What Netflix Knows About Gym Member Retention That You Don’t
What Netflix Knows About Gym Member Retention That You Don’t
Research on 577 Netflix subscribers reveals that gym member retention depends less on satisfaction than on switching costs, the psychological weight of what members would lose by leaving. Most gyms aren’t building that weight. Netflix is.
A question that should bother you more than it probably does:
Why do people keep paying for Netflix shows they’ll never watch?
The average subscriber watches about 2 hours a day. Netflix has over 17,000 titles. Do the maths. Most of what people pay for sits there, unwatched, like that rowing machine in your garage. You know the one. It’s a clothes horse now.
And yet, 220 million subscribers keep paying, month after month.
Sound familiar? Your gym sells unlimited access and most members use a fraction of it. The spin bikes gather dust. The pool’s empty by 4pm. That functional training rig is a monument to good intentions.
Why do some members stay for years while others ghost after three months, even when both of them are barely showing up? That gap is worth understanding, because the usual explanations don’t quite cover it.
A 2026 study on Netflix subscribers found an answer, and it’s not the one the fitness industry wants to hear.
(The Kuo & Chao paper was published in early 2026, ahead of wider circulation, which is why the date looks odd.)
The Invisible Ledger
Researchers Kuo and Chao surveyed 577 Netflix users to find out what keeps them subscribing. They looked at content quality, user experience, satisfaction — the obvious stuff.
The thing that predicted retention best wasn’t how much people liked Netflix. It was how much it would hurt to leave.
They called it switching costs, and before you picture exit fees or contract penalties, that’s not what they meant.
Switching costs: The money, time, and psychological costs required to change service providers.
Psychological costs. Not “I’ll lose money” but something more like “I’ll lose… something.”
60.7% of loyal subscribers had been on the platform for over a year, and in that time something had been quietly accumulating, not in their account but in their head. An invisible ledger, and when they thought about cancelling, that ledger was doing most of the heavy lifting.
What Actually Accumulates
The study broke these psychological costs into three types.
Data loss. After months of watching, rating, and half-watching things while scrolling your phone, Netflix knows you in ways that feel almost personal. It knows you’ll watch a Korean thriller at 11pm but won’t touch a documentary before noon. It knows your guilty pleasures, including that reality show you’d never admit to in public. Switch to a competitor and you’re a stranger again, starting from zero, all that accumulated embarrassment gone.
Learning cost. Long-term users, the researchers noted, “have become accustomed to its interface and playback methods,” which sounds trivial right up until you’re hunting for the Skip Intro button on a new platform while your partner sighs audibly beside you. Familiarity isn’t exciting, but its absence is genuinely annoying in a way that’s hard to articulate and easy to avoid by just staying put.
Exclusive content. Stranger Things doesn’t exist on Disney+. If you’re four seasons into something that only lives on Netflix, leaving means abandoning the story mid-arc, and brains hate open loops. That’s why you finished that mediocre series at 2am even though you had work.
None of this shows up on a balance sheet. It exists entirely in the member’s felt experience, and it predicted retention better than satisfaction scores did.
The Sunk Cost Illusion
Behavioural economists have a name for what’s happening here.
Sunk cost effect: The tendency to continue an endeavour because of previously invested resources, rather than future benefits.
Rationally, past investment shouldn’t influence future decisions. If something no longer serves you, you leave, because what’s done is done and the money’s already gone either way.
But humans aren’t rational. We’re rationalising.
It’s why you finish terrible books at page 200, why you stay in jobs you hate because you’ve “invested” five years, and why you hang onto a gym membership because cancelling feels like admitting the last eight months amounted to nothing. Netflix users weren’t asking whether the service was worth $15 a month. They were asking whether it was worth $15 a month plus losing everything they’d built there, and that second question is much harder to answer no to, without the platform having to do anything special to make them ask it.
Now, About Your Gym
Here’s the uncomfortable part.
Gyms are subscription businesses that, like Netflix, live and die by retention, sell access to far more than anyone actually uses, and are vulnerable the moment a member stops and thinks: hang on, is this still worth it?
Unlike Netflix, most gyms haven’t thought about what’s supposed to be accumulating.
When a Netflix subscriber hovers over cancel, the cost of leaving is visible to them. Their watchlist, their recommendations, that show they’re halfway through. The platform has made the ledger legible. When a gym member thinks about leaving, they usually confront nothing. The membership is a transaction, the workouts exist only in memory (and memory tends to be generous about how often they actually went), and the relationships with staff are pleasant but surface-level. Leaving feels costless, so people leave.
The Trap vs. The Bond
Before you start designing exit barriers, the study found something worth slowing down for.
Switching costs only worked when paired with relationship quality, meaning people still need to actually like you.
