It’s been totally lost in the conversation, and it’s the only thing that matters 
Sounds like it’s 50/50 for legacy users, I’m paying the price it is now ($189) and I’m happy with what I get at the current price.
I’ve written my own plans and followed other plans, and with AT now and what’s coming. I wouldn’t go anywhere else. Off subject, I have tried Zwift and it’s not for me I’d rather watch tv, movies or YouTube.
2 Likes
Nate, the big difference between Netflix and TR is that we are literally some of the actors in your movie. Not only have we (legacies) contributed to the data for you to continue build, but you actually need us to stay on to hopefully excel. If all the legacies leave, it’s easy with any training product to make new users fast. Any structured interval plan will do so. However, to prove this AI technology actually works . . . you need to make us faster. I have not seen any improvements in a long time. Just b/c you make something new with fancy engineers doesn’t necessarily prove its worth - I believe you need us.
7 Likes
I’ll chime in, so the “vote” is out there. I’m grandfathered in at $99. I won’t pay more for what it is, and I’ve nearly canceled in the past. AT has kept me around, but honestly the rollout was/is terrible and almost lost me regardless.
As soon as new features start passing me by at my price point, you can pretty much bet I’ll be heading out unless those features are absolutely killer. From where I sit, if TR charged me more for AT, I’d drop it.
11 Likes
I’m on a legacy price (member since 2013 I think).
For me, I’d rather pay a bit more if it was needed to keep the company going but I’d be much happier if there was a ‘loyalty discount’ or some such. If I started getting frozen out from new features I’d feel a bit closed out, and part of the reason I stay with TR is that I feel valued as a customer.
8 Likes
Interesting discussion, folks. I don’t know how I feel about this: a promise might be broken and obviously paying less is more attractive than paying more; on the other hand, legacy pricing is not sustainable in an environment with inflation.
But there has been some discussion of the prices of companies thought to be rivals. The relevant direct competitors are companies that offer training plans and workouts, together with some analytic capacity. Other companies in this indoor cycling field [eg, simulation games like Zwift or video streaming like FulGaz] are general competitors insofar as they are also after our cycling dollars.
So what’s happening to the direct competitor field? The biggest move last year was Wahoo Systm, with an integrated package across various sports. That’ll hurt TR’s tri market. But there was not a lot else. EXCEPT that there did emerge companies that are offering AI-based training. See https://aiendurance.com/ for example; there are others. These seem to me to be the ones most threatening to TR in the training plan + workout market, and TR needs to move to keep its AT ahead of these companies.
Under a constrained revenue stream, the more money TR puts into developing AT, the less there is for all the other things we really want: Tri plans [for some], proper polarization options, proper integration of outside workouts and user-created workouts, more flexibility in designating days/intensities/durations in PB, smoother rollouts of new features, etc.
I’m not sure I want to be a CEO.
3 Likes
I hope they read this comment (your comment, not my reply) as I think this is a FANTASTIC idea that would almost certainly generate more cash flow to do what they’re wanting.
1 Like
I’m not trying to instigate anything, more just curious. To all the people that are grandfathered in at a lower price that are saying something along the lines of, “I’d gladly pay more,” why don’t you? It’s pretty simple to end the subscription and restart at the current price. To all the people saying they’d pay more, why aren’t you?
Edit: As I was reading the thread originally, I felt like there were a lot more people who would pay the price increase happily. But I quickly scrolled through the entire thread and found it to be around 60/20/20 with 60% of people seriously considering leaving or flat out leaving if their legacy price increased, 20% happily paying more, and 20% being a little annoyed or unhappy about a price increase, but would pay it. That’s a big chunk of people (albeit just the vocal forum users) that would possibly jump ship if they lose their current legacy price. Not sure if TR could handle that, or at the very least, they won’t want it.
2 Likes
I’m one of the users paying 99/y
First off it’s one of the reasons I stayed. I tried zwift but it was more expensive and didn’t keep me more than a month or two.
I don’t really know if AT is such an improvement where now it doesn’t use outside workouts so essentially it’s useless. (I know in future it might be good, just saying right now, can’t say anything about it.)
If you were to up the price of the grandfathered people, I would start to wonder very much about staying or not. If it’s like 5$ a year more, sure. 5 a month definitely not.
The reality of my own situation is, I don’t really use plans, but the things I really like are : the powermatch feature, and the ios app; the calendar and the general webdesign. I think there’s a limit to what improvements you can do with more money and more cost and more everything. At the end of the day you just push the pedals right ?
Actually the thing I’d really like is a one time buy to access a lite version, with only the app, powermatch and the workout creator (no access to workout library). I think if you want to move up the price, it would be nice to have the option to go lower as well.
