Could Charging Your Most Loyal Members Less Actually Make Your Gym More Profitable?

Could Charging Your Most Loyal Members Less Actually Make Your Gym More Profitable?

I came across an idea recently that genuinely intrigued me, and the more I've thought about it, the more I wonder whether it could offer an interesting alternative approach to gym membership retention.

Anyone who has followed my articles over the years will know that I'm a big believer in increasing membership prices annually. I've written extensively about why I believe operators need to protect their average yield, keep pace with rising operating costs and stop being frightened of reasonable price increases. Too many gyms have spent years absorbing higher wages, rent, rates, utilities and other costs without making corresponding adjustments to their membership pricing.

I haven't changed my opinion on that. I still believe annual price reviews are fundamental to running a financially sustainable fitness business.

But what if we approached our longest-serving members differently?

What if, instead of increasing their membership every year, we actually rewarded their loyalty by gradually reducing what they pay?

Not immediately, and certainly not indefinitely. But perhaps after someone has completed two years of membership, we offer them a small annual reduction in exchange for committing to another 12 months.

At first glance, that sounds completely counterintuitive. Why would a gym deliberately reduce the price paid by someone who is already a customer? Surely that's giving away revenue unnecessarily?

Possibly. But I think there's a much more interesting question to consider.

What if the additional membership lifetime created by rewarding loyalty was worth considerably more than the discount itself?

And perhaps just as importantly, what message would that send to members about how much we value their continued business?

Why This Idea Might Be More Interesting Than It First Appears

The timing of the proposed reward is particularly interesting when you look at the research.

Xplor Gym's 2023 Winning the War on Attrition report analysed membership behaviour across a large UK and Ireland dataset. Among members who cancelled, the average membership duration was approximately 26 months, while their last recorded visit occurred at approximately 21 months. In other words, those members typically stopped attending around five months before they actually cancelled

That makes the two-year anniversary a potentially important intervention point. By that stage, many members have established a relationship with the club, but others may already be questioning whether they're getting sufficient value from their membership.

What if, rather than waiting for them to become disengaged, we gave them another reason to stay?

Imagine receiving a message from your gym after two years saying:

"Thank you for being part of our club for the last two years. We genuinely value your loyalty, so we'd like to offer you something different. If you choose to stay with us for another 12 months, we'll reduce your monthly membership fee. And the longer you remain a member, the more we'll reward you, up to an agreed maximum discount."

I think that could be an incredibly powerful message.

We're used to seeing businesses offer their best deals to new customers while existing customers quietly pay more. It's something that frustrates consumers across numerous industries, whether that's insurance, broadband, mobile phones or subscriptions.

This would reverse that perception. Instead of feeling that loyalty is taken for granted, members would see a tangible financial benefit from maintaining their relationship with the club.

And unlike a free guest pass, branded water bottle or occasional reward, this would be something they benefit from every single month.

Of course, the obvious concern is the revenue we're giving away. But that's where the mathematics becomes interesting.

Could a Lower Membership Price Actually Generate More Revenue?

Let's use a deliberately simple example of a gym charging £50 per month.

Under the existing model, the member continues paying £50 throughout their membership. Under the proposed loyalty model, after completing two years, they become eligible for a £2 monthly reduction each year, provided they voluntarily agree to a new 12-month membership term. The discount would be capped at £6 per month, meaning their membership would never fall below £44 under this particular scheme.

The proposed pricing would look like this

The figures are illustrative, but the principle is straightforward. A member reaching their third year saves £24 annually, increasing to £48 in year four and £72 in year five. The club retains a meaningful monthly membership payment, while the member sees a financial reward for their loyalty.

Now let's examine the commercial impact across a group of 100 members who have already completed their first two years.

For this example, we'll assume the club would ordinarily retain 65% of those members from one year to the next. Under the loyalty programme, let's test what happens if annual retention improves to 75%.

These are hypothetical retention assumptions, not proven effects of a loyalty discount. The purpose is to establish whether the financial logic could work and what improvement would be needed to justify the discount.

scenario, despite charging members less, the loyalty model generates £4,350 more membership revenue over the three-year period, equivalent to an increase of approximately 3.5%.

That may not sound transformational in isolation, but remember we're looking at just 100 members entering their third year. Across a larger membership base, the opportunity could become considerably more meaningful.

What's also interesting is that the loyalty model initially performs worse. In year three, the club gives away £2,400 in membership revenue compared with the standard pricing model. However, by years four and five, the higher number of retained members more than compensates for those reductions.

The model assumes the same initial 100 members, full-year payments from those retained at each annual boundary, no new joiners or rejoiners, and no general price increases. It measures revenue rather than profit and excludes any additional servicing costs or secondary spend.

