Extrapolations

We are collecting long-term forecasts from diverse sectors. Preference for quantitative data. Areas of interest include but are not limited to transportation, education, food, shelter, entertainment, technology, etc. A list of desired indicators is...

[extrapolatedfutures]

Social Media Consumption: Extrapolations

ASK Extrapolate to 2050: Individual daily consumption of all media (web-based and traditional) Individual daily consumption of social media

All Media

Zenith (a media agency) tracks this info on a global scale (I’ve not found other sources). They’ve only been publishing reports for the last four years, but I found a Recode article that interviews the head of forecasting at Zenith (Jonathan Barnard). This article provides historic data back to 2010, and forecasts to 2019, contrasting North America with the global average. The article was published in May 2017, and Zenith published a new report in 2018 with slightly different data for the last few years and looking forward, but the most recent report does not provide the context of the previous 10 years. For consistency of methodology, I’ve just used the data quoted by Recode for the following extrapolation.

[Excerpts from all four published Zenith reports are below, showing the yearly revision to their data. In summary, the estimates become more conservative with each subsequent report up until the latest report, which shows a jump again.]

[This and all extrapolations in this post in my file media-consump-forecast.xlsx]

src: Recode, May 2017 “People consumed more media than ever last year — but growth is slowing” figure: Average individual daily media consumption in minutes

citing Zenith (appears to be from their 2017 report, including historic data available not freely accessible).

*

Here are excerpts from the press releases for the annual “Media Consumption Forecasts” by Zenith.

From the 2018 Report: 2018: 479 minutes per day consuming media 12% more than in 2011 2020: 492 min/day

From the 2017 report: 2019: less than 1% growth 2017: same as 2016 2016: 456 min/day 2010: 411 min/day

From the 2016 report: 2018F:448 min/day 2015: 435 min/day 2010: 403 min/day

From the 2015 report: 2017F:506 min/day 2015: 492 min/day 2014: 485.3 min/day 2010: 461.8 min/day

***

Social Media

eMarketer and Statista both provide estimates of daily social media consumption. The eMarketer figures cover the US, and the Statista figures are global.

Upon first inspection of the data, the Statista figures seem to be roughly 3X higher than eMarketer’s figures, a disparity that does not agree with my understanding of the variation by country (see We Are Social chart below). I’m quite confident that Statista’s data actually comes from marketing firm Global Web Index, and their recent report (which does not include all the historic info available at Statista) makes frequent passing reference to the increasing amount of time users are watching video on social platforms. In reading various qualitative discussions of social media use, I find many sources group YouTube and Facebook minutes of use together under the social category.

When eMarketer’s social and video minutes are combined, they come in closer range to Statista’s figures, so I believe this is a good rough approximation.

Here’s the extrapolation for both eMarketer (combined social and video) and Statista:

Note: The trendline of best fit for most of our extrapolations doesn’t fit the eMarketer data very well, so instead I’ve used a power trendline. The polynomial(2) trendline we often use does fit the Statista data pretty well, however. (You see both in the figure above)

I also noticed in reading qualitative discussions that Facebook and YouTube’s average daily minutes are very similar, with video getting a bit more time, and this is also the shown in eMarketer’s data, with the gap slowly widening in video’s favor. I’ve extrapolated eMarketer’s social and video figures separately to show how that divergence might take shape (again, the power trendline seemed to fit best).

No surprise to see video pulling ahead of social, and I’m certain that marketing research focused on the growth of online video would suggest a much steeper curve.

Meanwhile, and also no surprise, here’s a chart (from Recode, citing Zenith) showing that Internet consumption is overtaking traditional TV consumption (from the same source as the Global/N.American overall media consumption figures above).

[Click through to the great interactive version at Recode.]

Another ad media firm, GroupM, also predicts online time overtaking traditional TV this year.

In line with that, this year (2018), globally, advertisers are expected to spend more online than on television for the first time. Interestingly, social media ad spending is expected to rise 21% to $58 billion while video ad spending is rising 19% to $32. (Recode citing Zenith)

Here’s a snapshot from We Are Social showing how social media consumption varies from one country to another in 2017.

srcs:

eMarketer, June 2016 “Growth in Time Spent with Media Is Slowing” Note: eMarketer aggregates data from various research firms and they don’t offer much detail (at least, not to unpaid customers). I don’t know if these figures are based on consumer surveys or if they are based on data provided by service providers.

Statista (citing ??, 2017), 2018 “Daily time spent on social networking by internet users worldwide from 2012 to 2017” Note: Statista does not give the name of the original source (to unpaid customers), but they do specify that this data is based on worldwide, online consumer surveys of adults aged 16-64. Statista also reports that the survey question asks, “Roughly how many hours do you spend engaging with/connected to social networks or services during a typical day?” The source must be GlobalWebIndex, which conducts web-based surveys. Their latest report (2018) estimates current social media time exactly as reported by Statista. Their press release here describes the same survey question, and the same survey audience (16-64 year olds).

Entrepreneur, in Jan 2018 (date established via InternetArchive), published the following comparative daily consumption figures: youtube: 40min/day facebook: 35min/day Snapchat: 25min/day Instagram: 15min/day Twitter: 1min/day

Social Media Consumption: Extrapolations was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Media/Internet Time Allotment

Overall Media Allotment

src: Statista, accessed May 2018 citing: info not available (likely eMarketer)

*

CC’s Note: eMarketer tracks the way people spend their time with media, showing comparison between desk/laptops, mobiles, non-streaming TV, radio, print

src: eMarketer, Sep 2017 via InsideRadio, Oct 2017 “EMarketer: Adults Spend Half Of Daily Media Usage On Digital”

*

UK Adults’ media time has plateaued

“The way that people consume media will continue to change,” said eMarketer’s UK analyst, Bill Fisher. “Many traditional habits are simply transitioning over to digital devices and platforms, while digital-only habits continue to proliferate. However, what’s apparent from this forecast is that UK adults have reached a plateau. While the media mix may ebb and flow, and it will increasingly flow toward mobile, adults’ media consumption capacity has reached its peak.”

src: eMarketer, April 2018

*

src: eMarketer small thumbnails retrieved 5/14/18 permalinks (data restricted by paywall) Average time spent per day with internet by adults in China by Device 2014-2020 Average time spent per day with major media by adults in China 2014-2020

*

In 2017, daily time spent with digital media among adults will top 3 hours in Japan (3 hours 5 minutes) and South Korea (3 hours 26 minutes). Those in India will average less than half that time (1 hour 18 minutes), with digital accounting for just under one-third of total daily time spent with media.

src: eMarketer, June 2017

*

Daily time spent on social networking by internet users worldwide from 2012 to 2017 (in minutes)

src: Statista, accessed May 2018 citing: untracked

*******

Mobile Time Allotment

FIGURE A3.1 Traffic Daily Profiles of the Five Major mobile Applications in North America (2020)

Figure A3.1 shows the daily profiles of the five major mobile applications in North American Region (NAR), namely, streaming (audio and video), computing (cloud processing, office productivity, other mobile applications), storage (media sharing, backup and device synchronisation), gaming (casual, interactive or emerging applications), and communicating (voice, video, e-mail and M2M). All these represent human behaviours and they are similar across geographies.

src: International Telecommunication Union, July 2015 “Rep. ITU-R M.2370-0: IMT traffic estimates for the years 2020 to 2030” P.40-41

citing: Source: Bell-Labs, Alcatel-Lucent, 2015. [CC’s note: Haven’t been able to track this down]

*

Mobile traffic distribution over different applications

Contrast with voice usage

[Data here: Ericsson-Minutes-of-voice-monthly-2010-2023.xls]

src: Ericsson, Accessed May 2018 Traffic Exploration [interactive data tool]

*

Sandvine, a Canadian network intelligence firm, tracks traffic composition. They’ve published a few reports with the current and previous year’s data, but I haven’t found anything more longitudinal. The reports describe peak period traffic composition across the following categories: real-time entertainment, marketplaces, storage, filesharing, web browsing, gaming, social networking, communications, and other. There are separate charts for mobile and fixed access.

from “2016 Global Internet Phenomena: Latin America and North America”

from “Global Internet Phenomena Report: 2H 2013”

CC’s Note: I’ve not been able to find a more recent version of the report. Sandvine was acquired recently, although the report author is still with the company. Could contact him to ask. Dan Deeth: [email protected]

*

Comscore is tracking differences between desktop and mobile internet usage.

