Almost Half of Adults Have a Long-Term Health Condition. Is the Fitness Industry Really Designed for Them?

There is a statistic that should make everyone working in the fitness industry stop and think. According to the latest Health Survey for England, 46% of adults aged 16 and over have at least one longstanding illness or health condition. The most commonly reported categories include musculoskeletal conditions, mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental conditions, heart and circulatory conditions, diabetes and other metabolic conditions, and respiratory conditions. The same research found that 26% of adults reported chronic pain.

That's almost half of the adult population, and it raises an important question for our industry: does what we've built genuinely feel designed for them?

I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone with a long-term health condition needs a specialist gym or is incapable of using a conventional facility. "Longstanding condition" covers an enormous spectrum, from conditions that have relatively little impact on everyday life to illnesses that fundamentally change what somebody is capable of doing. But that's precisely the point. If almost half of adults live with some form of long-term health condition, perhaps the "average member" we've traditionally designed gyms around doesn't really exist anymore.

I also understand this subject from a very different perspective now. I've spent more than 25 years working in fitness, but I also live with ME/CFS, and that experience has changed my perspective on exercise more than almost anything I've learned during my career.

When You Work in Fitness, Exercise Seems Like the Obvious Answer

I've spent most of my adult life believing in exercise. I've built businesses around it, helped gyms grow and worked with personal trainers, operators, franchises and health clubs. I understand programming, progression, consistency and the enormous benefits that physical activity can provide.

Then you experience a chronic illness yourself and things suddenly become much more complicated.

Living with ME/CFS has shown me just how difficult the relationship with exercise can become when your body no longer responds in the way you expect. There are times when I want to train and mentally feel capable of doing so. Years of working in fitness tell me to get on with it, but I also know that what I do today can have consequences tomorrow or even the day after.

One of the defining characteristics of ME/CFS is post-exertional malaise, or PEM. NICE describes this as a worsening of symptoms following activity, which can be physical, cognitive, emotional or social. That deterioration can be delayed by 12 to 48 hours and can last for days or even weeks.

For somebody who has spent their career in fitness, that's a very different and sometimes incredibly frustrating relationship with exercise. We're conditioned to think about progression: another rep, a little more weight, another five minutes, greater consistency and improving on last week. In most circumstances those are perfectly sensible principles, but with ME/CFS, sometimes the smartest decision I can make is not to push myself.

That experience has taught me something I think our industry needs to understand much better. Exercise can be incredibly powerful, but exercise isn't one universal prescription.

"Just Exercise More" Isn't Good Enough

The updated UK Chief Medical Officers' physical activity guidance reinforces the enormous benefits of physical activity. At population level, some of the greatest proportional health gains can come from helping inactive people become more active, while maintaining strength and balance is increasingly important throughout life.

However, population-level guidance and what is appropriate for an individual with a particular medical condition aren't necessarily the same thing.

ME/CFS demonstrates that particularly well. NICE specifically advises that people with ME/CFS shouldn't simply be told to go to the gym or exercise more because doing so can worsen symptoms. It also advises against programmes based on fixed incremental increases in activity, including the approach it defines as graded exercise therapy. Where exercise is appropriate, the approach needs to recognise the individual's current energy limits, symptoms and medical circumstances.

The answer isn't for gyms to become frightened of helping people with health conditions. It's for our industry to become better educated about where and how we can help, what expertise we need and where our professional boundaries lie.

Long-Term Health Conditions Aren't One Market

We also need to stop talking about people with chronic conditions as though they're one demographic.

Someone with controlled hypertension may have completely different requirements from somebody living with severe chronic pain. Someone with arthritis isn't the same as someone recovering from cancer treatment. Someone living with depression isn't the same as somebody with COPD, and someone taking GLP-1 medication isn't the same as somebody living with ME/CFS.

Even two people with exactly the same diagnosis can have completely different capabilities.

Sport England has made a similar point in its work around health conditions: this isn't a homogeneous group. Barriers can include confidence, cost, time, uncertainty about where to go and a lack of appropriate opportunities, while people with long-term conditions or disabilities are significantly more likely to be physically inactive.

So simply adding a "chronic conditions membership" isn't the answer. Personalisation has to sit at the centre of the solution.

Perhaps We Need to Ask Better Questions

Traditional fitness assessments tend to focus on goals, weight loss, previous exercise experience, current fitness and how often somebody intends to train. They're all useful questions, but supporting someone living with a long-term condition may require a much broader conversation.

We may need to understand how activity affects them afterwards, what makes their symptoms better or worse, what a good day and a bad day look like, whether they're frightened of exercise and what their healthcare team has advised. Most importantly, we need to understand what success actually means to that individual.

Success doesn't necessarily mean losing three stone or running 10K. It might mean walking upstairs without stopping, playing with grandchildren, returning to gardening, getting out of a chair more comfortably, going shopping independently, maintaining strength while losing weight or simply having enough confidence to get out of the house.

For somebody with ME/CFS, measuring what happened during the workout may tell you very little. The important information might come 24 or 48 hours afterwards. Did that activity improve their life, or did recovering from it consume the rest of their week?

That's a very different definition of a successful exercise session, but perhaps it's a much better one.

Are We Marketing Fitness to These People Properly?

This is where I think the fitness industry needs to take a critical look at itself.

Think about how much fitness marketing still revolves around getting ripped, burning calories, pushing harder, smashing goals, having "no excuses" and transforming your body. There is a market for that language and I'm not suggesting we eliminate it, but it certainly doesn't speak to everybody.

Imagine you're 58 with chronic pain and haven't exercised for 15 years. Perhaps you're 70 and worried about losing your independence, you've recently completed cancer treatment, you're struggling with depression, or you're living with an illness that means your energy can fluctuate dramatically from one day to the next.

Does "NO EXCUSES" make you feel understood?

Probably not. In fact, it may reinforce the belief that gyms aren't designed for people like you.

This is why I think we need to stop simply selling fitness and start selling what appropriate fitness and physical activity can enable.

An experienced 25-year-old exerciser might primarily want access to equipment. Somebody living with a long-term health condition may be looking for independence, confidence, strength, mobility, energy, connection, support or a better quality of life. They might want to continue working, play with their children, walk the dog or remain independent in their own home as they get older.

Those are incredibly powerful outcomes, and the fitness industry already has many of the tools required to help deliver them. We may simply need to package and communicate those tools differently.

Create Pathways, Not Just Memberships

One of the biggest opportunities for established gyms is to stop assuming everybody should enter through exactly the same membership journey.

Why couldn't a club offer a Return to Exercise programme, Strength for Life, Healthy Ageing, Back to Movement, Beginner Strength, Move More or GLP-1 Exercise Support? These don't necessarily need to become permanent membership categories. They could be six, eight or twelve-week supported pathways designed to bridge the enormous gap between doing nothing and becoming a confident conventional gym member.

A pathway could include an initial consultation, appropriate baseline measurements, simple programming, coached sessions, regular check-ins, progress reviews and a carefully managed transition into mainstream membership.

You haven't necessarily changed the gym. You've changed how somebody enters it.

