What is the flawed business model of WeWork?

January 27, 2026 / date
/ Reading time

In recent years, the coworking space phenomenon has disrupted the traditional office environment, offering flexible solutions for freelancers, startups, and established companies alike. Among the most notable players in this field is WeWork, a company that once seemed poised to redefine the future of workspaces. However, beneath its rapid ascent, WeWork harbored a fundamentally flawed business model that eventually led to its downfall. This blog post delves into the intricacies of WeWork’s business model and the factors contributing to its shortcomings.

The Rise of WeWork

Founded in 2010, WeWork quickly gained traction by offering shared workspace solutions. The company’s value proposition was simple: provide entrepreneurs and businesses with aesthetically pleasing, flexible office spaces that foster collaboration and creativity. WeWork capitalized on the growing demand for Hot Desk setups and flexible office arrangements, making it an attractive option for businesses of all sizes.

In its early years, WeWork expanded rapidly, fueled by substantial investments and a charismatic leadership team. The company positioned itself as more than a real estate firm; it portrayed itself as a tech company, emphasizing community-building and innovative work environments.

The Illusion of Infinite Growth

WeWork’s growth strategy was primarily based on aggressive expansion. The company leased vast amounts of office space in prime locations, often at high costs, with the expectation of filling these spaces with a steady stream of tenants. However, this approach hinged on a few key assumptions that proved problematic:

  • Overestimation of Demand: WeWork assumed that demand for coworking spaces would continue to grow indefinitely. While the coworking trend was certainly on the rise, the assumption of perpetual demand was overly optimistic.
  • Inflexible Lease Agreements: WeWork’s long-term lease agreements presented significant financial liabilities. In times of economic downturn or decreased demand, these fixed costs became burdensome.
  • Questionable Valuation: WeWork’s valuation was inflated based on its projected growth rather than its current revenue. This led to unrealistic expectations and pressure to continue rapid expansion.

Financial Instability

One of the most glaring issues with WeWork’s business model was its financial instability. The company’s rapid expansion led to mounting operational costs, which often outpaced revenue. This imbalance was exacerbated by several factors:

  • High Operating Costs: Maintaining premium office spaces in high-demand areas came with substantial expenses, from rent to maintenance and utilities.
  • Unsustainable Business Practices: WeWork’s focus on growth over profitability meant that it consistently operated at a loss, relying on investor funding to stay afloat.
  • Over-Reliance on Funding: The company’s dependence on continuous rounds of funding left it vulnerable to shifts in investor confidence.

Leadership and Governance Issues

Leadership and governance issues also played a crucial role in WeWork’s struggles. The company’s charismatic co-founder, Adam Neumann, was both a driving force behind its initial success and a factor in its later challenges. His unorthodox management style and ambitious vision often clashed with pragmatic business practices.

The lack of effective governance structures allowed for unchecked decision-making, leading to questionable financial and strategic choices. This culminated in the failed IPO attempt in 2019, which highlighted WeWork’s internal issues and lack of profitability to potential investors.

The Shift Towards Sustainability

In the wake of WeWork’s challenges, the coworking industry has evolved, with a greater emphasis on sustainable business practices. Operators are now focusing on profitability and resilience, offering more tailored and niche solutions. For example, there are Top 10 Wework Alternatives London and Best London Coworking Spaces For Digital Nomads that cater to specific industries and demographics, such as Coworking Spaces For Real Estate Professionals In London or Coworking Spaces Tailored For Londons Fashion Industry.

Additionally, the industry is increasingly focusing on inclusivity and accessibility, offering spaces like Non Binary Friendly Coworking Spaces In London and Wheelchair Accessible Coworking Spaces In Central London.

Conclusion

WeWork’s journey serves as a cautionary tale for businesses relying on aggressive expansion without a solid foundation of financial sustainability and effective governance. While the company’s vision of transforming workspaces was revolutionary, its execution was marred by a flawed business model that prioritized growth over stability. As the coworking industry continues to mature, the lessons learned from WeWork’s experience are valuable for operators striving to build a viable and resilient future.

 

For those interested in exploring more sustainable coworking options, it’s worth considering spaces that align with specific needs, such as London Coworking Spaces Offering Weekly Networking Events or Coworking Spaces With Private Phone Booths In London. These alternatives provide a glimpse into the diverse and innovative landscape of coworking today.

 

Business Model Flaw What WeWork Did Wrong Financial Impact Lesson for Coworking Operators
Lease Structure Mismatch Signed long-term leases (10-15 years) while offering short-term memberships to clients $47 billion in lease obligations against volatile monthly revenue; massive liabilities during downturns Balance lease commitments with revenue predictability; consider revenue-sharing agreements with landlords
Aggressive Expansion Strategy Prioritised rapid growth over profitability, opening 800+ locations globally by 2019 Cash burn of $219,000 per hour at peak; $1.9 billion loss in 2019 alone Scale sustainably; ensure each location reaches profitability before opening new ones
Overestimated Demand Assumed perpetual growth in office space demand; didn’t anticipate hybrid work shifts Occupancy dropped below 50% during COVID; premium locations sat empty Build flexibility into capacity planning; monitor workplace trends continuously
Inflated Tech Valuation Positioned as a tech company despite being a real estate subletting business Valuation peaked at $47 billion; crashed to $9 billion pre-IPO, eventually near zero Value your business on fundamentals, not hype; real estate metrics matter
Over-Reliance on Funding Depended on continuous SoftBank investment rather than operational revenue Raised $12+ billion but never achieved profitability; collapsed when funding dried up Build a path to profitability independent of external investment rounds
High Operating Costs Premium fit-outs, free beer, extravagant amenities at every location Operating costs consistently exceeded revenue; negative unit economics across most sites Match amenity spending to what members actually value and will pay for
Governance Failures Minimal board oversight; Adam Neumann held outsized control and made unilateral decisions Self-dealing transactions worth millions; IPO collapsed due to governance concerns Establish independent board oversight and clear financial controls from day one
Premium Pricing Strategy Charged £500-800/desk in premium locations while competitors offered £200-400 Lost price-sensitive customers; couldn’t fill space during economic uncertainty Offer tiered pricing; ensure value proposition justifies premium positioning

