Remember Covid? Lockdowns? Keep fit at home became the hot trend, along with baking banana bread and posting it on Instagram as there was nothing else to show off about. The likes of Peloton did very well out of the year we were all stuck at home. Since then, well not so good. Share price down, stalled growth, a couple of nasty lawsuits on its hands and users cancelling their subscriptions.
Peloton isn’t the only interactive fitness coach in town. There is plenty of competition. On the surface of it some of it looks great (as Peloton did from its ads). The promise of a personal trainer, the convenience of being able to work out at home without all the tiresome and inconvenient travelling to the gym, a cool bit of lifestyle fitness equipment you can show off to your friends. So why aren’t we all buying?
The dream of this stuff is one thing, the reality is somewhat different, and what the smart-connected-AI-powered-fitness-tech market doesn’t seem to have grasped is that they are solving for problems that don’t exist for many consumers, and are also undermining some of the very things that people enjoy about exercise and fitness. Let’s explore why.
At Bryter we utilize a human needs framework when analysing the role technology solutions play in people's lives. The basic premise of our human needs framework this is that in order to be a happy and fulfilled person our various needs have to be met. Think Maslow but with more nuance, and the idea that needs are omnipresent and interrelated rather than hierarchical.
If we look at home fitness technology like Peloton or Magic AI Fitness smart mirror (I’m not sure they could cram another tech buzzword into that title if they tried) we have to ask - what problem is it solving (needs that are undermined) or what benefit is it delivering (supporting or enhancing needs)?
Let’s get price out of the way first. These things aren’t cheap. Either the upfront investment in the kit or the ongoing monthly subscription to access the classes and trainers. The manufacturers will argue that the subscription is cheaper than that of a gym and this will pay the kit off in no time, and blah-blah-blah. You’re still asking the customer to stump up the equivalent cost of a second-hand car for a bike that doesn’t actually go anywhere. One of the most important human needs is ‘protection’, the need to keep you and your family safe at all times, and that includes financial security. Asking the customer to invest this kind of money is a big ask and a significant barrier to entry.
What needs do these systems actually serve then. It seems to mainly come down to ‘efficiency’. The idea that our lives are adversely affected by being too busy, and by bringing in a solution such as this, we can be more efficient and have more time to spend doing the things we enjoy. There is a problem with this though. It assumes time spent out of the home exercising, going running or going to gym is time wasted or time spent inefficiently. For many people this is leisure time, and getting out of the house is part of that. Shaving time off the process supports efficiency, but it does so to the detriment of other needs, particularly those that are served through sociability.
Another need you could argue that is supported by this technology is ‘identity’. Ownership of premium and innovative technology is nothing new as part of identity signaling, and manifests across all kinds of categories from cars to consumer electronics. Owning a $2000 exercise bike with a $50 a month membership signals to the world that you are a successful and busy person!
So what is lost, where does this technology undermine rather than support needs? Using home fitness technology is ultimately a solitary activity. This approach undermines the social aspect of the ‘belonging’ need. The sense that we are part of something, engaging with others and working towards a common goal. Personalized coaches, online group activities, live broadcasts and AI generated fitness coaches are all well and good, but these are ultimately a superficial and synthetic version of real-life interactions. It’s not the same as being with other people or with a real instructor. Now of course not everyone wants to be in a room with others whilst they exercise, but a lot of people do. It’s motivating, it’s participatory and it’s social. You are with others, working towards a shared and common goal of getting fit. Something is lost when you are isolated in a spare bedroom or home office even if you have a fitness instructor/model/influencer barking encouraging words at you.
What about the ‘identity’ need. The technology is in many ways misaligned with the environment it ends up in. Most people (unlike those in the ads) aren’t living in a spacious, minimalist penthouse apartment with a view of Central Park. The reality is that most of this premium equipment will end up in a spare bedroom, or a cluttered home office overflowing with paper, an old sofa, and a few busted lamps that you haven’t quite got round to getting repaired, but aren’t quite ready to throw out yet. It’s not quite the dream that was sold when buying the kit and signing up to the not insignificantly priced monthly class subscription. It’s not surprising that people cancel their subscriptions after a while. Sweating away in the spare room staring at an old sofa isn’t quite as glamorous as the ads portrayed. The identity need isn’t really being serviced in the way it was promised.
So is there a future for this tech. Yes, but it’s not the great unicorn ride to infinite riches that these companies envisaged and no doubt promote in their funding round meetings with investors. There will always be a group of people that want some cool and expensive kit, there is another group that are so busy they need the efficiency savings the technology offers, and there will always be those that prefer to be alone rather than in a group. This market (along with being rich and willing to drop some serious money on the kit and ongoing subscription costs) is likely to remain a minority rather than the majority.
Should gyms be worried about the launch of all this smart fitness tech? Probably not. They do a better job at catering to the evolving needs of their customer base, without the limitations of being constrained by a single piece of hardware or subscription they are trying to sell. Unless you’ve managed to avoid all forms of social media for the past 10 years you may have noticed an increasing trend of people being more conscious about their image, including their body. Gyms have recognized this and adapted their offer accordingly with more space and machines being dedicated to resistance training and weights (build up those biceps boys) and a decrease in space dedicated to aerobic fitness.
Connected fitness technology is no different to many other technologies. A fundamental understanding of human needs and how the technology can service, or conversely, undermine those needs is an essential starting point before developing or launching new solutions. Ask yourself
This is where research can help. Understand the consumer, what they are already doing, what’s working and where there are unmet needs. Use this insight to identify the target audience, build and market new solutions in the most effective manner, and develop effective pricing strategies.
Get in touch to learn more about how we use a human needs framework to help businesses uncover new opportunities, develop, test and market new solutions.
Read how insights can help in the process of audience understanding, new product development and the successful launch of smart technology and services.
Download the Bryter fitness tech report to get key insights into the role technology plays in supporting the sport and fitness habits of UK consumers