The real question, therefore, isn't simply how much the discount costs.

It's whether the discount produces enough additional retention to outweigh that cost.

How Much Would Retention Actually Need to Improve?

This is where I'd want operators to look carefully at their own data rather than simply adopting the concept because it sounds attractive.

In the example above, we've assumed that annual retention improves from 65% to 75%. That's a ten-percentage-point improvement, and we certainly shouldn't assume that a small discount will automatically achieve it.

Using the same pricing structure and starting cohort, the loyalty programme would need to achieve approximately 72.5% annual retention to match the £124,350 generated by the standard model over years three to five.

That means an improvement of around 7.5 percentage points would be required just to break even on membership revenue. Anything above that starts creating additional revenue, before accounting for secondary spend, acquisition savings and other commercial effects.

The precise threshold will vary enormously between clubs. A facility already retaining 90% of its established members may find the discount difficult to justify, while a club losing a substantial proportion of members around their second anniversary may see a very different opportunity.

And there's another consideration: a club that already has excellent retention could end up rewarding hundreds of members who would have stayed anyway. In that situation, the scheme becomes a reduction in average yield rather than a genuine retention improvement.

That's why I would never introduce something like this without modelling it properly.

What Does the Research Tell Us About Loyalty and Retention?

Although the financial model is hypothetical, there is established evidence that member behaviour, engagement and relationships are strongly associated with retention.

The TRP 10,000 research found that members who attended their gym at least once during a month were less likely to cancel than members who didn't attend. Among members in their first six months, attending at least once during a month was associated with a 27% reduction in the likelihood of cancelling the following month.

More recent research published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services in 2026 also examined the relationships between service quality, rapport, satisfaction and membership retention, reinforcing the importance of how members perceive and experience their relationship with their club.

Interestingly, Xplor's September 2026 industry research found that 70% of surveyed operators with UK locations reported rising member acquisition costs, making retention and referrals increasingly important commercially.

None of these studies proves that reducing membership prices will improve retention. That's an important distinction. But they do reinforce why strengthening the member relationship and extending membership lifetime are commercially valuable objectives.

My thinking is that a financial loyalty reward could become another component of that relationship, particularly when combined with the things we already know matter: good onboarding, meaningful staff interaction, regular attendance, progress reviews, community and member recognition.

I wouldn't want the discount to replace any of those things. I'd want it to complement them.

The Psychology Could Be Just as Interesting as the Financial Benefit

I think one of the strongest aspects of this idea is the perception it creates.

Most gym members expect their membership to increase over time. They understand that costs rise, even if they don't particularly enjoy receiving the annual price-increase email.

Imagine how different it would feel if, after two years, they received an email thanking them for their loyalty and explaining that their membership would actually become cheaper if they chose to commit for another year.

For a member paying £50 a month, saving £2 might not fundamentally change their financial circumstances. But the recognition behind it could be worth considerably more than £24 a year in perceived value.

It communicates that the club appreciates existing customers rather than concentrating all its incentives on attracting new ones.

It also creates something to look forward to. A member approaching their second anniversary knows they're about to become eligible for a loyalty benefit, while someone entering year three understands that another reward becomes available if they remain.

There's potentially a referral benefit too. Members who feel genuinely appreciated may be more inclined to recommend the business, although that would need to be measured rather than assumed.

Of course, the way we communicate this would be crucial. If we advertise it as a complicated discount mechanism, it could simply look like another membership promotion. If we present it as a genuine thank-you for supporting the club over several years, I think it becomes a much more meaningful part of the member experience.

The 12-Month Commitment Is an Important Part of the Proposition

I wouldn't necessarily offer these reductions unconditionally.

My preference would be to make the loyalty discount available to members who have completed their first two years and voluntarily agree to a further 12-month membership commitment.

The arrangement could then be reviewed at each subsequent anniversary, with another small reduction available in exchange for a new 12-month agreement, until the maximum discount has been reached.

This provides a clear exchange of value. The member receives a lower monthly price, while the club gains greater contractual revenue visibility and a further opportunity to strengthen the relationship.

However, the terms would need to be fair, transparent and compliant with consumer law. Members must understand what they're agreeing to, and appropriate cancellation rights, including provisions for relevant changes in circumstances, must be respected. The Competition and Markets Authority has previously challenged unfair gym membership terms, and its guidance cautions against automatic renewals that unexpectedly lock consumers into further minimum periods.

I would therefore favour an actively accepted renewal rather than automatically locking somebody into another 12 months. Members who don't want the new commitment could remain on an appropriate rolling membership without the additional loyalty reduction.