CC’s note: Not sure if historic data are aggregated, but here’s a sample of recent statistics (covering US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, India, Indonesia and Malaysia)

Smartphones are the dominant platform in terms of total digital minutes, in every region Comscore examined. Most pronounced in India – 89% total minutes Least noticeable in Canada – 43% of total minutes (42% desktop, 15% tablet) US: 60% (30% desktop, 10% tablet)

Mobile minutes are overwhelmingly spent with apps – over 80%

Top apps (everywhere, in various rankings) include: Google Search, Whats App, Facebook, YouTube, Google Play, FB Messenger

Three largest categories where digital time is spent: Multimedia (includes several large video streaming services), Social Networking, Instant Messengers

Looking specifically at mobile digital time, the top four categories are: Entertainment, Social Media, Instant Messaging, and Games

On average, Social Media has the largest average share of mobile minutes, but Entertainment is larger in the US and Canada.

Among Social Media apps, Facebook, totally dominates, followed by Instagram, then Snapchat, then Twitter (Twitter’s share is tiny).

Among Messaging apps, WhatsApp totally dominates, then Facebook Messenger (less than half), then WeChat (very small share).

The report includes visualization of platform preferences for certain categories. Business/Finance (which includes banking) shows the most even split between mobile and desktop reach. In the majority of markets, retail is heavily biased toward mobile. News/Information is overwhelmingly biased toward mobile.

(shown for UK and India – both show a fairly even split between desktop and mobile for banking minutes).

The report also includes visualization of subtle seasonality in certain categories of content (shown for UK and Brazil).

src: Comscore, 2018 “Global Digital Future in Focus”

Media/Internet Time Allotment was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Whole-Day Time Allotment

ASK: Historic trends in time allotment? Global data?

SUMMARY

The Bureau of Labor Statistics has conducted the American Time Use Survey (ATUS) annually since 2003. This is the first federally funded, rigorous time use survey, although other large scale surveys have been conducted in the mid 20th century. Smaller scale time-use diaries were also collected going back to the early 19th century. Much of this data is US-specific, but the UN has aggregated time-use surveys into regional categories.

FINDINGS

Wall Street Journal, in 2016, created some nice, interactive graphics illustrating the changes reflected in the ATUS from 2003 through 2015.

[Click for larger. Visit source for interactive version]

Excerpt:

Americans overall are working less and sleeping more than they were a decade ago, trends that point to an aging population and fewer people in the workforce. But among those who have a job, people are working more. And in general, men spend more time than women on leisure activities, while women sleep about a half-hour more each day.

Additional charts at WSJ show breakdown by sex, employment status, age, and whether children are in the home.

src: Wall Street Journal, June 2016 “Changing Times: How Americans spend their day reflects a shifting economy and population.”

*

Here are links to the historic BLS time-use data

Data for 2003 See Tables 1 & 2 (pp.9, 10) src: BLS, Sep 2004 “Time-Use Survey— First Results Announced By BLS”

Historic tables all linked here

*

Diary data collection in the US dates back to the early part of the 19th century. The first large-scale national sample time use survey was conducted in 1965/1966. Data from this study, and others through 1981, are available via University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ICPSR)

Americans’ Use of Time Series, ICPSR

*

Trends in earlier Americans’ Use of Time Project surveys, 1965-1995

src: John Robinson, Geoffrey Godbey, 1997 Time for Life: The Surprising Ways Americans Use Their Time

Excerpts:

Distribution of Time in Productive Activities by Gender in Fourteen Countries (p.109)

Trends in Free Time and Its Components, 1965-1995 (341) (p.126)

(p.145)

(p.170)

Trends in Different Types of Time for Women and Men, 1965-1995 (348) (p.346)

src: Transportation Research Board and Institute of Medicine, 2005 “Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity?: Examining the Evidence — Special Report 282″ p.78, Figure 3-8 Time use, 1965–1995 (ages 18–64). (data from Robinson & Godbey, above, although the preview of that info is not available in Google)

*

Global aggregation of time-use surveys

United Nations Development Programme, 2015 “Time Use Across the World: Findings of a World Compilation of Time Use Surveys”

Paper is based on 102 time use surveys carried out in 65 countries. It gathers as many time use survey data and metadata as possible, and builds synthetic indicators on time use across the world, based on this data set. One of the main goals of the paper is to highlight time-use differences between men and women, particularly the inequities between paid work and unpaid work. To that end, most of the charts are divided by gender, with only a single chart showing gender-neutral time-use averages (that one chart is for the Mid East and Northern Africa region). In the case of Europe, the charts are further segmented by west, north, and southern Europe.

Survey data are aggregated into the following broad regions: Middle East and North Africa (9 countries, 10 surveys) sub-Saharan Africa (8 countries, 10 surveys) Asia (9 countries, 13 surveys) Latin America (7 countries, 8 surveys) Europe (15 countries, 29 surveys) Transition [Eastern European countries with Soviet history] (12 countries, 12 surveys) North America (2 countries, 14 surveys) Other developed countries (3 countries, 6 surveys)

The following chart shows which countries are included in those categories, and highlights which countries have conducted repeated surveys.

p.5,6

Here are the overall time-use charts from the report:

p.19

p.29

p.30

p.42

p.43

p.50

p.51

p.66 See the report for western and southern Europe segments. I’ve excerpted the northern Europe segment because it reflects a broad time series, with many repeated surveys in Finland and Norway.

p.67 See the report for western and southern Europe segments.

p.73

p.73

p.78

p.79

p.84

p.84

***

Annual Working Hours 1950-2014 worldwide Reflects the trend of people in richer countries working less.

Working Hours in the Household 1900-2005 US Marked decline for women and increase for men, across all age groups.

Includes planning, purchasing goods and services, care of children and adults, general cleaning, care and repair of the house and ground, preparing and clearing food, making, mending, and laundering clothing and other household textiles.

Hours per week on chores have decreased as electrical appliances have proliferated 1900-1989 US Comparing share of households with basic electrical appliances to hours spent preparing meals, doing laundry and cleaning.

src: Max Roser, 2018 “Working Hours” – Our World In Data

Whole-Day Time Allotment was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Mobile Data vs. Voice Usage

ASK: Looking for a visualization of mobile voice/text usage compared with data usage.

CC’s chart data via Ericsson’s interactive Traffic Exploration tool

Google Drawing shared with KK

*

Akamai offers the following commentary on essentially the same historic data, also from Ericsson (emphasis mine):

Mobile data traffic has continued to grow, and Figure 39 shows total global monthly data and voice traffic from the first quarter of 2012 to the first quarter of 2017. It depicts a continued strong increase in data traffic, with voice traffic growth having diminished to the low single digits per year. The growth in data traffic is being driven both by increased smartphone subscriptions and a continued increase in average data volume per subscription, fueled primarily by increased viewing of video content. In the first quarter of 2017, data traffic grew nearly 12% quarter-over-quarter and nearly 70% year-over-year. Looking at the full five-year period shown in Figure 39, cumulative voice traffic growth was 28%, while cumulative data traffic growth was more than 1,200%.

referring to:

Figure 39: Total Monthly Mobile Voice and Data Traffic as Measured by Ericsson Q1 2012 – Q1 2017

src: Akamai, 2017 “The State of the Internet / Q1 2017″ p.46 citing Ericsson

*

Ericsson survey results and commentary on the expectations for 5G enabling VR/AR mobile applications:

Video now accounts for over 50 percent of all mobile traffic – a figure that is expected to increase to over 75 percent by the end of 2023.

A recent survey* of consumers aware of VR in 8 countries suggested that 7 out of 10 early adopters expect VR/AR to fundamentally change everyday life. These early adopters expect 5G to play a significant role in enriching the shared VR experience by providing lower latencies, haptic feedback and higher resolutions.

In its current forms, AR may be much more suited than VR to mobile applications. However, the line between the two is already dissolving, with merged reality (MR), stereoscopic six degrees of freedom (6DoF) and holographic video on the horizon.

