I agree. I can only see it working somewhat if you have features as add-ons. Similar to I have my base youtubetv plan but can add on hbo, showtime, etc.
Or pay 3 years ahead and get 25% discount
The problem with this model is assuming things won’t change again in the future. Imagine the uproar if they go back on the grandfathering and then also go back on the “3 years in advance” by saying, “we’re introducing XYZ, but it costs more”. You’re also assuming TR doesn’t get bought out or whatever. I’d pay for a year in advance, but I don’t see a lot of people trusting enough to pay for 3 years…especially after the trust had been broken once via the grandfathering.
Wish I could upvote more than once. Well put.
Ditto. This is one of the posts that makes the most sense to me as well.
This is a great point. At the risk of going off topic from legacy pricing, if there was a $5/mo or even free “workout player” version that might be a great way to get people into TR. Later they might be interested in upgrading to the Basic/Pro/AT whatever plan. Personally though I might drop my legacy subscription for the “workout player” only system as I don’t use the TR plans or AT.
Also, I’m pretty sure the legacy promise was “We’ll never change your pricing” not “We’ll never change your pricing and keep rolling out all kinds of amazing ML based training and analysis tools for you.” (Though if somebody can prove me wrong I’ll gladly eat crow.) The product they’ve come out with in the last year is worlds beyond what we all bought into when we first signed up. That being said I’d want better support for outside workouts or run/swim/row/hike/whatever included to the legacy when it finally gets fixed, but I think it’s more than fair for them to say any future updates to AT and other ML features need to cost more.
I mean… Sure… all it could happened.
Its a gamble?
just FYI… this term so many posters keep using has a racist past. Guessing that’s why the term “legacy pricing” is preferred.
Yup, we have seen it mentioned here and every other pricing thread. I even shared similar info in one of them.
A key issue here, is that Nate also used the bad term directly in his podcast comment, so there’s that…
Legacy subscriber here. Clearly I prefer paying $99 to $189 but I don’t view it as a one way deal. By definition, the legacy subscribers are the most loyal and that has real value. We may be lower revenue clients but we are almost certainly lower cost clients too. There is no cost to acquire us as a customer, we are also likely lower cost to service and support (as we are already familiar with the product) etc. These things have real, tangible value to TR both in terms of cash flow and valuation of TR as a business. I applaud TR for recognizing this value in their pricing strategy.
In addition, the longer term subscribers have provided the data that makes AT etc. possible, I view my discount as payment for having provided the data that makes all the cool stuff possible.
This. All of this.
100% what these two users said.
I’ve kept my TR subscription continuously active because I knew I’d stay locked into my rate even though there have been long periods of time where I was far from an active TR user. Otherwise I would have subbed for a few months when I was using it and cancelled when I wasnt like I do with Zwift.
I don’t think anyone WANTS to see their rate rise, but I do think the loyalty pricing idea I quoted above is the best compromise between longtime users being rewarded for being so, and TR not getting to the point where they’re losing money on all of us “original” users.
Since you asked for feedback, here it goes:
1) Do not split the TR product into “regular” and “pro” versions. Maintaining two different version of the product is likely to generate all kinds of headaches that will not be compensated by whatever higher price you may be able to charge for the “pro” version. Much bigger companies have tried this and failed.
A better option might be to open an API and provide basic tools which a limited group of power users could use to access data, which you do not want to make available for users at large / incorporate to the product. You might even be able to sell these tools to the power users for extra fee to cover their development / maintenance costs.
2) Do not remove grandfathering and definitely do not relegate grandfathered users into “second class citizens” by not allowing them access to the latest features without forfeiting their veteran status.
Grandfathering is a great way to keep users subscribing through hard times and rewarding loyal customers. The amount of the discount is not that relevant in and by itself (at least for me).
If and when the price difference between grandfathered and new subscriptions grows too large, a better option might be to set a floor for the grandfathered subscription prices based on new subscription prices and keep them in sync going forwards (e.g. set a floor for grandfathered subs at -20 % or whatever compared to new subs and whenever you raise to price for new subs, the floor for grandfathered subs rises also -you can easily adjust this discount later on, if the nominal difference grows too large or you just want the decrease / increase the discount).
As for Nate worrying about going back on his word, things change and sometimes you have to make hard decisions which are going to make some people unhappy. Your obligation is to do what is best for the product and community as a whole, even if this forces you to occasionally admit you made a mistake before and deal with the consequences.
Many thanks for the whole team for your dedication and devotion!
@Semi_Matias, I moved your post into the dedicated topic that was started yesterday, in response to Nate’s comments & request.
