Legacy Pricing of TR

[bazcurtis]

Plus 1% per Disaster Day

[Power13]

Top notch post from @PhilSJones up there. Excellent analysis and insight.

I have been thinking, but not posting, a similar thought re: Nate sharing ideas / features before final. In a world where you can have a “direct” conversation with all your customers, sharing ideas this openly can be counter-productive.

I admire Nate’s openness and earnestness in doing so, but there are times when things need to be worked out behind closed doors, IMO. This is probably one of those times. Customers with Legacy pricing are (naturally) going to be protective of that status. Some who are at current rates are going to disagree with Legacy pricing.

You are never gonna reach consensus, or even a “majority approved” status. But in the meantime, a lot of emotion gets churned up and a lot of it is negative, which can ultimately hurt the brand.

[Rob]

Brilliantly put.

[anon86199957]

@Power13

You are never gonna reach consensus, or even a “majority approved” status. But in the meantime, a lot of emotion gets churned up and a lot of it is negative, which can ultimately hurt the brand.

It’s not about consensus. It’s about getting feedback. The brand isn’t hurt by that. Quite contrary I would say, the openness and transparency are what makes TR so likeable in the first place. It’s what makes the brand. It’s the key difference to all the other clean polished competitors.

[WombleHunter]

@anon86199957

I hope you are paying year round and are not dropping the service when you don’t use it. Dito for all new users. Don’t want the legacys subsidising your service, huh?

But that’s the point isn’t it ? TR needs more funds to add the new features, new users have to pay $190 to get the same features if they subscribe for an entire year, if they only use it for 6 months of the year, they have paid more (5 months the same) into the same TR development fund, when there is such a large discrepancy between new/existing users, new users can’t help but feel that they are paying for existing uses to kept at a lower price, because without the new users, TR would either fold (costs increase with inflation) or have to stop development, which can only be amplified by other companies having a large user base and equal (and lower pricing) making them more likely to be loyal to them, not TR

If grandfathering was such a great deal for TR, the best thing they could do would be offer the annual subscription at $99, but only for the first time you subscribe, after that $189

[matthew.weigel]

@anon86199957

I hope you are paying year round and are not dropping the service when you don’t use it. Dito for all new users. Don’t want the legacys subsidising your service, huh?

I think you’re inferring a judgement from me where none exists. I am currently paying $99/yr which means, obviously, that 1) I am a legacy subscriber and 2) I have been paying “year round” for a while now. When I suggest that it might be unsustainable to maintain legacy subscription pricing, that means I would see a big jump in price too.

I’m just sympathetic to what @Skyewalkr said - “I’m just kind of annoyed to discover that others are paying less than I am” - and I foresee some unfortunate downsides to what Nate started off as a gesture of goodwill to longtime subscribers years ago.

[Power13]

@anon86199957

It’s about getting feedback.

Right…but you don’t need to open up the discussion to such a public level to get that feedback. It becomes too big and too hard to discern what the actual feedback is. Legacy members saying they’ll quit if the prices are raised, others saying they are willing to pay more, etc.

@anon86199957

Quite contrary I would say, the openness and transparency are what makes TR so likeable in the first place

As I said, I admire Nate’s willingness and openness to have these discussions,but something that needs to be considered is that TR is significantly larger than they used to be and that sometimes requires a shift in how you interact with your customers.

[anon86199957]

@WombleHunter

But that’s the point isn’t it ?

No, it isn’t. Nate said more funds would allow for three more teams. That’s a want and not a need.

@WombleHunter

when there is such a large discrepancy between new/existing users, new users can’t help but feel that they are paying for existing uses to kept at a lower price,

Why would they be paying for them? How would someone in their first year make up for let’s say 5 or 10 years worth of subscription fees?

@WombleHunter

TR would either fold (costs increase with inflation) or have to stop development, which can only be amplified by other companies having a large user base and equal (and lower pricing) making them more likely to be loyal to them, not TR

You assume that giving up legacy pricing would benefit the revenue basis. I would argue it will likely hurt it. TR would lose a lot of users and experience quite unsteady cash flows and a pretty hefty seasonality pattern.