This is actually something we've already discussed in relation to the wider market. The fitness industry has traditionally spent considerable effort designing products for people already comfortable with exercise, while there is a substantial population who may require a very different route into the facility.

Onboarding Becomes Far More Important

For an experienced exerciser, onboarding may amount to an access card and an app login. For somebody who hasn't exercised for 20 years, that's nowhere near enough.

They need to know what to do, where to go and who to ask. They may need reassurance that they aren't going to look stupid, somebody to notice when they haven't attended and early evidence that what they're doing is working. Above all, they need to feel that somebody actually cares whether they succeed.

I'd build a structured first 90-day journey around that principle. It might include an initial consultation, coached first session, follow-up during the first week, two-week check-in, 30-day review and further progress reviews. The objective isn't necessarily to make them exercise more. It's to support them better.

And that support should adapt to the individual rather than expecting the individual to adapt to the system.

Technology and Human Contact Should Work Together

Technology has a huge role to play in making this scalable.

Your CRM knows when somebody joined. Your access-control system knows whether they've attended. Your app may know what they've done and your automation system can identify behavioural changes and deliver appropriate communication.

Imagine somebody who normally attends twice a week suddenly hasn't attended for ten days. Something should happen.

That might be an automated check-in, but it might also be an automated trigger that creates a task for somebody on the team to call them personally. The system identifies the change and makes sure it isn't missed, while a human being provides the conversation and support.

That's where I believe technology becomes incredibly powerful. Automate what should be consistent and personalise what should be human.

We could take this further. Where appropriate, technology could help record energy, symptoms, recovery and perceived exertion rather than only workouts, weights and calories. Sometimes the most important question isn't "How much did you do?" but "How did doing it affect you?"

Programming Doesn't Have to Be Complicated

Fitness professionals sometimes confuse complexity with quality. A programme isn't automatically better because it contains 14 exercises and sophisticated periodisation.

For somebody returning to activity after years away, simplicity can be incredibly valuable. Perhaps it's five exercises and 20 minutes. Maybe they start with machines, train once a week, walk or join a small group. The programme might need to change depending on how they're feeling and what is appropriate for their condition.

For some conditions, including ME/CFS, a conventional progressive exercise programme may not be appropriate at all without specialist clinical oversight. That's where professional competence becomes incredibly important.

Sometimes the best fitness professional isn't the one who knows the cleverest programme. It's the one who knows when they aren't the right person to provide it.

Strength Could Become One of Our Most Important Products

One area where I think the fitness industry has an enormous opportunity is strength.

We've spent decades marketing resistance training through bodybuilding, aesthetics and performance, but strength means far more than building muscle for appearance. It's about getting out of a chair, carrying shopping, climbing stairs, maintaining balance, preserving function and remaining independent.

That gives us a completely different way of marketing exactly the same equipment.

Instead of selling "build muscle", perhaps we sell "stay strong enough to keep doing the things you love."

The equipment hasn't changed. The conversation has.

And potentially, so has the market we're capable of reaching.

GLP-1s Create Another Significant Opportunity

The rapid growth of GLP-1 weight-management medications makes this discussion even more relevant. People losing significant amounts of weight may need appropriate support around maintaining strength, muscle and sustainable lifestyle behaviours.

Here is a growing population actively investing in improving their health, some of whom may have limited previous experience of exercise. They may need help becoming stronger, accountability, support establishing sustainable habits and an environment that doesn't judge them.

The fitness industry could be extremely well positioned to help, provided we stay within our professional scope. That doesn't mean gyms prescribing medication or straying into clinical advice. It means building credible exercise and lifestyle-support services and developing relationships with healthcare professionals where appropriate.

Beginner Classes Need to Feel Like Beginner Classes

Look at the average gym timetable: HIIT, Bootcamp, MetCon, Body Blast, Extreme Conditioning. Now imagine being 65, living with arthritis and having never exercised properly before. Where exactly do you start?

There's nothing wrong with keeping the high-intensity classes, but we could put something alongside them: Beginner Strength, Move Better, Back to Exercise, Strength for Life, Healthy Ageing, Low-Impact Fitness, Introduction to the Gym or Mobility and Movement.

Sometimes the actual exercise doesn't need to change dramatically. The perceived accessibility does.

People should be able to look at your timetable and immediately identify somewhere they feel they belong.

Our Teams Need Different Skills Too

If we're serious about serving this market, team development becomes critical.

Technical fitness knowledge matters enormously, but so do empathy, listening and communication. Can your team comfortably talk to a nervous 70-year-old beginner? Can they explain an exercise without jargon? Do they understand that somebody with a fluctuating illness might manage something one week and struggle with it the next? Can they recognise red flags and understand the limits of their professional scope?

Most importantly, can they listen without immediately assuming they know the answer?

Living with ME/CFS has taught me how important that last point is. The person living with the condition knows things about their body that a fitness professional cannot learn from a textbook.

Listen to them.

Fitness and Healthcare Need to Work More Closely Together

This could be one of the biggest long-term opportunities for our sector.

Fitness and healthcare still operate too independently of one another, despite appropriate physical activity playing an important role in preventing and managing many long-term conditions.

Why shouldn't more gyms build credible relationships with GP practices, physiotherapists, social prescribers, weight-management services, cancer-support organisations, local authorities, healthcare charities, pharmacies and employers?

The objective isn't for gyms to become hospitals. It's for fitness businesses to become trusted partners in helping people become and remain appropriately active.

But that trust has to be earned through appropriately qualified staff, clear referral pathways, professional boundaries, safeguarding, evidence-based programming, good data and measured outcomes. It also requires a willingness to say, "This person needs support beyond our competence."

That's not failure. That's professionalism.

Don't Underestimate the Power of Community

There is something else gyms can provide exceptionally well that has very little to do with equipment: human connection.

For somebody whose illness has affected their work, confidence, mobility or social life, becoming part of a community can be hugely valuable. Walking groups, coffee mornings, beginner clubs, small-group training, social events, workshops and member buddy schemes can all contribute.

Not everything has to involve sweating.

Sometimes the thing that keeps somebody attending isn't their programme. It's knowing that somebody will notice if they don't turn up.

From a human perspective that's incredibly valuable. From a business perspective, that sense of belonging can also have a significant impact on engagement and retention.

There Is a Serious Commercial Opportunity Here

None of this is simply about social responsibility. There is also a compelling business case.

If 46% of adults in England report at least one longstanding illness or health condition, we're talking about an enormous section of the population. Support, expertise, accountability, personalisation and community all have value, and they create opportunities for premium memberships, specialist programmes, small-group training, personal training, corporate health partnerships and potentially stronger long-term customer relationships.

They also create differentiation.

If your proposition is simply equipment, access and price, somebody can build a bigger gym or charge less. If your proposition becomes "We specialise in helping people who don't think conventional gyms are for them", you've created something considerably harder to replicate.

Stop Fighting Over the Same People

This connects with something I've written about previously. The fitness industry spends an enormous amount of money competing for people already predisposed to exercise. We advertise to existing gym users, take members from competitors, lose members back to competitors, discount, offer free months, install more equipment and repeat the process.

