A question aimed at @Nate_Pearson :
My wife bought a smart trainer last year. It came with a month fee on Zwift plus one or two others. She’s now using Zwift rather than TR, even though she’s been on TR before.
Is this (tie-ups with trainer manufacturers) something that TR have considered to pull in new subscribers? Obviously there’s some contractual niceties to consider.
Half million, lol? You’re off by over $200,000.
In San Francisco the average React Software Engineer makes about $140,000. A software engineer manager can fetch upwards of $160,000.
Half million. Learn to code indeed.
You’re off in your distance to the TR HQ. It’s about equivalent distance between London and Manchester.
The cost of living in Reno is 40% lower than in San Francisco. Meaning if you make $100k in San Francisco you only need to make $60k in Reno to have an equivalent lifestyle.
$500,000!?
Sources;
Job search; Indeed.com - React Engineer
Cost of Living; bankrate.com - $100,000 compare between SF and Reno
They had some of those years ago, coupled with some power meter and trainers IIRC.
My 2 cents after honest reflection: for me, it’s not really about the $. If it was, I would switch from paying monthly to annually and save $20USD.
I think there’s cachet in being an early adopter (Jan 2011) that gets reflected in the legacy pricing. You get to be part of an exclusive club and feel special in some small way. Kind of like seniority in a job.
The problem with @Nate_Pearson proposal is that it sabotages this cachet. You either stay with legacy pricing and become a second-class subscriber and get FOMO, or you give up your special badge of honour and join the rest of the plebes and noobs. This potentially could dampen warm & fuzzy feelings amoung the client base.
If capital is really needed, maybe a better approach would be launching internal crowdfunding campaigns for new non-core features. Then subscribers can contribute towards new features they really want. They could be rewarded with early beta access/testing, digital badges, virtual shout-outs, etc. Things that make them feel special and exclusive, but don’t really cost the company anything.
Win-win proposition
I don’t get this at all - there is NO subsidising going on. TR users don’t really have a big ‘cost’ in real terms as we dont actually ‘use’ any resources that have to be paid for except perhaps some server/bandwidth stuff and support staff time etc. There is no way that I as a legacy user somehow ‘cost’ more than I pay in subscription, so there is no subsidy from other users paying for my TR fun. I’m not a ‘loss making’ customer for TR that needs somebody else to pay more to cover my operating costs. I’d be willing to bet that newer subscribers use support more than us old timers and those of us that have said we tend to only use TR for occasional indoor workouts and keep our subscriptions for occasional use probably are the LOWEST cost users TR has!
What Nate is saying is they want more revenue so they can develop more features. Thats not a subsidy issue its simply a desire to have more income - completely different.
Seconded. That site looks really interesting.
(2022/2023 I have a big goal, so TR for sure as long as renewal is under $189.
Beyond 2023 if I’m not really “training”, and if price is >$159, then I’d probably ditch it and say no more serious training.
Just wondering how the numbers on this all would fallout. 25% price increase, but do you lose 25% of legacy members, then you gained nothing.
It’s interesting reading the posts. “TR is too expensive compared to competitors”. TR has dropped all this effort to make it a real “coaching” platform, which others haven’t as much. Seems some people appreciate that, others don’t.
Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
thats the thing - its all about value, and we all perceive value differently!
Wow 306 posts - so much to go through. OK As “Grandfathered” TR fan, ex-CTO of a venture capital based dot com, and strategy consultant, here is my two-penneth worth.
The underlying isue is the business model of TR. It appears to be: Be bootstrapped, no external investors or funding. Keep control. Be principles. Don’t sell data. find ways to make cyclists faster. Use AI and ML to make a real difference (evidence based). No silly bells and whictles (gaming and music). Just pure training and genuinely help people become faster. Create trust and create a family. (Personally I admire this) (Apologies to @Nate_Pearson if I got this wrong)
Real issue: How to fund growth in the business? How to increase capacity and funding to add more features, to attract people, which grows revenues as a virtuous circle. Whilst keeping control and true to the business model.
