62. deskmag⚕
HEALTH INSURANCE
SHARE OF MEMBERS WITHOUT AN HEALTH INSURANCE
USA
GLOBAL
2015-16
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %1 %9 %52 %35 %
ENHANCED HEALTH INSURANCE
BASIC HEALTH INSURANCE
TIME-RESTRICTED HEALTH INSURANCE
NO HEALTH INSURANCE
OTHER
DON'T KNOW & N.A.
2015-16
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %1 %14 %2 %43 %37 %
FREELANCERS
EMPLOYEES
0 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 %
13 %
8 %
16 %
14 %
GLOBAL
USA
18-34 YEARS
35+ YEARS
0 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 %
9 %
19 %
MALE
FEMALE
0 % 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 %
11 %
8 %
12 %
15 %
STATUS OF HEALTH INSURANCE
63. deskmag
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %
5 %
6 %
6 %
6 %
4 %
1 %
2 %
1 %
5 %
1 %
3 %
4 %
6 %
4 %
22 %
23 %
37 %
58 %
56 %
45 %
HOME OFFICE TRADITIONAL OFFICE
COFFEE SHOP SMALL SHARED OFFICE COMMUNITY
BUSINESS CENTER NO FIXED LOCATION
OTHER & N.A.
GLOBAL
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
6 %
3 %
4 %
7 %
7 %
1 %4 %
2 %
6 %
10 %
11 %
21 %
23 %
37 %
57 %
57 %
44 %
USA
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
LAST PLACE OF WORK - BEFORE STARTING COWORKING
MEMBERS ARE
INCREASINGLY ARRIVING
FROM TRADITIONAL , NOT
HOME OFFICES
64. deskmag
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
4 %
5 %
6 %
6 %
6 %
4 %
1 %
2 %
1 %
5 %
1 %
3 %
4 %
6 %
4 %
22 %
23 %
37 %
58 %
56 %
45 %
HOME OFFICE TRADITIONAL OFFICE
COFFEE SHOP SMALL SHARED OFFICE COMMUNITY
BUSINESS CENTER NO FIXED LOCATION
OTHER & N.A.
GLOBAL
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
6 %
3 %
4 %
7 %
7 %
1 %4 %
2 %
6 %
10 %
11 %
21 %
23 %
37 %
57 %
57 %
44 %
USA
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
LAST PLACE OF WORK - BEFORE STARTING COWORKING
65. deskmag
DURATION OF MEMBERSHIPS (USA)
CURRENT DURATION OF MEMBERSHIP
WHEN STILL MEMBER OF THE 1ST COWORKING SPACE
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
8 %
15 %
30 %
30 %
31 %
65 %
62 %
54 %
FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS 13-35 MONTHS 36 MONTHS OR LONGER
MEAN (ROUNDED)
14.6 MONTHS
18.9 MONTHS
12.0 MONTHS
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
6 %
7 %
17 %
28 %
27 %
29 %
66 %
66 %
54 %
MEAN
13.5 MONTHS
19.7MONTHS
12.2 MONTHS
CURRENT DURATION OF MEMBERSHIP
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
66. deskmag
USE OF COWORKING SPACES BY MEMBERS (USA)
2015-16
2013-14
2011-12
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
13 %
14 %
16 %
28 %
29 %
15 %
28 %
31 %
33 %
31 %
23 %
36 %
5 TIMES A WEEK OR MORE OFTEN 3 TO 4 TIMES A WEEK
1 TO 2 TIMES A WEEK 1 TO 4 TIMES A MONTH
LESS THAN ONCE A MONTH
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
22 %
14 %
34 %
18 %
44 %
68 % 3 TIMES A WEEK OR MORE OFTEN
1 TO 2 TIMES A WEEK
LESS THAN ONCE A WEEK
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
20 %
14 %
33 %
16 %
47 %
70 % 3 TIMES A WEEK OR MORE OFTEN
1 TO 2 TIMES A WEEK
LESS THAN ONCE A WEEK
FREELANCERS
EMPLOYEES
67. deskmag
USA
NO. OF COWORKING SPACES MEMBERS HAVE WORKED AT
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
7 %
8 %
6 %
4 %