Meanwhile, millions of people remain outside the traditional fitness market. Some don't like gyms, some don't know where to start, some are frightened and some simply don't believe gyms are for people like them. Others have tried before and failed, while some live with conditions that genuinely require a different approach.

I don't see that as a problem.

I see it as one of the biggest opportunities our industry has.

My Own Experience Has Changed How I Think About Fitness

I've spent decades talking about the benefits of exercise and I believe in them as strongly as ever. But living with ME/CFS has given me a perspective I never expected to have.

I understand what it's like to want to train but know that training may have consequences. I understand the frustration of knowing what you used to be capable of and having to accept what you're capable of today. I've also learned that there are days when doing less isn't laziness; it's management.

Most importantly, I understand how inappropriate the traditional fitness mentality of "push through it" can be for some conditions.

That doesn't make me anti-exercise. Quite the opposite. It's made me far more interested in how we make physical activity work for the individual, rather than forcing the individual into our preconceived idea of what exercise should look like.

And I think there's an important lesson in that for our industry.

Perhaps We Need to Redefine What a Gym Is

For decades, we've largely built gyms around exercise. Perhaps the next evolution is to build them around health, capability and quality of life, with exercise as one of the tools we use to help people achieve those things.

The outcome might be greater strength, confidence, mobility, mental wellbeing, connection or independence. It might mean continuing to work, playing with your children, walking the dog, getting out of a chair or remaining independent as you age. For someone else, it might simply mean finding a sustainable relationship with movement that works with their condition rather than constantly fighting against it.

Almost half of adults in England report living with at least one longstanding illness or health condition. That should be a wake-up call for our industry, but not because all those people need gyms, exercise can fix every condition or every fitness professional is qualified to work with every illness.

It should make us question whether we're genuinely designing fitness businesses for the population that exists today, or whether we're still primarily designing them for people who are already healthy enough, confident enough and knowledgeable enough to walk through the door without much help.

The opportunity is much bigger than simply getting more people exercising. It's about listening better, personalising more, developing our teams, working more closely with healthcare, using technology intelligently, understanding our professional boundaries and creating appropriate ways for people to enter our facilities.

Most importantly, it's about meeting people where they are rather than where we think they should be.

If we can do that, the fitness industry can become far more than somewhere people go to work out. It can become an increasingly important part of how this country helps people live healthier, stronger and more independent lives.

And from both a human and a business perspective, that's an opportunity I think we'd be crazy to ignore.

The Sydney Sweeney Advert: Is It Really Setting Back Women’s Sport — Or Are We Having the Wrong Argument?

 

The Sydney Sweeney Advert: Is It Really Setting Back Women’s Sport

Or Are We Having the Wrong Argument?

There has been a huge reaction over the past few days to Sydney Sweeney's new campaign for sports prediction company Novig.

If you haven't seen it, the advert features Sweeney wearing little or no clothing, strategically covered by various pieces of sporting equipment while promoting Novig's sports-focused prediction platform. The response from female athletes has been fierce. Olympic champions and elite sportswomen including Ariarne Titmus, Amy Hunt and Sophie Capewell have criticised the campaign, while numerous athletes have posted videos of themselves competing under variations of the message: "This is what women in sport look like."

And I want to start by saying something important.

I understand their frustration.

Women's sport has fought incredibly hard to be taken seriously. Female athletes should be recognised first for their talent, dedication, sacrifice, strength and achievements rather than how attractive they happen to be.

I'm a huge supporter of women's sport. In fact, I barely watch men's football anymore. I watch the women's game with my daughter, and I think the growth in the standard, visibility and professionalism of women's sport has been fantastic to see.

So I understand why athletes are protective of that progress.

But I also think we need to separate several different arguments that have become mixed together.

Because when I actually look at this particular advert, I'm not convinced it says what some of its critics believe it says.

Sydney Sweeney isn't pretending to represent female athletes

This is probably the biggest distinction for me.

Sydney Sweeney isn't a professional athlete.

She's an actor and celebrity.

Novig didn't take an Olympic swimmer, footballer or sprinter and say, "Rather than celebrating your sporting ability, we're going to strip you off and sell your body."

They hired an actor whose public image and celebrity appeal are part of her commercial value.

And there is another important commercial consideration: the campaign appears deliberately aimed at attracting the attention of a predominantly male sports and betting audience.

That doesn't automatically make it tasteful.

It doesn't mean people shouldn't criticise it.

But it does change the context.

The sporting equipment is being used as a visual device to connect the advert to the product. I don't watch it and think, "This is how Novig believes female athletes should be represented."

I see an intentionally provocative celebrity advert designed to get people talking about a sports prediction business.

And on that measure, it has unquestionably succeeded.

The campaign reportedly passed 22 million views in its first two days. Analysis reported by Business Insider found Novig's social-media mentions increased roughly ninefold following the campaign.

Ironically, the backlash has become part of the marketing.

Sex sells. We can dislike that reality without pretending it doesn't exist.

This is probably where I'll upset some people.

Sexual attraction has been used in advertising for decades because human beings respond to attractive people.

Men and women.

This isn't exclusively something done to women.

David Beckham is one of the most obvious examples. His commercial value hasn't been based purely on what he did with a football. Fashion, underwear, fragrance, grooming and countless other endorsements have monetised his appearance alongside his sporting fame.

Male actors and athletes have appeared shirtless or virtually naked in advertising because brands know people find them attractive.

Female celebrities have done exactly the same.

And so have female athletes.

In fact, one detail being repeated in this debate needs correcting. Serena Williams wasn't naked on the cover of Sports Illustrated in the example people are sharing. She appeared nude on one of the six covers of ESPN The Magazine's inaugural Body Issue in 2009, and hers was reportedly the best-selling of those six covers. The issue deliberately celebrated elite athletic bodies through nude photography and included both male and female athletes.

Sweeney herself appears to have responded to the current criticism by sharing examples of male and female athletes who have previously participated in nude sporting photography.

That doesn't automatically invalidate the athletes' criticism.

But it does demonstrate that the relationship between sport, bodies, attractiveness and commercial imagery is considerably more complicated than simply saying:

"Showing an attractive woman with sporting equipment is an attack on women's sport."

There is an important distinction between choice and objectification

This is where I would slightly change one argument I've seen made around this controversy.

Female athletes should absolutely be able to compete in whatever legitimate kit is appropriate for their sport. They should also be free to post photographs of themselves in bikinis, training wear or anything else they choose.

The same applies to men.

And choosing to show your body doesn't mean you surrender your right to object to somebody else reducing your entire worth to that body.

Those two things can coexist.

But equally, we shouldn't pretend physical attractiveness suddenly ceases to exist because someone is an athlete.

If an athlete posts a photograph or video that deliberately celebrates their physique, people are going to notice their physique. That's human behaviour.

The important distinction is between noticing someone's attractiveness and deciding that their attractiveness is all they are worth.

That's where I think the debate needs considerably more nuance.

A woman can be an extraordinary athlete and attractive.

A man can be an extraordinary athlete and attractive.

Celebrating one doesn't automatically invalidate the other.

The problem comes when appearance consistently overshadows achievement or when female athletes discover that their commercial opportunities depend disproportionately on looking a particular way.

That's a legitimate issue worth discussing.

