How Simple Math and a Nike Cultural Imperative Might Have Killed Fuelband

No surprise at all.

Apr 26, 2014 at 5:00PM
Fuelband Pcadvisor

This story originally written by David Stern at CITEworld. Sign up for our free newsletter here.

It's nice to be right once in a while.

In December, I had the distinct pleasure of speaking on a panel at the Wearables Technology Expo, alongside Intel's Rob Rueckert and LumoBack's Monisha Perkash. When the moderator asked the panel for some closing thoughts on wearables, I said that if you were an entrepreneur developing activity tracking hardware for the wrist, you should immediately stop. Though unpopular at the time -- the comment elicited one or more "boos" from the audience -- my comments were grounded around three solid axes:

  1. Anyone wanting to compete with Samsung, Apple, or the hordes of Android-enabled devices to come would have to have $100 million annual marketing budgets.
  2. Any wrist-worn device needed to either win on fashion, or go far beyond common motion detection into accurately capturing deep biosignals to be differentiated enough to win on three fronts: consumer, health care, and venture capital
  3. Even if you had massive budgets and a differentiated product for the wrist, you had to be prepared to lose hundreds of millions of dollars annually to play in the space, and even a company like Nike (NYSE:NKE) might not be ready for this.

And so it was no surprise that on Friday Nike admitted that it might be getting out of the Fuelband business. (Or something like that.) Heck, I even predicted it again the day before it was announced. Blind squirrel, meet acorn!

Related: Microsoft unveils a cloud for the Internet of Things

In my opinion, it's pretty simple math combined with a company cultural demand that killed the Fuelband.

To put some context around the math, although it doesn't break out its financials in this fashion, Nike probably sells $3 billion of athletic socks, with substantial profit margins, every year. SOCKS!

And although they also don't release these figures, if you extrapolate from Target and Best Buy's weekly sales data on overall wrist-worn device sales, my guess is that Nike's top line Fuelband revenue is no more than $150 million to $200 million. And that is just top line. On the bottom line -- you know, the one that counts with Wall Street -- this was a money pit.

Nobody takes back socks. They don't break. Their USB dongles don't lose contact points. Their firmware isn't faulty. And they don't fail when they get wet. Bottom line -- and I mean both actual bottom line and metaphorical bottom line -- this has been a major sinkhole for Nike, just as it will be for someone, foolishly, trying to do anything around the wrist without taking into consideration the warnings above.

But there is another less obvious reason why Fuelband might have been killed, one that is rooted deep within the bowels and history of Nike. Over the years, Nike has explored many products that have been discontinued, products that from the outside seem like they have a ton of tailwind behind them -- in-line skates, snow boards, helmets, hockey equipment, and cycling gear, to name a few. In fact, previous incarnations of the Fuelband were shut down a few times before.  

Nike has always shown an incredible amount of financial discipline around these tough decisions. Nike isn't wired to sustain massive losses for profits on the come in areas that it doesn't and can't own as the dominant player, and clearly it wasn't going to own the wearables. So why does this happen beyond the bottom line math?

David Stern is a managing director of Motion Technology Partners, a co-creation studio and investment vehicle for wearables companies. He frequently blogs at Inside Activity Tracking, where this post was first published. You can reach the author at

The Motley Fool recommends Apple and Nike. The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple and Nike. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

4 in 5 Americans Are Ignoring Buffett's Warning

Don't be one of them.

Jun 12, 2015 at 5:01PM

Admitting fear is difficult.

So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out Warren Buffett recently told a select number of investors about the cutting-edge technology that's keeping him awake at night.

This past May, The Motley Fool sent 8 of its best stock analysts to Omaha, Nebraska to attend the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. CEO Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger fielded questions for nearly 6 hours.
The catch was: Attendees weren't allowed to record any of it. No audio. No video. 

Our team of analysts wrote down every single word Buffett and Munger uttered. Over 16,000 words. But only two words stood out to me as I read the detailed transcript of the event: "Real threat."

That's how Buffett responded when asked about this emerging market that is already expected to be worth more than $2 trillion in the U.S. alone. Google has already put some of its best engineers behind the technology powering this trend. 

The amazing thing is, while Buffett may be nervous, the rest of us can invest in this new industry BEFORE the old money realizes what hit them.

KPMG advises we're "on the cusp of revolutionary change" coming much "sooner than you think."

Even one legendary MIT professor had to recant his position that the technology was "beyond the capability of computer science." (He recently confessed to The Wall Street Journal that he's now a believer and amazed "how quickly this technology caught on.")

Yet according to one J.D. Power and Associates survey, only 1 in 5 Americans are even interested in this technology, much less ready to invest in it. Needless to say, you haven't missed your window of opportunity. 

Think about how many amazing technologies you've watched soar to new heights while you kick yourself thinking, "I knew about that technology before everyone was talking about it, but I just sat on my hands." 

Don't let that happen again. This time, it should be your family telling you, "I can't believe you knew about and invested in that technology so early on."

That's why I hope you take just a few minutes to access the exclusive research our team of analysts has put together on this industry and the one stock positioned to capitalize on this major shift.

Click here to learn about this incredible technology before Buffett stops being scared and starts buying!

David Hanson owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and American Express. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, Google, and Coca-Cola.We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

©1995-2014 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. | Privacy/Legal Information