* Ericsson ConsumerLab, Merged Reality (June 2017) Base: 9,200 consumers aged 15–69 in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Spain, the UK and the US

src: Ericsson, Nov 2017 “Millennials Expectations for 5G”

Mobile Data vs. Voice Usage was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Ericsson: 5G impacts on sports events

Alongside November 2017’s Mobility Report, Ericsson offered some speculations on the effect 5G mobile service might have on sporting event spectators.

Excerpts:

Key findings

Growth in mobile traffic at events can be attributed to changes in user behavior, especially among younger people

Spectators now mainly share or stream live videos and engage with social networks at events, as well as increasingly creating and uploading their own content

Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technologies can enhance visitors’ and remote spectators’ experience of events, making them available in new ways

4G systems will continue to support event visitors with services, but in the near future, 5G technology will have the capability to transform their experience

At future events and connected venues, with high traffic density and increasing use of demanding services such as AR and VR, proactive management and automation will be essential to meet committed service levels

A range of services may be included in 5G showcases, allowing venue visitors to turn from spectators into participants and enabling them to:

Watch events from different viewpoints with interactive control

Access multiple cameras filming an object to achieve a 3D view

Experience sports activity from the perspective of the athlete via mini-cameras

Enjoy an in-stadium experience outside the venue through haptic or tactile feedback

View live holographic projections of athletes

Integrate supplementary content into their live streams

See athlete, event or venue statistics superimposed on their device display

Analyze and display performance data through sensors embedded in sports equipment

Receive real-time information on factors such as the speed and location of a ball

View overlay and substitution content, for example, explaining rules, giving more details and personalizing the experience

src: Ericsson, Nov 2017 “From spectators to participants”

Ericsson: 5G impacts on sports events was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Social Media Users

Hootsuite and We Are Social publish an annual report detailing internet use and social media growth. In their 2018 report, they list the most active social platforms (slide 59), led by Facebook (2,167B MAUs), with WeChat at #5 (980M MAUs). Because Facebook is still not used in China (not broadly), we have added the Facebook and WeChat user figures to roughly approximate the number of people using social media. At 3.147B, this comes very close to the report’s estimate of active social media users (3.196B).

src: We Are Social/Hootsuite, Jan 2018 “2018 Global Digital” full set of slides

I tallied historic MAU data from Facebook (Q3 2008 – Q4 2017) and WeChat (Q2 2011 – Q2 2017)

src: Facebook via Statista, Jan 2018 “Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2017 (in millions)”

src: Tencent via Statista, Aug 2017 “Number of monthly active WeChat users from 2nd quarter 2010 to 2nd quarter 2017 (in millions)”

I calculated this tally as a percentage of global population, to be compared against the percent of global internet users (reported by the Internet Telecommunications Union).

global population src: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. (Medium-fertility variant). via Worldometers

I used Excel to create trend lines (2deg polynomial) showing when each set (internet users and social media users) might reach 100% saturation.

The data are collected in the following Excel file: global-internet-users-ITU-2001-2017-extrap-to-2030

And a simplified Google Drawing is here: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1qbYyLORAMPYAtwZkrZxN0-VTfjUpPLoZL-SV-z-IB9E/edit?usp=sharing

Other bits of interest:

Dragon Social, Oct 2017 “10 Most Popular Social Media Sites in China”

eMarketer, June 2017 “Percent of Internet users who use a social network at least 1x/month” 2016-2021

Business Insider, Sep 2016 “Messaging apps are now bigger than social networks” [crossing chart] 2011-2017

Social Media Users was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

100% Internet Penetration

ASK: Forecasts for global 100% internet users?

FINDINGS:

eMarketer publishes a ~5-year forecast of internet penetration every year. It’s most recent publicly accessible forecast showed a downward revision from the previous year’s forecast.

As of June 2016 2014 41.1% 2015 44.3% 2016 46.8% 2017 49.0% 2018 51.1% 2019 53.0% 2020 54.6%

src: eMarketer, June 2016

Revised, as of April 2017 2016 44.6% 2017 46.8% 2018 48.8% 2019 50.6% 2020 52.2% 2021 53.6%

src: eMarketer, April 2017

This is the only significant forecast I’ve found for this indicator.

*

The International Telecommunications Union tracks internet users as a percentage of the global population. Historic data is available back to the mid 1990s.

I’ve added a trendline projection, which suggests ~2030 as a possible saturation date.

However, when eMarketer’s most recent forecast figures are added, the trendline wiggles. The same type of trendline (2nd order polynomial) then delays saturation until 2040.

Adjusting the trendline type (to a 5th order polynomial) gives a better R-squared value, and again brings saturation back to ~2030.

[Black and yellow simplified chart here]

src: International Telecommunications Union, 2017 “Global ICT developments, 2001-2017*” [XLS file]

Here’s a tidy chart, showing data points, of basically the same data (1997-2017) aggregated at Wikipedia, with separate lines for global, developed world, and developing world:

src: Wikipedia citing Internet Telecommunications Union

*

Newsweek projection of when the number of active Facebook users will equal the current (2017) population of the world (7.6B) — 2048

Newsweek’s fine print: The forecast has been calculated only using the annual figures provided by Facebook’s reports since 2004, and does not take into consideration technological progress or demographic changes.

CC’s NOTE: In 2048, the UN medium fertility variant projection for world population is 9.7 billion. At 7.6 billion users, that would be about 78% of the projected 2048 population. That would be a big jump from the 26% of global population FB users accounted for in 2017, but still not literally everyone.

src: Newsweek, May 2017 “How Long Until Facebook Takes Over The World?”

100% Internet Penetration was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Proliferation of cell sites and light bulbs

NOTE: This chart reflects production of large incandescent lamps, which include the ordinary electric-light bulbs for residential, commercial, and industrial use. This category excludes miniature lamps such as those for motor vehicles, flashlights, and Christmas trees. (Bright, p.5, Note 2). Production of other types of lamps (miniatures, photofloods, etc) seem to’ve been fairly low in the first three decades of lamp production (1891-1919), but began to ramp up soon thereafter, certainly by 1939 (figures reported in Bright, p. 10), and by 1945 these other categories of lamps accounted for about 36% of total lamp production (calculated based on figures reported by the FTC in 1980, p.34).

DATA

Cell sites in service 1986 1,531 1996 30,045 2006 195,613 2016 308,334

src: CTIA, 2017 “Wireless Snapshot 2017″

Light bulbs shipped (thousands) 1891 7,500 1899 25,320 1909 66,776 1919 224,713

src: MIT Studies of Innovation, 1949 Arthur A. Bright “The Electric-Lamp Industry: Technological Change and Economic Development from 1800 to 1947″ p.4, Table I: The Production Of Large Incandescent Lamps In The United States 1879-1945

NOTE: Data from these two sources is aggregated in CC’s Excel file: cell-sites-vs-light-bulbs.xls, which includes additional years of data (through 1945) for the light bulb industry, as well as calculated rates of growth.

*

Additional source for light bulb production

Federal Trade Commission, February 1980 “Staff Report on the Development and Structure of the U.S. Electric Lamp Industry”

Excerpts:

Total volume of light bulb industry 1912     90.8 million 1926     478.9 million (527% increase from 1912)

p.103

Comparison of 1945 and 1974 Shipments of Various Types of Electric Lamps [thousands of units] Type of Lamp 1945 shipments 1974 shipments Percentage change Photographic 36,447 2,406,332 6,502.3 Large incan. 794,402 1,532,039 92.9 Miniature* 337,325 964,016 185.8 Fluorescent 42,781 284,529 561.1 Total 1,250,689 5,395,942 331.4

p.34

*Of the 964,016 Miniature lamps shipped in 1974, 665,208 were used in automotive applications. (p.43)

citing: U.S. Department of Commerce,_c: Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Report: Series MQ-36B(74)-5, Electric Lamps, 1975; and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Facts for Industry: Electric Lamps, 1946.

