Sample ForIntel Site Selection — Five Metros, Measured on Three Axes

What this sample shows

This is a redacted public sample of a single Site Selection Report — a three-axis scorecard prepared in June 2026 for a multi-unit, premium / boutique strength-training operator choosing its next metro. The buyer, a multi-unit strength-training operator, is referred to throughout as the Subject; the Subject's name and any domains it owns are redacted. The metro and market findings — competitive landscape, each metro's local fitness-sector economic base, the national demand backdrop, and the named boundary on metro-level demand — describe public markets rather than the buyer, and are preserved in full.

What a prospective buyer needs in order to evaluate the product is intact: the three-axis method (competitive intensity-and-quality, local sector economics, national demand), the five candidate metros (Austin, Nashville, Tampa, Phoenix, Raleigh) with their per-metro counts and scores, the per-finding confidence discipline, and the one ranking input honestly flagged as still out of reach at this tier.

The verdict

All five metros are measured on three axes — competitive intensity, local sector economics, and the national category backdrop — so this is a real decision scorecard, with one ranking input honestly flagged as still out of reach at this tier.

This is a three-axis site-selection scorecard for the Subject's next metro. The first axis is the competitive-intensity scan: every candidate metro returned a directly observed in-category business universe at a 40km radius, each keyed to its own coordinates — Phoenix and Tampa are markedly denser than Austin, Nashville, and Raleigh, and the listing ratings are deep enough to read competitor quality, not just presence. The second axis is each metro's local fitness-sector economic base, drawn from official labor statistics — sector employment (Phoenix 12,903 down to Nashville 2,085) and average weekly wage ($366–$526) — a market-size-and-cost picture for all five. The third axis is the national category backdrop: demand for the anchor term is low-volume and highly volatile, so the opportunity is relative positioning, not category growth. What this read deliberately does not do is manufacture a ranking on an input it does not have: keyword demand does not resolve below the national grain, so it is named as a boundary (Section 04) rather than used to infer a metro winner the keyword data cannot support.

1. The competitive landscape is measured for all five metros — and it is uneven. Every candidate returned an in-category business universe within a 40km radius, each keyed to its own location and scanned against the same fitness categories — Phoenix 1,862, Tampa 1,400, Austin 1,233, Raleigh 838, Nashville 712 (gym / fitness / personal-training). Phoenix carries roughly 1.5× the in-category footprint of Austin and about 2.6× that of Nashville. This is the solid spine of the read: a directly observed competitive-intensity picture across all five, not an estimate.
2. The category itself is soft, low-volume, and volatile nationally — this is a positioning play, not a growth wave. National search demand for "boutique fitness studio" is small and erratic: 23 months range from 590 to 14,800 searches (CV = 1.21), dominated by a one-off Dec-2025 / Jan-2026 spike to 14,800. Four of the five category terms carry low volume and low competition. Site selection here is about relative metro positioning in a thin, flat-to-soft category — not riding a rising tide.
3. Each metro's local fitness-sector economic base reorders the picture. Official labor statistics put the fitness / recreation sector's local employment at Phoenix 12,903, Raleigh 5,906, Austin 5,784, Tampa 3,133, and Nashville 2,085 (Q1 2025), with average weekly wages from $366 (Raleigh) to $526 (Austin). Phoenix is by far the largest existing base, Austin pairs a mid-sized base with the highest sector wage, and Raleigh punches above its competitor-count weight on employment.

In one line: all five metros are measured on three axes — competitive intensity and quality, local fitness-sector economic base, and the national category backdrop — with Phoenix the largest field on both competition and sector employment; the one input still out of reach is metro-level keyword demand, so the scorecard is honest, complete on what it measures, and explicit about its single remaining edge.

How to read this report. A HIGH confidence label means a well-sampled, directly observed signal. All three measured axes carry it: the five-metro competitive-intensity-and-quality scan (Section 01), the read that the national category is soft and volatile (Section 02), and the per-metro fitness-sector economic base — employment and wages — recovered from official labor statistics for all five metros (Section 03). One thing a buyer wants is not on the table at this tier — a confident metro ranking on keyword demand, because keyword search volume does not resolve below the national grain; that is presented as a scoped boundary (Section 04) with the specific reason, rather than dressing a gap as a finding. Candor about a boundary is not a hedge — it is the part that tells you precisely what you may act on now and what a deeper engagement still has to earn.

01 · Competitive intensity by metro

Confidence: High.

We ran an identical in-category business-listings scan against each candidate metro — gym, physical-fitness-program, and personal-trainer categories within a 40km radius — with every metro keyed to its own location coordinate (Austin 30.27, −97.74; Nashville 36.16, −86.78; Tampa 27.95, −82.46; Phoenix 33.45, −112.07; Raleigh 35.78, −78.64), so no metro is read off a single-centroid fallback. (Source: a per-metro in-category business-listings scan — gym, physical-fitness-program, and personal-trainer categories, a 100-listing detail sample each.) Each scan reported an in-category universe count for its radius. The picture is uneven: Phoenix (1,862) and Tampa (1,400) carry the deepest in-category footprints, Austin (1,233) sits just behind, and Raleigh (838) and Nashville (712) are the least dense — Nashville roughly two-fifths of Phoenix's footprint. For a boutique operator that means more incumbent saturation to differentiate against in Phoenix and Tampa, and a thinner field in Raleigh and Nashville.

