I’d prefer we take that talk to a separate thread or private message than head OT in this thread.
5 Likes
Thanks for the information
More z2, less intervals, and slightly higher average weekly time on bike. To discuss, try one of these threads to discuss: Search results for '@bbarrera fascat tr ssb' - TrainerRoad and you’ll also find additional thoughts on why it worked better.
That’s a false analogy. You can’t go and buy more Apple Shares today at the original price you bought them.
Fairness is going to be different to individuals, and a lot of people will flip flop based on which side of the deal they land on.
ETA: final thought/contribution - there’s two thoughts in my head regarding this.
-
the product you subscribed to wasn’t as “good” as the product now, it’s not unreasonable to think you’d pay more for more features. The logical thing to me is that legacy pricing would provide legacy features. Obviously that’s not feasible or “fair”.
-
the new users are now having to “subsidise” legacy users. For good or bad, the new pricing has to be ever increasing to enable the continued development. If all users paid the same, maybe the normal price need only be $129 instead of $189.
Another view on fairness is why doesn’t the pricing get charged in local currency. Obvious reasons, but it just goes to show there is nothing “fair” about legacy pricing in terms of fairness being only an opinion.
5 Likes
And you can’t go and get the same price for TR as you could have 10 years ago… same with Zwift, TP and multiple other platforms. If anything, TR is the exception.
The point I was trying to make is when it spend money, there is cost of opportunity. If you dont take it, or missed for whatever reason (was not into bikes 3 years ago, didnt have a trainer, didnt know TR existed), its not anyone’s fault, and is not a matter of fairness.
Or at least thats how I see it.
I do not hold it against anyone who have better pricing than me… it is what it is…
Its the reality of businesses.
15 Likes
It would be a nice gesture if TR’s prices were adjusted based on a country’s purchasing power just like Steam’s game prices. I do not know whether it’s financially and technically feasible, but if it is, would be great.
7 Likes
Agreed!
1 Like
It’s totally up to TR what they want to charge, but personally I think they should move on from the grandfathered thing. I’m sure that’s not a popular suggestion as everyone of course wants to hold onto their super cheap rate.
Would be interesting to know what percentage of yearly subscribers are grandfathered, having full paying members subsidising the grandfathered members is surely inflating the price, it would be silly to think otherwise.
If they got rid of the grandfathered deal, would it bring prices more into line with the competition and actually help to build the subscriber base more? I’m not sure, but I see the price being a massive hurdle.
I think the boss backed himself into a corner with the grandfathering idea at a set dollar figure, even if it was switched to a discount percentage for multiple years of membership at least the long term subscribers would at least cover inflation.
5 Likes
IMO I think grandfathering retains a steady income and has very little to do with the current price… I retain the subscription due to this, I would guess I’m not alone, removing it would remove that constant steady stream income( maybe it’s just me!) in my own opinion (I have no evidence of this, just my n=1 1000ft view).
5 Likes
Totally agree. You remove the grandfathering, and a lot of people only subscribe for certain months, not the full year. It opens the door to trying other platforms too. I think it would actually create a financial loss, not gain.
5 Likes
The current TR subscription rate situation is more like being able to buy a second pool for $35K today just because you happened to buy one for $35K in 2016 - and everyone else having to pay $100 instead of $80K to fund the discount.
I think that the idea of legacy pricing has come from a good place (you have to admit it’s also a great way to retain subscribers that might have quit otherwise), but I also think that it is inherently unfair.
Doesn’t mean that it’s anybodies fault. I can deal with it, but I am flawed enough as a person to let it take just a little but of shine off a service that i’m otherwise extremely happy with and continue to recommend.
3 Likes
Why does it matter to us what someone else pays?
Does a car drive any different because someone got a deal on the same one and you didn’t?
Is the service worth what you pay for it or not?
That is the bottom line question for me, my budget and my needs.
21 Likes
Yup…that is the only question that matters. What someone else is paying and why is immaterial.
9 Likes
I am one of those that has been paying my subscription for the last 5 yrs (way before calender, group workouts, AT, etc)
My continuous subscription (with all the others) has helped pay for these new items you benefit from now, you’re welcome 
In all seriousness, $200 a year (for unlimted usage) seems a bargin in a world of carbon bikes…
6 Likes
A subtle distinction but I didn’t say it mattered…just that it wasn’t fair.
I’m not at the point where I’m going to start emulating my 3 year old and punch the carpet screaming “it’s not fair, it’s not fair” but my post was an honest description of how being on the other side of legacy pricing can feel.
6 Likes
I’m currently paying about 40p per workout (61 cents) based on current pricing. Doesn’t seem too bad for the product (mobile and desktops apps), workout library, calendar, metrics/PDC, workout creator. For no extra cost we also get the free stuff TR puts out (including this forum). I don’t mind paying that, and I don’t even use their training plans!
3 Likes
I’m happy paying what I pay now, I’ve only been a subscriber for over a year. I think it would be nice if they offered a multi- year discount, for example 3 years for $350 or like a 5 years at $XX amount. That would be nice, IMO. That way I could pay ahead of time and not worry about being charged every year.
1 Like
It’s totally fair. Those who made a commitment early and whose money helped grow the company are being rewarded, same as kickstarter or VC or any of a multitude of other examples in free-market economics. Your attitude on the matter is, like, your problem man (full-price subscriber here who will quit if it’s not worth it to me at any point).
6 Likes
Why? It is pretty common for long-time customers to pay different rates or for companies to have “buy now and lock in your rate for life” type promotions.
I tried TR years ago and found it incredibly boring….but I was also a member at a training facility that has a lot of social interaction, so TR just wasn’t for me at the time. I don’t worry about what I could be paying now had I locked in back then.
Going back to the training center, I stayed a member longer than I should have because I was an original member and was locked in for $99 / month. In hindsight, it would have been cheaper to join only for the months that I used the facility, even if the monthly rate was higher…but that is the appeal of programs like this. I watched as the monthly rates actually got as high as $175 / month…and then membership started to decrease because the value was no longer there for most people. But, for the most part, people didn’t bitch about us “Plank Members” because they knew and understood that we got in early and there were benefits with that.
2 Likes
I’m really happy with TrainerRoad, joined last winter and I won’t be going anywhere.
I’ve also tried Zwift but my preference is TrainerRoad. However i do think it’s annoying that Zwift is the cheaper option. It is where I’m based anyway.
1 Like