Soho House's Latest Purge: A Desperate Bid to Salvage a Fading Empire Amid Privatization

Soho House, the once-coveted haven for creatives and celebrities, is once again swinging the axe on its membership rolls, cutting hundreds across key US locations like New York, Los Angeles, and Miami.[1] This comes hot on the heels of its $2.7 billion take-private deal, a move that reeks of desperation after years of public market floundering and brand dilution.[2] But let's call it what it is: a half-hearted attempt to recapture lost 'cool' factor, when the real path to profitability lies in actually improving service and valuing existing members instead of treating them like disposable accessories.

The Current Chaos: Privatization and the Membership Massacre

In August 2025, Soho House announced it would go private in a deal led by MCR Hotels, with actor Ashton Kutcher set to join the board—perhaps hoping his star power can sprinkle some Hollywood magic on the struggling brand.[3] The transaction, valued at $2.7 billion including debt, is slated to close by year's end, offering shareholders $9 per share—a far cry from the $14 IPO price in 2021.[4] Proponents claim this will free the company from quarterly earnings scrutiny, allowing focus on long-term growth.[5] But skeptics see it as an escape hatch from Wall Street's harsh spotlight, where shares have plummeted over 30% amid persistent losses.[6]

Simultaneously, the club is purging members who 'no longer mirror the club's creative profile,' according to insiders.[7] Hundreds are being shown the door in West Hollywood, New York (Meatpacking and Dumbo), Downtown LA, and Miami Beach, as part of a 'refresh' that includes renovations like new menus, events, and spaces.[8] CEO Andrew Carnie, who took the helm in 2022, has emphasized slowing expansions and enhancing existing Houses.[9] Yet, this feels less like innovation and more like a frantic scramble amid rising competition from sleeker rivals like San Vicente Bungalows and Casa Cipriani.[10]

Social media buzz, particularly on X (formerly Twitter), echoes the cynicism: users are sharing links to reports of the cuts, with some mocking the brand's fading allure.[11] One post from Page Six's official account highlights the story, garnering thousands of views and sparking debates on whether this is truly about creativity or just cost-cutting.[12]

Echoes of the Past: The 2010 Purge Revisited

This isn't Soho House's first rodeo with membership culls. Back in 2010, founder Nick Jones booted around 500 members from the New York club for being too 'corporate' and stifling the creative vibe.[13] Jones admitted the club had lost its 'relaxed feel,' aiming to shrink from 4,500 to a 'fabulous 4,000.'[14] The move made headlines, with disgruntled ex-members complaining of disrespect and poor communication—sound familiar?[15] While Jones claimed it restored the atmosphere, it also highlighted early signs of brand mismanagement: expanding too fast without maintaining exclusivity.

Fast forward 15 years, and history repeats itself. The 2010 purge was positioned as a return to roots, much like today's cuts.[16] But if it worked so well then, why are we here again? It suggests deeper, systemic issues that purges alone can't fix.

Years of Mess: Overcrowding, Service Slips, and Lost Cachet

Soho House's troubles have been brewing for years. By 2023, complaints of overcrowding led to membership freezes in London, New York, and Los Angeles—ironic for a club built on exclusivity.[17] Members griped about long waits for tables, diluted vibes from 'finance bros,' and subpar service, turning what was once an elite escape into a glorified co-working space.[18] Financially, the company racked up hundreds of millions in losses over the past three years, with a damning 2024 short-seller report exposing unsustainable growth and profitability woes.[19]

The brand's global expansion—now boasting over 40 Houses—has arguably watered down its appeal. Revenue from in-house services and fees hit record highs, but at what cost?[20] Critics argue that chasing scale via data-driven decisions has killed the intimate 'vibe' that made Soho House special.[21] Instead of spreadsheets, perhaps listening to members' feedback on service quality would have prevented this slide.

A Cynical Verdict: Band-Aids Over Real Reforms

Going private and culling members might buy Soho House some breathing room, but it's a cynical ploy masking years of neglect. The brand has lost its cachet not because of 'uncool' members, but due to greedy expansions, overlooked service issues, and a failure to prioritize the people who pay the hefty fees—around $5,800 annually for 'Every House' access.[26] If profitability is the goal, why not invest in better training, uncrowded spaces, and genuine member engagement? Past purges didn't solve the root problems; this one likely won't either.

In a world where exclusivity is commodified, Soho House's moves feel like a last-ditch effort to cling to relevance. Members deserve more than periodic evictions—they deserve a club that evolves with care, not cuts.