Technically I’m a legacy subscriber but I started (Oct 2019) when the price was the same as it is now - I pay $20/month but the yearly cost is $189. Previously I’d been on TR back in 2015/2016? when I subscribed for the winter and gave up for the summer months. These last two years I’ve stuck with it through summer because of something C or other, outdoor workouts helped here.
I do the Low Volume plans so that’s three workouts a week, twelve a month so that’s roughly $1.40 a session. Compare that with our local gym - it’s not a full World Gym type facility, it’s just a weights room in the local leisure centre - which charges £20/month, roughly $28/month. I’d do two sessions a week, eight a month so $3.50 a session.
Not sure what my limit is, maybe somewhere in the 30-50% above what I pay now. I have very few other subscriptions so there’s not much else fighting for my cash. I don’t know what I’d do if I wasn’t on TR - Zwift graphics do my head in - they look like they’ve been done by a teenager with an endless supply of Entonox 
Nate sort of boxed himself in with his promise whichever way you interpret it. Inflation at 2% leads to a 50% increase over 20 years, 3% is 85% in the same time frame. I’m not sure what the “least worst” option is - possibly keeping the legacy pricing for existing users who were promised it but stopping it for new users. All depends on the numbers on legacy and new subscribers.
If you are going to do that math comparing to a gym membership it’s simply not apples to apples - we front the other bulk with a $700-1400 Trainer, thousands on our bikes, the room we exercise in, a computer, wifi, a/c, electric, etc. It’s not the same. This is an app that does great things, but at the end of the day it’s an app not a brick-n-mortar gym. TR can also can get the whole world on it, where as gyms have a fire code capacity and realistic geography constraints for a market. These are not at all the same to compare head to head.
I have been a long-time subscriber and an on/off user. I did this to continue to support the company and its’ development as well as keep my membership cost locked in. This was the “sell” by Trainerroad originally; reward loyalty and earn a client that gives continuous support. If this feature is removed, or I am in some way tiered in product upgrades then I will choose to only pay for the product when I use it and will definitely shop other products. I understand the desire and need for improved profit, it should not be at the cost of loyal users that have stuck by Trainerroad for years.
This has been rattling around in my brain, and my thoughts are evolving. Some things I’m considering are:
- a price increase is inevitable*. If not 2022, then 2025 or some time when $99 is worth about as much as $50 is today (*yes, unless TR gets lots more subscribers and the legacy people make up such a small percentage of subscribers that it doesn’t matter. To that point, GET ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO JOIN!!)
- one thing I really like about TR, is/was that it’s cheap. This isn’t exclusive like Peloton or Soul Cycle etc. When I joined, the $99 was a very low bar to entry. At $199 I think we will see a percentage of Legacy subscribers leave in protest and another percentage leave because they don’t like the cost. I just really liked how we have an active community with weekly updates from the company about training and the product etc. I have no idea who’s behind Rouvy and the other plans, and Eric at Zwift doesnt open up as much as Nate and Chad do.
- Given how the software is so much better than when I joined, I would be okay going to $149 or maybe $199 if it’s then my new legacy pricing. I’m not okay losing all recognition of my 3 years of membership and doing $199, then a year later $249 … pretty soon it’d get to the point where it’s $399 and worthwhile to me only when really training hard.
- Nate really did paint himself into a corner with the on-air promises. It’s not a contract, but it set an expectation. Now would I rather TR said “lets not develop and keep our costs down so we can survive on all the $99 subscribers”, or the “we need to increase the cost because we’re making a better product” … well, I far prefer the later option, even though it’s likely going to cost me money.
Ramp test, calendar, adaptive training - those are awesome and beyond what I signed up for. And the next stuff is looking even better. My $99 is a complete bargain!
I am grandfathered in at 129$. The exchange rate brings that down to 10 Euro per month and that’s about the maximum I would be willing to pay.
To me TrainerRoad simply wouldn’t be worth more. Ultimately, I am using it for the workout player, the library and the calendar. All the rest is nice to have but doesn’t provide much extra value.
Comparing TrainerRoad to Systm makes me wonder whether it actually is even worth the 129 dollars. Mostly because Systm offers so much more than just cycling. Also I doubt their methodology would make me much slower.
Anyhow, I will stay with TrainerRoad as long as my pricing stays where it is. Mostly because of the very likeable team I happily support.
To end this on a constructive note. Perhaps it would be worth considering a tonend down subscription option. Like one without the fancy new stuff like AT, group workouts, FTP prediction and what else is to come. Folks grandfathered in could stay on that option or pay a premium and move to the all-in functionality.
This is exactly what was proposed, only those on legacy pricing get to keep AT and group workouts. If you want FTP and anything else new, you pay ~$5 more.