@WombleHunter

If grandfathering was such a great deal for TR, the best thing they could do would be offer the annual subscription at $99, but only for the first time you subscribe, after that $189

The grandfathered prices match the current competitor pricing. Systm eg is 129. Xert 100 bucks. Perhaps decreasing prices for new subscribers would actually attract more?

[Hoppy]

@Jonathan or Brandon becomes CEO, @nate becomes President or Chief Geek or something, problem solved and no promises broken…

[gcarver]

All this talk of “investing in TR”, but unless there are shares in the company coming my way it’s really just a money sink for me. One which I think has been “worth it”, but will regularly evaluate the cost/benefit of vs competition. So far TR comes out on top, partly because my price is locked-in.

I like the player, workout catalog, plans, and PL rating system. If I found something similar for less I might consider switching, but the bar there is pretty high. And I’ve been entirely comfortable with the current pace of feature delivery. Yes, there are things I want (unstructured ride PLs), but there’s a lot of things other subscribers want and I’m patient. I get the impression tri-users have been getting the short end of the feature-stick for a while.

Ultimately I have to ask, just how big can TR get? Indoor cycling is very niche. Heck, often enough I’ll run into a cyclist that doesn’t know what Strava is. Rapidly increasing the feature delivery pace simply isn’t likely (imo) to grow the subscriber base in the kinds of numbers to justify the cost. To me, this is about being sustainable vs hyper-growth. There’s risk either way.

[anon86199957]

@Power13

Right…but you don’t need to open up the discussion to such a public level to get that feedback. It becomes too big and too hard to discern what the actual feedback is. Legacy members saying they’ll quit if the prices are raised, others saying they are willing to pay more, etc.

I would say the feedback is quite clear.

@Power13

As I said, I admire Nate’s willingness and openness to have these discussions,but something that needs to be considered is that TR is significantly larger than they used to be and that sometimes requires a shift in how you interact with your customers.

That’s one way to look at it. In my opinion that’s the TR culture and what makes them unique. That’s why many want to see them succeed.

[WombleHunter]

@anon86199957

Why would they be paying for them? How would someone in their first year make up for let’s say 5 or 10 years worth of subscription fees?

I was talking about them 189 ( 240 monthly if they can’t outlay 189), me 100 , how could they not , 2 of their years could be 5 of yous

@anon86199957

You assume that giving up legacy pricing would benefit the revenue basis. I wo

I wasn’t even talking about that, I was talking about the users perception

@anon86199957

Perhaps decreasing prices for new subscribers would actually attract more?

My entire point

[Power13]

@anon86199957

I would say the feedback is quite clear.

I would suggest this is confirmation bias, because it is anything but clear.

[anon86199957]

That’s a whole lot of assumptions. We don’t know what the average new subscriber looks like. Though I doubt people on the monthly subscription stay on year round for years to come. Plus let’s also keep in mind that winning customers is more expensive than retaining them.

[WombleHunter]

That works both ways

[anon86199957]

How is that a bias? Nate was after feedback and that’s what he got. There are two clear positions in this thread. Stayers and quitters are fairly evenly split and in between are the shruggers. What to make out of this feedback is a up to Nate. He for sure has the advantage of knowing the numbers and now the option running some scenarios against the feedback.

[anon86199957]

Perhaps but I didn’t lead with arguments like subsidised subscriptions.

[WombleHunter]

Neither did I

[anon86199957]

@WombleHunter

But that’s the point isn’t it ? TR needs more funds to add the new features, new users have to pay $190 to get the same features if they subscribe for an entire year, if they only use it for 6 months of the year, they have paid more (5 months the same) into the same TR development fund, when there is such a large discrepancy between new/existing users, new users can’t help but feel that they are paying for existing uses to kept at a lower price, because without the new users, TR would either fold (costs increase with inflation) or have to stop development, which can only be amplified by other companies having a large user base and equal (and lower pricing) making them more likely to be loyal to them, not TR

Erm @WombleHunter

[WombleHunter]

Erm, read it again mate, I didn’t mention subsidised let alone lead with it, All I claimed was that the new users “can’t help but feel”, which is not leading / or arguing for, only putting out an opinion

Yes you can can claim that this is an assumption, based on a couple of posts, but it is a valid opinion, just not one that you agree with