6 %
8 %
11 %
10 %
8 %
79 %
76 %
79 %
USAGLOBAL
MEAN
1,5
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
5 %
7 %
8 %
4 %
6 %
8 %
11 %
15 %
17 %
81 %
72 %
67 %
1 2 3 4+
1,8
1,5
1,5
1,6
1,6
USE OF COWORKING SPACES
MEMBERS WITH MORE
THAN ONE MEMBERSHIP
2012-13
2013-14
2015-16
0 % 3 % 5 % 8 % 10 %
4 %
6 %
7 %
68. deskmag
WHERE MEMBERS MOSTLY WORK AT A COWORKING SPACE
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
5 %
9 %
13 %
79 %
76 %
OPEN WORKSPACE
TEAM OFFICE
INDIVIDUAL OFFICE
GLOBAL
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
2 %
12 %
6 %
11 %
85 %
71 %
USA
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
35 %37 %
52 %
20 %
32 %
41 %
USA
GLOBAL
TYPE OF SPACE
SHARE OF MEMBERS AT
DEDICATED DESKS
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
38 %37 %
31 % 29 %32 %
21 %
MEMBERS WITH ACCESS
TO TRADITIONAL WORK HOURS
MORE MEMBERS WORK
AWAY FROM
OPEN WORKSPACE
69. deskmag
WHERE MEMBERS MOSTLY WORK AT A COWORKING SPACE
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
3 %
5 %
9 %
13 %
79 %
76 %
OPEN WORKSPACE
TEAM OFFICE
INDIVIDUAL OFFICE
GLOBAL
2015-16
2013-14
0 % 25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
2 %
12 %
6 %
11 %
85 %
71 %
USA
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
35 %37 %
52 %
20 %
32 %
41 %
USA
GLOBAL
TYPE OF SPACE
SHARE OF MEMBERS AT
DEDICATED DESKS
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
38 %37 %
31 % 29 %32 %
21 %
MEMBERS WITH ACCESS
TO TRADITIONAL WORK HOURS
70. deskmag
RATING OF COWORKING SPACES
MEAN
8.30
8.62
2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
59 %
52 %
37 %
35 %
4 %
13 %
1-6 STARS 7-8 STARS 9-10 STARS
GLOBAL AVERAGE: 8.32 (2015-16), 8.24 (2013-14)
BY AVERAGE
UTILIZATION RATE
UP TO
25%
MORE THAN 25%
UP TO 50%
MORE THAN 50%
UP TO 75%
MORE
THAN 75%
2,5
5
7,5
10
5,5
8,1 9,2 8,9
BY AGE
18-34 YEARS 50 YEARS & OLDER35-49 YEARS
2,5
5
7,5
10
8,4 7,9 9,4
BY SIZE OF
POPULATION
1,000,000+
INHABITANTS
99,999 &
LESS INHABITANTS
999,999-100,000
INHABITANTS
2,5
5
7,5
10
8,4 8,2 8,7
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
MEMBERS PREFER
BUSY & DENSE
COWORKING SPACES
71. deskmag
RATING OF COWORKING SPACES
MEAN
8.30
8.62
2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
59 %
52 %
37 %
35 %
4 %
13 %
1-6 STARS 7-8 STARS 9-10 STARS
GLOBAL AVERAGE: 8.32 (2015-16), 8.24 (2013-14)
BY AVERAGE
UTILIZATION RATE
UP TO
25%
MORE THAN 25%
UP TO 50%
MORE THAN 50%
UP TO 75%
MORE
THAN 75%
2,5
5
7,5
10
5,5
8,1 9,2 8,9
BY AGE
18-34 YEARS 50 YEARS & OLDER35-49 YEARS
2,5
5
7,5
10
8,4 7,9 9,4
BY SIZE OF
POPULATION
1,000,000+
INHABITANTS
99,999 &
LESS INHABITANTS
999,999-100,000
INHABITANTS
2,5
5
7,5
10
8,4 8,2 8,7
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
72. deskmag
COWORKING COMMUNITY
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
54 %59 %58 %
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
58 %61 %70 %
USA GLOBAL
SHARE OF MEMBERS WHICH FEEL LIKE BEING PART
OF THE COMMUNITY OF THEIR COWORKING SPACE
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
*THE QUESTION WAS CHANGED FROM “HOW MUCH…” TO “HOW STRONGLY” IN 2015-16,
“DON’T KNOW” WAS TAKEN OUT AS WELL.