Female athletes themselves operate in a commercial marketplace

Professional sport isn't isolated from the rest of the entertainment industry.

Athletes have sponsors.

They build personal brands.

They create social-media audiences.

They sign ambassador agreements.

They appear in fashion campaigns.

They sell products.

And inevitably, commercial value isn't determined exclusively by sporting performance.

Personality matters.

Following matters.

Story matters.

Marketability matters.

And, uncomfortable though it might sometimes be to admit, appearance can matter too.

Again, that isn't unique to women.

David Beckham is perhaps the ultimate demonstration that sporting achievement can create the platform while image turns somebody into a global lifestyle brand.

Would Beckham have made the same enormous commercial income from fashion and grooming endorsements if brands hadn't considered him physically attractive and marketable?

Probably not.

That doesn't diminish what he achieved as a footballer.

It simply acknowledges how celebrity marketing works.

But there is another criticism of this advert that deserves attention

There's an aspect of this controversy I actually think is more interesting than much of the gender debate.

It's a gambling advertisement.

Using sexual attraction to capture attention and then directing that attention towards a gambling or sports-prediction product raises a completely separate ethical question.

One critic, former Olympic skier and Australian MP Zali Steggall, explicitly described the campaign as using sexualisation to attract young men to gambling.

That's a legitimate discussion.

We can debate whether gambling businesses should be permitted to use celebrity, sex appeal, football sponsorship, influencers and other powerful marketing devices to encourage participation.

But that's fundamentally a gambling advertising debate, not necessarily evidence that the advert is attempting to define what a female athlete should look like.

Those are different arguments.

And then we come to the marketing

This is where the whole episode becomes fascinating from a business perspective.

The campaign has been attacked for being provocative.

But being provocative appears to have been precisely the strategy.

Sweeney isn't simply a paid face either. Reporting says she has taken an equity stake in Novig, and the company's CEO says she pitched the partnership herself.

Then came the backlash.

Athletes made response videos.

News organisations covered those videos.

Other athletes joined in.

Commentators debated it.

Social media argued about it.

And people who had never heard of Novig suddenly knew its name.

The campaign's critics therefore became, unintentionally, part of its distribution network.

That's not me criticising the athletes for speaking out. If you genuinely believe something damages women's sport, you absolutely have the right to say so.

But from a marketing perspective, there's a brutal irony here.

The campaign against the campaign may have made the original campaign considerably more successful.

There is a caveat, though. Viral attention isn't automatically commercial success. Business Insider's analysis found that although Novig mentions increased dramatically, only around 4% of social posts discussing the controversy actually mentioned Novig.

That's fascinating too.

Everyone remembering Sydney Sweeney naked with a basketball isn't necessarily the same thing as everyone remembering which company she was advertising.

Views aren't revenue.

Controversy isn't conversion.

And brand awareness isn't necessarily positive brand equity.

We'll need time to know whether this was genuinely brilliant marketing or simply spectacular attention generation.

So are the female athletes wrong?

No.

I think their underlying argument deserves respect.

Women have spent generations fighting to be recognised for sporting achievement rather than appearance. Young girls should grow up seeing female athletes celebrated because they're powerful, skilful, determined and extraordinary at what they do.

When Amy Hunt runs 22.10 seconds for 200 metres, that should be the story.

When Ariarne Titmus wins four Olympic gold medals, her sporting legacy shouldn't depend on whether somebody considers her attractive.

I completely support that.

Where I disagree is with turning this particular advert into a representation of women in sport.

I don't think it is.

Sydney Sweeney isn't an athlete being presented as an athlete.

She's an actor and celebrity being used in a deliberately provocative advertising campaign aimed at generating attention for a sports prediction company.

The props happen to be sporting equipment because the product is about sport.

That distinction matters.

Perhaps we're asking the wrong question

Rather than asking:

"Does this advert show what women in sport look like?"

I'd ask:

"Was it ever supposed to?"

I don't think anyone watching Sydney Sweeney sitting naked on a basketball hoop genuinely believes they're watching a representation of elite women's basketball.

It's advertising.

Provocative advertising, certainly.

Perhaps unnecessary advertising.

Perhaps outdated advertising.

And people are perfectly entitled to dislike it.

But there's a danger that we attach a wider social meaning to every campaign simply because we don't like its creative execution.

Sometimes an advert designed to make men look at Sydney Sweeney is simply an advert designed to make men look at Sydney Sweeney.

Women's sport deserves better — but that doesn't mean every sexualised advert involving sport attacks women's sport

This is where I ultimately land.

I want my daughter to see female footballers celebrated for their ability.

I want female athletes to receive the recognition, investment, media coverage, sponsorship and respect their achievements deserve.

I don't want women's sport reduced to attractiveness.

And I certainly don't believe women should have to sexualise themselves to achieve commercial success.

But I also don't believe supporting women's sport requires us to pretend sex appeal doesn't exist, that celebrities haven't always monetised their image, or that male and female athletes haven't done exactly the same thing when they have chosen to.

There is room for both arguments.

Celebrate female athletes as athletes.

Judge them on their achievements.

Give women's sport the coverage and investment it deserves.

Challenge businesses when female athletes are being valued primarily for appearance rather than ability.

But equally, recognise that Sydney Sweeney is an actor who willingly participated in a provocative commercial campaign, not a female athlete being told that this is how she needs to present herself to succeed.

For me, that's why the current backlash doesn't quite land.

The athletes are fighting an important battle.

I'm simply not convinced this advert is actually the enemy.

And somewhere inside Novig's marketing department, I suspect they're watching millions of people argue about an advert from a company most of us had never heard of a week ago and thinking:

Please, keep talking.

The 85% Opportunity: Why the Fitness Industry Needs to Stop Designing Everything for People Who Already Exercise

The 85% Opportunity: Why the Fitness Industry Needs to Stop Designing Everything for People Who Already Exercise

For years, I have talked about what I believe is one of the biggest opportunities available to the fitness industry: the people who don't currently use us.

We spend an enormous amount of time competing for the same relatively small proportion of the population. We build bigger gyms, install newer equipment, create more sophisticated training programmes, introduce the latest technology and compete aggressively on price, yet much of what we do is still designed for people who already understand gyms and, to some extent, already want what we're selling.

The numbers should make us think. The UK gym penetration rate is currently around 17%, meaning roughly five out of every six people are not members of a gym or fitness facility. That doesn't mean 83% of the population doesn't exercise, of course. Sport England's Active Lives research shows that 64.6% of adults in England achieve at least 150 minutes of moderate physical activity each week. However, it does mean that millions of people are choosing walking, running, cycling, home exercise and other activities rather than joining our facilities, while around 11.8 million adults remain classed as inactive, completing fewer than 30 minutes of activity per week.

For me, those figures create two very important questions: why aren't more people choosing us, and what would we need to change to make them want to?

Perhaps We Are Solving the Wrong Problem

If you spend enough time inside the fitness industry, it becomes very easy to forget how strange a gym can appear to somebody who has never exercised. We understand what a squat rack is, what reps and sets mean, how to adjust equipment and why someone might want six different benches and a wall full of dumbbells. To us, these things are completely normal.

