Before
Fitbit’s IPO was the hottest thing, there was Nike+. As the leader in sports shoes and powerhouse
marketing brand Nike was well positioned with its Nike+ platform. Arguably, Nike had all the right resources and
technology to launch a successful wearable wrist-based portable fitness tracker. In my opinion, the Fitbit Flex should have
never existed had Nike executed properly.
Going back as far as 2008, one can find a startup called Fitbit at
TechCrunch trying to enter the blue ocean of wearable fitness trackers. In 2011, Fitbit launches Fitbit Ultra, a
simple first attempt at a personal tracker that included an altimeter,
stopwatch and a digital display. Nike+
had introduced their fitness tracker in 2006 by using kits to integrate with
apple IPod. Nike continued to expand its
Nike+ line by developing an “iPod transmitter” and Nike shoes with built-in
transmitters. On January 2012, Nike
released its Fuel band wrist wearable fitness tracker for US customers only at
Nikestore.com. Then a month later at select
Nike stores. Although first to market
there were several issues with the Fuel band, it had a difficult time tracking
activities that involved lower body movement such as a spinning class, weight
lifting, and yoga. The Fuel band was
water resistant but not waterproof therefore could not be used in activities
such as swimming and etc. In April 2014,
it was reported that Nike had decided to discontinue the Fuel band and focus on
software applications. Cnet reported
that 80% of Nike’s hardware wearable team was fired.
Fitbit
continued to innovate with the Fitbit One and Fitbit Zip, in May 2013 Fitbit
released the Fitbit Flex a wrist based fitness tracker. The Fitbit learned and improved in several
categories where the Fuel band struggled.
It was more water resistant and had a longer battery life and tracking
lower body movement such as floor climbing.
The Fitbit also cost less than the Nike Fuel band. Lastly, Fitbit tapped into our need for
instant gratification and reward by introducing the concept of badges in 2011,
to reward users based on reaching specific goals.
In summary,
Fitbit avoided competing in an overcrowded industry. They recognized the growing wearable industry
and decided to enter it. One can argue
that although a blue ocean strategy is seldom about technology innovation,
Fitbit is a technology company. However
one can also argue that the technology already existed, Nike had all the
components to outperform Jawbone, Fitbit and the other entrants into the
fitness tracker space. Fitbit simply
created linked the technology to what customers value most. For example Fitbit allowed sleep tracking, a
feature which the fuel band never contained.
Fitbit pursued differentiation and low cost simultaneously. According Electronics360.com a Fitbit Flex
costs $17.36 to make and is sold for $99.95 where a Nike Fuel band cost $25.74
to manufacture and was sold for $149.99.
References:
Teardown of Fuel
band manufacturing costs:
Fitbit
Manufacturing costs:
Moor insight
and strategy article:
Nike lays off
hardware wearable team:
http://www.cnet.com/news/nike-fires-fuelband-engineers-will-stop-making-wearable-hardware/
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.