I just can’t imagine any future investor fueling Zwift anymore when it appears subscriber growth has plateaued all during a pandemic that required people to stay indoors.
Oh and the graphics look like they’re from 2003.
1 Like
The only reason I still subscribe is that it’s the best platform for virtual racing. Not that the actual app is good for racing, but any time I’m feeling like I want to really push it, I can login and find a race starting in 15min.
If another app comes around that’s better at doing racing (not a very high bar IMO) and the community starts to shift, I could see Zwift get pretty quickly abandoned.
The sad thing is that the parts of racing on Zwift that are broken should be somewhat easy to fix, especially since they bought out zwiftpower. Strictly enforce categories. Move people up/down categories based on results not peak power. Don’t allow somebody to drop 10kg one day then go back up the next.
In case you haven’t seen the comments, RGT Cycling is apparently a fair bit better for racing from a physics, pack dynamics and accuracy in space perspective. They are well short of the numbers and frequency that I know you want, but it is free to try and race, so you might give it a shot just to see if you like what is there.
Like anything “new” (RGT is not new, but still less than a shadow of what Z is for rider count right now), it takes time to hit some critical mass. Getting more people to try and then pull their friends is at least part of what it will take to actually step up and challenge Z.
1 Like
That’s Chad, I’m not usually an early adopter/trendsetter but maybe I buck the trend this time and give it a shot!
1 Like
I’m sure the “ CNC-milled wood arches ” is money well spent. 
1 Like
Dude, no kidding. The are talking out of both sides of their mouths hard here.
There’s a bunch of superficial fluff there that I can imagine was not cheap. Paint on flat walls is one thing… purely visual and extra crap like that is well beyond what they seem to be claiming.
I’m also a bit jaded by a company I work which redesigned their office a few years ago to address expansion. In an age of more or more work from home they continued with their everyone has their own office policy so the space was huge. And now with the pandemic we’re 90% work from home with a few holdouts who like the office. So now they’re just waiting until their lease ends to lease a smaller space.
But I’m more about function in general. I think companies waste a lot of money on crap they don’t need.
3 Likes
Shayne Gaffney from zwift was interviewed on the Empirical Cycling podcast. He wrote all the programs on zwift. His whole focus is on relieving boredom and making it fun. AI seems to be a long way away for them and their target market is the recreational rider that wants to have a go at racing online.
TR has a different target market.
As someone in the construction industry, that “little” space cost a whole lot of money…
2 Likes
That’s not Chads brain, that’s a team of physiologists and computer scientists that wrote the new programs. They are very different to Chads style.
Paint is cheap. The CNC cut arches are easy. If you look past the questionable color choices, it doesn’t look like they really did a lot. The non-architectural part sounds like they didn’t change many walls. Having an “attractive” work space sends a message. Without knowing what the space looked like before, I can’t guess how elaborate their reno was. It all looks like the set of Zoe’s Extraordinary Play List.
2 Likes
A couple of things:
-
The building update being characterized as “budget conscious” is done by the author of the article and NOT by Zwift. [It is not hard for any of us to see how costly this project was]
-
While easy to criticize Zwift for spending significant $ into this project, for those that understand consumer tech companies from the INSIDE, you may also understand why such a project could be not only supported by employees for creating a motivating work environment, but fully approved by the board. As just one example: Zynga (the software game company; creator of Farmville) did something similar in SF. Roll the clock forward . . . they just sold a few days ago for $12.7 billion (my son worked there a few years ago which is how I got to understand, to some degree, the employee environment). Could they have achieved the same result in a cement wall, empty ceiling workspace (prevalent in SF)? I don’t know, but I do suspect that Zwifts’ #s are very good for the BoD to have approved such an expensive project, particularly as a pre-public company.
1 Like
Agreed…that was a ridiculous claim.
However, it should be noted that Zwift needs to pull some serious talent from software and gaming companies….and one of the tools needed to successfully do that is an office environment that people want to work in.
So while I mostly agree that this was likely a ridiculously expensive makeover ( especially with an LA-based architecture firm), I can see why they felt they needed to do it.
2 Likes
FYI: this was the author’s claim, not that of Zwift
You know, years ago (in a galaxy far far away), I actually came from a software development background. I couldn’t care one iota what the office looked like or if there were silly ping pong tables and free lattes. All I wanted was to be left alone with my computer in silence. The best code (maybe just for me? maybe it was a different time?) had nothing whatsoever to do with the office space. It was simply based on deep thinking and banging away on keyboards until the buttons fell off.
4 Likes
You don’t and every other coder doesn’t either. I’ve worked at some of these offices and they’re awful.
Consider
- Zwift is probably only 25% technical employees even as a core-technical company. They are probably 25% artist/branding/marketing.
- the decor isn’t for the employees, its for visitors. It sets the table for the impression you’re giving to media, finance, vendors, competitors, gov visitors. One bad impression can cost your millions if they think some other company has more momentum or confidence. The message here is a confidence, they’re well funded, we have a coherent team, and they’ve got a defined brand image. As a startup, “looking the part” is absolutely critical to getting key employees/partners and securing funding. Remember, Zwift’s #1 product right now IS the ‘stock price’ / valuation.
The budget savings aren’t where you think they are.
Having a presentable office is also a HUGE savings for event spaces. I’d assume they probably have some event once a month. Having a shiny office saves you MONTHs of headhunting and thousands of dollars in salary.
The other thing you’re not thinking about is the displacement cost. Cubical walls, desks, chairs are expensive. They spent a lot of money at the designer’s office, but that $2000 couch is displaying a $4000 cubical. That fancy mesh wall is displacing an expensive drywall install. The CNC’d arches are displacing $3000 in decor. Having that coffee shop workspace saves you a crap ton in floor space per employee.
The design firm they hired cranks this type of office out -https://www.instagram.com/iaarchitects/ . Even on a budget, you’re going to hire a firm that renovates offices, so you might as well send your money at one that does this all day long. The labor savings of throwing up one of these office on the architect and PM side is huge as there is a lot less to do (the dang architect will insist on trying to draw every power outlet in every cube). The design firm will already know where they are going to source all this nonsense, so they aren’t spending a lot of time finding a random contractor to CNC the arches and paint the metal mesh.
To my eye, this is a really savvy design and money well spent.
3 Likes
As a person who works on an office that has not been updated in decades, and using furniture that is close to retirement age, I say that whatever money they spent is money well spent.
Going to a nice looking office is something everyone who works on an office want to do. Regardless of how we feel about the choices made, Zwift probably pay their employees well and can afford give then nice offices.
We should cut (maybe?) some slack to companies who try to do good things for their employees while so many other are trying to juice the max out of people while given them shit!
2 Likes
Zwift, being a tech company, is probably challenged to attract and retain skilled employees - which is a scarce resource. If you’re ace at what you do, would you work for Microsoft, Apple, Google, Zwift, etc.? Why choose one over the other?
Refurbishing office premises may appear expensive - obviously depending on what you do - but consider the time, effort and money spent on recruitment and retention of tech talents. I am sure the number crunchers and bean counters at Zwift easily can justify their office upgrade if they believe it will increase their probability at attracting employees, getting positive PR, wooing investors, partners, relevant stakeholders, etc. I think @jfranci3 hits the nail on its head: The offices are not just for its employees, it is equally (or perhaps more) a marketing effort of sorts.
If you visit any other attractive company, I am quite certain that you will find some variation of the Zwift offices. For instance, from what I’ve seen of TrainerRoad’s offices through Instagram posts from @Nate_Pearson I would think that TR too have a relatively nice office for its employees.
I say fair play to Zwift.
4 Likes