2 Likes
Perhaps a two tier pricing system:
Tier 1 is for customers who value TR as a seamless suite of apps providing: a workout player, workout creator, workout library, calendar and (nice to have but not essential) some better analytics. This is my use of TR and am happy to pay $10 a month for it. I won’t pay $20 a month.
Tier 2 is for people who basically want fully guided training and training plans. These folks really would want a coach, but at a much lower price. If AT develops to the point where it can consistently replace the $100-200 a month “local coaches”, then AT driven TR Training is worth more to those users as they want and get more.
I could see eliminating the “legacy” pricing and moving toward pricing that reflects the value a customer wants and also how they use the ecosystem. Those price points can change over time as costs change, but would stay relative to value to the customer and how they use TR.
Nate will need to navigate his price promise, but amongst reasonable people that is an optics issue not a deep trust or honesty issue. Some people will be “deeply offended” no matter what direction TR takes.
A request would be that TR give advanced notice of what they will do. Even if you make a big change and lose customers, lose folks in a way that does not create an animosity that would prevent them returning easily.
Best luck guys
5 Likes
Thats my view as well. Nate has got to make a decision, Will the number of people leaving as a result of any change in pricing structure be more than offset by the higher amounts people who continue to subscribe will be paying Simple really. Didn’t Strava go down the path of having a multitude of different types of subscription? My recollection is that it wasn’t the greatest success.
5 Likes
I’m just kind of annoyed to discover that others are paying less than I am. I thought it was the same price for everyone
2 Likes
I’m locked in at $99 and it’s the only reason I keep TR. I don’t race and only use TR during the winter when I can’t ride outside. I might use it for 5 months of the year at most and I would have dropped it and paid monthly but the locked in price of $99 made it cheaper.
I used the plans when I first starting cycling but now I just pick a workout depending on how I feel. It’s really just a way to keep my fitness over the winter and there are plenty of other apps that do that. I’ve come close to canceling when it’s a mild winter and I only use TR for 3 months in a year, but don’t want to lose the locked in price
I have zero interest in different tiers, I understand TR is a business but I think a multi tiered subscription plan would be a huge mistake. There is plenty of competition now and people will just gravitate to the less confusing product.
I’m sure a lot of use locked in at $99 would drop TR if there as any price increase. I could argue TR is reaping some benefit from people like me that keep paying while not using the product that much, but that hard to quantify when it comes to a non physical product like software.
7 Likes
Agreed, with a lot of the points here. I’m a $99 user, and honestly use it 1-2 months a year at this point, but I keep paying because it gives me the flexibility to jump on/off without thought, and because the podcast keeps me loyal.
It’s up to the TR team whether changes will be more/less profitable, but I hope it doesn’t make things more complicated for me.
4 Likes
The calendar is the only new feature I use.
No offence but I really hate the “but it’s x number of coffees” argument. It’s about value not if you can afford it or not. I’m thinking of dropping netflix because it’s to the point where I feel it’s not worth the cost. I can swing the extra few dollars no problem, but what I get out of netflix is getting to where it’s just not worth it to me. I have to draw the line someplace, I did that with cable a few years ago, the cost kept creeping up until I was paying over $200/month for something I hardly used so I dropped it. That line might be based on your budget or purely on perceived value.
9 Likes
That was my first thought. I am Grandfathered in and pay annually. @Nate_Pearson hat was my first thought. I am Grandfathered in and pay annually. @Nate_Pearson as given me great value and I decided to pull the trigger with Trainerroad when a price raise was announced and wanted to beat it coming into effect. I knew I would be grandfathered in.
AT has come off the back of all our data. You can’t train a machine learning model without our data. We have provided value to Trainerroad for these new features and the features that @Nate_Pearson announced on the podcasts. It is a two way street.
I would hate to see users leave, Trainerroad have less data to model with and then the feature become less useful or accurate.
I understand where @Nate_Pearson is coming from and I would probably still pay if the model changed. I wanted to mention what we as users provide Trainerroad and many of you have been with them much longer than me.
I think this take needs more consideration. The bigger the price tag for new users becomes, the harder it is to convince new users to subsidize legacy users. As the price increases, too, the harder it is to convince legacy users that they should pay the full current rate. It sounds like growth has plateaued and too many current subscribers are legacy users, and it can be hard to restart the funnel engine of subscriber churn that brings in more revenue but also reduces the need to raise prices on the newest customers.
I’m afraid @Nate_Pearson may have painted himself into a corner.
6 Likes
That’s not what I asked I asked what are the features on TR today that weren’t available when you first joined, not which ones you use.
I am not voting for tiers at all, I would much rather keep it as is with the legacy promise maintained. However, if TR is going tiers, then a rock bottom plan/tier should be available for ~$50 /yr that simply provides the library of workouts and we’ll build our own calendars/plan.
2 Likes
I doubt even TR can relate to that considering their employees are based around the world and their headquarters is in Nevada.
1 Like