Underlying question: We (podcast listeners/users) have absolutely no insight into: what is state of funding, free cash, revenue figures, costs, r&D reinvestment profile? How many are grandfathered? What is the % revenue gap that has cost? We have no idea!!! This make any discussion of funding changes (and the impact of the part of grandfathering, almost irrelevant). There are other ways to increase reveues, manage costs, most associated with more users. (You seem to do a good job with these).
Side issue: For the best of intentions, Nate has a habit of dropping ideas into podcasts when the developers are going “Argh!! No not yet” and the users are going “Wow that would be great - can we have it NOW!!!” (Sorry @Nate_Pearson, but you know what I mean).
So real question: How to continue to grow features and accelerate delivery of those features, consistent with the business model, and integrity of the team, and the contracts and expecations of the user community (current and future)?
So my personal view:
I am on $129 and current annual is $189. That is £45 here in the UK a year or less that £3 a month. Peanuts in grand scheme of cycling things. (And I ride second hand bikes, some 15-20 yr old, and am careful about what I spend). Far cheaper than a coach, and probably a shed load more reliable and adaptable. I have wasted more than that in a year on doubtful ebay purchases 
I love TR precisely because it is clean, simple, no fuss interface. It does all it needs to do in a session. It has a clear structure. Plan Builder makes sense for periodisation. Its a great product.
I have self coached for years. I find the podcasts massively interesting (and over detailed sometimes) but that is sound detail. TR gives me structure and the more I use AT, the more I have confidence I can trust it, and adapt it as I feel I need to. I am massively impressed by AT. Even before then TR was impressive as a training plan and workout tool.
I would love a couple of features. Outside ride inclusions being the main one (that Nate made a passing reference to).
The catch with this whole conversation is not having facts and information to make evidence based decision. If you ask people a simple question - you get a simple answer.
What is impossible to judge from the outside is the effect on user numbers and overall income were grandfathering to disappear. And the effect on overall revenues, thereby changing the investment profile and speed of enhacement.
Frankly Nate, I do not know if you have a Board of “Independent Trusted Advisors”. If you have, I think you should have rolled this through them, before going widely public. On the other hand, perhaps you are as smart as I suspect you are. Otherwise you and TR would not be where you are today.
One of my clients, a Director in a large company, once said to me, “The decision is the start of the conversation”. Maybe that is what is going on here.
Maybe, creating this discussion you will genuinely get some useful insights as to the impact of the decision. Of course, you have to balance the squeaky wheels against the (often) silent majority 
I appreciate Grandfathering. (Legacy pricing). I realise it can be an issue. I trust TR. Frankly, if I was “ungrandfathered” I would take the small hit. My confidence in the tool, and my appreciation of the Trusted family is more than enough to keep me.
Just a few thoughts.
TR sort of went a little “Steve jobs” and developed a product that few were asking for (I did ask for it), but they knew people wanted. It’s a gamble trying to predict user wants/needs ahead of them even realizing. Now we’re dealing with the cost of that engineering effort and keeping that development pace going.
For me, TR with AT and soon predictive FTP, is great for my needs. Zwifts UI and plans are very 2005. The Zwift plans are really akin to getting a plan from a magazine.
However, without TR I’m not thinking “well, I’ll just go get a coach for $300/mth”, instead I’m thinking “Zwift it is then”.
Just my 2 cents but as I am no longer a complete beginner the full pricing would likely push me to zwift as AT is still far off the intended purpose of not requiring coaching or just leaving the system doing its thing.
The plans here on TR still need plenty of manual adjustments (at least for those who are past the first couple of years of cycling training) and so far I only perceive AT as a way of ranking workouts really that also tries to provide a suggestion for alternative upcoming workouts which I think many of the more experienced users were manually adjusting anyway.
So if I have to still tweak heavily plans etc I might as well get the opportunity to race with others just to throw in that race simulation when not possible outdoor.
…and this is where we all think differently.