Figure 1 — Reported in-category listings within 40km, each metro queried at its own coordinate against the same fitness categories. Phoenix (1,862) carries roughly 1.5× Austin's footprint and about 2.6× Nashville's. The count is a directional density signal, not an exact census — each scan is capped at a 100-listing detail sample.

Two qualifiers travel with this spine, and the second is a strength rather than a caveat. First, each metro also returned a capped 100-listing detail sample with a full 20-category mix (in Austin: 640 gym, 550 personal-trainer, 524 physical-fitness-program, 308 fitness-center, plus boutique-adjacent formats — 55 pilates studios, 49 yoga studios, 30 indoor-cycling) — rich texture for a market-entry brief, but the sample is capped at 100, so the reported universe count is best read as a directional density signal rather than an exact census. Second, the rating depth is genuinely usable: 81–90% of each metro's sampled listings carry ratings, with median vote counts of 22–48 (Phoenix median 48, Tampa 43, Raleigh 37.5, Nashville 35.5, Austin 22) and average ratings clustered at 4.7–4.8 stars. That is deep enough to read competitive quality, not just presence — and it lines up with intensity: Phoenix and Tampa pair the most operators with the deepest review counts, the marks of mature, well-reviewed incumbents a boutique entrant would differentiate against, while the thinner metros are both smaller fields and more lightly reviewed. The competitive-intensity and competitive-quality reads are both solid — the first of the scorecard's three measured axes.

02 · National demand context

Confidence: High.

We pulled exact monthly US search volume and 12-month-plus history for the premium-fitness category term set — "boutique fitness studio," "personal training studio," "recovery fitness," "premium gym membership" (a fifth term, "strength training gym membership," returned no data at all). (Source: national paid-search demand data — exact monthly US search volume, 23 monthly points per term.) The category is small, low-competition, and highly volatile. The anchor term "boutique fitness studio" ranges from 590 to 14,800 searches a month over 23 months (coefficient of variation 1.21), dominated by a single Dec-2025 / Jan-2026 spike to 14,800 before settling at 2,900–4,400 in early 2026. All four terms with data carry LOW competition (competition index 3–7) and CPCs of $2.88–$5.09. This is the demand backdrop a boutique entrant is operating inside: a thin, soft category, not a growth wave.

Figure 2 — National monthly search volume for "boutique fitness studio" across 23 months. The category is low-volume and erratic (CV = 1.21); a single Dec-25/Jan-26 spike to 14,800 dominates the series. The category-softness read is solid; a confident demand direction is not (see Section 04).

One thing this layer deliberately does not claim is a confident trend direction. A trend test run on the series flagged "boutique fitness studio" as declining, but that label is fragile: read oldest-to-newest, the raw 23-point series actually rose — from ~700 searches a month in 2024 to ~2,900–4,400 in 2026 — with one enormous spike in between, and the direction flips depending on how the few data points are ordered. With only 23 points and volatility this high, the trajectory is genuinely unsettled, and we will not hang a "declining demand" or a "rising demand" verdict on it. What is solid and decision-grade is the level read: this is a small, soft, low-competition category nationally. That is the backdrop; it is also why metro positioning, not category growth, is the lever.

03 · Per-metro demographic and economic fit

Confidence: High.

The third axis of the scorecard is the one a market-entry decision most wants: how big, and how affluent, is the existing fitness economy in each candidate metro? We measured it directly from official US labor statistics — the fitness / recreation sector (a government industry classification covering gyms, fitness, and recreational sports centres) at the county level for each metro's core county, latest published quarter. (Source: official quarterly employment-and-wage statistics, fitness/recreation sector, Q1 2025, by metro county.) Two numbers come back for every metro: the sector's local employment — a directly observed market-size signal, the count of people the category already employs in that metro — and the sector's average weekly wage, a cost / local-affluence proxy.

Figure 3 — Fitness / recreation sector employment with average weekly wage, metro core county, Q1 2025. Phoenix's existing fitness-sector base (12,903 jobs) is roughly 2× Austin's and 6× Nashville's; Austin pairs a mid-sized base with the highest sector wage ($526/week). Sector employment is the market-size axis; the weekly wage is a cost/affluence proxy, not household income.

The base is uneven and it does not simply track competitor count. Phoenix leads decisively on existing sector employment (12,903, 612 establishments) — by far the largest fitness economy in the set, consistent with its competitor density. Raleigh (5,906) and Austin (5,784) are the next tier and close to each other, though Raleigh reaches that base off a much smaller competitor field — a market employing a substantial fitness workforce without yet being saturated with operators. Tampa (3,133) and Nashville (2,085) are the smallest existing bases. On the cost / affluence proxy, Austin's sector wage ($526/week) is the highest, with Phoenix ($444) and Nashville ($430) mid-pack and Tampa ($371) and Raleigh ($366) the lowest — a signal of where the existing fitness labour market is priciest, which a premium operator reads both as affluence and as a staffing-cost input.

