Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gym price discrimination

jonsteinberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Gym price discrimination

#31

Post by psyklic »

bonsaitree wrote: post #11

This article smells more of self-aggrandizing attitude than sound business reasoning. I'm amazed that he would bother with the artifice of negotiating when he's essentially unwilling to budge from his friend's price tier. That's not negotiating. FWIW, contract strikes work just as well (sometimes better) on gym memberships as for any other legal agreement. If he's willing to pay the "full price", but doesn't want to…

Definitely. I got an even better deal than Dan by joining Crunch over the summer (including no enrollment and month-to-month).

Part of the appeal is definitely the "exclusivity" via the pricing -- in LA, for example, the nearest (location-wise) choices are a 24 hr fitness ($199/yr) which gets terrible (1-2 star) reviews online, Equinox which is twice the price of Crunch, and quite a few private gyms. But in all fairness, the gym does offer justifiable perks for the price -- for instance a huge selection of classes which appeal as a middle ground to people who don't want to spend even more on yoga studios or personal training.

Re: Gym price discrimination

#32

Post by andrewvc »

philk wrote: post #14
andrewvc wrote: post #6

Even worse, I signed up to LA Fitness's pro results training program, took my free lesson and found out my trainer sucked. I looked at the fine print on the contract, I had 7 gym business days after signing, which it turns out include weekends, to either send a letter to their headquarters, or send a telegram to their headquarters saying I want out. Since it took me a few days to decide this, I had to Fedex my writte…

>> took my free lesson and found out my trainer sucked. Unfortunately this is pretty much the rule as far as trainers go. But to be fair to them they're in a situation where they're generally rewarded for making the customer like them (which means relatively little hard work) rather than making the customer look like someone who actually works out.

Heh, actually I had no problem with the workout, I want a trainer who pushes me. I had a problem with the fact that he 'forgot' about our appointment, that he was clearly hungover, and that he was complaining about that DUI he got the night before.

Re: Gym price discrimination

#33

Post by mattwdelong »

dschobel wrote: post #25
mattwdelong wrote: post #23

I can't speak about the price discrimination in the fitness industry, but having experience in the Hotel industry I can say that this a very difficult situation to be in. On one hand, you have a product that is perishable in the fact that if you don't sell it (the room in my situation, or in this case the space in the fitness area), you can never sell it again; So in certain situations you will have to sell at any co…

So it pays to be a bit of a pain in the ass. Good to know, thanks!

Not necessarily, its just simple negotiations. Play your cards right and you will get the best possible rate. I assume most Front Desk agents wouldn't have the authority to change rates as much as I do, so don't pressure too much because they probably can't do a whole lot and then you will just be a pain in the ass that can't get a better rate.

If you are booking a room, the advice I would give is be as nice as possible, not only that, but be sincere. I assure you, I will be more than willing to help you out the best I can, as I am sure the same applies to other FDA's. Just remember that the majority of people who check in aren't happy to give up ~$100+/night, and therefore are not the greatest people to deal with. The easy people to deal with are a welcomed break.

Re: Gym price discrimination

#35

Post by jonsteinberg »

callmeed wrote: post #27

I think the author is wrong in thinking a "swiped at the door" and "no sales staff" is a better model. Most gyms make their money locking people into annual contracts in exchange for a slightly lower monthly fee. This is especially true for "full-featured" gyms with lots of classes and staff. The only way his idea works is for the 24 hour/keycard type of gym where only 1 employee is needed and there are no instructor…

OK fair enough. Maybe a swipe that triggers payment for that month. Crunch is month to month. So they don't necessary have a contract. I just want to avoid the whole hassle.

Re: Gym price discrimination

#36

Post by jonsteinberg »

bonsaitree wrote: post #24
philk wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, trying to get discounts from gyms in January is less likely to succeed. You can also generally get better deals by trying to join just before the salespeople have to make their quota each month. That said, all he's really asking is whether he can get exactly the same deal his friend has. Obviously they're making money off his friend so it's not like he's marched in and demanded that they lose money on t…

Actually, they may not be making ANY money off of his friend. Most 'charter' deals and seasonal specials are loss-leaders for gyms. The former, as part of the initially pre-financed membership drive and the latter when they're already below break-even capacity on a per-membership basis. Keep in mind he's asking for more than a 8.5% discount on the stated price even before excluding the bogus initiation fee.

Dan was not a charter member. But I think you're right about "lull period." Yes I understand the whole 80/20 usage scenario.

My point is just that it's price discrimination that doesn't work. Soda at a supermarket vs. restaurant works because of location. This is just a bluff on the gym's part.

Re: Gym price discrimination

#37

Post by jonsteinberg »

lsc wrote: post #17
ruang wrote: post #2

Amazing that an entrepreneur-in-residence would use GoDaddy for hosting: http://jonsteinberg.com/2010/01/risk-and-doors/ Some of his other posts are good though.

why? Shared hosting, /in theory/ could provide better service levels than dedicated servers, simply because it is a whole lot easier to make a standard shared hosting setup redundant than it is to make a dedicated server redundant.

yes thx

Re: Gym price discrimination

#38

Post by angelbob »

teye wrote: post #26

Recently experienced this with 24 Hour Fitness in SF. Visited the location to sign up for the $199/yr my buddy paid. "That promotion [wasn't] currently running," but I got a call two days later saying that it was back on. It's a shame to delay a customer like me who'll wait for the better price, but I bet you lose a lot of low-hanging fruit if you make the better price available permanently. Without the system, event…

24 Hour Fitness also has huge, huge disparities. I paid too much initially for a year in advance, but I now have a $50/yr membership forever, and my wife has $25/yr (!) because her timing was even better.

But the base rate is what, $150 to join and around $50/mo? I assume some people pay that, but it seems steep -- doubly so given what I'm paying :-)

Re: Gym price discrimination

#39

Post by dantheman »

mattwdelong wrote: post #23

I can't speak about the price discrimination in the fitness industry, but having experience in the Hotel industry I can say that this a very difficult situation to be in. On one hand, you have a product that is perishable in the fact that if you don't sell it (the room in my situation, or in this case the space in the fitness area), you can never sell it again; So in certain situations you will have to sell at any co…

So are your excuses actually true? Or do you make things up to placate the customer? This is something I always wondered.

Re: Gym price discrimination

#40

Post by rlpb »

teye wrote: post #26

Recently experienced this with 24 Hour Fitness in SF. Visited the location to sign up for the $199/yr my buddy paid. "That promotion [wasn't] currently running," but I got a call two days later saying that it was back on. It's a shame to delay a customer like me who'll wait for the better price, but I bet you lose a lot of low-hanging fruit if you make the better price available permanently. Without the system, event…

Are you sure that's what actually happened? It sounds to me that they were trying to negotiate a higher price, realised that you weren't going to take it (when you didn't) and so you effectively negotiated them back down to $199/yr.
Post reply on HN