When Innovation Meets Heritage: The Pilates Brand Balancing Act
The Pilates Brand Balancing Act
The Pilates industry has always been defined by its tension between heritage and innovation. On one hand, we have Joseph Pilates’ original designs and principles; a system rooted in precision, control, and discipline. On the other, we face a fast-changing world of fitness, wellness, and technology, where clients expect fresh programming, hybrid models, and new apparatus.
This “balancing act” plays out not only in studios, but also in the strategies of the major global brands.
The Four Movements of Pilates Equipment
To understand today’s market, it helps to think in terms of four broad movements:
Historical Classical: The closest adherence to Joseph Pilates’ original designs and teachings. Gratz, Legacy dominate this category. Recently, Align-Pilates has launched a full Historical Classical range, directly entering this space as a disruptor with more accessible pricing.
Classical: Still loyal to tradition, but with subtle evolutions in equipment and cueing. Brands like Peak Pilates and elements of Balanced Body fit here.
Contemporary: Adapted methods that embrace biomechanics and modern pedagogy. STOTT PILATES (Merrithew), BASI, Balanced Body’s education programs, and Align-Pilates’ wider offerings are clear examples.
Fitness Pilates: The broadest category, often hybridised, high-energy, and fitness-focused. Here we see disruptors like Lagree and Strong Pilates, as well as certain Align-Pilates ranges tapping into group training and mainstream accessibility.
Each camp has its loyal following; and in some cases, its politics. “Classical vs. Contemporary” remains a passionate debate, while “Pilates in all camps vs. Lagree” is perhaps the starkest contrast in philosophy and identity.
Balanced Body vs Merrithew – Two Different Paths
Balanced Body, still the world’s largest Pilates manufacturer, spans this spectrum under a single brand. Their approach is integrative: one company, one voice, one umbrella brand.
Merrithew Corporation, by contrast, now operates as a multi-brand group. With STOTT PILATES, Merrithew apparatus, and the acquisition of Align-Pilates, it is uniquely positioned to play in multiple spaces at once:
STOTT PILATES anchors the Contemporary movement with education and global LTC networks.
Merrithew apparatus positions itself as premium, heritage-influenced, and aspirational.
Align-Pilates has carved out “Best Value” positioning, combining innovation with accessibility. With its new Historical Classical range, Align is now extending into the most traditional segment of the market while continuing to grow strongly in contemporary, rehab, and fitness spaces.
The corporate ambition is clear: Merrithew wants to challenge Balanced Body’s global dominance, and perhaps overtake it; not through a single-brand strategy, but through smart acquisitions and segmented growth.
The Strategic Dilemma for Merrithew and Align-Pilates
Classical Pilates Equipment by Align Pilates
But with that ambition comes risk. Align-Pilates’ meteoric growth has been driven by its culture of innovation at best value. It has thrived on finding the gaps the premium brands ignored and filling them quickly and affordably. The company is agile and responsive to the market and fast to innovate.
While Align-Pilates has surged forward with innovation and best-value agility, Merrithew apparatus often leans on its heritage, equipment that was meticulously designed in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Its reputation rests on premium materials, durability, and craftsmanship: “leaders in mindful movement” with education-driven appeal.
Merrithew is typically viewed as a brand selling on trusted legacy rather than reflecting today’s fastest-moving trends.
To retain space in the premium segment, Merrithew now needs to reinforce its leadership: not just through past reputation, but with real-time innovation. That means modernising its development pipeline, integrating biomechanics-informed design, embracing Wood and other materials and delivering elevated value in a marketplace where contemporary competitors like balanced body and new entrants (e.g., tech-forward firms like Technogym and BASI) are gaining ground.
The dilemma is this:
If Merrithew allows Align to keep innovating, it may raise the bar for Merrithew itself, forcing the premium brand to modernise and truly earn its “high-end” positioning.
If Merrithew instead channels Align’s innovation into Merrithew apparatus, there is a danger of diminishing Align: eroding its identity as the “Best Value innovator” and reducing it to the role of budget option.
At the recent Merrithew distributor and partner meeting, the positioning was made clear: Align must remain “Best Value,” Merrithew must remain “Premium.” The opportunity is that together they could raise the standard of both: Align pushing Merrithew to innovate, Merrithew reinforcing Align with credibility and reach. The risk is that Merrithew overshadows, and Align’s engine of innovation stalls.
Why This Balance Matters
For the industry, the stakes are high. Pilates professionals look to these companies not just for apparatus, but for inspiration, education, and long-term career support. If innovation dries up, or heritage feels irrelevant, the credibility of the sector suffers.
The future lies in a both/and approach:
Respecting heritage where it anchors authenticity.
Driving innovation where it meets today’s clients’ needs.
Maintaining clarity between premium and best-value positioning.
Handled well, Merrithew Corporation’s dual-brand strategy could create the most comprehensive portfolio in the industry. Handled poorly, it risks internal competition, brand confusion, and erosion of Align-Pilates’ hard-won market position.
My Take Away
In an industry that spans Gratz to Lagree, heritage to high-intensity hybrids, the brands that thrive will be those that balance respect for the past with courage to innovate for the future. Merrithew Corporation’s acquisition of Align-Pilates: and Align’s bold move into Historical Classical, puts that balancing act at the centre of its corporate identity.
Whether this produces two stronger brands or one stronger and one weaker will depend on whether innovation is seen as something to be shared; or something to be siphoned.