Coworking in Europe - 2018 Deskmag's Global Coworking Survey
•
6 gefällt mir•4,953 views
European coworking spaces and their members.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Coworking in Europe - 2018 Deskmag's Global Coworking Survey
Ähnlich wie Coworking in Europe - 2018 Deskmag's Global Coworking Survey (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Coworking in Europe - 2018 Deskmag's Global Coworking Survey
- 1. 2018 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY COWORKING IN EUROPE THE RESEARCH WAS SUPPORTED BY
- 2. LOCATION, AVERAGE MEMBER NUMBERS & SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES ≥ 1M INHABITANTS < 1M - 500K INHABITANTS < 100K INHABITANTS < 500 - 100K INHABITANTS 91 133 195 100 MEAN MEDIAN 83 109 60 5% TRIMMED MEAN 62 74 40 26 15 40 MEMBERS SQUARE METERS 168 42 25% 33% 27% 15% +34 -1 PP -3 PP +23 +6 (65 +7) 1630 907 525 293 2950 1000 600 1700 360 890 230 390 +713 -25 (650 -30) 881 +212 THE CATEGORY < 1M - 100K INHABITANTS WAS SPLIT INTO TWO GROUPS IN 2018 FOR THE FIRST TIME. FOR THIS REASON, THOSE RESULTS CAN'T BE COMPARED WITH THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 1 IS KING IN TERMS OF AVERAGE MEMBER NUMBERS (121) & THE AVERAGE SIZE OF SPACES (1400 SQM). THE SHARE OF COWORKING SPACES IN MID-SIZED CITIES HAS RISEN. AVERAGE MEMBER NUMBERS ARE UP BY A THIRD. +5 PP DISTRIBUTION OF COWORKING SPACES IN EUROPE PAGE2
- 3. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF COWORKING SPACES EUROPE 21% 25% 84% GLOBAL SHARE OF PRIVATE OFFICES* +7 PP +6 PP REVENUE SHARE UP TO 22% REVENUE SHARE UP TO 27%*ARITHMETIC MEAN SHARE OF ENTITIES WITH ONLY ONE COWORKING SPACE 68% AVERAGES OF NUMBER OF SPACES IN OPERATION: 5% TRIMMED: MEAN 1,8 -MEAN 3,3 CHAIN AVERAGES: 5% TRIMMED: MEAN 5,7 -MEAN 8,3 AVERAGES OF NUMBER OF SPACES IN OPERATION: 5% TRIMMED: MEAN 1,6 -MEAN 3,7 71% -3 PP 0 81% 52% 6% 4% 58% 9% 4% FOCUS STRONGLY ON COMPANIES WITH < 10 10 - 100 > 100 EMPLOYEES FOCUS STRONGLY ON COMPANIES WITH < 10 10 - 100 > 100 EMPLOYEES FOCUS STRONGLY ON INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS PAGE3
- 4. LOCAL PARTNERS OF COWORKING SPACES QUESTION: WHICH POTENTIAL PARTNER DO YOU WORK ON A LOCAL BASIS? WITHOUT N.A. IF ALL RESPONSE OPTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN CHOSEN: 17,5 35 52,5 70 PURPOSE LOCAL EDUCATIONAL LOCAL OTHER REAL NO PARTNERS 14% 23% 36%35% 41%45% 66% 13%15% 35%38% 45%48% 65% EUROPE GLOBAL DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS LOCAL GOVERNMENT REAL ESTATE FIRMS LOCAL GOVERNMENT OTHER COWORKING SPACES NO PARTNERS PURPOSE DRIVEN ORGANIZATIONS LOCAL SERVICES LOCAL SERVICES REAL ESTATE FIRMS ≥ 1M INHABITANTS < 1M - 100 K INHABITANTS > 100K INHABITANTS EUROPE ESTATE FIRMS = SHARE IS ABOVE AVERAGE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES EDUCATIONAL SERVICES OTHER COWORKING SPACES PURPOSE-DRIVEN ORGANIZATION ARE THE MOST POPULAR LOCAL PARTNER OF COWORKING SPACES. SHARE OF LOCAL PARTNERS THAT ARE ABOVE-AVERAGE - BY NUMBER OF INHABITANTS IN EUROPE: SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS COWORKING SPACES GOVERN- MENT PAGE4
- 5. AVERAGE DAILY EXPENDITURE OF MEMBERS NEARBY A COWORKING SPACE € 10 € 5 000 ... IF 100 MEMBERS WORK 5 TIMES A WEEK, LOCAL SERVICES NEARBY RECEIVE... PER WEEK PER MEMBER & WORKING DAY PAGE5
- 6. AVERAGE DAILY EXPENDITURE OF MEMBERS NEARBY A COWORKING SPACE € 10 € 20 000 ... IF 100 MEMBERS WORK 5 TIMES A WEEK, LOCAL SERVICES NEARBY RECEIVE... PER MONTH PER MEMBER & WORKING DAY (BASED ON 20 WORKING DAYS PER MONTH) PAGE6
