It seems like TR would lose the ability to control the product and pricing if venture capital was infused. I don’t know anyone that just hands out money without expecting something in return. Just my two cents.
7 Likes
Eventually someone has to pay. The investors are going to want their money back and then some. Outside investors are going to want to maximize every penny spent to make as much as they can back. In my opinion, that would lead to quicker price hikes and a more diluted product.
6 Likes
That was my interpretation, that I wouldn’t get everything you ever built at $99/year. Others appear to have the same take. But not everyone.
You can’t make everyone happy, and you already know that. Appreciate you putting it out to the community, and putting on the flak jacket to participate in this thread. #respect
10 Likes
Or the company cuts development to live within the income they get from the legacy members + newer ones. And then all of the Legacy members will eventually grow tired of the platform and move onto something new with newer features.
I would love to know, but I’d guess TrainingPeaks has lost market share (and maybe absolute membership numbers) to TR as TR offers a decent calendar. And with adaptive training, TR will take users from real world coaches. If TR don’t stay innovative, and if Zwift do get innovative about training plans, then TR will lose market share.
Just thinking my TR is $99, bikepacking is like $60, Adventure cycling is $45, local bicycle advocacy is $60 I think, cyclingtips is $75, GCN+ will be $50. I’m not racing. This does all add up.
Still, if TR have too big of a burden because too many members are on plans which don’t cover their fair share of the R&D costs for all the developments, then I’m fine for a year or two with paying more. But, I wouldnt just keep the membership forever. I’d be more considered in paying $199 than I am at $99.
All the time companies break out services into other tiers. Netflix does it with how many screens you can do.
Again, I’m not saying we’re going to do it.
5 Likes
Netflix, in some ways, probably looks at the tiers as a way to get more people on the platform. The cheapest tier probably doesn’t make them money, but they get to harvest a lot of viewer data. TR is also harvesting our data. More data, theoretically, means better AT and better TR. Any thoughts to a lower tier option just to get more people on the platform? Maybe access to the calendar, workout library and TrainNow?
Also, thanks for everything and keep up the good work!
1 Like
Well now that I’m thinking about it I probably wouldn’t mind a tiered approach (don’t spam me-like the one Strava did). More of an à la carte where you can pick and choose. For instance; Yes on the workouts and app for use during training but then a nope for adaptive training, train now, plan builder or “teams”.
I don’t see them going that way.
1 Like
Grandfathered pricing really was never going to succeed long term. At some point it has to go. As a business advisor the item I deal with quite frequently is having businesses understand they need a pricing policy that just has consistent regular increases to match their ongoing cost increases. Think of MacDonalds…do you notice the price increases or do they just happen.
Loyalty pricing would be the best compromise as previously mentioned.
I watched the podcast today which gave me some insight prior to my response here.
TR currently has plans that dont work for me. AT doesnt work either as I dont follow the plans. Outside rides bear no impact on AT. I ride outside for enjoyment…I dont do workouts. So despite being a long time user, grandfathered in at $129 and over 800 TR rides…I use the workout app but I dont use the rest of what has been recently done. Progression levels help somewhat
Bump the price and I may go back to just use in winter and drop for 7 months.
The podcast did highlight a feature that makes more sense to me. The ability to tweak time per day and number of workouts to be achieved. The balance for me that wasnt addressed…is as someone over 60 I need more recovery. I cant do the current iteration of SSBII and build without failing at somepoint from fatigue a couple of months out. I cant do the following weeks in SSBII as they are laid out.
If this gets adjusted so I can have a plan that works then I would likely stay subscribed with a price increase. If there is no change and there is a price increase…I cant see me staying subscribed…it just doesnt represent enough value to me.
5 Likes
Legacy member. Haven’t listened to the latest podcast yet.
Bananas cost more now than they did 5 years ago. Bibs cost more. Bikes cost more (if you can even find one). Houses cost more. Cell phone bill costs more. People also get paid more. Salaries for the same work are higher.
TR costs the same but we get more feature all the time. Makes sense that somethings gotta give, and it can’t all be on the back of new users.
With that said, if they’re gonna start charging me 30 bucks a month and there’s no legacy incentive to stay…I’d be much more inclined to shop around to the other platforms to see what they offer.
6 Likes
I have been with TR since 2013. I suspended my subscription in the summer of 2014 and got hit with a price increase when I reupped in fall of 2014. I have never dropped my subscription since even though I usually don’t use the service consistently or at all during the summer months.
I would still be with TR without all the new features. AT, planbuilder, the calendar, and all the other things that have been added since I signed up are nice but they aren’t the reason I’ve stuck with it so long. The basic platform is why I’ve been here. If they upped my price, I may start to look elsewhere and that would not be good for TR. I’m sure other subscribers with legacy pricing may feel the same.
