Generic Bootcamp vs. Orange Theory Fitness: A Case Study
This is a case study I completed for Ellen Leanse’s “Enlightened Innovation” business course at Stanford.
This study discusses two fitness services that have a ‘boot camp’ approach to providing high intensity interval training (HIIT) to a broad range of customers — from people looking to lose weight to athletes training for a competition.
In both cases, the services provide variety to users by changing the workout each day and maintaining a good mix of cardio and strength training. They have flexible schedules with classes offered on the hour nearly every day from 5 AM to 8 PM.
I have personally used both services and have anonymized the inferior service.
The superior service: Orange Theory Fitness
From the moment you walk into Orange Theory Fitness (OTF) it is clear that they have put a lot of care into all aspects of the user experience.
Registering for class can be done on site, via phone, or via a booking app. Signing in before class is as easy as saying your name as you walk in.
There are three equipment areas: treadmills, rowing machines and the weight floor. Each area has 13 numbered stations. Before class, users take a numbered card indicating ‘tread’ or ‘row’; upon entering class they sit at the station matching their card. When changing areas the user simply moves to the station matching their card number. There is no potential for users to hinder each other’s workout: classes are limited by number of stations.

The equipment seems to be customized for OTF. The treadmill UI indicates pace and incline ranges for walkers, joggers, and runners for each coached effort level. Rowing machines have selectable routines. Each weight floor station has its own set of weights, TRX straps, and bench if needed the user wants for no equipment.

Coaches demonstrate floor and rowing exercises at well-timed interludes and provide instruction throughout class over a loudspeaker. There is no need to memorize an exercise sequence which allows users to focus on what’s important: doing the current exercise correctly. To provide individual coaching, e.g. form correction, coaches turn their microphone off, allowing the user not to feel embarrassed by trying something new.
Performance and goal tracking is incredibly easy. During class, users wear a heart rate monitor, and an easy glance at a screen allows the user to check their status: a square with their name on it indicates heart rate zone and effort level via color and percentage, respectively.

At the end of each class a workout summary which includes calories burned and time spent in each heart rate zone is presented and emailed to the user. Emails include historical stats.
Finally, the coaches are enthusiastic, dedicated, helpful, and fit. While believing in the system, they are also honest about its flaws, so they encourage users to “go by feel” over statistics, making it less maddening for users who may have experienced technical difficulties with their equipment.
The inferior service: Generic Bootcamp
In contrast, the bootcamp I attended for about 6 months left much to be desired. Interestingly, I initially had many of the same things to say about this bootcamp as I now do about OTF and I think the change in my assessment can be attributed to the care of the business owners.
Each day at bootcamp, upon arrival, users wait in line to sign in on a piece of paper.
Next, the exercise stations are explained by coaches. Several stations are set up, with strength training areas having communal weights. Stations nominally support 5–6 people and users are responsible for selecting their starting station.
Coaches demonstrate exercises at the beginning of class while everyone stretches. This means it is sometimes 40 minutes until the user needs to recall an exercise that might be new to them, frequently resulting in confusion.
Exercise stations often require operating in a line. When groups are well matched in ability and limited in size, this is not a problem. Otherwise, it is easy for users to hinder each other’s workout by blocking the way or occupying equipment for too long.
Progress tracking is limited to nonexistent for nominally healthy individuals — my husband and I were weighed on our first visit and never again. In contrast, very overweight individuals are often used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the program, so they are weighed frequently and their progress is commended on social media.
Over time, this bootcamp’s popularity rose. Three new gyms opened in 6 months, and existing gyms became crowded. The company let the class size expand seemingly endlessly — by my final visit there were ~60 people in the same room that had originally held 30. As class size increased, the average fitness level of the class dramatically decreased, and workout difficulty along with it. Coaches attempted to adjust for this by increasing the number of stations, but this only increased confusion.
Finally, coaching was highly dependent on the friendships and mood of the coaches. There was clear favoritism: those who came every day and were phenomenally fit and those who were extremely overweight got the most attention. Most of the attention I received was chiding re. taking a break or comments about how I missed a day. I came to dread class if I’d missed it the day before, knowing I’d be called out for not making it one day.
What aspects of design thinking affected the service design most?
OTF has clearly spent a lot of time on empathy and observation. While both services did their research to design effective training regimens, OTF thought through what it takes to make a customer feel like they belong and to motivate continued use of the service.
Any fitness service is bound to serve a wide range of individuals and OTF’s implementation allows for all types of users to work alongside each other with no difference in the quality of workout.
How did the lack of care reduce the impact of the service?
While the generic bootcamp initially focused on user experience by switching up workouts and limiting group sizes, they became more focused on the business as a money maker, compromising the quality of the workouts. As users of the service ($200/mo!) we felt frustrated that our class size was getting bigger and the classes were getting easier. It seemed like they cared more about making money than providing the intended service.
What role did unconscious bias play in the inferior design process?
I believe the coaches and business owners at the generic bootcamp exhibited unconscious bias when focusing efforts on weight loss by very overweight individuals and camaraderie with the “crazy fit” folks for coming every day. As a whole, they focused on short term gains (e.g. visible weight loss) with a subset of their users over maintaining long-term motivation for all users.
What parts of the brain were triggered or rewarded by the successful design?
At OTF the user’s cognitive load is very low during class. I believe the fact that the prefrontal cortex is NOT needed is actually key to their success — the experience is so streamlined that users can disconnect. They are told what to do at the time they need to do it.
The entire class is designed to encourage a toward response from the limbic system.
- It is rewarding to never feel lost.
- All users are encouraged by the coach.
- End of workout summaries serve as immediate enforcement of a user’s progress.