One national reference frames all five: real disposable personal income per capita (national macro context) reads ~$51,106 in mid-2023 rising to ~$52,330 by early 2026 — a slow, steady climb in the discretionary-spend capacity a premium-fitness category depends on. That is the macro tailwind the whole category sits in; the per-metro sector employment and wage figures above are what differentiate the five candidates on local economic fit.

04 · What this means for you — the site-selection read

In priority order:

1. Read competition and local sector size together — they do not agree, and the gap is the opportunity. Phoenix leads on both (1,862 in-category listings, 12,903 sector jobs) — the biggest market and the most saturated. But Raleigh is the standout cross-read: the second-largest fitness-sector base (5,906 jobs) sits behind one of the thinnest competitor fields (838 listings) — a substantial existing fitness economy that is not yet crowded with operators. Tampa shows the inverse (dense field, modest sector base). For a differentiated boutique brand, the metros where sector employment runs ahead of competitor count are where demand for fitness exists without saturation.
2. Read competitive quality alongside intensity — the ratings support it. Across the metros, 81–90% of sampled operators carry ratings with median 22–48 votes, so the field is well-reviewed enough to judge incumbent strength. Phoenix and Tampa pair the most operators with the deepest review counts — mature, established competition — while Austin's field, though sizeable, is more lightly reviewed (median 22). Factor incumbent maturity, not just count, into where a boutique brand can differentiate.
3. Use the sector wage as a cost-and-affluence input. Austin's fitness-sector wage ($526/week) is the highest in the set, Tampa's and Raleigh's ($371 / $366) the lowest. For a premium operator that reads two ways: a higher local sector wage signals both a more affluent fitness market and a higher staffing-cost base. Weigh it against the employment base — Austin pairs a mid-sized market with the priciest sector labour; Raleigh pairs a large base with low sector cost.
4. Size this as a positioning play in a soft category, not a demand-growth bet. National demand for the category is low-volume, low-competition, and volatile. Build the entry case on relative metro standing and brand differentiation, not on an assumption that category search is climbing — the trend direction is genuinely unsettled.
5. Close the one remaining ranking input before you sign a lease. Two of the three legs of a confident metro ranking — competitive intensity-and-quality and local economic fit — are measured for all five metros. The leg still out of reach at this tier is metro-level keyword demand, which does not resolve below the national grain (below). Use this scorecard to shortlist with confidence on competition and sector economics; commission the metro-demand pull to settle the final ranking.

Scope, confidence, and what a deeper engagement adds

This Site Selection issue measures all three axes of the scorecard at HIGH confidence — the five-metro competitive-intensity-and-quality scan (Section 01), the national category-demand context (Section 02), and the per-metro fitness-sector economic base recovered from official labor statistics (Section 03). One input that would settle a final ranking is still out of reach at this tier; it is named here as a scoped boundary, with the specific reason and the work that closes it, alongside the deliberate tier-scope on exact counts. These are diligence boundaries, not findings, and never presented as such.

• A confident metro ranking on keyword demand — out of reach at this grain. Two of the three ranking legs are measured for all five metros; the leg still missing is metro-level keyword demand. Keyword search volume resolves only at the national grain from this source. We did run the dedicated sub-region interest pull as a second route, and it did return a state-level interest breakdown — but for these five candidates it is too thin to rank on: one candidate state returns no signal at all, the anchor term ("boutique fitness studio") indexes at zero in every candidate state, and the two terms that do show candidate-state interest disagree with each other and carry only a relative 0–100 index, not absolute volume. So we cannot say which candidate metro indexes above or below the national mean on category search interest. This is a genuine sub-national keyword-demand granularity limit, not a query that failed. A deeper engagement adds a metro-level demand pull (location-targeted search volume / a richer interest-by-region series, optionally cross-referenced with foot-traffic or membership panels) to settle the demand leg of the ranking.
• Exact business counts and radius normalisation — out of scope for this tier. The per-metro listing counts are reported at a 40km radius with a 100-listing sample cap; an exact, radius-normalised in-category census (e.g. a tighter 10-mile radius with a full, paginated business count) is a separate, higher-resolution pull, named here so its absence is explicit, not an oversight.

This is a three-axis site-selection scorecard at the Site Selection tier. To commission the deeper engagement — disaggregating keyword demand to the metro level, adding household-demographic and foot-traffic layers, and mining competitor reviews to turn this scorecard into a fully ranked metro shortlist — reach the ForIntel desk directly at forintel@foragentis.com, or scope a report on the ForIntel order page.

This is a redacted public sample of a ForIntel Site Selection Report, published by Foragentis to demonstrate the method. The buyer's identity and any domains it owns are redacted; the competitive, sector-economic, and demand findings reflect public markets and are preserved. All three measured axes are HIGH confidence and directly observed. A confident metro ranking on keyword demand could not be established at this tier — keyword search volume does not resolve below the national grain — and is carried as a named scoped boundary by design rather than presented as a finding. Sector employment and wage figures are an employer-side market-size-and-cost signal, not household demographics. A Foragentis product · foragentis.com/forintel.