The commercial benefit should come from members positively choosing to stay, not from making it difficult for them to leave.

Would This Conflict With Annual Price Increases?

This is probably the part I find most interesting because, as I mentioned at the beginning, I'm a strong advocate of annual membership price increases.

The two approaches don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

A club could continue reviewing and increasing its standard membership prices each year while offering a clearly defined loyalty benefit to longer-serving members. New members would join at the prevailing rate, while qualifying established members would receive a discount against an agreed reference price or tariff.

Alternatively, operators could apply smaller annual increases to loyalty members rather than reducing their actual monthly payments.

Both approaches have merit, but they create different financial outcomes and different member perceptions.

Personally, the idea of an actual reduction is what intrigues me most. There is something psychologically powerful about telling a loyal customer that their monthly payment is going down rather than simply increasing by less than everybody else's.

However, any scheme would need a clearly defined floor price, a maximum discount and an agreed approach to future inflation. Otherwise, over a long enough period, the operator could end up with a substantial proportion of the membership base paying prices that no longer reflect the cost of providing the service.

I'd also want to understand how the programme affects average yield across the entire club, not just among the members receiving the discount.

What Would I Want to Test Before Introducing It?

If I were advising a club considering this, I wouldn't immediately offer it to every member reaching their second anniversary.

I'd start by examining the club's actual retention data, particularly the percentage of members who survive from month 24 to month 36, and then from year three into years four and five.

I'd look at whether cancellation risk increases around those anniversaries, how attendance changes beforehand and how long members remain after completing their initial contract.

I'd also examine whether the club's most loyal members are already highly engaged. If they are, the discount might simply reward behaviour that would have happened anyway.

The strongest way to establish whether this works would be a controlled pilot. For example, a club could randomly allocate eligible members between its existing renewal approach and the new loyalty offer, with appropriate safeguards and transparent communication.

The club could then compare renewal rates, subsequent cancellations, average yield, membership revenue, secondary spend and overall contribution over a meaningful period.

I'd be particularly interested in whether members who accept the loyalty offer actually remain active or whether the programme simply encourages people to keep paying for something they no longer use.

Those are very different outcomes, especially if we're serious about creating healthier, more engaged membership communities.

And because the programme requires a 12-month commitment, we'd need to measure what happens after that commitment expires, not just the initial renewal rate.

Could the Real Opportunity Be Bigger Than the Discount?

One final consideration is the additional value of a longer-serving member.

Someone who remains with your club for another two years doesn't simply generate more membership revenue. They may also purchase personal training, join specialist programmes, spend money on retail or recovery services and recommend friends or family.

Longer membership relationships can also reduce the pressure to replace lost customers through paid advertising, although any genuine acquisition savings depend on how the club manages its marketing budget and growth targets.

These potential benefits haven't been included in the financial example, so they could improve the commercial case. Equally, if the discount simply delays cancellation without maintaining engagement, the additional value may be much smaller than anticipated.

That's why I'd want to assess the complete lifetime value and contribution of the member, rather than simply focusing on the monthly direct debit.

So, Would I Actually Recommend It?

At this stage, I wouldn't say yes or no.

But I would absolutely say it's worth exploring.

I've spent years encouraging gym operators to increase prices appropriately, improve average yield and stop undervaluing their services. I still believe in all of those principles.

However, I've also spent years talking about the importance of retention, member relationships and lifetime value. If a carefully structured loyalty programme could extend the average membership lifetime sufficiently to generate more revenue and improve the member experience, then surely it's worth investigating.

The figures demonstrate that the economics can work under certain conditions. They don't yet demonstrate that a loyalty discount will deliver the required improvement in retention, and that's the part we'd need to test.

Perhaps the greatest attraction is that it challenges the traditional way we think about membership pricing. Instead of assuming that every customer should always pay more as time passes, we start asking whether some of our most valuable customers should be rewarded for the longevity of their relationship with us.

After all, if somebody has supported your business for five years, attended regularly, engaged with your team and contributed to your community, there's a reasonable argument that their loyalty deserves recognition.

And if recognising that loyalty also makes commercial sense, we may have found something that benefits both the member and the operator.

So here's my question to gym owners and operators:

What if, rather than automatically charging your longest-serving members more every year, you rewarded them by gradually charging them less?

Would it improve retention, strengthen loyalty and increase lifetime value, or would we simply be giving away revenue to members who were going to stay anyway?

Could reducing your membership prices for your most loyal customers actually become one of your most profitable retention strategies?

I'd genuinely love to hear what other operators think, particularly anyone who has experimented with something similar.

---

Ryan Charlesworth | Black raccoon Consulting | www.blackraccoon.org