Connected Fitness Unit Economics Reckoning
Andy Hoang, CEO of Aviron, on the unit economics of connected fitness
The core point is that cheap capital let connected fitness companies hide weak customer economics behind constant fundraising. In this market, a company spends heavily to sell a $2,000 machine with thin hardware margin, then hopes years of subscription revenue pay back that upfront spend. That works while money is abundant, but breaks fast when ad costs rise, shipping gets expensive, demand cools, and investors stop financing losses.
-
Aviron built around the opposite constraint set. It was bootstrapped for its first three to four years, sold first through hotels, YMCAs, and apartment buildings, and only later pushed into direct to consumer. That forced tighter control over margin, CAC, and payback before scale.
-
Peloton is the clearest example of how scale could outrun fundamentals. Its model layered hardware manufacturing on top of expensive instructor content and music licensing. When demand normalized, Peloton moved into restructuring, reported steep EBITDA losses, and saw connected fitness product revenue fall from $3.15B in 2021 to $2.19B in 2022.
-
The broader category followed the same pattern. Hydrow went through multiple layoff rounds before later repositioning around profitability, and Tonal raised new capital at a sharply lower valuation. The dividing line became simple, companies with software like margins and disciplined acquisition could keep buying growth, and the rest had to retrench.
Going forward, connected fitness is likely to look less like a land grab and more like a survival test around payback and retention. The winners should be companies that treat hardware as the entry point, then make money from low variable cost software, games, community, and subscriptions that keep households engaged without needing constant new capital.