I would also bet money that subscribers with legacy pricing are a small part of their user base. We probably don’t really effect their bottom line and most likely help them as we are a pretty reliable revenue stream for them. We also serve as good ambassadors and referral sources as we steer people towards TR,
3 Likes
I’m unfortunate in that I’ve taken a pay cut amounting to $11K per year. I’m happier and my family is too but with inflation the last 2 years (even factoring in some modest COLA “raises”) I’m down another $3k from what I was making in 2019. So down $14k and I live in a pretty hot housing market. I was renting a house in 2018 that was $1325 and now in 2022 a house we’re renting in the same neighborhood that’s smaller and a way bigger piece of shit is $2050 per month.
My N=1 doesn’t invalidate your statement but I’m willing to bet there’s quite a few people that are beginning to feel the pinch.
7 Likes
That’s more or less how I feel; I’ve been around since 2015. I’m not overly opposed to paying more to keep up with inflation and such but the core value has been the basic platform. The calendar is helpful but most of the other newer features I could take or leave. I realize that I’ve been paying a subscription price for fixed (ish) utility but it has been relatively affordable.
The more novel features have been interesting to see but I don’t really make use of them and there wouldn’t be value to me in a precipitous price bump.
2 Likes
Same. I mean… maybe I need some of these new features, but I already think I get a LOT for what I’m paying now… (especially since… I’mgrandfatheredinat$89…) [dives for cover from flying objects]
2 Likes
Its also widely accepted the cost of those services rise over time.
netflix:
Amazon prime subscription went from $79 in 2005 to $119 now
I could go on…
Exactly, not to mention the user data becomes one thing that is used to pay
3 Likes
Seems like there are lots of people who have been here from the early days who don’t use any of the newer features and are complaining that they don’t want to pay more. Nate wasn’t suggesting you would. You would only see a price increase if you want the new features. I’m so confused over the complaint
4 Likes
Yep I agree many (most!) subscription services put in price rises. That is not what I was calling out. Nate’s comment was that he committed to prices not rising for grandfathered customers but that he didn’t commit that those users would get feature upgrades. I suggest that upgrades are implicit to the model and expected.
I would not have made the commitment to no price rises myself, but he did do that and so here we are.
Netflix would never make a similar commitment, but I guess if they did and made noises about restricting new programming to people on higher tiers, it would rankle with me the same way.
2 Likes
I’m firmly in this camp. If the majority of the folks who have legacy pricing are also in this group, and therefore don’t see value in paying more, then the whole idea doesn’t make sense. TR won’t get substantial incremental income to develop new features, and will piss off long time customers.
So either TR has data that shows that legacy customers do use the newer features and would therefore pay more, or this was an off the cuff / not really thought through comment by Nate. I’m not making a negative comment about Nate, just an observation. Nate’s free wheeling comments are a breathe of fresh air in a world where most CEOs comments are carefully scripted.
7 Likes
I’ve stuck with trainerroad when taking breaks because of grandfather policy. So I feel, I’ve already paid more based on trust.
I think trainerroad had probably enjoyed more stable revenue due to this policy and I think continued development is part of this expectation.
I would consider changing this policy a breach of trust.
There should be plenty of room for revenue growth by increasing user base.
13 Likes
Agreed.
Venture capitalists are not interested in “medium-sized” companies, they are want to invest in companies that might become huge. And these days, once the company is fattened up, it gets sold to Amazon, Apple, Google or Facebook.
IMHO TrainerRoad as it is now is a horrible fit: if you want to go for mass market, you need to be Peloton, Strava or Zwift, both have received ample funding and are way bigger. It’s clear that @Nate_Pearson wants to stay in control of the company and not sell. Moreover, if TR were to target a broad audience, it would invariable destroy the appeal to athletes. And invariably, TR would sell (access to) data to other companies. Thanks, but no thanks.
I think there are way too few new companies out there that grew by bootstrapping themselves, where the founder wants to stay in charge and does not work towards a windfall by selling his company to someone.
I’m curious: is it really necessary for you to have to use all features so that an app or service is worth it to you? I personally don’t see that as a criterion, e. g. I don’t use (anywhere close to) all features of Excel, but I’d pay for it. In fact, I do.
The way I think about it here is whether TR is flexible enough to accommodate my use cases, and whether I can reasonably expect that features I want either are in development or might be in development. Our subscription fees pay for that continued development. Of course, I cannot expect that all new features will be features I care about. I don’t care about tri plans and have zero plans to even try triathlon (I’m no good at swimming and have a bad knee). But I don’t see it as a zero sum game. If more triathletes join TR, then TR could increase its size and perhaps develop more features. And maybe there are features demanded by triathletes that turn out to be useful (e. g. a feature tracking nutrition on the bike?).
I like the direction TR is taking, so that’s my bias here. And hearing that they can’t afford to hire more teams to tackle features makes it a no brainer for me. However, for people like you who only use an ever smaller subset of features, I can understand if the price is no longer right. But rather than keeping users by grandfathering them in, I want TR to keep users by adding more features and make it useful to them.
I disagree with this. It’s even in our privacy policy that we won’t do this. Companies don’t need to do this to survive. And it’s a shitty way to make money IMO.
35 Likes