Archived research v1. Preserved for reference; its assumptions have not been revalidated for the new research.
The original study
7 · Validation protocol (3 weeks)
Edition dated 7 September 2026
💡 Three weeks to turn the weakest assumptions into facts, starting with the cheapest ones to disprove.
The principle
We are not trying to confirm the model. We are trying to kill it quickly if it deserves to die. Each week ends with a decision gate: if the criterion is not met, we stop or change location. We do not move on to the following week.
Week 1: the catchment and the site
Question: is there an available building in the right rental bracket, within an isochrone containing enough managers and professionals?
Actions
- Map the actual 15-minute isochrone (car + public transport + walking) around 3 to 5 candidate sites.
- Recount managers and professionals within the actual isochrone, at IRIS or arrondissement level, by place of residence.
- Contact 3 local brokers about commercial / light-industrial premises, with a one-page specification: 1,000–1,700 m², ceiling height, access.
- List competitors within the isochrone, including Villa M and substitute offers, and record their prices, joining fees and minimum commitments.
Decision gate
✅ At least one site with > 25,000 managers and professionals within the actual isochrone and indicative rent below the calculated ceiling. ❌ Otherwise: change location. Do not proceed to week 2.
Week 2: demand
Question: do people in this catchment want this club at this price?
Actions
- 12 to 15 qualitative interviews with managers and professionals in the catchment, using the prepared interview kit. No pitch: listen to their current training routine, what they pay and what makes them leave a gym.
- Landing page + test campaign. Measure the cost per qualified lead, then conversion into paid membership. Reconcile the €334 CAC assumption with the marketing budget, attrition and growth.
- 3 to 5 operator interviews (premium clubs outside Paris) on attrition and the membership-to-catchment ratio.
Decision gate
✅ Measured conversion into paid memberships at the intended price, with a CAC compatible with the recalculated budget. Stated willingness to pay alone does not validate demand. ❌ If cost per lead is already close to €334 before accounting for the lead→member conversion rate, the marketing model does not hold up.
Week 3: actual costs
Question: with real figures for the actual building, is break-even still achievable?
Actions
- Visit the shortlisted site or sites with an architect or construction project manager.
- A fit-out quote range for the actual building.
- Price the equipment set under a finance lease (reference: 14 machines, ~€200k).
- Retrieve the financial workbook, reconcile costs and use a capacity consistent with the building. Feed in the quotes, contingencies and cash required during ramp-up.
- Pre-sale test: offer a founding member rate to the leads from week 2.
Decision gate
✅ Recalculated break-even ≤ 75% as an initial filter, paid pre-sales and funding for the cash shortfall. Also test the margin at 80% capacity: with break-even at 75%, the sensitivity in the Club economics chapter gives a margin of only 5.4%. ❌ Above 80%, the model leaves no room for execution errors.
What is ready
- The field interview kit (guides for managers and professionals + guides for operators) is written and available in the project.
- The Excel model is mentioned in the original notes but absent from the published dossier. It must be retrieved, and capacity, costs and break-even reconciled, before presenting margins to investors. → See the Checks database at the bottom of the dossier to track each action.