Now imagine walking into that environment when you haven't exercised for 20 years. You don't understand the equipment or terminology, you're not sure what you're supposed to wear, you don't know whether you're performing the exercises correctly and you assume everyone around you knows considerably more than you do. Then imagine paying £40, £50 or £60 a month for that experience.

And we wonder why some people don't join.

One of the most interesting observations from Sport England's research into inactivity is that we don't necessarily need to convince people that exercise is good for them. Most people already know that. The challenge is making physical activity an easy, practical and attractive choice that fits into their lives and takes place in an environment where they feel comfortable.

That distinction is incredibly important. Perhaps the problem isn't that people don't understand the benefits of exercise. Perhaps we simply haven't made our solution attractive enough to them.

We Have Built an Industry for People Who Like Fitness

Look at much of the marketing produced by our industry. Muscular bodies, heavy weights, sweat, intensity, transformation photographs and people performing technically difficult exercises. The language often follows the same pattern: push harder, smash your goals, no excuses.

There is absolutely a market for that, and I'm not suggesting we abandon it. But imagine you're 52, haven't exercised since school, are significantly overweight, feel self-conscious about your body and have just been told by your GP that you need to become more active.

Does that advertising make you think, "That looks like somewhere for me", or does it simply confirm everything you already feared about gyms?

I think our industry sometimes confuses aspiration with intimidation. We show people what they could become without first showing them that they belong. For the currently disengaged market, belonging probably needs to come first.

Studio35 Is an Interesting Example

One reason I find concepts such as Studio35 interesting is that the proposition has deliberately been built around people who don't necessarily identify themselves as "gym people". It isn't trying to win the experienced exerciser who trains five times a week and wants the biggest free-weight area in town. It offers something much simpler: a 35-minute circuit, equipment set up for the individual, a defined beginning and end to the workout, support from coaches, less uncertainty about what to do next and an environment designed to feel less intimidating.

For somebody experienced in fitness, none of those things might sound particularly revolutionary. But that's precisely the point. It isn't designed for them.

It's designed for the person who looks through the window of a traditional gym and thinks, "That's not for me."

The potential market is enormous. If gym penetration is around 17%, increasing that nationally by even one percentage point would represent hundreds of thousands of additional members. We don't need to convert the entire inactive population. There is an enormous commercial opportunity in becoming relevant to just a small fraction of people who currently don't consider gyms an option.

Established Gyms Don't Need to Completely Reinvent Themselves

This doesn't mean every operator needs to rip out their equipment and turn themselves into Studio35. Established gyms can do an enormous amount with the facilities they already have.

The first step is recognising that a beginner may need a completely different product within your existing product. Instead of only thinking about the facilities you provide, think about the entire experience through the eyes of somebody who has never been comfortable in a gym.

What happens when they first see your advertising? What happens when they enquire? How are they spoken to when they arrive? What happens during their first workout? What happens the following morning when they're aching? What happens when they miss a week? What happens when their motivation inevitably drops after the initial excitement disappears?

For this market, those questions may matter considerably more than whether you've just installed the latest piece of equipment.

Create a Genuine Beginner Product

Most gyms claim they cater for beginners. Far fewer have actually created a product specifically for them.

A beginner programme shouldn't simply mean giving someone a generic workout card and showing them where the changing rooms are. Why couldn't an established club create a six-week "Start Moving" programme that includes an initial consultation, a simple health and goal assessment, two or three coached sessions, an easy programme with perhaps six exercises, weekly contact, progress reviews and introductions to appropriate classes?

You could deliberately limit the programme to people who are new to exercise. Suddenly, that customer isn't joining a gym full of experienced exercisers. They're joining a programme alongside people who feel exactly the same way they do.

Psychologically, that's very different. Commercially, you haven't changed your building or bought another £50,000 worth of equipment. You've simply changed the product wrapped around what you already have.

Completely Rethink Onboarding

I've said this repeatedly over the years: onboarding remains one of the biggest missed opportunities in our industry. For an experienced exerciser, access to the facility might be enough. For a beginner, it rarely is.

Signing the direct debit shouldn't represent the end of the sales process. In many respects, it's the beginning of the relationship. Their first 90 days should therefore be deliberately managed, potentially including an initial consultation, programme setup, a coach-led first workout, contact after their first few days, a two-week review, encouragement to try an appropriate class, progress measurements and structured 30, 60 and 90-day check-ins.

This is also where technology can become incredibly useful. Your CRM should know when somebody joined, what their goals are, what programme they're following, when they last attended and whether their behaviour has changed.

If a new exerciser attends three times during their first week and then disappears for ten days, something should happen. It could be a message, a phone call or a coach checking in to see how they're getting on. What shouldn't happen is complete silence followed by an automated email three months later asking why they've cancelled.

For experienced exercisers, motivation can be largely internal. For beginners, accountability may actually be part of the product they're buying.

Make Programming Simpler, Not More Impressive

The fitness industry loves sophistication. Customers often love simplicity.

A beginner doesn't necessarily need an app containing 400 exercises, complicated periodisation and dozens of performance metrics. They might simply need to know: do this exercise, then this one, then this one, you're finished, well done, see you again Thursday.

That simplicity has enormous value.

Milon and similar circuit concepts understand this particularly well because they remove much of the decision-making. Traditional gyms can adopt exactly the same principle without changing their entire facility. Create clearly signposted beginner circuits, use QR codes with simple exercise demonstrations, build 20, 30 and 45-minute programmes, offer machine-only programmes or create a simple route through the gym that someone can follow during their first month.

Technology should remove friction rather than introduce more of it. If someone needs a tutorial to understand your fitness app before they can start exercising, you've probably missed the point.

Introduce Beginner-Specific Classes

Imagine somebody who has never exercised looking at two different timetables. One contains HIIT, MetCon, Bootcamp, Advanced Conditioning and Body Blast. The other includes Beginners Strength, First Steps Fitness, Introduction to the Gym, Beginner Circuits, Move Better 50+ and Back to Exercise.

Which feels more accessible?

The exercise itself doesn't necessarily need to be radically different. The positioning changes how accessible the customer perceives it to be.

Clubs could also schedule beginner sessions during traditionally quieter periods, giving people who are nervous about the gym an opportunity to train when the environment feels less intimidating. From a business perspective, that can also generate additional utilisation during periods when you've already got staff, equipment and space available.

GLP-1 Users Could Become a Significant New Fitness Audience

This is an area I believe our industry needs to take extremely seriously. The rapid growth of weight-management medications is creating a population of people actively trying to improve their health who may previously have struggled to engage with traditional fitness.

Rather than viewing GLP-1 medications as something happening outside our industry, we should be asking how we can appropriately support the people using them.

NICE guidance around medicines such as tirzepatide makes it clear that weight-management medication should be used alongside dietary changes and increased physical activity. That creates an obvious opportunity for appropriately trained fitness professionals to support people through exercise, strength development, confidence, behaviour change and long-term habit formation.

There are obviously important clinical boundaries. Gyms shouldn't prescribe medication, provide medical advice outside their scope or attempt to replace healthcare professionals. But supporting someone with appropriate exercise alongside their medical treatment is a very different proposition.

