You’re a good dude @Nate_Pearson, thanks for chiming in on this topic. Now can you please make your way over to that other 800 lbs gorilla thread?
2 Likes
I’d be in, too. I appreciate your business model and values. It would be a sad day, when you’re forces to change it fundamentally. So doing it the way you proposed is very well aligned with your modus operandi.
keep it going!
one of those ancient TR users
1 Like
I’d be cautious bumping up pricing and shocking users who aren’t paying attention and who don’t read emails. But other than that it works.
Personally, I’m not using AT or the plans so I’d likely not ante up the extra over legacy. But if I did start using AT and the plans in future would reconsider.
$0.02 but you asked 
1 Like
What run import email?
1 Like
Nate:
You have a great business. Charge people what it is worth. The wrong people will leave, but they were halfway out the door anyhow.
I’d be shocked if any price increase resulted in a net revenue decrease due to people leaving.
4 Likes
About a coffee a month.
And less than a pint of a Beer with Chad per month! 
2 Likes
You’re mensches at TR. I think it’s a great concept. You have a lot of good will among your users, and I imagine a lot of folks, even if it’s a significant minority, would opt in. In all honesty, I would probably opt out at this point, but only because my financial situation is unstable at the moment. I like to think I would opt back in if my wife returns to work and/or the kids go to public school, but that could be wishful thinking. I figure the least I can do is be honest about it. Either way, I know from being on this forum (you spent what on a wheel set??) that many users would not bat a lash. I would also personally NOT have complained if you “broke” your promise and raised prices on us $99ers, it would sting, but I’d cough up the extra in that scenario. So, I’m the user you’re betting against, but I think many would pay, and there would be blowback from others with a straight up price raise.
I assume you have considered this, but what about also giving the option for the Rockefellers among us to pay more (they choose the additional amount) if they choose?
3 Likes
That sounds fair. FWIW I’d opt to pay more, no question.
Morally, this last option makes the most sense to me: it rewards long-term subscribers and adheres to the spirit of your promise while facing the reality of things like, well, inflation.
I would just make clear rules who counts as a long-term customers so new customers can also get into the 20 % off bracket. Three years of continuous subscription plus everyone who is locked in at a lower price now? That’d make it also very easy for you to plan ahead financially.
2 Likes
I think the 20% loyalty discount makes sense. I like TR so I think it’s worth it.
4 Likes
My previously stated thoughts still stand.
I got on Board late in 2018, which is not really long, but long enough to be counted as “loyal”. AFAIK if I started with the yearly plan right then, I would profit from the grandfathered prices.
I think the divide between grandfathered prices at <100 USD and full paying members is too big and a loyalty discount for everyone after 1 or 2 years at the same price is more fair.
If I started cycling earlier, I would for sure be on TR since years and profit from lower annual prices…
1 Like
I second that.
If there is the option to opt out, there should be an incentive for not opting out (like early access only for people who contribute with their pricing to more development).
I‘d rather prefer the 20% discount for loyal users (after 2-3 years) - and make it visible at the pricing page.
Maybe that would help to decrease the number of people who pause their subscription during summer months aswell.
2 Likes
This.
And a percentage discount for everyone would not only be in the spirit of the promise, but it’d prevent that new users get shafted while others get varying discounts. They are easy to understand, easy to plan with (for TR) and allow for necessary price adjustments.
6 Likes
The 20% (or whatever) reduction for long term subscribers sounds fair. Three years before it kicks in seems reasonable to me, at 2yrs4mths I’m not there yet so I’m not pushing for something for myself.
Going with 20% discount as a suggested figure. The suggested $5/month increase is $60/year meaning those on the original legacy pricing would be paying $159/year. The current pricing of $189/year less 20% is $151.20/year so they’d be slightly better off by that score.
Obviously some would cry that Nate’s breaking his promise but as I and several others, @bobmcstuff most recently, have noted, inflation has eroded the value of their contribution. Not Nate’s fault, not the subscribers fault, it’s just the way it’s happened. Even if TR hadn’t moved on and introduced new features they are getting better value for money than they were. (Note: no resentment in the above - those who began their subscriptions way back then got the deal. I didn’t start until later so that pricing doesn’t apply to me. If I wanted that pricing I should have signed up earlier)
3 Likes
For me it’s not about Nate breaking a promise. I understand prices have to go up and I wasn’t in some fantasy thinking he could actually lock our prices forever. I would much prefer a option to stay on Legacy pricing without all the extra options TR offers. Take me back to the days before AT and every update after that time period for a basic price (whatever price is fair and competitive is up to TR). If a rider wants all the current updates like AT etc. you have to pay for it. I would always choose the cheapest plan. I love TR but I will always have to find the most affordable way to get my indoor training in. Just like everything else I subscribe to, I have a limit I will pay and when the price hits that limit I either do without it or start trying to find cheaper alternatives. So whatever the price ends up being I feel like many users will be in my situation and have to seriously consider what they are willing to pay.
1 Like
We’ve all got our “price” and obviously if Nate said that TR was going to cost $1000/year pretty well everyone would jump ship. I’m really not sure what “my price” is as I’ve not considered it, currently paying $20/month so $240/year so obviously “happy” with that.
Being able to offer tiers of service does depend on how well the various features are separated - it’s unlikely that you could have Plan Builder without the Calendar for instance but you could have the Calendar without Plan Builder. That sort of thing.
At $83 a month, I’d still be a customer. I pay more than that for cable service I rarely use.
Not so fast… For friendly debate:
$83 a month is about what the cheapest human coaches will cost an amateur. We can debate how well that money is spent and how effective those coaches are. Many, my experience, are worse than a TR canned plan and those are flawed. It is very possible that TR + AT will surpass these lower level coaches. If true, that changes what TR can consider charging.
The potential issue that I see today is TR doesn’t demonstrably eliminate coaching. So the value proposition is more around the app(s). But TR has potential to replace some humans with a very good system. Importantly, they could potentially prove it with data.
If A and B happen, the monthly fee value proposition and ROI to the athlete changes.
Note 1: It will be a long haul to replace the really good, elite level coaches. But these guys are charging $500-1000 a month and how many of us access that level of guidance for our hobby?
Note 2: Human interaction may always be important in motivation even if the machine is as good or better.
Note 3: There will always be guys that just want the workout player, workout creator and calendar functions. I’m hopeful that TR keeps us around with a $10 a month type structure. Perhaps with opportunity to pop in and out of AT driven coaching as / if needed.
Cheers,
Darth
1 Like
Not to take us too far off the purpose of this thread - but isn’t that where the substantial value of a coach lies? Building a plan is the ‘easy’ part for most experienced athletes