Table 111-1 shows the U.S. value of shipments, exports, and imports in SIC 3641 for the years 1967 to 1973. During that time; imports never accounted for more than 6.79 percent of total domestic value of shipments while exports never accounted for more than 5.21 percent. When imports are added to value of shipments and exports subtracted from the whole, consumption can be found. Between 1967 and 1973, 93 percent of the total lamps consumed in the United States were manufactured in the U.S. In the same seven-year period, 94.8 percent of the lamps manufactured in the United States were used in the U.S.

p.38-40

***

OTHER BITS OF POSSIBLE INTEREST…

“Consumption Spreads Faster Today” Chart shows historic penetration rates for new technologies – accelerating over time. Includes electricity.

Other interesting excerpt: At the average wage, a VCR fell from 365 hours in 1972 to a mere two hours today. A cellphone dropped from 456 hours in 1984 to four hours. A personal computer, jazzed up with thousands of times the computing power of the 1984 I.B.M., declined from 435 hours to 25 hours. Even cars are taking a smaller toll on our bank accounts: in the past decade, the work-time price of a mid-size Ford sedan declined by 6 percent.

src: New York Times, February 2008

graphic src: Nicholas Felton (not sure about data src, although many other version of this chart exist, so it must be widely available data)

larger version of the graphic

And here’s an older version of the chart (1998), different illustrator, additional detail.

And another version, through 2010, which really emphasizes the acceleration of penetration rates.

*

U.S. Housholds by Type of Phone, 1900-2011

src: Harvard Business Review, Nov 2013

graphic by: Michael Degusta, MIT Technology Review using data from Forrester, Knowledge Networks, Net York times, PEW, US Census

*

The History of the Light Bulb – US Department of Energy Interactive timeline of light bulb technology

Light – Our World in Data Price (1300 to current, UK), consumption (1700 to current, UK), and access (current, global) to lighting

Proliferation of cell sites and light bulbs was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Internet Connectivity and Infrastructure

Pew Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet

src: Pew Research Center, Feb 2018 “Pew Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet”

*

FCC Fixed Broadband Deployment Map

See the source link for an interactive version of the map.

src: FCC Fixed Broadband Deployment Accessed April 2018

Note: Discussion of the FCC map and it’s latest version is available here. The latest map is based on 2016 data. FCC does not have an equivalent map for mobile broadband, although it does publish an annual report on mobile wireless competition.

*

20th Mobile Wireless Competition Report Quick Facts

src: FCC, September 2017 20th Mobile Wireless Competition Report Quick Facts

A couple more interesting bits from the full report…

NOTE: MOU = minutes of voice use [p.72]

Note: A “connection” is a paid subscription, equivalent to the number of ‘lines’ when discussing landline phone service. [p.73]

[p.74] Note: According to CTIA, there has been an approximate 57 percent growth in the number of cell sites over the last ten years (in 1986, there were 1,531 cell sites in service).

The report notes that, according to CTIA, the number of cell sites will significantly increase as the mobile wireless industry densifies and prepares for 5G. Also, because multiple cell sites can be co-located in the same “tower” site, the reported cell sites should not be equated with “towers.” The reported cell sites include repeaters and other cell-extending devices (e.g., femtocells or distributed antenna systems).

A specialized communications tower industry has developed to provide and manage the support structures for the cell sites. Today, there are more than 120 tower and DAS operators in the United States, and a majority of towers are now owned or operated by independent companies rather than by mobile wireless service providers.142 Independent tower operators own, operate and lease shared wireless communications and broadcasting towers, manage other tall structure sites (such as rooftops and water towers), and to a lesser extent, own and operate neutral facilities to host small cells and DAS networks for mobile service providers. [p.32]

src: FCC, Sep 2017 “Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services”

*

[In the U.S.] Expected arrival time-frame for 5G roll out with decent coverage and availability in handsets: early 2020s

(Although 2019 phones will be advertising capacity, even if there’s no network to connect to right away.)

“I believe that eventually consumers will pay for just one broadband connection, fixed and mobile. When I say 50M or more homes, I mean wireless substitution. I think you can draw a parallel with local telephone service and long distance. The long distance business evaporated. Similarly, today’s fixed and mobile broadband services will collapse into one. The cellular operators today are better positioned to take that market.” Peter Rysavy (wireless technologies consultant)

src: Forbes, Sep 2017 “The Dawn Of 5G: Will Wireless Kill the Broadband Star?”

Ericsson (Nov 2017) has the same prediction for 5G, anticipating coverage for more than 20% of the global population (1 billion) by the end of 2023. First deployments are expected in 2019.

*

Submarine Cable Capacity

src: Submarine Telecoms Industry Report 2017 [p.17]

*

Network World, Mar 2018 “Submarine cable boom fueled by new tech, soaring demand”

Excerpts:

Between 2013 and 2017, the subsea cable industry has added an average of 32 percent of capacity annually on major submarine cable routes.

SubTel Forum projects global submarine cable capacity will increase up to 143 percent between 2017 to 2022, and it also notes that a construction boom is already underway. Last year, 62,000 miles of submarine cable was added globally. This, after global averages didn’t crack 19,000 miles of added cable between 2013 to 2016.

According to TeleGeography, the international capacity deployed by companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon rose 14-fold between 2012 to 2016. … By investing in them, these mega-companies get them built faster. They also get a level of control over construction, maintenance and operation that’s ultimately more economical than becoming a paying customer on a telecom’s cable.

[It’s now cheaper to build systems with greater bandwidth. In 2013, new systems averaged 9 terabits per second (Tbps) — multiple systems planned for 2018 and 2019 will have capacities of 60 Tbsp. Tech advances are also eliminating costly and complex infrastructure layers, such as regen equipment. In addition, new cables can land directly inside multi-tenant data centers, rather than a traditional cable landing station (CLS) on the beach.]

*

Telegeography, Nov 2017 “A Complete List of Content Providers’ Submarine Cable Holdings”

This article lists cables owned or strongly supported by Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft.

Excerpt:

The amount of capacity deployed by content providers has outpaced all other customers of international bandwidth in recent years. Between 2012 and 2016 the amount of international capacity deployed by companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and Amazon has risen 13-fold to 179 Tbps. (In contrast, international capacity deployed by all other operators only rose threefold, to 272 Tbps).

Content providers prioritize some submarine cable routes more than others in their network deployments. Between 2012 and 2016, content provider demand was the strongest across the Atlantic where capacity rose at a compound annual rate of 66 percent to 42 Tbps.

And as such, the largest content providers have built U.S.-centric network architectures. Their investments on systems directly connecting Europe to Asia are almost non-existent, in comparison. In the Atlantic and Pacific, content providers accounted for over half of total demand in 2016. In contrast, content providers represented only a small share of capacity usage on routes connected to the Middle East and Africa.

Used International Bandwidth by Source, 2002-2016

*

Submarine Telecoms Industry Report 2017

Excerpts:

Submarine fiber systems ownership 2013-2017: 61% private, 39% consortium 2018 and beyond: 83% private, 17% consortium

A recent trend towards private ownership has been observed compared to historical trends of primarily consortia ownership. Business cases for smaller systems have been prevalent, and the demand driving these systems has differed from years past. Globe-spanning infrastructure cables that require consortium ownership have fallen out of favor, contributing to this trend shift.

The boom of private ownership will continue to extend well into the future, as more niche and point-to-point systems are implemented. Much of this is driven by intra-regional needs — typically for smaller nations looking to get connected. However, a growing number of systems are being driven by factors not previously seen in the submarine fiber industry.

[p.22]

*

Norway Telecom Trends

The Norwegian Communications Authority prepares a twice annual report of statistics showing developments in electronic communications services, including fixed telephony, mobile telephony and services, broadband and TV transmissions.

See especially Chapter 2, Development Trends, stating on page 11

src: Norwegian Communications Authority, May 2016 “The Norwegian Electronic Communications Service Market 2015″

Internet Connectivity and Infrastructure was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Size of Homes, Global

Ask What’s the size of average homes around the world?