- 7. AVERAGE DAILY EXPENDITURE OF MEMBERS NEARBY A COWORKING SPACE € 10 € 240 000 ... IF 100 MEMBERS WORK 5 TIMES A WEEK, LOCAL SERVICES NEARBY RECEIVE... PER MEMBER & WORKING DAY (BASED ON 240 WORKING DAYS PER YEAR)PER YEAR PAGE7
- 8. € AVERAGE DAILY EXPENDITURE OF MEMBERS NEARBY A COWORKING SPACE ≥ 1M < 1M - 500K < 500K - 100K > 100K 2,75 5,5 8,25 11 7 € 11 € 10 € EURO-ZONE ! EURO-ZONE - BY NUMBER OF INHABITANTS ! " # 9 € GERMANY FRANCE 10 € ITALY 12 € $ 5 % TRIMMED MEAN - RESULTS ROUNDED. DAILY EXPENSES OF > € 100 OR EQUIVALENT ARE NOT CONSIDERED. BASED ON AN EXCHANGE RATE OF €1 = *CHF 1.142 **GBP 0,872 ***HUF 321,4 - °WITHOUT FREQUENT NON-RESPONSES %THE UK &SWITZERLAND 16 €** €* **CHF 17,9 *GBP 10,5 'HUNGARY 6 €*** ***HUF 1833 12 10 € NOT ENOUGH DATA AVAILABLE 9 % 7 % 84 % WITH DAILY EXPENSES NO DAILY EXPENSES NO RESPONSE SHARE OF MEMBERS WITH DAILY EXPENDITURES NEARBY° 85 % 85 % 75 % € ON AVERAGE, MEMBERS IN EUROPE SPEND 10 EURO PER DAY NEARBY THEIR SPACES WHEN PRESENT. THE SMALLER THE CITY, THE LESS OFTEN MEMBERS USE OR PAY FOR LOCAL SERVICES. PAGE8
- 9. MOST FREQUENT ACTIVITIES DONE AT COWORKING SPACES MOST FREQUENT ACTIVITIES ONLY (“ALWAYS” OR “OFTEN”) , WITHOUT N.A. FOR ALL FIVE ACTIVITIES. QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU USE YOUR COWORKING SPACE FOR? PLEASE RATE THE FREQUENCY OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES. = SHARE IS ABOVE AVERAGE 22,5 45 67,5 90 REGULAR MEETINGS NETWORKING EVENTS BASE FOR 25%25% 32% 47% 84% 19%16% 28% 39% 80% EUROPE GLOBAL WORK LOCAL ERRANDS & ACTIVITIES EVENTS NETWORKINGREGULAR WORK ≥ 1M INHABITANTS < 1M - 100 K INHABITANTS > 100K INHABITANTS MEETINGS BASE FOR LOCAL ERRANDS & ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ABOVE-AVERAGE - BY NUMBER OF INHABITANTS IN EUROPE: FREQUENCY OF ACTIVITIES ARE IN BETWEEN EVERY FIFTH MEMBER USES A COWORKING SPACE NOT FOR REGULAR WORK - ESPECIALLY IN SMALLER CITIES. PAGE9 EUROPE
- 10. MEMBERSHIP DECISION MAKERS & PAYERS RESULTS ARE ROUNDED 0 25 50 75 100 79% DECIDED BY MEMBERS 18% BY EMPLOYERS OR CLIENTS 0 25 50 75 100 61% PAID BY MEMBERS 28% PAID BY EMPLOYERS OR CLIENTS OTHER: FREE MEMBERSHIPS (4%), PAID BY OTHER CAPITAL TYPES (2%) & OTHER WHO DECIDED TO WORK AT A COWORKING SPACE? WHO PAYS FOR A MEMBERSHIP? -3 PP +2 PP HIGHEST SHARE IN SMALL CITIES & TOWNS HIGHEST SHARE IN MID-SIZED CITIES GLOBALLY IN BIG CITIES! THE VAST MAJORITY CHOSE TO WORK AT A COWORKING SPACE ON THEIR OWN - EVEN IF EMPLOYERS PAY FOR IT. PAGE10 EUROPE
- 11. REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE CURRENT COWORKING SPACE A SOCIAL & ENJOYABLE ATMOSPHERE: 65% INTERACTION WITH OTHERS: 60% COMMUNITY: 60% LIKE-MINDED PEOPLE: 55% A CLOSE DISTANCE TO MY HOME: 58% GOOD TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS NEARBY: 44% OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE 2 BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE: 57% A BIG OPEN WORKSPACE: 54% A CLEAN WORKSPACE: 50% GOOD INTERNET CONNECTIONS: 46% TREND REPORTED BY MEMBERS WHO DECIDED THEMSELVES TO WORK AT THEIR CURRENT COWORKING SPACES (AS WELL) GLOBAL RESULTS - RESULTS ARE ROUNDED PROXIMITY 2 TREND SOCIAL INTERACTIONS 1 TRENDSOCIAL CRITERIA REMAIN THE MOST POPULAR FACTORS WHEN CHOOSING A COWORKING SPACE. PAGE11