Imagine a programme marketed not as "Come and smash a workout" but as "Losing weight? Let us help you become stronger, fitter and healthier along the way."

For someone who doesn't identify with traditional fitness marketing, that is an entirely different conversation.

Stop Selling Fitness and Start Selling What Fitness Gives People

Ask someone who loves training why they go to the gym and they'll probably talk about training. Ask somebody who doesn't exercise what they actually want and the answer may be completely different.

They might want to climb the stairs without getting breathless, play with their grandchildren, feel more confident, sleep better, have more energy, reduce stress, lose weight, maintain their independence as they age, feel comfortable in their clothes or simply get out of the house and meet people.

Those are the products we should be marketing.

Research from ukactive has also highlighted the importance of mental wellbeing as a motivation for using fitness facilities. Yet so much of our marketing continues to lead with equipment, facilities and training.

Nobody wakes up in the morning desperate to experience your new plate-loaded leg press. They wake up wanting to feel better. The leg press is simply one of the tools we use to help them achieve it.

Your Marketing Needs to Look Different Too

Take a look at your website and social media through the eyes of a non-exerciser. Who appears in your photographs? Are they all young, lean and wearing Lycra? Is everyone lifting heavy weights or dripping in sweat? Does everything look intense?

Where are the 55-year-olds? Where are the complete beginners? Where are different body shapes? Where is someone simply walking on a treadmill? Where is the coach patiently showing someone how to use a machine? Where are two members having a coffee and a conversation? Where are people smiling and enjoying themselves?

Your imagery silently communicates who your club is for. If someone can't see themselves reflected anywhere in your marketing, don't be surprised when they conclude that your product isn't intended for them.

The language matters just as much. "No excuses" might motivate an existing fitness enthusiast but be completely inappropriate for someone struggling with confidence. Instead, try messages such as "Never been comfortable in a gym?", "Want to get stronger but don't know where to start?", "Haven't exercised for years?" or "Want more energy for everyday life?"

Now you're talking about a problem they recognise rather than a product you want to sell.

Market to Life Stages, Not Just Demographics

"Women aged 35 to 55 within five miles" is an advertising audience. It isn't a proposition.

Think about the situations people find themselves in instead. Someone returning to exercise after having children has different motivations from someone whose doctor has told them to become more active. A person using weight-management medication has different needs from somebody approaching retirement who wants to remain strong and independent. Someone who has lost confidence has different barriers from someone who simply hasn't exercised since school.

You might have someone whose children have left home and who finally has more time for themselves, somebody who has recently moved into the area and wants to meet people, or someone returning to activity after illness where appropriately supported.

Each of these groups has different motivations, fears and barriers. That means the marketing, onboarding, programming and support can be designed around the situation they're actually experiencing rather than simply their age and postcode.

Reduce the Barrier to the First Visit

As an industry, we're obsessed with getting people to join. For this audience, joining may feel like too big a commitment initially.

So reduce the psychological barrier.

Offer a coached trial, beginner open evening, coffee and conversation, health check, 30-minute introductory session, meet-the-team appointment, beginner workshop or structured six-week programme before asking them to commit to full membership.

The initial objective could simply be to get someone through the door without making them feel they're being sold a gym membership. Once they're inside, comfortable, understand the environment and have met someone they trust, the conversation becomes completely different.

Your Sales Process Needs to Change

If someone tells you, "I've never really liked gyms", that's not an objection. It's probably the most useful thing they've told you.

Instead of immediately explaining your facilities and membership prices, ask them why. What happened previously? What makes them uncomfortable? What would they like to achieve? What would success look like six months from now? What worries them about starting? What support would make it easier?

Their answers should determine the rest of the conversation and the tour.

If they're intimidated by equipment, introduce them to the coach who will show them what to do. If they're nervous about busy periods, explain when the club is quieter. If they're worried about their fitness level, show them your beginner programme. If they want social connection, introduce them to classes, walking groups or other community activities.

You aren't really selling the building. You're removing the reasons they haven't joined one before.

Train Your Team for a Different Type of Customer

A brilliant fitness professional isn't automatically brilliant at supporting someone who hates exercise.

Your team needs empathy. They need to understand behaviour change, communicate without jargon and recognise that success looks different for different people.

For one member, adding 20kg to their deadlift might be a huge achievement. For another, walking into the gym alone for the first time might be an equally significant achievement. Both matter.

That philosophy needs to extend beyond fitness staff. Reception, sales teams, managers and coaches all influence whether somebody feels they belong. The entire culture of the club needs to communicate one very simple message: people like you come here.

Build Community Deliberately

Social connection could be one of the strongest retention tools available for this audience. Walking groups, beginner clubs, coffee mornings, member socials, attendance-based challenges, charity events, workshops, member buddy schemes and small-group training can all help people develop relationships within the club.

These aren't simply nice additions to the membership. They can fundamentally change someone's relationship with the business.

When somebody moves from thinking "that's where I exercise" to "that's where my friends are", leaving becomes a much bigger decision.

For independent gyms in particular, this is something a large low-cost competitor may find much harder to replicate.

Measure Whether It's Actually Working

If you're serious about attracting people who aren't traditionally engaged with gyms, you need to measure whether you're succeeding.

How many new members are first-time gym users? How many haven't exercised during the previous 12 months? What percentage complete onboarding? How many attend during their first seven days? What percentage are still attending after 30, 60 and 90 days? Which beginner programmes generate the best long-term retention? Which members progress into mainstream membership? Which staff members are particularly good at retaining beginners, and why?

This is another area where technology can make an enormous difference. CRM systems, access-control data, apps and automated communications can help identify changes in behaviour before somebody cancels.

But the technology shouldn't replace the relationship. My view has always been simple:

Automate the process, personalise the interaction.

Use technology to tell your team that Ryan hasn't visited for ten days. Then let a human being pick up the phone and ask Ryan how he's getting on.

There Is a Huge Commercial Argument for Doing This

It's important to make something very clear: this isn't charity.

I'm passionate about getting more people active because it's good for individuals and society, but I'm equally interested in this from a business perspective.

The UK health and fitness market is already worth billions of pounds, has more than 11 million members and generates hundreds of millions of visits each year. That's an extraordinary achievement, but penetration remains relatively low compared with the theoretical addressable market.

Most operators currently compete aggressively for people who already understand the value of a gym membership. We move members from one club to another, compete on price, increase marketing expenditure and spend millions differentiating facilities through equipment and design.

Successfully attracting somebody who wasn't previously considering any gym is fundamentally different.

You're not taking market share.

You're creating market.

And commercially, that can be considerably more valuable.

Think About What This Could Mean at Club Level

Imagine an established independent gym with 1,000 members. It doesn't need to reinvent itself. It simply creates a dedicated beginner proposition and becomes genuinely good at attracting and supporting people who don't currently exercise.

If that programme generated just five genuinely new-to-exercise members each week, that would represent around 260 people over a year before attrition. At £40 per month, 260 active memberships represent an annualised membership revenue of £124,800 before any secondary spend.

Then consider the potential additional revenue from small-group training, personal training, premium programmes, appropriate nutrition support, recovery services, retail and referrals.

