The needs of every tribe should be recognised by the operator. A raft of ‘clubs within clubs’ based on shared interests would be very compelling

Health club operators have a huge opportunity to engage in a very fundamental way with their members, by being far more aware of their true needs and motivations and connecting with them on a deeper level.

Although there’s a logic to grouping members according to their most obvious interests and traits, in reality there are many different reasons why people join a gym or take part in a particular activity. Being aware of these differences, and letting this awareness inform the way you deal with members at every turn, can create a powerful bond that will drive loyalty and engagement. Conversely, ignoring these needs can create feelings of deep discomfort for a member, and can even act as a trigger to leave your club.

A club’s membership isn’t only segmented by socioeconomic, gender or age groupings, or even by special population: disabled users, pre-natal and so on. Beneath any label we might apply, there are many more motivations at work: it’s possible to understand these far better by thinking of members as being split into myriad little ‘tribes’.

The ‘women’ label is a great example. The WSFF effectively identifies women as a special population group when it comes to fitness: the gender gap is growing, it says, with only one in five women doing enough exercise to stay healthy. However, ‘women’ is far too broad a category to use as the basis for any targeted offerings. Some will prefer women-only clubs; others would rather go for a walk. Then there are the regular gym-goers, getting great results from body weight training and free weights. For this tribe, says Arron Williams of Life Fitness: “Strong is the new skinny – women are driving the market.”

In a similar vein, labelling a fit, healthy, youthful woman in her early 50s an ‘evergreen’, and asking if she’d like to join the other over-50s ladies for tea one afternoon, will prove uncomfortable and demotivating for her – yet I was told a story only last week in which precisely this had happened.

We need to do more to understand the different tribes within our broader groupings; two initiatives launched in May aim to do this for ‘women’. A £1.8m Sport England-funded pilot scheme will test what works in changing women’s sporting habits, including programming for distinct sub-groups – older women, mums on the school run, etc. Meanwhile WSFF will research how different types of women participate in sport and activity – and why – and develop tools to help get more women, more active.

But care must be taken not to alienate other tribes in the process: in April, GLL was accused of gender discrimination by journalist Peter Lloyd, for ringfencing women-only hours at his local mixed-sex gym.

I don’t want to be drawn into that debate, but I do believe that the needs of every tribe – whether three or 300-strong – should be recognised and, wherever possible, met by the operator. Provided they can be delivered without alienating other members, a raft of ‘clubs within clubs’ based on shared interests and motivations, rather than arbitrary labels, would make for a very compelling offering.