BY
PROFESSIONAL
STATUS
FREELANCERS
ENTREPRENEURS
EMPLOYEES
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
60 %
74 %
77 %
46 %
75 %
76 %USA GLOBAL
UP TO 33%
34-66%
MORE THAN 66%
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
80 %
67 %
54 %
86 %
56 %
33 %BY
AVERAGE
UTILIZATION RATE
AT THE SAME TIME
MALE
FEMALE
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
72 %
67 %
68 %
50 %BY
GENDER
FREELANCERS &
ENTREPRENEURS ARE
MORE ATTACHED TO
THEIR COWORKING
COMMUNITY
73. deskmag
COWORKING COMMUNITY
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
54 %59 %58 %
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
2015-16 2013-14 2011-12
58 %61 %70 %
USA GLOBAL
SHARE OF MEMBERS WHICH FEEL LIKE BEING PART
OF THE COMMUNITY OF THEIR COWORKING SPACE
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
*THE QUESTION WAS CHANGED FROM “HOW MUCH…” TO “HOW STRONGLY” IN 2015-16,
“DON’T KNOW” WAS TAKEN OUT AS WELL.
BY
PROFESSIONAL
STATUS
FREELANCERS
ENTREPRENEURS
EMPLOYEES
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
60 %
74 %
77 %
46 %
75 %
76 %USA GLOBAL
UP TO 33%
34-66%
MORE THAN 66%
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
80 %
67 %
54 %
86 %
56 %
33 %BY
AVERAGE
UTILIZATION RATE
AT THE SAME TIME
MALE
FEMALE
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
72 %
67 %
68 %
50 %BY
GENDER
74. deskmag
18 %
13 %
69 %
COWORKING COMMUNITY
LENGTH OF MEMBERSHIP
ACTIVITY OF MEMBERS INSIDE THE SPACE
FREQUENCY OF PRESENCE
DIFFERENT MEMBERSHIP PLANS
SPECIAL SKILLS OF MEMBERS
OTHER
0,15 0,3 0,45 0,6
17 %
25 %
27 %
33 %
46 %
58 %
SUPPOSED REASONS (GLOBAL)
IS THERE A HIERARCHY AT YOUR COWORKING SPACE?
2 %
15 %
19 %
65 %
NO YES DON'T KNOW N.A.
USA GLOBAL
NONO
BY AVERAGE
UTILIZATION RATE
AT THE SAME TIME
BY
AGE GROUPS
UP TO 25%
26-50%
51-75%
MORE THAN 75%
0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4
23 %
14 %
17 %
38 %
18-34
34-49
50+
0,055 0,11 0,165 0,22
9 %
18 %
21 %
SHARE OF ‘YES’ (GLOBAL)
75. deskmag
COWORKING COMMUNITY
‘THE NETWORK AT MY COWORKING SPACE IS HELPFUL FOR
NEW JOB OPPORTUNITIES OR PROJECTS’
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 %
57 %
56 %2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
55 %
45 %
USA GLOBAL
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
USA GLOBAL
10 %
4 %
14 %
13 %
15 %
12 %
61 %72 % 0 MEMBERS
1 MEMBER
2 MEMBERS
3+ MEMBERS
NO. OF OTHER MEMBERS HIRED
FOR OWN PROJECTS IN 2015
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
61 %
62 %
66 %
61 %
57 %
51 %
USA GLOBAL
“ALL OR MANY MEMBERS
KNOW MY FIRST NAME”
WITH FEWER FREELANCERS &
ENTREPRENEURS
ATTACHMENT & COMMUNITY
ARE AT RISK
76. deskmag
COWORKING COMMUNITY
‘THE NETWORK AT MY COWORKING SPACE IS HELPFUL FOR
NEW JOB OPPORTUNITIES OR PROJECTS’
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 %
57 %
56 %2015-16
2013-14
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
55 %
45 %
USA GLOBAL
0 %
25 %
50 %
75 %
100 %
USA GLOBAL
10 %
4 %
14 %
13 %
15 %
12 %
61 %72 % 0 MEMBERS
1 MEMBER
2 MEMBERS
3+ MEMBERS
NO. OF OTHER MEMBERS HIRED
FOR OWN PROJECTS IN 2015
2015-16
2013-14
2012-13
0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %
61 %
62 %
66 %
61 %
57 %
51 %
USA GLOBAL
“ALL OR MANY MEMBERS
KNOW MY FIRST NAME”
77. deskmag
USA
GLOBAL
COWORKING COMMUNITY
HOW HELPFUL IS THE NETWORK AT YOUR COWORKING SPACE
WHEN LOOKING FOR NEW JOB OPPORTUNITIES OR NEW PROJECTS?
