Strava acquires Runna

1

Interesting to see Strava just acquired Runna..

When Runna first came out I likened it a lot to TrainerRoad in the way that it customized training plans via an app at a reasonable cost (versus in person coach).

I know there were always questions as to whether TrainerRoad would remain independent.

Do you think this opens the way for Strava to make further acquisitions. Do you think they could start to use Runna technology to develop training plans for cycling as well as running, to compete with TrainerRoad.

2

TrainerRoad is a workout player first. They would need to develop that to be considered a true “competitor” in my opinion.

3

Strava have made numerous acquisitions over the last few years, albeit as far as I’m aware, they’ve been smaller apps etc. A lot of those acquisitions seem to have been to strip parts out that Strava want, integrate them into Strava and then close of the original app after a while. One that springs to mind is FatMap.

I have been using Runna since last July to go from not being a runner, to be able to run my first marathon next week in Manchester. I love the app, it ease of use and great features. I really hope the Strava acquisition doesn’t change this, and both apps stay independent of each as the founders of Runna are currently stating. I’m keeping an open mind on it…

1 Like
4

I agree, it felt like the most TrainerRoad-like app I’ve used when it comes to training plans and calendar management (although by the same token it made me appreciate TrainerRoad’s adaptive training, workout library, and alternates system even more, since it lacks all of those things). I’m disappointed to see it acquired by Strava, which doesn’t have the best track record in acquisitions or a reputation for being very customer-first.

I still have about nine months left in my annual subscription so I’m gonna ride it out for now, but I’ll likely come back to TrainerRoad for my running workouts after that. I’d love to see TR make some investments in the running experience to bring it closer to Runner’s; I’m not expecting a workout player for indoor runs, but at least the ability to send planned workouts to my watch or Zwift would be a huge improvement (a version of AI FTP but for running pace would be tremendous, though).

4 Likes
5

Here’s a quote from the announcement their CEO made on reddit:

There were roughly 1 billion runs recorded on Strava last year, and 43% of the Strava community want to conquer a big event like a race. Acquiring Runna gives you even more tools to help you achieve your running goals. This is just the beginning, and there is much more to come (including for cyclists–stay tuned!).

Not that I personally care about that. Whatever they do or acquire, I won’t trust that for a moment. But that’s their answer to your question.

1 Like
6

I have a tough time trusting training advice from a company who says that “Athlete intelligence” is their most popular feature.

7 Likes
7

What I think is interesting is that customer experience/satisfaction seems to be extremely high with both Runna and Trainerroad and lower with Strava. However Strava is much more widely used (they quote 150m though I think only a small number of those are paid for). Putting the two together and building out the smaller (more profitable?) business with access to a higher user base must make some sense

The other thought is do they need both TrainerRoad and Runna. Or maybe it was just a question that one was for sale and the other was not. Or they thought one had better technology or was better value for money than the other. Maybe both were never in consideration (and it’s just me putting the two in the same category). It’s clear running has experienced a lot more of a boom in last couple of years and I see more cyclists getting more into running

I understand past acquisition were FatMap and Recover Athletics. Nothing else until now. Will they start to be more acquisitive and try to make more money off their huge user base.

Only over time will we see if the staying independent is the best for all stakeholders (shareholders employees and customers). For now it’s clear that being acquired is amazing for shareholders. Let’s hope it’s good for employees and customers. Let’s also see if it changes anything for TrainerRoad. I am happy to see them remain independent, though if at some point they could increase users/reduce subscription and maintain customer service, being acquired may not be terrible.

8

I mean Strava seems to make money by selling it’s users data and views whereas Runna/TrainerRoad make money by selling a product to their users. Those pretty clear differences in revenue model probably drive a lot of the customer satisfaction differences.

1 Like
9

Also, both Runna and TrainerRoad are extremely responsive to user feedback and go out of their way to talk to their users (Runna on their subreddit, TR on this forum). Strava rolls things out and explicitly tells their users that disagreeing with their decisions is forbidden. Hard to feel any customer satisfaction when a company tells its users “we don’t care what you think.”

6 Likes
10

Yeah that’s spot on, I mean there’s been so many little tiny fixes that Strava could have had easy wins on over the years. Instead, it feels like they just completely ignore user feedback. It’s kind of similar to how Meta operates imo. It’s like all changes really have the goal of driving ad revenue rather than actually make a better experience for the user.

3 Likes
11

There are a lot of things suspect at Strava. One is they seem to have forced people into an annual subscription plan? Makes it better for them I guess, if everyone is on ‘the plan’. But how am I saving 44%, if this is the ONLY way to get it. I’m ‘saving’ effectively nothing. (I searched ‘Strava pricing’ and got a page that said everyone was on ‘the plan’. Good for their bottom line I guess)

The ‘we’re locking everything down’ kick was bizarre. The ‘we control your data’ was another bizarre thing. The ‘we won’t tolerate any criticism’ was Orwellian on top of Orwellian. My contribution to their omnipotence ends on the 28th. Like that song, ‘Should I stay or should I go’ is running through my mind. Is all that goodness, and ‘Runna’ (I don’t run), worth eighty bucks a month.