Results

China & India Urban Residential Floor Space in 1993, 2002, 2008

Excerpt:

Average income growth has been a key reason behind these different trends in the quality of the housing stock. The urbanisation process in China has transferred large numbers of workers from relatively low productivity jobs in the rural sector to higher productivity jobs in urban areas. This movement has been a driver of the rapid growth in incomes in China over the past three decades, which has far exceeded the growth in incomes in India (Graph  7). Over time, Chinese households have chosen to spend their higher income on higher quality dwellings and dwellings with larger floor space and, as a consequence, the share of concrete dwellings and residential floor space per capita has increased.

src: Reserve Bank of Australia, March 2014 “Housing Trends in China and India” p.66

*

Europe Compared with US Home Sizes, 1950, 1984, 2005, 2015

Note: This graphic is a very rough assembly of data reported in mass media publications (not well-cited).

src: Reddit user chyken “Comparing average house size in US to Europe, 1950-2015 [OC]” citing US Census, Elle Decor, Apartment Therapy, Not Buying Anything

*

Europe Home Sizes (all vs. newly built)

src: Evans & Hartwich, 2005 “Unaffordable housing: Fables and myths” p. 41

*

Europe, Australia, Canada, US, Japan (single year)

src: Demographia (Wendell Cox), 2006 (data via IA) “International House Sizes” citing Japan Statistical Yearbook, European Housing 2002, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Home Builders Association, Infometrics.

*

Home Sizes: Select Europe, US, Canada, China, Australia, Japan (single year)

Note: Lots of overlap with Demographia set, above, but some additional countries

src: Shrink That Footprint, 2013 (date via IA) “How big is a house? Average house size by country”

Size of Homes, Global was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

US Food Imports and Income Spent on Food

src (unless otherwise specified): Economic Research Service, “Import Shares of US Food Consumption Using the Volume Method,” U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2009. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/563776/import_1.xls. [found via archive.org]

2013 src:

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/IF10403.pdf

food expend src: Economic Research Service Food Price Environment: Interactive Visualization Accessed March 26, 2018

https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-price-outlook/food-price-environment-interactive-visualization/

CC’s note: see import_1.xls in DropBox for chart

US Food Imports and Income Spent on Food was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Global Mall Development Trends

Ask Update on mall building rates? US? Globally? Developing world? Trends in mall development

Results

Global Mall Construction Rates

In 2016, global shopping center completions were up 11.4% over 2015 levels, despite having slowed over the past few years.

However, the pace of development continues to slow, with the number of shopping centers under construction down 22%

The majority of added shopping center space came to market in Asia, but The Americas registered the strongest growth, with completion levels up 43.6%, fueled by construction growth in Mexico.

Src: CBRE via Malls.com, May 2017

*

In 2016:    17% of retailers planned to open more than 40 stores    67% planned to open no more than 20 Most popular formats for expansion    76% street shops    72% regional shopping malls    45% open air shopping malls    20% transport hubs (airport, railway terminals)    18% outlets    18% retail park    15% concession counters in department stores    8% duty free

src: CBRE Research, April 2016 “How Active Are Retailers Globally?”

*

Global shopping centre completions started to slow (in 2015) as parts of the global retail market witness the effects of an imbalance between significant supply and demand.

Despite this, there continues to be exceptional levels of construction, particularly in Asia. Globally, 10.7 million sq m of new space opened in 2015 in the 168 cities we surveyed; this is down on 2014, where 12.1 million sq m of space were completed; and a further 41.9 million sq m is under construction, up from 39 million in 2014.

src: CBRE, April 2016 Global Retail ViewPoint – Shopping Centre Development April 2016 [full report here]

Discussion of the above CBRE report is available here.

*

Global Retail Development Index Shows where retail investment has been most attractive (ranks top 30 countries). These are the top 10 countries in 2017

India 71.7 growing middle class, rapidly increasing consumer spending, overtakes China

China 70.4 market is maturing, still leading in e-commerce

Malaysia 60.9 good long-term prospects bc of tourists, higher disposable income, govt investments

Turkey 59.8 moved up two places

United Arab Emirates 59.4 most attractive market in the region

Vietnam 56.1 moves ahead, important market for retail expansion with its liberalized investment laws

Morocco 56.1 continues to rise in rankings, govt efforts to attract foreign investment

Indonesia 55.9 continued liberalization and infrastructure investments

Peru 54 outperforms other regional economies, two decades of solid growth

Colombia 53.6 despite lower than expected GDP growth, still attractive for retailers

src: ATKearney, 2017 The 2017 Global Retail Development Index™

CC’s note: These rankings are available back to 2004. Could aggregate, if this were of interest to KK. (Started to aggregate a couple years’ of data, but stopped bc I wasn’t sure if it was of interest.) Relig-Shop-Dev-Homes-Extrapolations.xlsx GRDI tab

European Mall Construction Rates

In 2016, European shopping center construction was down 6% overall compared with 2015. Western Europe saw an increase of 15% in new shopping center completions, but this was outweighed by a 17% decline in the UK, as well as a 17% decline in Central and Eastern Europe (which also dropped 11% in 2015). Further declines are expected in 2017.

src: Cushman & Wakefield, May 2017 “European Shopping Centers: The Development Story” [full report behind paywall]

US Mall Construction Rates

U.S. mall development peaked in the 1970s and has steadily declined. Just six large malls were built between 2006 and 2015, compared with 54 during the previous decade, according to Green Street.

src: Wall Street Journal, Oct 2017 “Big Mall Operator Does the Unthinkable—Builds a Mall” paywall, these excerpts via Zerohedge “With Malls In Full Meltdown Mode, GGP Goes All-In With $525MM Connecticut Mega-Mall”

*

Retail Availability Rates, US, 2016

2005 7.4% 2006 8.1% 2007 9.0% 2008 10.8% 2009 12.6% 2010 12.9% 2011 12.9% 2012 12.5% 2013 11.7% 2014 11.0% 2015 10.7% 2016 10.2% 2017p 10.1% 2018p 10.0% 2019p 10.1%

Excerpts:

The oft-reported demise of the retail sector was another topic tackled by the panelists. But they were not ready to sign on to the prevailing attitude that retail is in steep decline. “Store growth continues on a net basis,” Ludgin said.

The forecast found economists equally optimistic about the retail sector. Vacancy rates (see above) are expected to hold steady at about 10 percent for the next two years, while rental rate growth will decline from 2.7 percent to 2.0 percent in 2018—still above historic averages, the economists predict.

Though the panelists agreed that many elements of the retail sector will continue to struggle—in particular, certain suburban malls—others will see an uptick, especially as the link grows between retail and distribution space. Retail space can play a key role in solving the “last mile” issue.

“The store is just a way to deliver goods to people,” Ludgin said. “You may not need the same square footage, but the store is not dead. . . . It’s performing a somewhat different function than in the past.”

Retail space linked to services and entertainment space is still performing well, Conway said. “What we’re not seeing is addition of shop space,” he said. Suburban malls will have to deal with obsolete space, but many retail spaces will evolve, as we “see the convergence of retail and industrial into one,” he said.

Many online retailers, including Amazon, are starting to invest in brick-and-mortar space, Ludgin noted. And discount department stores “remain extremely viable and are still opening stores,” including chains like T.J. Maxx and Nordstrom Rack, which offer a value proposition. “As a nation, we still like department stores, and we still shop in them. It’s just that they are less in regional malls and more in open-air centers,” Ludgin said.

Centers focused on local interests and artisan wares are also performing well, Reagen added. “There is a huge shift in people wanting something different,” she said. “These are centers that will remain viable.”