- 12. 98%63% TOP REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE CURRENT COWORKING SPACE REPORTED BY MEMBERS WHO DECIDED THEMSELVES TO WORK AT THEIR CURRENT COWORKING SPACES - GLOBAL RESULTS - RESULTS ARE ROUNDED FREELANCERS EMPLOYEES EMPLOYERS A COMMUNITY CLOSE TO HOME A SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS & A SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE BASIC OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURE 71% 68% 54% 79% CLOSE TO HOME 65% GOOD TRANSPORT CONNECTIONS 61% 68% OFFICE INFRASTRUCTURES60-65% GOOD VALUE FOR MONEY 64% COMPANY PAYS FOR ITLIKE MINDED PEOPLESPECIAL MINOR REASONS: LIKE MINDED PEOPLE FRIENDS WHO WORK THERE FLEXIBLE WORK TIMES A SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE COMMUNITY: 55% COMMUNITY: 59% 87% DECIDED THEMSELVES TO WORK AT THEIR CURRENT COWORKING SPACES FREELANCERS LOOK FOR COMMUNITY. EMPLOYERS & EMPLOYEES VALUE THE SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE RATHER THAN BECOMING PART OF A COMMUNITY. GLOBALLY PAGE12
- 13. 55% EMPLOYERS 39%62% COMMUNITY & COWORKING SPACE RATING FREELANCERS EMPLOYEES FEEL STRONGLY THAT THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY AT THEIR COWORKING SPACE 8,1 7,8 7,6 IS THE RATING OF THEIR CURRENT COWORKING SPACE EUROPE 2017: 8,0 - 2016: 8,7 2017: 7,8 - 2016: 7,9 2017: 7,2 - 2016: 8,6 EMPLOYEES FEEL LESS STRONGLY CONNECTED TO A COWORKING COMMUNITY. BUT GIVE THEIR A COWORKING SPACE A SURPRISINGLY HIGH RATING. PAGE13
- 14. COWORKING SPACE RATINGS IN EUROPE OCEANIA GLOBAL ASIA EUROPE 2,5 5 7,5 10 7,8 7,9 8,1 8,2 8,3 8,3 AVERAGE RATING PER CONTINENT IN 2018* NORTH AMERICA SOUTH AMERICA *MEAN EUROPE GLOBAL 5 5,9 6,8 7,7 8,6 8,3 8,3 8,3 8,4 8,1 7,9 8,3 8,1 7,8 2018 2017 2016 & OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS OUT OF 10 OUT OF 10 NORTH AMERICA EUROPE'S COWORKING SPACES HAVE RECEIVED A LOWER RATING FROM MEMBERS... FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS. PAGE14
- 15. 8,7 ≥ 1M INHABITANTS < 1M - 100K INHABITANTS < 100K INHABITANTS 7,5 7,8 2017: 7,5 - 2016: 8,3 2017: 8,1 - 2016: 8,1 2017: 8,2 - 2016: 8,8 7,9 ≥ 500K < 500K 8,3 < 25 MEMBERS 25 - 49 MEMBERS ≥ 50 MEMBERS PLEASE NOTE: THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF PEOPLE WHO CAN WORK FROM A COWORKING SPACE IS REPORTED BY MEMBERS! THEY ONLY CAN REPORT WHAT THEY SEE, AND THAT'S LIKELY RESTRICTED TO AREAS WITH OPEN ACCESS. 8,0 8,3 7,2 2017: 7,8 - 2016: 8,4 2017: 8,2 - 2016: 8,6 2017: 7,5 - 2016: 8,1 BY NO. OF INHABITANTS BY MAXIMUM CAPACITY COWORKING SPACE RATINGS IN EUROPE WITHIN THE PAST THREE YEARS MEAN BETWEEN 1 AND 10 STARSRATINGS SIGNIFICANTLY DROPPED IN SMALLER SPACES AND SMALLER CITIES, BUT VERY BIG SPACES ARE ALSO AFFECTED BY LOWER RATINGS. PAGE15 EUROPE
- 16. MAIN REASONS FOR CONSIDERING TO LEAVE A COWORKING SPACE GLOBAL RESULTS - REPORTED BY MEMBERS THAT CONSIDER TO LEAVE A COWORKING SPACE IN LESS THAN THREE MONTHS LACK OF INTERACTION WITH OTHER MEMBERS INTERESTED IN WORKING AT ANOTHER SPACE LIVE IN THIS AREA JUST FOR A SHORT WHILE NOT ABLE TO FOCUS ON WORK IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE JUST WANNA CHANGE MY WORKING ENVIRONMENT COMMUTING TIME IS TOO LONG 0 4,5 9 13,5 18 9% 10% 10% 10% 12% 14% 18%LACK OF INTERACTION IS THE #1 REASON FOR LEAVING A COWORKING SPACE SELECTION OF OTHER REASONS: JOB PROJECT AT A COWORKING SPACE ENDED, PREGNANCY PAGE16
- 17. MAIN TAKE AWAYS 1 2 3 MEMBER NUMBERS & SIZE OF COWORKING SPACES ARE STILL ON THE RISE - ESPECIALLY IN BIG CITIES COWORKING SPACES SUPPORT THE LOCAL ECONOMY ABOUT 10 EURO PER MEMBER PER WORKING DAY COMMUNITY IS NOT EVERYTHING - BUT A SOCIAL ATMOSPHERE AND PEOPLE ARE!