More importantly, if the experience has genuinely been designed around these customers and they remain engaged for several years, the opportunity isn't simply acquisition revenue. It's lifetime value.

It Can Also Make Your Gym Harder to Compete With

There is another strategic benefit to targeting people outside the traditional gym market.

If your entire proposition is based around equipment, access and price, somebody else can build a bigger gym, install more equipment and charge £5 less. That's particularly dangerous for independents, hotel clubs and mid-market operators competing against large low-cost chains.

But if your proposition is built around relationships, coaching, accountability, community, support and results, it becomes considerably harder to replicate.

Don't try to beat a £20 gym at being a £20 gym. You probably won't.

Build something that a £20 access model struggles to deliver.

Support.

We Need to Stop Blaming the Consumer

This might be the uncomfortable part.

We sometimes talk about inactive people as though they simply lack motivation. We hear phrases such as "they don't want it enough", "they make excuses" or "they just need more discipline".

I'm not convinced that's fair.

If millions of people know exercise is good for them but still choose not to use our facilities, perhaps we should spend less time asking what's wrong with them and more time asking what's wrong with our proposition for them.

People are inactive for many different reasons. Successful solutions need to recognise individual circumstances and provide activity in ways, places and environments where people feel comfortable.

That's a product-design challenge.

And product-design challenges can be solved.

What Would I Do If I Ran a Traditional Gym Today?

I wouldn't change everything. I'd create a business within the business.

I would identify the groups within my local community who don't currently feel gyms are for them and build specific propositions around those groups. I'd create a named beginner programme with a clear journey, dedicate certain sessions and classes to beginners, retrain the sales team around conversations rather than traditional facility tours and rebuild onboarding around the first 90 days.

I'd make programming simpler, use technology to identify disengagement and make personal contact when attendance dropped. I'd explore appropriate GLP-1 and weight-management exercise support, develop strength and healthy-ageing programmes for older adults and introduce community activities that weren't entirely based around exercise.

I'd also change the imagery and language used in marketing and, importantly, I'd speak directly to inactive people in the local community and ask them why they don't currently use gyms.

Then I'd listen to their answers rather than trying to convince them they're wrong.

The 85% Isn't One Market

There is one final point that I think is incredibly important. We shouldn't make exactly the same mistake again by talking about "non-gym users" as though they're one homogeneous group.

They're not.

A 70-year-old concerned about losing strength has completely different needs from a 35-year-old parent struggling to find time. Someone using GLP-1 medication has different needs from somebody experiencing gym anxiety. A former exerciser returning after ten years is different from someone who has never stepped inside a gym. Someone on a low income may face completely different barriers from someone with plenty of disposable income but very little time.

So don't build one generic "inactive people" campaign.

Segment the opportunity.

Understand your local market, decide which groups your business is genuinely equipped to help and become exceptionally good at helping them.

The Biggest Growth Opportunity in Fitness May Be Outside Fitness

We spend a lot of time talking about innovation in our industry. AI, apps, wearables, recovery technology, new equipment, new concepts and new training methodologies are all exciting developments.

But perhaps one of the biggest innovations available to us isn't technological at all.

Perhaps it's designing a fitness business around somebody who doesn't currently like fitness.

The UK already has more than 11 million gym members, which is an extraordinary achievement. But it also means the overwhelming majority of the population still hasn't chosen a traditional gym membership.

That shouldn't depress us.

It should excite us.

If we continue designing gyms primarily for people who already love gyms, we'll continue fighting each other for variations of the same customers. But if we can create environments where somebody who hasn't exercised for 10, 20 or 30 years walks through the door and thinks, "Finally, somewhere designed for me," we don't just take market share from another operator. We grow the market itself.

From a business perspective, that means new customers, new revenue streams, potentially stronger retention, greater lifetime value and a proposition that's harder for competitors to replicate. From an industry perspective, it means becoming more relevant to healthcare, communities and Government. And from a human perspective, it means helping considerably more people become healthier.

For me, that's where the real opportunity lies.

Stop fighting exclusively over the 15-17% who already use us and start asking what we need to do differently to become relevant to everybody else.

Because the biggest untapped market in the fitness industry isn't necessarily looking for another gym.

They're waiting for us to create a fitness experience they actually want to use.

What If Fitness Clubs Competed Less and Grew the Market More?"

 

What If Fitness Clubs Competed Less and Grew the Market More?"

I am an advocate for capitalism. It is far from a perfect system, but modern capitalism has created extraordinary opportunities for people from almost every section of society to build businesses, create wealth, employ others and forge their own path.

I enjoy owning my own business alongside my business partner, Russell Valler, and through Black Raccoon Consulting we work with entrepreneurs every day who have similar ambitions. We understand what it means to invest your money, time and reputation into something you believe in, and we understand the natural desire to compete and succeed.

Competition itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it is one of the mechanisms that makes capitalism work. Competition encourages innovation, challenges complacency, improves standards and, when it works properly, creates better products and services for consumers.

There is, however, something that has always puzzled me about the way we compete in the fitness industry.

What happens when our determination to beat each other actually prevents the industry itself from growing?

We are competing for the same minority

According to the 2025 State of the UK Fitness Industry Report, the UK fitness industry now has approximately 11.3 million members, generates around £6.5 billion in revenue and has reached a penetration rate of 16.6%. Those are impressive numbers and demonstrate how far the sector has come.

But there is another way of looking at that statistic.

If approximately 17% of the population belongs to a gym, then more than 80% does not. There is an enormous population of people who either have little interest in what we currently offer, do not believe conventional fitness facilities are relevant to them, have tried them previously and left, or simply haven't yet been persuaded that joining one would improve their lives.

Despite that, an enormous amount of our industry's marketing energy is directed towards competing for people who are already engaged with fitness.

We open a gym and immediately look at the membership of the gym down the road. We target people following competitors on Facebook and Instagram. We advertise directly outside other fitness facilities. We discount memberships to encourage people to switch, and occasionally I've even seen operators publicly criticise or name their competition.

I have seen budget clubs park advertising vans outside independent gyms. I have seen businesses deliberately target the followers of specific competitors and campaigns that amount to little more than, "Leave them and join us."

From the perspective of an individual business, I understand the logic. If somebody already spends £40 a month on fitness, convincing them to spend that £40 with you is considerably easier than persuading someone who has never considered joining a gym.

But collectively, surely we have to question where that strategy eventually takes us.

We are fighting over slices of the same relatively small pie instead of asking how we make the pie significantly bigger.

Competition and collaboration are not opposites

I am not suggesting gyms should stop competing. That would be unrealistic and, in my view, undesirable. If another club provides a better service, creates a stronger member experience or develops a more compelling proposition, that should challenge everyone around them to improve.

The mistake is assuming that competition and collaboration are mutually exclusive.

There is an established business concept called coopetition, where organisations compete in some areas while deliberately collaborating in others because doing so creates greater value for everyone involved. Researchers have studied the concept for decades, particularly in industries where businesses can benefit from sharing knowledge, resources or infrastructure while continuing to compete commercially.

There are numerous examples outside fitness. Sony and Samsung collaborated on LCD technology despite competing aggressively in consumer electronics, while major automotive manufacturers have historically collaborated on technology development while continuing to fight for the same customers in showrooms.