SRC: Urbal Land Institute, citing CBRE, April 2017 “ULI Forecast Calls for Moderate Growth for Most U.S. Real Estate Sectors”

*

2015 Summary from research firm CBRE:

Across major U.S. metropolitan areas, completions of new shopping centre space increased in 2015 and the pipeline of new projects grew. In 2015, 13 significant centres were delivered in the cohort of major metropolitan areas, compared to only six in 2014. Lifestyle centres comprised the majority of deliveries, both in terms of the number of centres and their area; the largest of these was the Village at Westfield Topanga (54,812 sq m) in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. The greatest numbers of new shopping centres were delivered in Texas, with three in Houston and two in Fort Worth. [p.6]…

Within the U.S. there are now 15 major projects under construction up from nine in 2014. The most activity remains concentrated in the New York City metropolitan area, fuelled by the massive American Dream at Meadowlands, which is being developed by the owners of the largest mall in the United States – Mall of the Americas in Minnesota; the centre includes an indoor ski slope, among other attractions. Other projects in the city are smaller, but have a very high profile: The World Trade Center shopping centre in downtown Manhattan, operated by Westfield, and The Shops and Restaurants at the Hudson Yards, a huge new mixed use project developed by Related and Oxford on the West side of Manhattan, and City Point, a mixed use development in downtown Brooklyn (Acadia). Houston has four significant projects under construction, totalling 143,943 sq m. The 15 shopping centres under construction are broadly diversified among new lifestyle centres, super-regional and regional malls and power centres. Generally centres in the U.S. are opening with upwards of 90% occupancy rates. [p.10]

src: CBRE, Q2 2016 “Global Shopping Centre pipeline rises while overall completion levels start to slow”

*

US Shopping Center Rates of Growth, 2013-2017

src: CC’s calculation of growth based on ICSC data. See OF-charts.xls, “Shopping-Centers” tab. 2017 data: ICSC, Jan 2017 “U.S. Shopping-Center Classification and Characteristics” 2016 data: 2016 Internet Archive version of above 2015 data: 2015 Internet Archive version 2014 data: 2014 IA version 2013 data: ICSC, 2014 Economic Impact of Shopping Centers 2012 data: ICSC, 2013 Economic Impact of Shopping Centers

Definitions

GLA: gross leasable area square footage and industry share data below refer to January 2017

Super-Regional Mall Similar in concept to regional malls, but offering more variety and assortment. Avg size: 1,255,382 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 10.2%

Regional Mall General merchandise or fashion-oriented offerings. Typically, enclosed with inward-facing stores connected by a common walkway. Parking surrounds the outside perimeter. Avg size: 589,659 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 4.7% (Jan 2017)

Community Center (“Large Neighborhood Center”) General merchandise or convenience- oriented offerings. Wider range of apparel and other soft goods offerings than neighborhood centers. The center is usually configured in a straight line as a strip, or may be laid out in an L or U shape, depending on the site and design. Avg size: 197,509 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 25.4%

Neighborhood Center Convenience oriented. Avg size: 71,827 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 30.8%

Strip/Convenience Attached row of stores or service outlets managed as a coherent retail entity, with on-site parking usually located in front of the stores. Open canopies may connect the store fronts, but a strip center does not have enclosed walkways linking the stores. A strip center may be configured in a straight line, or have an “L” or “U” shape. A convenience center is among the smallest of the centers, whose tenants provide a narrow mix of goods and personal services to a very limited trade area. Avg size: 13,218 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 12.0%

Power Center Category-dominant anchors, including discount department stores, off-price stores, wholesale clubs, with only a few small tenants. Avg size: 438,626 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 13.0%

Lifestyle Upscale national-chain specialty stores with dining and entertainment in an outdoor setting. Avg size: 335,852 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 2.2%

Factory Outlet Manufacturers’ and retailers’ outlet stores selling brandname goods at a discount. Avg size: 238,060 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 1.2%

Theme/Festival Leisure, tourist, retail and service-oriented offerings with entertainment as a unifying theme. Often located in urban areas, they may be adapted from older–sometimes historic–buildings and can be part of a mixed-use project. Avg size: 147,791 sq ft % Share of Industry GLA: 0.3%

Airport Retail Consolidation of retail stores located within a commercial airport Avg size: 249,240 % Share of Industry GLA: 0.2%

src: ICSC (International Council of Shopping Centers), January 2017 “U.S. Shopping-Center Classification and Characteristics”

***

Trends in Chinese Mall Offerings

Wall Street Journal, Jan 2017 “China Has Too Many Shopping Malls”

CC’s summary: In 2015, 3.7 million square meters of shopping space was under construction in Chongqing — more than anywhere else in the world (and 10x the retail construction in New York). It’s also a much greater shopping stock than what’s found in China’s four first-tier cities (eg: Beijing, Shanghai) — more than 2 square meters per urban consumer, compared with 0.5sq.m in the first-tier cities. This is a problem because new demand has not been as strong as anticipated (as shoppers leapfrog stores and go directly online). The retail vacancy rate has been rising in many Chinese cities. Some department stores are reporting sharp losses, with some closing in the past year. Some retail developers are including entertainment (hotels, aquariums, sports hubs with rock-climbing, ziplines, indoor surfing, ski slopes) as well as shopping in hopes of staying ahead.

*

Financial Times, November 2017 “China’s high street finds growth alongside ecommerce”

Excerpts:

[Chinese] ]Mall operators have responded to the ecommerce onslaught by reducing space devoted to retail and increasing allocations for restaurants, cinemas and outlets offering extracurricular classes for children. Electronics retailers have added in-store experiences and reallocated floorspace for ecommerce distribution.

In 2016, Shanghai’s Joy City mall installed a gigantic Ferris wheel on its top floor to attract customers.

Gome, an electronics store which is Chinas second largest brick-and-mortar retailer by sales, has added experience-enhancing elements in stores, such as virtual reality zones. It’s offline sales grew 10.5% in the first half of the year.

*

KK: HERE IS A BIG RESEARCH REPORT ON WHAT’S NEW IN CHINESE RETAIL. YOU MIGHT LIKE TO SKIM. THINGS THAT CAUGHT MY EYE:

“NEW RETAIL” buzz phrase in China’s retail sector, refers to retailers with large physical stores reinventing and transforming their business models and formats. Leveraging Internet, VR, AR etc to offer experience- and lifestyle-driven opportunities.

“CEWEBRITY ECONOMY” Cewebrities are people who become famous on the Internet. Leveraging the power of their fans and social media, many cewebrities, especially fashion cewebrities, have set up online stores to sell fashion items. Some have even launched their own brands.

RURAL E-COMMERCE The rural online retail market has become a new growth engine with the near saturation of the urban online market. Rural consumers prefer shopping online because of the less developed retail infrastructure in rural areas. … Recognizing the ample growth potential of the rural e-commerce market, increasing numbers of leading retailers and e-commerce players have adopted various “going rural” strategies. For instance, Alibaba has introduced a partnership program in rural areas. Some 20,000 partners were recruited to teach and help rural residents buy online. At the same time, JD.com has made substantial investment in rural areas to expand “last-mile” delivery capabilities; for example, it has tested drone delivery services in some remote rural areas

src: Fung Business Intelligence, March 2017 “Spotlight on China Retail”

Global Mall Development Trends was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Charts: Monotheism, Retail, Urbanity, Home Size

Ask

Make extrapolated charts for the following:    Monotheism vs. Other & non-affiliated    Ecommerce vs. Physical retail sales    Global urban population    Average house size

Results

Extrapolate: Monotheism vs. other & non-affiliated

KEVIN: I’M HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING WHY THESE LINES DON’T CROSS AT 50%. THESE CURVES DON’T SEEM TO BE DIRECTLY CORRELATED.

In this chart, Christians, Muslims, and Jewish adherents are grouped in the Monotheistic adherents category. The red line includes the religiously unaffiliated, Buddhists, Hindus, followers of folk religions, and other religious adherents. Additional methodology on how Pew defined religious groups is available here.

Data for extrapolation (percentage of US population)

2010 Monotheistic religions    Christians 78.3    Jews 1.8    Muslims 0.9 Other    Unaffiliated 16.4    Buddhists 1.2    Folk Relions 0.2    Hindus 0.6    Other Religions 0.6

2020 Monotheistic religions    Christians 75.5    Jews 1.7    Muslims 1.1 Other    Unaffiliated 18.6    Buddhists 1.2    Folk Relions less than 1    Hindus less than 1    Other Religions less than 1

2030 Monotheistic religions    Christians 72.2    Jews 1.6    Muslims 1.4 Other    Unaffiliated 21.2    Buddhists 1.3    Folk Relions less than 1    Hindus less than 1    Other Religions 1.1

2040 Monotheistic religions    Christians 69.1    Jews 1.5    Muslims 1.8 Other    Unaffiliated 23.6    Buddhists 1.4    Folk Relions less than 1    Hindus 1.1    Other Religions 1.3

2050 Monotheistic religions    Christians 66.4%    Jews 1.4    Muslims 2.1 Other    Unaffiliated 25.6    Buddhists 1.4    Folk Relions 0.5    Hindus 1.2    Other Religions 1.5

Sources Pew Research Center. April 2, 2015. “The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050.” US Decadal data

NOTE: Figures for the “less than 1%” values are available for 2010 and 2050 (but not the intervening decades) in the full report Table: Religious Composition by Country, 2010 and 2050, p.244

*

Extrapolate: Ecommerce Retail

KEVIN – THE STEEPER CURVE IS AN EXPONENTIAL TREND LINE, BUT I FEEL THE POLYNOMIAL TREND LINE LOOKS LIKE A BETTER FIT. AGREE?