FREELANCERS
ENTREPRENEURS
EMPLOYEES
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
48 %
63 %
60 %
42 %
64 %
60 %
VERY & QUITE HELPFUL - 2015-16
VERY & QUITE HELPFUL - 2013-14
SPACE W/ UP TO 30 DESKS
SPACE W/ 30 DESKS & MORE
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
57 %
59 %
58 %
47 %
FREELANCERS
EMPLOYEES
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
47 %
55 %
35 %
52 %
SPACE W/ UP TO 30 DESKS
SPACE W/ 30 DESKS & MORE
25 % 50 % 75 % 100 %
53 %
56 %
52 %
37 %
78. deskmag
SHARE OF MEMBERS WHO DON’T PLAN TO LEAVE A SPACE
BY
UTILIZATION RATE
AT THE SAME TIME
BY
AGE GROUPS
BY
LENGTH OF
MEMBERSHIP
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
UP TO 17 MONTHS
18-35 MONTHS
36 MONTHS & LONGER
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
83 %
83 %
52 %
77 %
81 %
57 %GLOBAL
USA
UP TO 33%
34-66%
MORE THAN 66%
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
71 %
69 %
44 %
71 %
66 %
60 %
18-34
34-49
50+
0,25 0,5 0,75 1
91 %
75 %
53 %
91 %
71 %
59 %
UP TO 24 MEMBERS
25-49 MEMBERS
50 & MORE MEMBERS
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
79 %
82 %
54 %
76 %
70 %
61 %
BY
NO. OF MEMBERS
AT THE SAME TIME
NEWER & YOUNGER MEMBERS
ARE MORE LIKELY TO LEAVE
A COWORKING SPACE
79. deskmag
SHARE OF MEMBERS WHO DON’T PLAN TO LEAVE A SPACE
BY
UTILIZATION RATE
AT THE SAME TIME
BY
AGE GROUPS
BY
LENGTH OF
MEMBERSHIP
REPORTED BY MEMBERS
UP TO 17 MONTHS
18-35 MONTHS
36 MONTHS & LONGER
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
83 %
83 %
52 %
77 %
81 %
57 %GLOBAL
USA
UP TO 33%
34-66%
MORE THAN 66%
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8
71 %
69 %
44 %
71 %
66 %
60 %
18-34
34-49
50+
0,25 0,5 0,75 1
91 %
75 %
53 %
91 %
71 %
59 %
UP TO 24 MEMBERS
25-49 MEMBERS
50 & MORE MEMBERS
0,225 0,45 0,675 0,9
79 %
82 %
54 %
76 %
70 %
61 %
BY
NO. OF MEMBERS
AT THE SAME TIME
80. deskmag
HAPPINESS AT WORK
MEMBERS (USA)
MEMBERS (GLOBAL)
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1
2 %3 %
1 %
17 %
27 %
53 %
53 %
26 %
19 %
VERY HAPPY QUITE HAPPY SOMEWHAT QUITE UNHAPPY VERY UNHAPPY
EX-MEMBERS (GLOBAL)
NON-MEMBERS (GLOBAL)
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1
6 %
3 %
6 %
3 %
31 %
24 %
46 %
54 %
11 %
17 %
OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES IN THE U.S.
ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR CURRENT WORK SITUATION
72%
COWORKING MEMBERS
ARE HAPPIER AT WORK
THAN OTHER PEOPLE
81. deskmag
HAPPINESS AT WORK
MEMBERS (USA)
MEMBERS (GLOBAL)
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1
2 %3 %
1 %
17 %
27 %
53 %
53 %
26 %
19 %
VERY HAPPY QUITE HAPPY SOMEWHAT QUITE UNHAPPY VERY UNHAPPY
EX-MEMBERS (GLOBAL)
NON-MEMBERS (GLOBAL)
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1
6 %
3 %
6 %
3 %
31 %
24 %
46 %
54 %
11 %
17 %
OF MEMBERS OF COWORKING SPACES IN THE U.S.
ARE HAPPY WITH THEIR CURRENT WORK SITUATION
72%
83. THE COWORKING INDUSTRY
BECOMES MORE DIVERSE
WITH MORE ELEPHANTS
FOR THIS REASON, MOST RESULTS INCLUDE
THE MEAN AS WELL AS THE MEDIAN
AVERAGE VALUE
!
STATISTICAL BACKGROUND
84. STATISTICAL BACKGROUND
MEAN:
IS THE SUM OF A LIST OF NUMBERS DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF
NUMBERS IN THE LIST.
1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 = 30/9 = 3.3 (ROUNDED)
MEDIAN:
THE MIDDLE NUMBER OF A GROUP
WHEN THEY ARE RANKED IN ORDER.
1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 = 3
MODE:
THE MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING NUMBER IN A LIST:
1 2 2 2 3 3 4 5 8 = 2
PARTICIPANTS: 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16
913 1206 1270 1679