Core Insights - ACME, a fitness brand in Beijing, announced its closure after just five months of operation, marking it as one of the shortest-lived fitness brands in China [1][2] - The closure of ACME reflects broader challenges in the fitness industry, particularly in the group class segment, where competition and pricing pressures are intensifying [11][12] Company Analysis - ACME's business model relied on high pricing and a premium service offering, with monthly fixed costs estimated between 450,000 to 500,000 yuan, including rent and operational expenses [7][9] - The pricing strategy of ACME, with classes priced between 159 to 199 yuan, was significantly higher than competitors, which deterred price-sensitive customers [7][10] - Despite attracting some initial customers due to its premium offerings, the limited market demand could not sustain the high operational costs, leading to its rapid decline [9][10] Industry Trends - The fitness industry is witnessing a shift towards lower-priced offerings, with brands like 乐刻 (Leke) and 超级猩猩 (Super Monkey) adjusting their pricing strategies to remain competitive [16][19] - The emergence of new fitness brands and the diversification of fitness offerings, including outdoor activities, are fragmenting the market and challenging traditional gym models [22][23] - The group class market is facing saturation, with many brands offering similar content, making it difficult for consumers to justify premium pricing for comparable services [21][23] Competitive Landscape - The closure of ACME and the struggles of other traditional fitness brands highlight the need for differentiation in the crowded fitness market [11][21] - Brands like Savage are adapting by lowering prices and enhancing course offerings to attract users, indicating a trend towards more flexible and responsive business models [20][21] - The fitness industry is increasingly focused on balancing quality, pricing, and user experience to survive in a competitive environment [21][24]