Wearable technology has been driven by massive hype over the past
few years, with the expectation that it will one
day become a “must have” for retailers and consumers alike. However, as
items such as the Fitbit and Apple Watch have shown that the technology is
available and certainly functional, a report from COLLOQUY indicated that as
many as 63% of shoppers say they are too expensive to purchase.
With more than half (58%) of consumers saying they’re too
old for a wearable device and more than a third (36%) believing that wearables
are merely a passing fad, it remains questionable whether wearable devices can
move the needle for retailers going forward.
The RTP team
discusses the present consumer sentiment on wearables, and how the devices need
to evolve before they finally match the hype and become hot-selling items. The
team also discusses whether the retail industry is getting any closer to a large
scale adoption.
Debbie Hauss,
Editor-in-Chief: Any type of technology that consumers will invest in must
meet two criteria: convenience and price. At this point I don’t think wearables
are meeting the needs of shoppers to the point that most are willing to invest.
The Apple Watch, for example, hasn’t taken off because it’s just not providing
the additional value compared to the cost. Also, to make wearables even more
“wearable,” some shoppers feel they need accessories to make the
items appear more fashionable. That’s yet another cost that most shoppers are
not willing to invest in. At this point most consumers are comfortable using
their mobile phones for most of what the wearables can offer.
Advertisement
Adam Blair, Executive
Editor: It’s hard to foresee precisely what will push wearables into the
“must-have” category for consumers – but then, I never predicted
that everyone would carry around a smartphone that they consult constantly.
Certainly wearables will need to come down in price so that they’re not
perceived as a frivolous luxury item. But more than that, they will need to
“steal” some functionality real estate from current mobile devices,
so that they are seen as an ultra-convenient alternative to the smartphone rather
than one more device that needs to be synced up and charged. It might also help
to encourage positive depictions of wearables in popular culture, used within
the context of storytelling on popular TV or web series. These would be far
preferable to celebrity endorsements, which would only reinforce the taint of
high-cost luxury that the devices already carry.
David DeZuzio,
Managing Editor: It all comes down to price. When the Sony Walkman debuted
in 1979, it sold for $200, which would be around $650 in today’s dollars.
Within a few years, the cost dropped enough for this must-have to become a
could-afford for every music lover. It was most certainly a hot item for a
number of years. After a while, things get cheaper, other brands come into the
picture and sooner or later, if the product is important and useful enough, it
will become hotter. But in this day and age, it might be hard to convince
consumers to buy something that only does one or two specific things; see any
of the Fitbit products. While more expensive, the Apple Watch does everything a
Fitbit does plus hundreds of other tasks. Also revealing in the study: more
than 40% of respondents who said they would put a wearable on their pets. It
seems as though wearables are currently the Rodney Dangerfield’s of the tech
world; they get no respect.
Klaudia Tirico,
Associate Editor: The idea of wearable technology is amazing to me, but I
think these products still have a long way to go in order to keep consumers
wanting more. The Apple Watch, for example, is a luxury piece, in my opinion.
Not only do they cost a hefty amount of money, but they require an equally
expensive mobile device in order to operate. That’s a big price to pay just to
have an additional item that does a fraction of the amount of work as a mobile
phone. To get closer to wide scale adoption, these items should be able to
operate on their own on top of being compatible with mobile devices.
Unfortunately, I don’t see this option being available at a lower price any
time soon. In the case of fitness trackers, I think smaller is better. Rubber
wristband-type options, such as the Fitbit and Jawbone, are quite obvious on
the wrist and aren’t very stylish. I personally wouldn’t want to wear one
unless I’m wearing something athletic. Fashion designers such as Tory Burch have created
“cover-up” items to make the Fitbit look more like jewelry, but again, that’s
an additional $150+ on top of the price of the tracker itself. That’s not very
convenient, if you ask me. Fitness trackers should be more like the Lumo Lift, which features a
magnetic clasp that attaches to a user’s shirt and looks more like a small pin.
Either way, I don’t see the hype of wearable technology dying down any time
soon.
Glenn Taylor,
Associate Editor: The wearable sales, in a way, remind me of the sales of
video game consoles in the late
2000s. Although consoles as a whole were far more established in their
respective industry at the time than wearables are now, they both had flagship
products that were just too expensive for the majority of consumers to
purchase. The PlayStation 3 cost as much as $599 upon its initial launch,
underperforming its predecessor, the PlayStation 2, in sales even in the two
years after its release. Sony learned its lesson by dropping the PlayStation 4
price to a slightly more reasonable $399, but
it shows sometimes how simple the idea of value remains to consumers. I can see
Apple improving on their Watch enough in the future to make it a more valuable option for retailer to sell, it really just depends on whether they can manage to make the product affordable. With the workout wearables like Fitbits proving to have value, there is no reason the numerous do-it-all watch options can’t carry the same weight.