Source U.S. Bureau of the Census, E-Commerce Retail Sales as a Percent of Total Sales [ECOMPCTSA], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; February 28, 2018.

ECOMPCTSA Frequency: Annual FRED Graph Observations Federal Reserve Economic Data

*

Extrapolate: Urbanization

Source United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, custom data acquired via website.

From the FAQ How do we define “urban”? We do not use our own definition of “urban” population but follow the definition that is used in each country. The definitions are generally those used by national statistical offices in carrying out the latest available census. When the definition used in the latest census was not the same as in previous censuses, the data were adjusted whenever possible so as to maintain consistency. In cases where adjustments were made, that information is included in the sources listed online. United Nations estimates and projections are based, to the extent possible, on actual enumerations. In some cases, however, it was necessary to incorporate other estimates of urban population size. When that is done, the sources of data indicate it.

*

Extrapolate: Home Size

Kevin, the following paper on US housing stock and floor space is very good. I’ll excerpt generously from it, but you may like to review the original article, “120 Years of U.S. Residential Housing Stock and Floor Space.”

I DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA TO BE ABLE TO EXTRAPOLATE, BUT PERHAPS WE COULD REQUEST IT FROM THE AUTHORS.

Excerpts:

Excerpted Discussion: Fig 7 shows the estimated aggregated floor space average over the 120-year period, for each building type, calculated as the ratio of the two estimated time–series, total U.S. floor space and housing stock. Average floor space per unit remained approximately constant throughout the period. A slight ‘dip’ occurred in the 1940–2000 period, but the average returned to pre-1940’s values in the 2000’s, and so floor space per unit averages played a relatively minor role in overall floor space evolution over the very long term.

Excerpted Discussion: The number of U.S. homes and their associated total floor space have risen dramatically over the last century. From the end of the 19th to the mid-20th century, a net average of half a million homes was added annually to the country’s stock, corresponding to over 850 million square feet added annually. In the last half century, the net average of homes added annually doubled to one million, which led to a tripling of floor space growth, with 2,700 million square feet added annually, with new construction far exceeding retirements. Over the 1891–2010 period, floor space increased almost tenfold, which corresponds to a doubling of floor space per capita (from approximately 400 to 800 square feet (Fig G in S6 File).

Excerpted Conclusion: Our results show that over the last 120 years floor space and housing stock in the U.S. increased approximately tenfold, while population increased approximately fivefold and household size decreased by a dramatic 50%. Average floor space has remained approximately constant. But can these long-term trends be expected to continue into the future? The interplay between the evolution of population, household size, average floor space growth, as well as other factors, such as the construction rate of single-family homes and the retirement of older smaller vintages, could become significant in future dynamics.

In order to look ahead, it is important to distinguish between short-and long-term trends. The 2008 housing crisis is a recent event from which the housing market is still recovering, so trends in the last decade may not be representative of future developments. Taking the last 30 years into account, however, allows for a better insight into the near future. It is particularly instructive to examine the two factors that have evolved differently over the last three decades, compared to their previous evolution, namely household size and average floor space.

Decreasing household size is a trend with roots in a combination of factors: increased national income, increased mobility, demographic factors such as the aging of the population and the proportion of young adults who are potential homebuyers, and cultural factors such as changing family structures (ex. the increase of the median age at first marriage, family size and the overall decline in the number of married adults, [24]. These factors could contribute to a further long-term decrease of household size, but compared to the decrease in household size since the late 19thC, household size in the U.S. has been decreasing at a slower pace since the 1980’s. In 2007–2010 there was a slight increase from 2.31 to 2.34 persons per household (Fig 6, top), which could either be immediate consequence of the housing crisis, or could indicate a more fundamental change in the long-term trends. A slow economic recovery, with still relatively high unemployment, a rising student debt and the difficulty of obtaining mortgage credits, are all factors that may contribute to a slower decrease or an increase in household size, as young adults are less able to move out of their parents’ homes [25].

In the last 30 years floor space averages have been increasing, as older post-1940 vintages consisting of smaller units, such as those built in the post-war “baby boom” years progressively retire, while larger units are added to the stock. New single family homes built in the first decade of the 21st century averaged 2,673 square feet, while those built in the 1980’s averaged 2,162 square feet (see Table 1). The overall average floor space for units of all building types increased by 13% in the last 30 years, reaching almost 1,800 square feet per unit in 2010 (see Fig 9).

These two factors–household size and floor space averages—have the potential to drive floor space in opposite directions. The observed increase in average floor space is a clear trend, which might only be attenuated if the rate of construction of single-family homes or retirement of older units also slows down. On the other hand, if the tendency for household size to decrease more slowly or increase is indeed a new trend, then both the number of housing units and floor space might accompany population growth more closely than has been the case in the past.

Src: Maria Cecilia P. Moura, Steven J. Smith, David B. Belzer. August 2015. “120 Years of U.S. Residential Housing Stock and Floor Space.” PLOS ONE

Note: Figure G (floorspace per capita) is from the supporting document: S6 File. Results: Floor space time-series.

Charts: Monotheism, Retail, Urbanity, Home Size was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Luker on e/sports

Ask

Expert Perspective: Recent talks/interviews with Rich Luker (ESPN Sports Poll, Luker on Trends)

Results

State of Sports for Gen Z Kids: Building Lifelong Affection in a Hyper-Competitive Market

Generation Z kids are bombarded by a tsunami of highly accessible and enticing alternatives to sports each day. What effect will this have on the long-term outlook for the professional sports industry? How can the sports industry adapt to this reality in a manner that builds a relationship TODAY so that kids will be engaged with sports tomorrow? Rich Luker, the Founder of the ESPN Sports Poll, and Terence Burke, SVP of Research and Editor-in-Chief of KidSay’s Trend Tracker report, will describe a new alliance of the two groups and present the first, ever, “State of Sports for Generation Z” convergenceing kids from 5-17.

From Pokemon Go to Esports: Lessons and Opportunities

At the 2017 Project Play Summit, experts weigh in on how to assure more free play for kids through technology. What lessons can be learned from the popularity of Pokemon Go and esports? Moderating the session is Jeremy Goldberg, President, LeagueApps. Panelists are Angela Ruggiero, Co-Founder/Managing Director, Sports Innovation Lab; Chris Kluwe, Former NFL Punter; Vikram Grover, Senior Director of Business Development, Niantic; and Rich Luker, Founder, Luker on Trends.

Luker on e/sports was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Esports industry evolution

Ask

Qualitative Discussion: Evolution of esports

Results

Gamelab Barcelona 2017 – Mike Sepso – Shaping eSports right YouTube Mike Sepso is Senior Vice President of Activision Blizzard where he runs Media Networks, a division devoted to creating the best esports experiences for fans across games, platforms and geographies. Prior to joining Activision Blizzard, Mike was the co-founder and president of Major League Gaming (MLG), a global leader in esports, focusing on strategy, key partnerships, corporate development and overseeing all product and technology development, including the launch of MLG.TV. In his conversation with Dot Esports journalist Thiemo Bräutigan, Mike goes through Activision Blizzard’s Esports strategy for the comming years, and comments on the latest news around the Overwatch Global League.

“Esports: Big Buzz or Big Business?” Hashtag Sports, June 2017 YouTube Leading executives from the world of sports business, consumer brands, media and technology engage in a lively debate on whether the industry will deliver on its $1bn promise or, as some predict, will prove to be a false dawn for the sector and its investors. A panel of experts will discuss how the emergence of eSports as a global mainstream phenomenon is driving their own strategies, be it as a marketing vehicle or an investment prospect, while also dissecting the argument of those who doubt the long-term commercial value of the eSports ecosystem.