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did WeWork’s business model fail so spectacularly?

WeWork’s core problem was a fundamental mismatch between its costs and revenue model. The company signed long-term leases lasting 10-15 years while offering members flexible month-to-month arrangements. This created enormous fixed liabilities—over $47 billion in lease obligations—against unpredictable income. When occupancy dropped during economic downturns or the pandemic, WeWork still owed rent on empty buildings. Combined with aggressive expansion (burning $219,000 per hour at peak) and zero path to profitability, the model was structurally unsustainable from the start.

What went wrong with WeWork’s IPO attempt?

WeWork’s 2019 IPO collapsed when public market scrutiny revealed what private investors had overlooked. The S-1 filing exposed $1.9 billion annual losses, questionable governance (Adam Neumann had sold $700 million in shares while the company lost money), and self-dealing transactions including Neumann charging WeWork $5.9 million to use the “We” trademark he personally owned. The valuation dropped from $47 billion to $9 billion within weeks. Investors simply couldn’t reconcile tech-company valuations with a real estate subletting business that had never turned a profit.

How did WeWork’s leadership problems contribute to its downfall?

Adam Neumann’s leadership became a liability through unchecked decision-making and poor governance. He maintained majority voting control despite minority ownership, approved his own property purchases that WeWork then leased back, and fostered a culture prioritising growth over sustainability. His erratic management style—including tequila-fuelled meetings and impulsive acquisitions—went unchallenged due to weak board oversight. After his departure, WeWork cycled through multiple CEOs, creating strategic instability. The company ultimately needed leadership focused on operational discipline rather than charismatic vision.

Why did WeWork position itself as a tech company instead of a real estate firm?

WeWork claimed tech company status to justify higher valuations—tech firms typically trade at 10-20x revenue while real estate companies trade at 1-2x. WeWork marketed its member app, data analytics on space usage, and “space-as-a-service” concept as technology innovations. However, 95% of revenue came from traditional subletting. This positioning attracted $12 billion from SoftBank’s Vision Fund (a tech-focused investor) but ultimately backfired when public markets applied real estate metrics during the IPO process, revealing the valuation was built on misrepresentation rather than fundamentals.

What lessons should coworking operators learn from WeWork’s collapse?

Key lessons include: match lease terms to revenue predictability (consider management agreements or revenue-sharing with landlords), expand only when existing locations are profitable, maintain realistic occupancy projections accounting for economic cycles, price services based on local market conditions rather than brand premium alone, establish proper governance structures regardless of company size, and build sustainable unit economics before scaling. The hybrid work shift also showed that demand forecasting must account for structural workplace changes, not just assume continuous growth in traditional office usage.

How did economic downturns expose WeWork’s business model weaknesses?

Economic stress revealed WeWork’s inflexibility problem. During COVID-19, corporate clients cancelled memberships or downsized immediately, but WeWork remained locked into long-term leases with landlords. Occupancy fell below 50% while rent obligations continued unchanged. The company couldn’t reduce costs proportionally to revenue decline. Additionally, WeWork’s premium pricing (often £600-800/desk monthly) became harder to justify when companies cut expenses. The 2022-2023 interest rate rises further pressured the model by increasing borrowing costs while simultaneously reducing demand for expensive office commitments.

How has the coworking industry evolved since WeWork’s struggles?

Post-WeWork, the coworking industry has shifted toward sustainable models. Operators now favour management agreements (where landlords bear property risk) over traditional leases. There’s greater focus on profitability per location rather than rapid expansion. Pricing has become more competitive and tiered, with operators offering everything from £150/month hot desks to premium private suites. Many successful operators now target specific niches—enterprise clients, creative industries, or local communities—rather than attempting global scale. The hybrid work trend has also created new demand patterns, with operators designing for flexibility rather than assuming full-time occupancy.

Did WeWork’s focus on community actually provide value or just mask financial problems?

WeWork’s community emphasis delivered genuine value for many members—networking events, collaboration opportunities, and a sense of belonging attracted startups and freelancers. However, community-building also served as marketing to justify premium pricing and distract from poor financials. The expensive amenities (craft beer, fancy coffee, designer interiors) that created “community atmosphere” cost significantly more than competitors offered, without proportionally higher revenue. Ultimately, community couldn’t compensate for unsustainable unit economics. Successful coworking operators today balance community investment with what members demonstrably value enough to pay for.

Related articles

How Much Does it Cost to Rent Office Space in West London?

Read more →

Meeting Room Accessibility: Creating Inclusive Spaces for All Team Members

Read more →

The Green Office Revolution: How Sustainability is Redefining Workspaces in 2025

Read more →