Can operators become rich with coworking spaces, or are their businesses just burning up money? It depends. The latter is clearly easier than the former. For most, the answer lies in the middle. According to self-reported figures, 40% of all coworking spaces are profitable today. The percentage has risen for four years running. Conversely, the percentage of coworking spaces that lost money saw a distinct drop, to 26% (in 2013: 36%). One factor is age. Coworking spaces still find themselves in a very new market. Nearly every third coworking space first opened within the last twelve months; four years ago, this figure was nearly half... Download the report here. And read more on deskmag.com

1. THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
THE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH IS SUPPORTED BYIN COLLABORATION WITH READ MORE AT BIT.LY/2017PROFIT
PROFITABILITY OF
COWORKING SPACES
FINAL RESULTS OF THE
2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
IN CHARTS
SELECTED SLIDES

2. SLIDES:
- PERCENTAGES OF INCOME STREAMS OF A COWORKING SPACE
- PERCENTAGES OF EXPENSES OF A COWORKING SPACE
- AGES OF COWORKING SPACES WHEN THEY BROKE EVEN
INCOME STREAMS & EXPENSES
OF COWORKING SPACES
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY PAGE 2

3. INCOME STREAMS OF COWORKING SPACES
2015-16 2016-17
2 %2 %
1 %1 %
2 %1 %
1 %
1 %
1 %2 %
2 %3 %
8 %8 %
10 %9 %
18 %17 %
18 %
16 %
36 %40 %
RENTING DESKS
COMBINED MEMBERSHIP PLANS
RENTING PRIVATE OFFICES
RENTING MEETING SPACES
RENTING EVENT & CLASS SPACES
VIRTUAL OFFICE SERVICES
SPONSORING
SALE OF FOOD & DRINKS
SALE OF TICKETS TO INTERNAL EVENTS
PUBLIC SUPPORT
OTHER
-4
+2
+1
+1
0
BASED ON ARITHMETIC MEAN THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
A DECREASED PERCENTAGE DOES NOT INDICATE A DECREASE IN ABSOLUTE NUMBER; RATHER, IT INDICATES A DECREASE RELATIVE TO OTHER TYPES OF INCOME.
3

4. EXPENSES OF COWORKING SPACES*
BASED ON ARITHMETIC MEAN
2015-16 2016-17
2 %2 %
5 %5 %
6 %6 %
5 %
4 %
5 %5 %
6 %7 %
16 %
13 %
15 %
15 %
40 %43 %
RENT OF LOCATION
OPERATING COSTS
WAGES FOR STAFF
MAINTENANCE
WAGES FOR OWNERS
EXTERNAL MARKETING
EQUIPMENT
FOOD & DRINKS
OTHER*
0
-3
+3
83% 82%
OF LOCATIONS ARE
RENTED BY A
COWORKING SPACE
A DECREASED PERCENTAGE DOES NOT INDICATE A DECREASE IN ABSOLUTE NUMBER; RATHER, IT INDICATES A DECREASE RELATIVE TO OTHER TYPES OF EXPENSES.
*LAST YEAR, MISSING VALUES WERE CLASSIFIED AS
‘OTHER’. THIS YEAR, MISSING VALUES WERE NOT
CONSIDERED. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPARISON,
MISSING VALUES WERE OMITTED FOR THE OVERVIEW OF
EXPENSES FOR 2015–16 ALSO PRESENTED IN THIS CHART.
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY4

5. FOR-PROFIT FOR-PROFIT NON-PROFIT ALL
10%17%11%9%
29%
27%
29%27%
26%23%25%27%
35%33%36%37%
UP TO 6 MONTHS
7-12 MONTHS
13-24 MONTHS
OLDER THAN 24 MONTHS
AGES OF COWORKING SPACES WHEN THEY BROKE EVEN
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
ARITHMETIC MEAN
5% TRIMMED MEAN
14.3 MONTHS
12.8 MONTHS
15.5 MONTHS
14.0 MONTHS12.4 MONTHS
13.9 MONTHS
& PROFIT NEEDED
13.0 MONTHS
14.6 MONTHS
THESE ARE THE RESULTS OF THE COWORKING SPACES THAT MADE ZERO PROFIT AND ZERO LOSS; OTHER COWORKING SPACES WERE NOT CONSIDERED DUE TO A MISSING FILTER.
FILTER QUESTIONS WERE USED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF IRRELEVANT QUESTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A QUESTION REGARDING ‘BREAKING EVEN’ DOES NOT MAKE SENSE FOR
UNPROFITABLE SPACES; THUS, SUCH QUESTIONS WERE FILTERED OUT. ALTHOUGH THE COMPLEX FILTER ALSO AFFECTED PROFITABLE SPACES, THE RESULTS ARE LIKELY
TO BE SIMILAR TO WHEN PROFITABLE COWORKING SPACES BREAK EVEN. A COWORKING SPACE THAT BROKE EVEN NO LONGER RUNS AT A LOSS.
5