I cannot stand Zwift and have zero interest in using it. Tried it when it launched and didnt manage 30 mins… The question I ask myself is “would I buy it again at the current price” and at $189 I wouldn’t buy TR again. Not enough value for me. Same with Systm TBH. There is one other app I’d jump in on though, but I’m not going to talk about it here.
What a frustrating and lengthy read this thread is.
Two random thoughts based on what I keep seeing pop up.
There’s a lot of “Legacy” users claiming the benefits of supplying their data for TR to build the platform off, who also say that they don’t actually use TR but continue to pay to keep their pricing. @Power13 makes a good point about the “cost” of Legacy users, I guess the tough thing to work out is how much more expensive the new features are becoming to develop (i.e I assume as these features and the system become more complex they are requiring more resources to build) and that’s a reasonable question as to whether Legacy users should have to step up to a newer “tier” to have access. Questions I don’t have enough answers for. Or, I think the best answer is…
I LOVE the idea of the Loyalty discount (say 10% after 3 years, 20% after 5 years just for having numbers).
Yep. And that extra revenue can only come from new subscribers. That extra revenue will not, in the current system, come from existing subscribers. So the increase in subscription has to be higher for new subscribers than if it were spread out across existing subscribers too.
Example: TR wants $150k/yr above what it generates now or projects to generate from subscription growth in coming years. Subscription growth is normally a churn (some leave, some enter), and if that is 1,000 people in a year then they need to make an extra $150/yr from each new subscriber (a $12.50/mo price increase). If that same $150k/yr was split across all subscribers (let’s use 10,000), then that’s a $15/yr increase, or $1.25/mo. Those numbers are all made up and I’m sure they’re wildly wrong, but I hope that illustrates my point.
It isn’t a subsidy of legacy users based on e.g. computer and network bandwidth, but the total expense of running the business including expansion and development of new features. IF the number of legacy users was small and shrinking it wouldn’t be a problem, but as the difference between the current price and your legacy price increases, the stickiness increases. It’s a destructive cycle.
@matthew.weigel You assume that the average legacy subscriber is less profitable then the average new subscriber. I would highly doubt that because the legacy subscribers represent a continuous long term Cashflow. New users likely hopp on and off as the weather improves and/or life happens. Legacy users simply stay on.
That might have been the answer.
The calendar wasn’t around in the same form as it is now when I signed up. It is really the only thing I have used and it is a hassle trying to manage multisport training. This thread has actually made me realize TR is not worth my legacy price. When my year is up I will likely not be renewing.
Thats not a subsidy, its simply different prices. In my business I have new customers that buy my services at higher prices than my original old customers, but they are not subsidising them. Its THAT word (and mindset) that I have an issue with as it implies you are somehow paying FOR me, instead of whats actually happening which is you are just paying MORE than me.
here’s some unsolicited perspective from a new dad who doesn’t race:
I’ve been on TR since 2015 and it changed my life. Lost weight, gained fitness, became a better human. My brain loves structure so it was a great fit. I’m grandfathered in at my current price and I LOVE adaptive training. it takes the guess work out of my already busy life and extremely limited training time. I personally wouldn’t give up AT now that I have it, but I’d pay more to use it because of the incredible value I’ve gotten out of the TR program, podcasts, blogs, support staff, etc. I don’t want to pay more, but I definitely would if that were to spur more innovations from TR.
And you’re demonstrating the straw man that I was talking about. Nate never said ending the legacy pricing, he said increase the price by $5 a month. You are arguing against something that wasn’t suggested to be done.
The calendar is the only new feature I use so I really couldn’t tell you what features have been added since I joined, but it was early 2017 when I started using TR.
Outdoor workouts I tried, but unless you live in an ideal place it’s really hard to do them and still watch out for traffic, deal with stop lights/signs etc. I have a nice MUT near me but it’s worse than riding on the road between the dog walkers and phone zombies. Shorter intervals I can manage outside, but something like 2x20 minutes is nearly impossible to do unless I drive up to the mountains and hit a 2 hour long climb. I really don’t need anything other than the lap button to do short intervals so why bother loading a TR workout.