“Booming business of esports sets sights on conquering mainstream audiences” VentureBeat, February 12, 2018

“League of Lawyers: Esports is creating a new class of white-collar jobs” VentureBeat, February 6, 2018

“The Esports Playbook” Nielsen launched an Esports division in August 2017. Their inaugural audience report includes a final chapter called “What’s Next” which talks about the future of esports on linear TV, as well as the future for VR/AR esports.

“The who, what and why of the World Esports Association” Polygon, May 2016 Discussion of the formation of the World Esports Association, a league representing competitions organized by ESL (a tournament organizer), and focused only on one game (Counter-Strike: Global Offensive) at the time of launch. One of the goals of the organization is to further professionalized esports by introducing player representation, standardized regulations, and revenue sharing for teams.

Esports industry evolution was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Number of pro gamers vs. pro athletes

Ask

How Many: Professional esports players (pro gamers) Contrast with BLS data for professional athletes

Results

*

The esports players figures above do not reflect the newly developing esports leagues, of which there are at least 3: Overwatch League (OWL) – 12 teams with 6-12 players per team NBA 2K League – 17 teams with 6 players per team eMLS – 19 teams (details are thin, more forthcoming)

OWL, which is being launched by game publisher Blizzard, will pay a minimum salary of $50,000 per year, with players signing up for one-year contracts at a time. On top of the base wage, players will get a share of any bonuses the team accures. Half of all tournament prize money secured by a team will be shared between the players. Teams can have between six and 12 players…There are currently seven teams in the Overwatch League, drawn from cities across the US, along with a pair of teams from South Korea and China.

src: TechRadar, July 2017 “Want to be a pro gamer? This is what you could earn playing Overwatch”

More info on the owners and affiliated cities is reported by Engadget.

The NBA is partnering with the developer of the NBA2K game franchise to create an esports league, which will be called “NBA 2K eLeague.” According to the NBA, each of its 30 teams will eventually have its own eSports squad, just as they’re represented in the WNBA or the lower-tier D-League. Every 2K eLeague team will be made up of five human players, which the NBA plans to treat the same way it does athletes who play for the San Antonio Spurs, New York Knicks or any of its other NBA, WNBA or D-League clubs. There will be contracts and endorsement deals at stake, for instance. The main difference here is that there’s room for more diversity, since these pro players can be of any age, gender or race to play on the same court — even if it is a virtual one.

src: Engadget, Feb 2017 “In the NBA’s eSports league, diversity means a new kind of athlete”

The NBA 2K League Qualifier took place in January, 2017. An 85-person draft was created. 17 teams will be created at first. Competitive salaries and benefits, plus additional options for more earnings

src: Forbes, Dec 2017 “NBA 2K League: How To Qualify, Salary Info, Draft Process, Twitter Account, Rules And More”

*

Even before the three leagues described above launched, there have been very popular esports teams with some team members earning their livlihoods through tournament earnings, streaming income, and other play-related earnings (eg: team salaries and room and board).

Neilsen ranks the 7 most popular esports teams in the US as: Cloud9 Optic Gaming Team Liquid Fnatic SK Gaming Counter Logic Gaming Ninjas in Pyjamas

srcs: Nielsen, 2017. “The Esports Playbook”

As an example, Cloud9 fields teams for 11 games. As of the time of publication for this blog entry, their 11 teams include 12 American players, as well as 6 American staff members (eg: coaches). League of Legends: 7 American players, 2 American staff Counter-Strike:Global Offensive: 5 American players, 3 American staff Hearthstone: 1 American staff

*

Here’s a bit of general commentary from Sports Illustrated:

The current state of professional gaming mirrors the beginning days of the NFL and NBA. In those league’s inchoate stages, players often had to work other jobs to supplement their seasonal salaries. Even today, some professional athletes—like pro lacrosse players—hold other jobs to bolster their income. The same is true for most professional gamers.

Still, 18 gamers made more than $500,000 in esports prize money alone last year, and 195 made more than $100,000. Similar to professional golfers and tennis players, prize money makes up only a portion of the top gamers’ yearly income. Some are paid salaries by their teams, and many parlay massive followings built from live-streaming their gaming sessions into sponsorships with game equipment and manufacturing companies.

The number of full-time professional gamers is, as of right now, modest. But if esports stays on its path toward mainstream appeal and the sponsorship and TV dollars continue to flow in, it won’t be long before dozens of gamers are making more than $1 million every year. In 2017, we’ll take a step closer to that reality.

src: Sports Illustrated, Feb 2017 “What to expect from the booming esports industry in 2017″

*

Here’s commentary from 2013 on the number of pro gamers:

Being able to subsist solely on a pro gaming salary is a lofty dream indeed. “Business Insider” and e-Sports Earnings reported that only 60 professional gamers worldwide have earned more than $100,000 in prize money, as of 2013. Speaking to “The New York Times” in 2012, Sundance Giovanni of Major League Gaming estimates that “only about 40 people in the U.S. can make a living playing video games. I’d like to get it to a hundred. I think we’re a year or two away from that.”

src: Chron, 2013, citing NYT (inferred via archive.org) “Salaries of Pro Gamers”

*

Here’s a bit of a profile of a pro gamer:

There’s a reason why eAthletes are so competitive—their job is easy to lose. As fun as the perks might sound, for Towey, Evil Geniuses, and hundreds of other pro gamers, the eSports life is a grind, not some glamorous dream job. Tournaments aren’t always enough to pay the bills—especially if you don’t win. That’s a big reason that some eAthletes, such as Ryan “State” Visbeck, use streaming to pay the bills.

Visbeck is a 23-year-old professional player of StarCraft II, a strategy game in which players control whole armies rather than controlling a single character as one would in Halo. As a “freelance” pro player—one who isn’t currently tied to a particular pro team—Visbeck spends his days broadcasting his StarCraft II games on streaming service Twitch. The service allows fans to watch Visbeck’s games live as he plays them, and also includes a chat function so they can interact with one another and the pro himself. Visbeck earns money through Twitch streaming subscriptions, which give viewers perks like special chat icons and access to his slate of recorded videos, as well as fan donations. It’s enough to support him as he lives in South Korea, where StarCraft has been extremely popular for more than a decade. Originally from California, Visbeck moved abroad to train with a pro StarCraft team in 2013 and has lived there ever since.

src: ComPlex, Aug 2016 “eSports Ain’t Easy: Inside the Everyday Grind of Pro Gaming”

Number of pro gamers vs. pro athletes was originally published on Extrapolations

[extrapolatedfutures]

Ticket prices for conventional sports and esports

Ask

Extrapolate NFL ticket prices (and other major sports ticket prices)

Contrast with Esports ticket prices

Results

Note: This is all historic data. Some of this could be extrapolated, but we’d need to estimate some data values.

*

Average Ticket Price 2003-2012 for MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL

src: someone using Team Market Report data

*

Ticket prices for traditional championship games 2011-2018

src: VividSeats, February 2017

*

Avg NFL ticket prices 2006-2016

src: Statista citing Team Marketing Report

*

Fan Cost Index 1991-2016

Fan Cost Index includes: Two adult average price tickets Two child average price tickets Four small soft drinks Two small beers Four hot dogs Two programs Two adult-size caps Parking

Interactive version here

src: Russell Scibetti, The Business of Sports, Feb 2017 using data from Team Marketing Report

Note: Scibetti also points to another source for aggregated sports business data, by Rodney Fort, Professor of Sport Management at the University of Michigan.

*

Here is a sample of recent ticket prices for major esports tournaments:

2016 League of Legends semifinals New York, Madison Square Garden $57-$75 src

2016 League of Legends Championship Series Los Angeles, Staples Center $46.50-$71/ticket src

2017 League of Legends semifinals Shanghai, Shanghai Oriental Sports Center $26-$70 (limited number of international tickets) src

2017 League of Legends Finals Beijing, Beijing National Stadium (Bird’s Nest) $41-$185 src

2018 North American League of Legends Championship Series – Spring Finals two day event Miami, The Fillmore Miami $35-$65 for one day $65-$110 for two days src

2017 The International Dota 2 Championship Seattle, KeyArena $100-$200/ticket (multi-day event) src

2017 Hearthstone Championship Tour’s Summer Championship Blizzard Arena Los Angeles (450 capacity) $15 single day $40 full weekend src

Ticket prices for conventional sports and esports was originally published on Extrapolations