6. GENERAL COMPARISON OF PROFITABILITY
OF ALL COWORKING SPACES
SLIDES:
- BY YEAR
- BY YEAR - ESTIMATED PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES NEARBY
- BY NUMBER OF MEMBERS
- BY AGE OF COWORKING SPACE
- BY TIME COMMITMENT OF FOUNDERS IN RUNNING A COWORKING SPACE
- BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF FOUNDER
- BY NO. OF INHABITANTS LOCAL TO THE COWORKING SPACE
- BY GENDER OF OWNER OR FOUNDER
- BY INCOME OF FOUNDERS BY GENDER & BY NO. OF MEMBERS
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY PAGE 6

7. PAGE 7
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND...
THE FOLLOWING CHARTS DEPICT THE PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES RELATIVE TO CERTAIN
CHARACTERISTICS OF A COWORKING SPACE. MANY OF THE FOLLOWING CHARTS ILLUSTRATE THE
STRENGTH OF A (LINEAR) CORRELATION BETWEEN A CHARACTERISTIC & PROFITABILITY; THERE ARE ALSO
NONLINEAR CORRELATIONS THAT CAN BE DETECTED. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THE CHARACTERISTIC DID NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE THE DIFFERENCE!
THERE IS USUALLY NO ONE CHARACTERISTIC THAT CAN AFFECT PROFITABILITY OVERALL (PERHAPS WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF NUMBER OF MEMBERS); RATHER, A COMBINATION IS REQUIRED FOR SUCH AN EFFECT,
AND NOT ALL CAN BE COLLECTED IN A QUANTITATIVE SURVEY. IN ADDITION, SOME CHARACTERISTICS ARE
AFFECTED BY A BROADER BACKGROUND THAT IS NOT RELATED TO, BUT IS REFLECTED IN THE BUSINESS OF
RUNNING A COWORKING SPACE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE INEQUALITY OF GENDER.
A STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE ILLUSTRATES THE LIKELIHOOD OF A DIFFERENCE AMONG THE
RESULTS OF GROUPS THAT IS NOT CAUSED BY COINCIDENCE. IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN MORE THAN THAT.
ALL RESULTS ARE ROUNDED. HENCE, A SUM OF VALUES WITHIN A GROUP IS SOMETIMES LOWER
OR HIGHER THAN 100%.
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY

8. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16 2016-17
26%23%
33%36%38%
35%41%
34%32%23%
40%36%33%32%39%
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROFITABILITY
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16 2016-17
30,2%34,1%39,9%50,5%51,1%
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES THAT ARE ≤ 1 YEAR OLD
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 8
WITHOUTN.A.

9. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16 2016-17
23%30%24%29%26%
36%
35%42%37%44%
41%35%34%34%31%
ESTIMATED PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES NEARBY
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2015-16 2016-17
24%22%31%35%37%
33%38%34%30%22%
43%40%36%35%42%
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF FOR-PROFIT COWORKING SPACES
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 9
WITHOUTN.A.WITHOUTN.A.

10. BY NUMBER OF MEMBERS PER COWORKING SPACE
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
≤9 MEMBERS 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200 & MORE MEMBERS
7%
12%17%
31%33%
57%
18%
25%
32%
44%45%
29%
75%
63%
51%
25%22%14%
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES BY NO. OF MEMBERS
750 %
1500 %
2250 %
3000 %
UP TO 9 MEMBERS 10-24 25-49 50-99 100-199 200 & MORE MEMBERS
14%15%18%20%22%
12%
RATHER STRONG
LINEAR
CORRELATION
STRONG
SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 10
WITHOUTN.A.

11. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
UP TO 6 MONTHS 7-12 MONTHS 13-24 MONTHS 25-36 MONTHS 37-48 MONTHS OLDER THAN 48
14%20%13%
25%
44%49%
30%
30%42%
38%
29%
39% 56%50%45%37%
27%
13%
BY AGE OF COWORKING SPACE
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES BY AGE
750 %
1500 %
2250 %
3000 %
UP TO 6 MONTHS 7-12 MONTHS 13-24 MONTHS 25-36 MONTHS 37-48 MONTHS OLDER THAN 48
23%
11%16%21%
11%
19%
MONTHS
MONTHS
MEDIUM
LINEAR
CORRELATION
STRONG
SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 11
WITHOUTN.A.

12. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
FULL-TIME PART-TIME
30%
18%
38%
33%
33%
49%
BY TIME COMMITMENT OF FOUNDERS*
*IN RUNNING A
COWORKING SPACE
(INCL. OWNERS OR
CO-FOUNDERS)
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES WITH THAT TIME COMMITMENT BY FOUNDERS
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
FULL-TIME PART-TIME OTHER
3%
63%
34%
WEAK
LINEAR
CORRELATION
STRONG
SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 12
WITHOUTN.A.

13. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
COLLEGE BACHELOR MASTER
23%
33%28%
38%
32%40%
39%35%33%
BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF OWNER OR FOUNDER
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION OF OWNER OR FOUNDER
1250 %
2500 %
3750 %
5000 %
COLLEGE BACHELOR MASTER
41%38%
12%
VERY WEAK
CORRELATION
NO
SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 13
WITHOUTN.A.

14. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
1 M & MORE 999,999 - 100 K 99,999 - 50K 49,999 - 20K LESS THAN 20 K
29%25%31%
23%27%
51%
42%33%
34%29%
20%
33%36%43%44%
BY NO. OF INHABITANTS OF A LOCATION
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES BY NO. OF INHABITANTS
1250 %
2500 %
3750 %
5000 %
1 M & MORE 999,999 - 100 K 99,999 - 50K 49,999 - 20K LESS THAN 20 K
9%7%11%31%41%
1.2% N.A.
SIGNIFICANT
DIFFERENCES
VERY WEAK
LINEAR
CORRELATION
INHABITANTS
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 14
WITHOUTN.A.

15. 2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
FEMALE MALE
25%32%
36%
35%
40%34%
BY GENDER OF OWNER OR FOUNDER - GLOBAL
SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES BY GENDER OF OPERATOR OR FOUNDER
1250 %
2500 %
3750 %
5000 %
FEMALE MALE
61%38%
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYPROFITABLE ZERO LOSS, ZERO PROFIT UNPROFITABLE 15
WITHOUTN.A.
WITHOUTN.A.

16. INCOME OF OWNER OR FOUNDER OF COWORKING SPACES
MALE FOUNDERS
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
UP TO 99 MEMBERS 100 & MORE MEMBERS
5%
20%
34%
51%
61%
30%
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEYABOVE AVERAGE AVERAGE BELOW AVERAGE
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
UP TO 99 MEMBERS 100 & MORE MEMBERS
2%
23%
45%
47%
53%
30%
FEMALE FOUNDERS
BY NUMBER OF MEMBERS
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
ALL MALE FOUNDERS
16%
47%
37%
2500 %
5000 %
7500 %
10000 %
ALL FEMALE FOUNDERS
20%
47%
33%
BY NUMBER OF MEMBERS
16
WITHOUTN.A.

17. THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
"Social Workplaces are the physical nodes where the new generation of knowledgable connected workers find meaning in
work, well-being and are amplified in terms of business operations and goals. SocialWorkplaces.com’s #1 mission is to
connect these rising workplace communities.
The company organizes the Coworking Europe conference: the first international conference of its kind, where approximately
500 coworking stakeholders from more than 40 countries gather each year. In 2015, the company launched the Coworking
Africa conference and, more recently, introduced Coworking India, Coworking Middle East as well as the premium event “The
Social Workplace Conference.”
COLLABORATION PARTNER OF THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
SocialWorkplaces.com
THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
"Social Workplaces are the physical nodes where the new generation of knowledgable connected workers find meaning in
work, well-being and are amplified in terms of business operations and goals. SocialWorkplaces.com’s #1 mission is to
connect these rising workplace communities.
The company organizes the Coworking Europe conference: the first international conference of its kind, where approximately
500 coworking stakeholders from more than 40 countries gather each year. In 2015, the company launched the Coworking
Africa conference and, more recently, introduced Coworking India, Coworking Middle East as well as the premium event “The
Social Workplace Conference.”
COLLABORATION PARTNER OF THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
SocialWorkplaces.com
17

18. THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
"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 essensys.tech communitas.network
"Occupie, the essensys platform, 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.”
"Communitas believes in the power of
community and the future of work.
Through a marketing agency, benefits
network, real estate advisory services
and world-class publications, we help
our clients better serve their
stakeholders. Whether you are a
builder of community or real estate,
Communitas is here for you.”
MAIN SUPPORTERS OF THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
THE ‘MAIN SUPPORTERS’ PROVIDED FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO SUPPORT THE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH, AND WERE OFFICIAL PROMOTERS, OF THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY.
18

19. THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
OFFICIAL SUPPORTERS OF THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
WESERLAND
19

20. THE 2017 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
BACKGROUND
PARTICIPANTS: 2011-12: 913, 2012-13: 1206, 2013-14: 1270, 2015-16: 1679, 2016-17: 1876
THE FINAL RESULTS ARE ANALYZED USING A COMPLEX STATISTICAL TOOL, AND ARE CHECKING USING QUALITY STANDARDS. IT IS FOR THIS REASON
THAT THE FIRST AND THE FINAL RESULTS MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY. IN ADDITION, THE FINAL RESULTS ARE GROUPED BY DEMOGRAPHIC & OTHER CRITERIA
USING A BI- OR MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS.
READ THE RELATED ARTICLE AT BIT.LY/2017PROFIT
INTERESTED IN REGULAR UPDATES ON THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY?
JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER!
ANY QUESTION? DROP A LINE TO SURVEY@DESKMAG.COM
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUPPORT THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY
AND RECEIVE MORE STATISTICS & CHARTS ON
THE PROFITABILITY OF COWORKING SPACES?
YES, GIMME MORE STATS!
20© DESKMAG - CARSTEN FOERTSCH - CARSTEN @ DESKMAG.COM