High switching costs with low relationship quality felt like a trap to users. They stayed, but they stayed resentful, and the moment a competitor made a decent offer they were gone, usually stopping to leave a scathing review on the way out. High switching costs with genuine relationship quality felt like loyalty, where people stayed because they wanted to and because walking away felt costly, the two things reinforcing each other rather than competing.
“I can’t leave” is a hostage situation. “I don’t want to leave, and I’d lose too much if I did” is something else entirely, and the difference between those two sentences is the difference between members who churn bitterly and members who stay for years and bring their friends.
What the Research Found
The study tested 18 hypotheses. The headline results:
| Finding | Result |
|---|---|
| Switching costs increase switching barriers | Supported |
| Switching barriers increase subscription intention | Supported |
| Relationship quality increases subscription intention | Supported |
| Attractive alternatives reduce barriers | Not supported |
That last one surprised the researchers. They expected shiny competitors to lower barriers and it didn’t happen. When switching costs were high enough, people largely stopped comparison shopping, which suggests that once someone has built something worth losing, the grass-is-greener thinking mostly stops on its own.
What Building the Ledger Actually Looks Like
Netflix didn’t set out to manufacture switching costs. They built a viewing experience and the costs emerged naturally, through personalisation that learns you, interfaces that become familiar, and stories you can’t find anywhere else. The same logic applies to gyms, but only if the conditions are there.
Progress tracking that belongs to the member. A shared log of every personal record, every milestone, every time they added weight to the bar, not buried in a coach’s notebook or lost in a generic app but something visible, accumulated, and specific to them. Twelve months of documented progress is a lot to walk away from, and a new gym can’t give it back.
Coach relationships with documented history. There’s a meaningful difference between a trainer who says “good session” and one who says “remember eight months ago when you couldn’t do a single pull-up?” That knowledge, covering the injuries, the goals, the week they nearly quit, the moment things clicked, took time to build and doesn’t transfer. When a member knows their coach actually knows them, leaving means starting that conversation from scratch with a stranger.
Programming that compounds. A generic class is interchangeable with one at the gym down the road. A programme that’s been adjusted around one person’s schedule, body, and history over six months is not, and every tweak adds to what they’d be giving up.
Milestones that get marked. A member’s one-year anniversary, their first unassisted movement, the goal they’d been chasing since January. These moments happen whether you acknowledge them or not, but the question is whether your gym makes them feel significant or lets them quietly disappear. The accumulation of significance is its own kind of ledger, and so is the accumulation of being overlooked.
Most of this isn’t expensive. It’s mostly just paying attention and then making that attention visible to the person it concerns.
The Question Worth Sitting With
If a member left tomorrow, what would they lose that they couldn’t rebuild elsewhere?
Not what they’d miss, which is vague and easy to wave away, but what they’d lose. Loss has weight in a way that missing something doesn’t.
Netflix users don’t just miss their recommendations when they cancel. They lose months of algorithmic training, a library that’s been shaped around their specific taste over years of use. The cost is specific and tangible, and that specificity is what makes it feel real when they’re hovering over the cancel button.
What’s on your members’ invisible ledger? That’s the metric you’re not measuring.
People Also Ask
Isn’t this just manipulation with extra steps?
Depends what’s accumulating. Genuine value that members would genuinely miss is loyalty, while artificial friction designed to make leaving annoying is just resentment with a delayed fuse that usually ends in a one-star review. The data was clear that switching costs only do the retention work when relationship quality is already high, so without real value underneath there’s no real retention, just delayed churn.
Why didn’t attractive alternatives matter?
The researchers think high investment changes how people weigh options. Once you’ve built something, you largely stop comparison shopping because “what I’d lose” starts to outweigh “what I might gain.” It’s loss aversion, and it’s not complicated so much as just deeply how people work.
How long before switching costs start to matter?
60.7% of loyal subscribers had been around over a year and nearly a third past three years, so the retention effect compounds over time. That means new members are the most vulnerable, because they haven’t built a ledger yet and every early interaction either adds to it or leaves it empty.
The Ledger You’re Not Tracking
The fitness industry is wired for acquisition: lead cost, conversion rate, new member revenue, January campaigns, the dopamine hit of a fresh sign-up.
Netflix is wired for what accumulates.
Every show watched adds to a profile, every rating sharpens a recommendation, and every hour spent deepens a familiarity that would cost something real to abandon. The platform builds that ledger constantly and without announcing it, and the ledger is what tips the calculation when someone thinks about leaving.
The research suggests this predicts retention better than satisfaction surveys, better than NPS, better than attendance data. It’s the metric you’re not measuring.
References
If this framing resonated, the Cognitive Bias Library is where I keep the research that sits behind pieces like this one. And if you want to push back on anything here, the comments are open — I’m more interested in the counterargument than the agreement.
Discover more from Fitness is BS.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One Comment
Comments are closed.