Legacy Pricing of TR

[G650]

@Hampstenfan

And then of course, there is this POV from the Jan 16 Pez review of Phil Cavellis “The MidLife Cyclist” where they quote from the author’s epilogue: “I can’t make myself perpetually young, but I can make sure that my wisdom and common sense increases to meet the challenges of maintaining health, speed and strength. So unshackle yourself from your stationary trainer and your power meter. Go out into nature on your bike and take a few breaths. Remember that trying to make old people young again is the ultimate fool’s errand. But trying to make old people fast is fun, life-affirming and almost certainly good for us.”

Great book btw.

[danielm]

Looks like I’ve missed a chunk.

[bobmcstuff]

@AldridgePrior

Fair comments. While I think that would be a decent and useful product I also think very few of that group 3 (Zwift) crowd would be much interested in it: it’d simply appear too dull and no fun to them (which is likely their view of current TR). I agree it’d have to be low cost, but despite that low cost I can easily imagine such a product simply withering on the vine due to lack of interest by the imagined target audience, such that the app ended up being a colossal waste of resources by TR.

Yes - I am not sure if it would be a commercially viable product. But can see how it might work. I think if you came up with it ~5 years ago it might have had a lot of traction.

[stevemckinney]

@enki42

Once again, Nate wasn’t suggesting such a large increase in cost and he wasn’t suggesting elimination of the legacy prices. He was only suggesting a $60/year increase in legacy pricing. Those at $99 would only be paying 60% more

I don’t mind a modest increase. If $5/month would enable TR to grow their product teams, I’d eat it. Any more or further bumps in prices would require me to sharpen my pencil and take a second look at the competition.

I think AT is the future of training outside of getting a coach. Can’t wait to see what the TR team delivers over the next few years.

[Simo429]

What would really annoy me is if the automatic ftp updates aren’t in the basic model. That would be the straw that breaks the camels back for me leaving

[PWeber]

@DarthShivious

What some (self included) want are not the Plan Builder + AT approach, but rather the workout player, workout creator, workout library and calendar

The ability to create your own plan from the workout library and save it for future use would be a welcome addition to this core functionality

[Nate_Pearson]

@Macy

I’m also a year around indoor trainer though - outdoor workouts just don’t work, so the next big TR win for me is the unstructured rides counting.

For us too!

Getting outdoor workouts scored in the progression system and updating your levels/workouts is like…revolutionary in my opinion.

This is what the company has been moving towards.

[Joelrivera]

and pretty please…swim/runs?
I know this is more exciting than anything else… but pretty please?

[jkc]

Honestly, haven’t heard much about them recently. Do they have a training library as large or comprehensive as TR or TP (free and for sale plans and through coaching)? I thought it was still mostly analytics.

[Pbase]

In response to the question of what do TR users prioritize most, we seem to have:

• Unstructured outdoor rides counting for AT
• Functionality for Triathletes/Runners
• Masters plans
• Ability to build plans with specifics like time available and type of workout per day
• Advanced analytics

Did I get that right? What did I leave out?

[Hampstenfan]

@pdworks.cc

As good as feedback is, democratizing the path of a company isn’t the way forward. If anything it muddies the waters because there’s no direction.

Have to agree. Reading this thread and other similar comments about “community” is an important observation that this is an LLC – a privately-held, for-profit business. It’s not a co-op, a B-corp, a charity, a membership organization or any of the variations of organizational models possible. Yes, I like the team a lot – Nate, Jonathon, Amber, Coach Chad, Ivy as public faces as well as the support team with whom I’ve interacted. They are, however, business people from whom I’m purchasing a service, which in my mind includes the podcasts, forum, etc. No question there’s a sense of comradery within the forum participants (both subscribers and nonsubscribers) and between staff and customers; however, each of us has to determine whether the services we’re buying have the value proposition we want/need and whether our belief in the future trajectory is consistent with that.

Sometimes too much disclosure can actually be counter-productive in that vein. Tough path to chart and follow for sure.

[Power13]

@iamholland

Do what needs to be done, for the business. People will stay or go.

100%…as I noted above, IMO and experience, the best option would have been to make a decision, explain how / why it will be implemented, apologize if necessary to legacy owners and move on. Yeah, a few would have left, but my experience tells me the vast majority would have stuck it out.

[mailman]

Random thought @Nate_Pearson as someone who thinks the Legacy pricing isn’t a great thing (if it is stagnating growth/forcing the price for new users to be artificially higher than it would otherwise be) why not get rid of Legacy Pricing but offer a say 5 year rate at $500?

My preference for establishing more reasonable pricing is still the Loyalty discount (% after X and Y years).

[toyman]

@jctonett

’ve had locked in pricing since 2013, and in exchange, I have continued to pay through months in which I rarely use TR for a lot of reasons.

I would think that TR would have looked at subscription through minimal/no usage between the legacy and non-legacy groups. This should be something that TR can get some data-driven insight into, and could shed some light on how much ‘new revenue’ is really to be had from the legacy group. (I don’t expect Nate to share the details of this though, even if it has been done )

[larskoelle]

I haven’t had the chance to read the whole discussion in here but I just finished listening to the latest podcast and thought I should share my five cents.
From my point of view @Nate_Pearson made it clear that he wants to grandfather but might need to adapt to inflation. That said, give me some new features which proof that they improve my training and I am more than happy to be grandfathered with inflation and feature adjustments.
As long as I kick some behinds during my club rides I am happy

[rcbtri]

There is no denying here on how business works and companies makes money but shame on TR for making promises they can’t keep.

I’m just coming back from a 4 months pause that I didn’t stop paying because i didn’t want to lose the price I’m locked in but you guys can’t have my money both ways and cancelling my subscription when not using the system will be the first thing when you start messing with pricing tiers.

As noted above, I’m a long time user and fan of the work you guys do. Your tool helped me get faster but It wasn’t for free so I don’t really feel bad by trying something different.

This post isn’t to be taken as a threat or nothing like that. I’m only one user and if i leave, nobody will miss me but when you started grandfathering fees you were trying to make us loyal and that’s probably the reason of so much frustration about the ideas that were vented in this podcast.

[Jphall50]

I don’t have an issue with a modest price increase, I think new users should pay more but accept that all pricing will eventually have to move. If TR can continue to develop new features and bring them to market as a complete product …I am happy. If outside rides can ever be fully incorporated then I am ecstatic.

[a59a2e9a2645dbb]

I nearly canceled my long time sub but have kept it active in anticipation of AT taking outdoor rides into consideration. This could be the additionally functionality in which I view the TR platform as a necessity.

[rondickinson]

Yes, I’m on grandfathered pricing, but that doesn’t mean I should expect product improvements at no additional cost.
I think TR should have a base price for base training plans. -
They should have a next tier at a higher price with advanced features like AT.
Then they should have a pro price - everything possible and a pro reviewing the files and communicating. this level would be pricey.
Let the consumer decide. I think you will be surprised how many people are willing to pay for a better product. If the consumer thinks it’s a better product. TR can not innovate forever without increasing revenue and every healthy company has to deal with inflation.

[Aplcr0331]

Lol, my Donate Now button idea was my attempt at an adult response to those who say “TR is so worth it to me and that I’d pay more” (shoulder shrug, but I’ll keep paying what I’ve been paying).

What I actually mean is that they should cancel their current subscription and renew at the higher price…Mr. Moneybags!

Great thread!