Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by WalterBright | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

WalterBright

Health clubs rely on 90% of their members never showing up. If they all cancelled, there'd be no more health clubs.

View on HN

Or maybe there would be fewer of them, and the people who use them would pay a bit more.

While the rest would enjoy the freed up real estate and the money saved.

10x more.

It'd basically put the industry out of business.

Are gyms really that costly to run that they can't sustain on a moderate paying userbase? I'm talking basic cardio and weight gyms, not the mega gyms with a pool and massage. The property might be prime but a lot of that comes to the choice of LA Fitness, 24, etc. choosing to build their own custom building in prime areas. Smaller gyms like Planet Fitness tend to use otherwise empty storefronts.

I think the idea is that if they had to build for their actual peak capacity, i.e. everyone showing up at once, they would not be economical. Of course, this is a silly hypothetical - the legislation is about making it more convenient to cancel your membership, not a guaranteed set of barbells whenever you decide to come in.

This could be fixed by "prime time" membership fees, vs off hour fees.

Lots of ways to work it. EG 1/2 price for off hours membership! Act now!

This is one of those problems with liquidity. You are buying a subscription plan that tells you can come at any time. The business can't plan ahead because you haven't committed to a fixed schedule. If your subscription plan was locked to specific time slots the gym could do much better capacity planning. However, such a subscription model is less liquid which means customers want to be compensated for giving up their freedom to pick an arbitrary time slot with a discount.

It's kind of weird how liquidity is such a general concept that goes way beyond money.

There are already gyms that do not cater to the people who buy memberships and don't show up. Bodybuilding and powerlifting gyms, for instance. They cost about 2 to 3 times more from what I've seen.

They existed when people paid for most things with cash. Though I suspect their business model was less lucrative.

I'll only join non-chain gyms, and pay for the year in full.

That shouldn't give them a pass to provide scummy cancellation practices. Most people I know who don't use their gym membership have also never tried to cancel.

I'm guessing people who pay for a gym subscription but don't use it are similar to people who smoke but intend to quit some time very soon?

Or they would be more expensive. Or the same price and dividends lower. Or they would see a price per session, or a price per session tier (0-2 sessions per month, 3-5, then 5-15, then 15+).

10x more expensive. I bet that'd do wonders to the willingness of customers to sign up.

I’m confused by this line of posts. Are you saying making it easier for people to cancel services they don’t need is a bad thing?

I'm not actually making a value judgement on that. Just pointing out the consequences maybe not what was intended.

The consequences would be that more people would be able to cancel services they didn’t want. I find it highly unlikely that those people would agree to continue paying for services they don’t need simply to subsidize other users of the services. So no I’m pretty sure that the result would be many clubs closing, the consequences would be exactly as intended.

Also I’d like to add that your claim that the gyms would be 10x more expensive and that most would close is baseless. In Sweden there are gyms everywhere even though their are consumer protections against exactly this sort of thing. The gyms in Sweden are generally cheaper than the IS as well. I’m not going to draw a general conclusion from this other than “it’s complicated”.

The fact is you don’t really know how gyms would be affected en masse by such a law. The only thing we really know for sure, is that people would have an easier time not using services that they don’t want to use. I don’t really understand who could argue against such a change. Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population. If we want that, then maybe we should just pass laws giving gyms money from the general municipal/state budget. It would accomplish the same thing and be much more fair and honest.

My basis is that I was told by a couple gym owners that 90% never show up to use the gym, and their business model depended on that.

I haven't examined their books myself.

Like I wrote, I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out the consequences.

The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years.

You’re not pointing out the consequences. You’re speculating about the consequences. Frankly you should have seen the books before believing something like that. Furthermore it would be a stretch to believe that that situation extrapolates to all gyms.

If what they said was actually true, they _should_ go out of business. If their business depends on them exploiting the legal system to thwart their users’ clear will, they are immoral actors and deserve the economic difficulties that would be bestowed upon them.

Edit: to you edit

> The business model may still be the same in Sweden. It's just that people are too lazy to cancel, not that they cannot cancel. I never had trouble canceling any of the several gyms I attended over the years.

So basically what you’re tacitly admitting is that a law allowing cancelation might actually be _fine_. It might even turn out fine for your friends. I guess if that’s your position, then I don’t really have any more argument with you.

Your communication to WalterBright is coming across needlessly combative while you seem to be in agreement. Just an FYI.

> Your communication to WalterBright is coming across needlessly combative while you seem to be in agreement. Just an FYI.

How could you possibly have concluded we're in agreement? This was his initial post in this thread:

> 10x more expensive. I bet that'd do wonders to the willingness of customers to sign up.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31068220

I fundamentally disagree with this and made it quite clear in the following posts. This disagreement is basically the whole premise on which this exchange was had.

I think it’s more that people are aspirational about going to the gym, so they don’t cancel. Some gyms also have fixed term contract as to within which you can’t cancel. But this is at least advertised up front so people know what they’re getting in to.

>Arguing against it is like arguing for some weird mini welfare for gyms on the backs of random members of the population.

Basically where a lot of education funding comes from. (Lotteries)

That's probably how they made it through the pandemic. Piles of cash from yearly subscriptions and no labour costs since nearly all the gym workers were laid off.

My gym is a bit ... different - part of a larger hospital chain/brand. Pandemic hit them hard, and I (along with many others) 'froze' our accounts. Still a member, just non-paying for X months. I froze for months during lockdown because the requirements were too onerous - must wear a mask while on treadmill, for example. Needed to schedule a swimming lane days in advance. It was too cumbersome, so I froze. Unfroze last month and am going a bit more regularly now, as they've relaxed some of the restrictions.

BUT... when I came back, I noticed a new wall in the hallway. They'd blocked off a hallway, and essentially sold (probably just long term leased?) about 20% of the building to a different entity (health related). They just had too much open space and no use for it. Was a bit of a shame, but it helped them keep their books afloat.

FWIW, I've always heard horror stories of gyms locking people in to unending payments. This place, while an extra few $ compared to some others in the area, is always month to month, and I've cancelled in the past, then came back. Never had an issue with billing/overbilling/etc, which seems... both trivial (of course that's how it should work) and impressive (seems to be in a minority of gyms) at the same time.

How will taxis survive?? Their business model depends on scarcity. If anyone could give anyone a ride, there'd be no more rides.

Am I properly capturing the nuance of your argument? Feel free to re-echo another round of hearsay into the chamber.

Maybe you can dig more into the philosophy you have where securing profitability entitles you to the protection of those profits via legislation.

Simple, if market doesn't want them, they should probably enter in other field. In long run, it is inevitable? I do acknowledge there is problem in switching careers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com