- 18. THE 2018 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY 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 "WUN is consistently the shared space and coworking platform of choice for the largest and fastest growing workspace operators from Premier Business Centers to Quest Workspaces." wunsystems.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. MAIN SUPPORTERS
- 20. TAKE THE NEW 2019 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY! LET'S GO! OPEN FROM NOVEMBER 26, 2018
- 21. MORE STATISTICS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SUPPORT THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY AND RECEIVE MORE STATISTICS? YES, GIMME MORE STATS!
- 22. MORE COWORKING RESEARCH The world's interdisciplinary library of coworking research. A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT BY
- 23. 2018 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY BACKGROUND PAGE 23 PARTICIPANTS: 2011-12: 913, 2012-13: 1206, 2013-14: 1270, 2015-16: 1679, 2016-17: 1876, 2017-18: 1980 ALL ANNUAL SURVEYS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AT THE END OF A YEAR, MEANING THAT THE 2018 RESULTS INCLUDE RESULTS FROM END OF 2017, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. IN THE PAST WE CALLED THOSE SURVEYS THE '2015-2016 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY' OR '2013-2014 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY'. IN ORDER TO SIMPLIFY THE NAME WE CHANGED THE TITLES TO INCLUDE JUST THE LATTER OF THE TWO YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE: '2016 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY' OR RESPECTIVELY '2014 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY' AND SO ON. TIME OF CONDUCTION: THE 2018 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY WAS ACTIVE ONLINE FROM NOVEMBER 8, 2017 - JANUARY 30, 2018. 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.
- 24. 2018 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY BACKGROUND PAGE 24 2018 PARTICIPANTS BY GROUPS: COWORKING SPACES (OPERATORS OR STAFF MEMBERS): N=1172 MEMBERS: N=591 PLANNED/FUTURE COWORKING SPACES: N=116 REMAINING PARTICIPANTS ARE PRIMARILY FORMER COWORKING SPACE MEMBERS OR PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER WORKED IN A COWORKING SPACE. FILTERING SYSTEM: THIS REPORT IS BASED ON THE PARTICIPANTS WHO REPRESENT COWORKING SPACES (N=1172) UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE. WE DON'T SHOW EVERY QUESTION TO EACH INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, BY ONLY PRESENTING THOSE WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO PARTICIPANTS. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T ASK COWORKING SPACES FOR THE LENGTH OF LEASE TERMS WHEN THEY OWN THEIR LOCATION. WE SOMETIMES ALSO FILTER THE DATA DURING THE ANALYSIS IN ORDER TO HIGHLIGHT A SPECIFIC GROUP. THE FILTERING METHOD IS MENTIONED AT THE TOP OR BOTTOM OF EACH OF SLIDE, E.G. REPORTED BY COWORKING SPACES THAT ARE ≤ 12 MONTHS & RENT A COWORKING SPACE LOCATION.
- 25. (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 252018 GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY PAGE 25
- 26. THANKS FOR READING. INTERESTED IN REGULAR UPDATES ON THE GLOBAL COWORKING SURVEY? JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER! THIS PRESENTATION WAS GIVEN AT THE COWORKING EUROPE CONFERENCE ON NOVEMBER 14, 2018 IN AMSTERDAM © 2018 DESKMAG - CARSTEN FOERTSCH - NOT FOR SALE OR RESALE