European coworking spaces and their members.

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

19. DISTRIBUTION PARTNERS
OFFICIAL SUPPORTERS
AGORA RDM

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