They did not collaborate because they suddenly stopped caring about market share. They collaborated because they recognised that certain challenges were better solved collectively.

There is an important distinction there for our industry.

Collaborating to grow a market does not mean you stop competing for your share of it.

Farmers understood this generations ago

Perhaps an even more interesting comparison can be found in agriculture.

Farmers are competitors. They produce similar products and ultimately need somebody to buy what they produce, yet agricultural cooperatives have existed in Britain for generations because farmers recognised that there were areas where acting collectively created advantages that none of them could achieve independently.

They pooled purchasing power, marketed produce collectively, shared services and infrastructure and created organisations capable of negotiating from a much stronger position.

Fram Farmers is one modern example. Its origins date back to 1960, when a small group of farmers recognised the benefits of pooling their purchasing requirements. Today the organisation supports more than 1,400 farming businesses with purchasing, crop marketing and administrative services.

What makes the comparison particularly interesting is that agriculture genuinely involves finite resources. There is only so much land, only so much produce and only so much of each year's harvest available to sell.

Fitness does not have that problem.

We have tens of millions of potential customers who are not currently members of our facilities, yet sometimes we behave as though the only available growth opportunity is taking a member from the club three miles down the road.

What if we changed the message?

Imagine five gyms operating in the same town. One is an independent strength facility, another is a budget gym, another is a full-service health club, another specialises in functional fitness and the fifth is a boutique studio.

Today, each might spend thousands of pounds communicating slightly different versions of the same messages: no joining fee, first month free, six weeks for £49, free trial, better equipment, cheaper membership or more classes.

Now imagine those same five businesses agreeing that, for one month each year, they would put their individual propositions to one side and collectively promote one message:

Let's Get Our Town Moving.

They could organise a community fitness weekend during which every participating facility opens its doors. The strength gym could introduce beginners to resistance training, the boutique studio could offer Pilates, the leisure centre could promote swimming, the functional facility could run beginner sessions and the health club could offer health assessments and education.

Nobody has to pretend their businesses are identical. In fact, the differences between them become an advantage because someone who hates the idea of a traditional gym might discover Pilates, swimming, small-group training or another activity they genuinely enjoy.

The message reaching the community would no longer be, "Our gym is better than theirs." It would be, "Being more active could improve your life, and somewhere in this community there is probably an option that works for you."

That is a very different conversation, and crucially it is aimed at people outside our existing market rather than simply those already inside it.

The commercial opportunity is enormous

There is an important commercial argument behind this as well as a social one.

The 2025 industry figures use a UK population of approximately 67.9 million when calculating market penetration. If the sector could collectively increase penetration by just five percentage points, moving from roughly 17% to 22%, that would represent approximately 3.4 million additional members.

At an average membership price of only £25 per month, those additional members would generate around £85 million of additional membership revenue every month, or more than £1 billion every year.

That is before personal training, small-group training, specialist programmes, food and drink, retail and every other form of secondary spend.

The point is not that every gym should suddenly abandon acquisition campaigns and launch a community initiative. The point is that the potential market available to us is vastly greater than the one we spend so much time fighting over.

There is an enormous harvest available. Perhaps we could spend slightly less time trying to take crops from the farm next door and a little more time cultivating land nobody is currently using.

What could collaboration actually look like?

It does not need to involve complicated agreements, national governing bodies or competitors sharing commercially sensitive information. There are relatively simple ways local operators could work together while remaining fiercely competitive businesses.

1. Joint community activity campaigns. Local clubs could collectively promote physical activity rather than individual memberships through initiatives such as a "Get Our Town Moving" month. Each operator could contribute activities suited to its own expertise while sharing the cost and reach of the wider campaign.

2. Coordinated open weekends. Imagine an annual fitness weekend where gyms, studios, leisure centres and other activity providers simultaneously open their doors. Residents could experience several different forms of exercise and find an environment that genuinely suits them rather than being sold whichever option happened to advertise to them first.

3. Inter-club events and competitions. Healthy rivalry can actually strengthen collaboration. Local fitness leagues, charity challenges, team competitions and community events allow members to represent their own clubs while collectively creating excitement and visibility around exercise.

4. Collaborative corporate wellbeing programmes. Rather than five facilities separately approaching the same employers, local operators could create a broader wellbeing proposition. Employees might gain access to different participating facilities, allowing them to choose between swimming, strength training, classes, Pilates, functional training or other activities.

5. Shared education, resources and initiatives. Independent clubs could collaborate on staff development, specialist speakers, recruitment initiatives, community education and even selected purchasing opportunities. None of those things prevents them competing aggressively when it comes to delivering the best member experience.

The principle is relatively straightforward: collaborate where collaboration grows the market, then compete on who delivers the best experience once people enter it.

Perhaps we are targeting the wrong competition

Some people will undoubtedly read this and think I am being naive or idealistic. Perhaps human nature simply makes this difficult. We are naturally protective of resources and suspicious of those competing for the same things we want.

That instinct made considerable sense when survival depended on access to limited food, shelter and territory. But we are not cavemen fighting over the last available watering hole, and the fitness industry is certainly not short of potential customers.

Perhaps the gym down the road isn't actually our biggest competitor.

Our competitors are inactivity, lack of confidence, poor understanding of exercise, previous negative experiences and the perception that gyms are places for people who are already fit.

Our competitor is the person sitting at home thinking, "A gym isn't for someone like me."

Those are problems that affect every operator, regardless of whether their membership costs £20 or £120 per month.

There are already businesses demonstrating what can happen when the industry looks beyond the traditional gym customer. Studio35, for example, has deliberately developed a proposition aimed at people who often do not identify with conventional gyms. Rather than simply building another facility aimed at people already engaged with fitness, its model seeks to make structured exercise accessible to a different demographic.

That is interesting because it represents genuine category growth. It creates another customer rather than simply moving an existing one from one provider to another.

We need to grow the category

Most successful industries understand that there are two battles taking place simultaneously. Individual businesses compete for market share, but the industry as a whole also needs consumers to want the category in the first place.

Fitness has an extraordinary proposition.

We can help people become stronger, healthier and more confident. We can reduce isolation, create communities and help people remain independent for longer as they age. We can improve physical and mental wellbeing and, at our very best, genuinely change people's lives.

Yet collectively we sometimes manage to reduce that proposition to "No joining fee this weekend."

Perhaps that is where the mindset needs to change.

I am not advocating the end of competition. I want ambitious operators to compete, innovate, raise standards and build brilliant businesses. Black Raccoon exists because we believe businesses should grow, become more profitable and perform better.

But I also believe there is a bigger opportunity sitting in front of us.

If 83% of the population is outside our current market, our industry's greatest opportunity cannot simply be persuading somebody to cancel their membership at Gym A and move to Gym B.

We need to understand why millions of people haven't joined either of them.

And perhaps some of those barriers are simply too large for individual operators to tackle alone.

Compete for market share, absolutely. But collaborate to grow the market itself.

Because sometimes the smartest way to get a bigger piece of the pie isn't to steal somebody else's slice.

It's to work together to bake a much bigger pie.