Gym chain: respond to a low-cost entrant with a second brand?
FlexForm operates three mid-market gyms in Malta with 4,200 members, an average fee of €55 per month, monthly churn of 3.8%, and 62% average capacity utilisation; evening peak reaches 91%. Fixed costs are €210,000 per month across the estate. A low-cost 24/7 competitor charging €19.99 is opening 400 metres from the busiest club. FlexForm's landlord offers an 800 sq m unit in a new business park at €18,000 monthly rent, with fit-out estimated at €260,000. The CEO proposes launching a separate low-cost brand there, using key-card access, no classes, and 25 staff across both brands. Existing members say classes and personal training are why they stay; 38% use personal training or group classes. A staff survey shows trainers fear cannibalisation. The board wants a decision before signing a five-year lease.
1. Evaluate whether a separate low-cost brand is the right response. Use cannibalisation and unit economics in your answer.
Read the worked answer
Start with the existing economics. Revenue is 4,200 x €55 = €231,000 per month against €210,000 fixed costs, before variable costs. Evening peak use is 91%, so the estate is capacity-constrained when demand is strongest; a new site does not automatically relieve that.
For the low-cost site, at €19.99 and an assumed €4 variable cost per member, contribution is about €15.99 per member. Rent alone is €18,000, requiring 1,126 members just to cover rent. Fit-out of €260,000 over five years adds about €4,333 per month, requiring another 271 members. Staff, marketing, systems, and maintenance are still uncovered, so a realistic break-even is nearer 1,600-1,800 members.
Cannibalisation is the bigger risk. If 15% of existing members switch, 630 x (€55 - €19.99) = about €22,057 monthly revenue is lost. The new site would need roughly 1,380 extra members just to replace that contribution before covering its own fixed costs. A separate brand reduces direct dilution but does not stop members comparing or downgrading. Recommendation: do not sign the five-year lease on these terms. Test demand with a short lease or pop-up, and require pre-sales or a partner arrangement before committing.
2. Recommend a 12-month defensive plan for the existing clubs and three KPIs to monitor.
Read the worked answer
Defend the core rather than imitate the low-cost model. Segment members by usage: class and PT users need better scheduling, coaching, and retention; price-sensitive off-peak users can be offered a lower-priced off-peak or digital plan without cutting the headline full-access fee. Introduce annual prepayment with a small bonus, improve onboarding in the first 30 days, manage evening congestion through class booking and staggered timetables, and sell corporate memberships to nearby employers. Target the competitor's likely dissatisfied users with a guest pass, but do not run permanent discounts that erode yield.
Do not cut the full-access price to €19.99. That would destroy revenue across 4,200 members and still leave the cost base. Instead, protect the value story: classes, coaching, cleanliness, and convenient peak access.
Three KPIs: monthly churn split by tenure and plan; revenue per member and contribution after rent; and peak utilisation plus class/PT attachment. Add a 90-day review trigger: if churn exceeds 5% for two consecutive months or downgrades exceed 8% of members, revise the plan. If the low-cost competitor gains less than expected, avoid a second brand entirely and focus on yield.
3. If the board insists on testing a low-cost format, what safeguards would you require?
Read the worked answer
Require a separate brand with no visible FlexForm endorsement, a site outside the immediate catchment of existing clubs, and a short lease or break clause. Set a pre-sale target, for example 500 committed members before fit-out, and cap fit-out at €150,000. Use existing staff only where there is no service conflict, and do not transfer class or PT members into the new brand. Keep access rules simple and price at €19.99 without a hidden joining fee, but charge separately for classes or premium services.
The test should run for six months with a clear stop rule: close or convert if contribution before central overhead is negative after month four, or if 10% or more of nearby FlexForm members downgrade. Track new members who are genuinely new to FlexForm, not just switchers, and compare cost per acquisition with the core clubs. The purpose is learning, not protecting market share at any cost.