Research from Dr Paul Bedford indicates that the membership profile across the private and public sectors is increasingly similar (see HCM Sept 13, p64). A large proportion of members are from the middle classes and eight MOSAIC profiles are significantly under-represented, with gyms struggling to lure the highest and lowest income groups.
So why is this? Certainly there’s more parity of offering between the sectors nowadays: the public sector has upped its game, offering high quality facilities at reasonable prices, while the private sector has struggled with ageing estates in tough economic times. Meanwhile, the growing budget club sector, closer to traditional public sector offerings in terms of pricing, would logically appeal to those on lower salaries – but as with the budget airlines, in practice it appeals equally to gym-savvy, value-driven professionals.
Another factor to bear in mind is the high volume of casual users in the public sector – a group that can’t currently be tracked, as operators can’t provide data for them. It’s possible that public sector participation is broader than the research reveals, but it still suggests lower income groups only participate as and when they can afford to, rather than committing to a new lifestyle.
Bedford explains: “The retention-focused research looked at who’s paying and how well we retain them. While we might be able to access wider populations by providing discounted/subsidised activities, we seem unable to find ways of selling memberships to these populations.”
If the industry is to tap into NHS funding and play a part in relieving the obesity epidemic, engaging with a broader demographic is vital. Even acknowledging the direct debit-based sample of the research, the question still needs to be asked: are we engaging with a sufficiently broad audience? If not, what are the barriers preventing lower socioeconomic groups from joining clubs?