While FitBit seems to have more “technology” than the vast majority of the other TechCrunch50 finalists, let me put it this way: I wouldn’t even invest $10,000 in it if its business model is advertising and it can’t explain how it’s going to overcome the significant distribution challenges it faces.

I guess what I was saying is that people you see in the gyms are the ones who need the least to be there, so I wouldn’d discount the market potential of FitBit’s device.

Agree with everything else. I don’t know whether the company is planning to make all or part of its money on ads. If they do, they will do much better than most of the rest of TC50.

The company is developing a ultra-compact wireless wearable sensor, called the Fitbit Tracker, that automatically tracks data about a person’s activities, such as calories burned, sleep quality, steps and distance.

The Fitbit Tracker collects activity data automatically while it is worn by the user all day. The collected data is wirelessly uploaded to a website where the wearer can see their data and track their progress toward personal goals. The website provides a motivational interface where users can share their progress, compare themselves against similar people and compete against their friends, family and co-workers.

Here’s the problem: based on the above, there doesn’t seem to be a compelling reason to wear the FitBit sensor. It’s an intrusion.

As I noted, people usually have a pretty good idea of how much exercise they’re getting, how well they’re sleeping, etc. The fact that over 60% of Americans are overweight and nearly 90% could be overweight by 2030 is testament to the fact that individuals, for a variety of reasons, choose to lead unhealthy lifestyles.

Unfortunately for FitBit, those who would benefit most from its product are those who are least likely to use it. After all, when you’re overweight or obese, you don’t want to wear a sensor that’s going to remind you of it.

Constructive criticism: if I was involved with FitBit, instead of operating as both a technology manufacturer and a consumer-oriented service, I would look to partner with entities that already have distribution and that might also have a good reason to pay for the technology.

Examples:

• Weight-loss programs such as Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and Curves. These companies could offer their customers FitBit’s sensors as a value-added service and FitBit would white label its web platform so that those companies can integrate it directly into their programs (i.e. customers log on to a WeightWatchers.com account to track results).
• Healthcare providers and insurance companies could enable patients to use FitBit’s sensors voluntarily as a means to verify healthy lifestyle choices. In turn, they might be able to offer those patients better rates. Note that some auto insurance companies are doing something similar.

While I can see that you work in the ad industry, the reality is that an ad-supported business model isn’t for everyone and for a lot of businesses, it’s less-than-ideal.

In the case of FitBit, overcoming the significant distribution challenges it faces may be as simple as changing its notion of what it is and who its customers are.

One notable one is Sarbanes-Oxley, which requires that all electronic messages must be saved for at least 5 years. This requirement ostensibly applies to a corporation’s official use of a service like Yammer.

FitBit: it might be fun to target ads by sleep patterns but it isn’t going to make you any money.

And there’s little potential for ad revenue for websites that doesn’t have much potential for building an audience.

Wonder if FitBit will be ad-supported. Would be fun to target ads by different sleep patterns.

There’s a decent ad potential for sites like Shryk.

Curious about Akoha because of the trading-card angle.