1 Like
12

I think this is the next step in Strava becoming a multidisciplinary training platform. Their API lockdown was an obvious first step of a big repositioning—albeit very poorly managed.

I see the potential change as good for athletes. Peloton does multidisciplinary training adequately, but their platform sucks for periodized training and progressive overload. TrainerRoad (and presumably Runna) does periodization and progressive overloading well, but seems to have no interest in being multidisciplinary. It’s about time someone comes along and puts it all together relatively well. Others, like Humango, have tried, but their UI sucked. Athletica also exists, but I haven’t heard much about them or played around with their platform yet.

I would be surprised if Strava acquired TR after getting Runna. Runna’s platform should give them a good framework and team which can be adapted to training for additional sports to the point of offering maybe 80% of what TR does—which is likely enough for most people.

I highly doubt TR would be much of a competitor to Strava training once it gets rolling. They’ll remain cutting edge for a small population of cyclists while Strava delivers adequacy for masses. For TR to overtake Strava in training users, I think there’d have to be a lot of changes to the business.

13

Thanks to someone recommending it here my wife has been using Runna to train for a 10k and she likes it a lot. It seems, it got her hooked on structured training. I can’t say anything about the interface while doing workouts, but the app seems nice.

And not surprisingly, I had a negative gut reaction to the acquisition by Strava. Strava can’t even develop its own products in a coherent way, how can it shepherd an app known for its UI and customer service? Customer service will be the canary in the coal mine. Good customer service is expensive and the impact of nixing it won’t be felt on the balance sheet for a while.

14

This is a bizarre statement when we’re talking about a company that continuously makes product changes with the goal of making their platform more frustrating for long-term users.

2 Likes
15

Vertical SaaS refers to software solutions built specifically for a single industry or vertical (e.g., restaurants, dentistry, HVAC, agriculture). A key strategic insight in this model is: once you “win” a vertical by controlling a critical point, you unlock opportunities to expand monetization in multiple directions.

The first step is becoming indispensable in a critical workflow—typically by owning a “control point,” such as a general ledger (back office), or a system of record for customer interactions or transactions (CRM or ERP).

Example: Toast, which began with a POS system tailored to restaurants, established itself at this control point and became central to restaurant operations. In the social athletic space, I believe we can safely say that Strava occupies a similar dominant position.

Once established, Vertical SaaS companies cross-sell additional products to the same customers, increasing average revenue per user (ARPU), net revenue retention, and thus the customer’s lifetime value (LTV). Even assuming that an additional add-on doesn’t extend the customer’s contract duration (which is uncommon—typically, integrations and add-ons correlate with higher retention), it will still increase the total value of the contract.

This is crucial in the “alphabet soup” of managing SaaS unit economics. We often aim for an LTV : CAC ratio greater than 3. CAC, or Customer Acquisition Cost, is the total cost of converting a non-paying user (or even a non-user) into a paying customer.

The industry has learned that retention rates in the B2C environment (like those of us paying for services like TrainerRoad, Strava, or TrainingPeaks) are generally lower than in B2B. Businesses face significant switching costs—training, implementation, customization, and opportunity costs associated with errors—which typically result in longer retention periods.

In consumer software, barriers to switching are much lower. The software itself usually doesn’t present a strong barrier unless it’s connected to something non-replicable, creating what is called “defensibility.” TrainerRoad’s structured data, used to train models and generate additional value, is a great example. Strava has defensibility through its community—it doesn’t matter how superior another app might be; migrating approximately 150 million users is extremely challenging. But I digress…

Typical expansion paths for Vertical SaaS include Payments, Payroll, Insurance, Lending, Merchant Cards, and Loyalty Programs. These are more than just add-ons; they reinforce the original control point, creating greater stickiness and platform gravity. Financial services tend to be significantly more profitable than simply selling additional software to a subset of customers. Strava, for instance, seems either to have struggled with or opted against exploring these financial avenues.

Opportunities in the cycling vertical could include:

  • Bike insurance tailored for regions with security concerns (like here in Brazil)
  • Marketplaces enhanced with mileage data
  • Specialized community marketplaces (similar to Facebook groups)
  • Direct sales partnerships with major cycling brands

The Vertical SaaS thesis extends even further, particularly in B2B contexts, aiming to integrate along the entire value chain. Monetization moves beyond the initial customer to include their employees, suppliers, and customers. A quick cycling-related example could be a bike shop management solution integrated with rider mileage tracking, enhancing customer engagement.

This deeper integration embeds the SaaS company within the entire industry ecosystem, improving retention, increasing LTV, and ultimately boosting profitability.

aaaaa
aaaaa452×417 24.9 KB

To close, I think this chart is a pretty good summary. It’s from Read Write Own, which explores the natural cycle companies undergo—initially attracting users and inevitably shifting towards extracting value from them. Strava is a mature company that has raised significant capital. I’m not sure whether they are currently focused on revenue expansion to enhance their financial performance for an eventual sale (to whom?) or genuinely working to establish long-term profitability. However, one thing seems clear: they likely prioritize profiting from their customer base over the interests of individual users.

4 Likes
16

I’m not saying they’ll succeed—I’m saying there’s a need for it and no one is doing it well, yet.

1 Like