Legacy Pricing of TR

[Nate_Pearson]

@SpiderJ

Totally. You are authentic if nothing else. Keep being you, but:

1. Occasionally listen to your marketing/comms team when they give you advice and
2. Make sure they are well recompensed for giving them regular heart attacks

I was smart enough to end Beers with Chad. lol

[jazir1979]

Sometime after downing that bottle of wine in one go

Thanks for the discussion on this thread, it’s actually a really cool thing. I guess one thing it shows is how tricky the psychology of pricing can be!

[toyman]

@Nate_Pearson

I was smart enough to end Beers with Chad. lol

That is the real crime.

New plan:

• get rid of legacy pricing
• Only ‘legacy’ users have access to new ‘Beers with Chad’ episodes.
  Problem solved

[kiwifyx]

@Nate_Pearson

I was smart enough to end Beers with Chad. lol

Beers with Chad would be a pro level feature, right?

[Pbase]

I’ll pay $5 extra for monthly episodes of Beers With Chad

[killroy123]

Paying for a podcast?

[Brenton]

Increase price and reinvest back in TR tech features. TR is the best product… for what we are paying… a personalized training plan that adapts to you on the fly…in house/home personal trainer…TR it is very cheap, and a great investment. Longterm health benefits, and cost of healthcare avoidance will more than pay for TR and any future price increases. @Nate_Pearson keep up the great work Nate, love TR, TR has really made a positive change in my life, Thank you, and your team.

[andho]

This is exactly how I feel. Been a member since 2010. Yes, the application has changed dramatically and become much more ‘fire and forget’ than at launch. At this point, I’m happy with the product as-is; super convenient, easy to use, let’s you watch and listen to what you want. I’m not missing any features.

Even though I train very little indoors during the warmer months, I’ve kept TR going all year because of the grandfathered pricing.

If the pricing goes up, I’ll be going month-to-month for maybe 4 months a year. I might explore some of the other training options as well. So, no increased revenue from this user unless they more than triple my current sub fee.

Edit: If Nate’s IT folks have a magical ML algorithm that will guarantee a bump to 5W/kg… well now I’m listening

Edit2: I carry a spare front road through-axle in my bag in case Nate shows up to a race I’m at (cough, Patterson Pass)

[rmhoff]

Has anyone else considered that Nates “off the cuff” comment has now given them 654 candid/spirited market research responses communicating the response to this move if it were to be done? LOL. He’s a genius in my mind. Well done Sir. Well done.

[JustinDoesTriathlon]

@rmhoff

Has anyone else considered that Nates “off the cuff” comment has now given them 654 candid/spirited market research responses communicating the response to this move if it were to be done?

All the other marketing folks reading this thread:

[clyda]

I’m a legacy subscriber who has stayed with TR for a couple of years when I could not ride due to family issues. I kept my subscription active even though I knew it would be years before I would use it again, to keep that pricing, and out of loyalty because of the promise that legacy users would be taken care of.
I understand TR’s needs, but boy, do I feel like a sucker.

[Aplcr0331]

Lol… sure but maybe somewhere between 13 and 12 are actionable or relevant.

Most of this is flapdoodle.

[carytb]

@Brenton

a personalized training plan that adapts to you on the fly

Not, sadly, if you ride outside a lot at the moment.

[bazcurtis]

Never mind @Jonathan I am sure @kiwifyx meant you too

[PhilSJones]

@bobmcstuff

MO - group 3 is likely to be on Zwift right? I see a lot of people on my Strava feed who just hop on Zwift and pick a random workout from their catalogue. I can’t imagine persuading them to pay for TR would be easy, although the total addressable market would be much larger.

@bobmcstuff Sorry you are confusing two groups.

1. The wider community of cyclists who use Zwift of something else as you deacribe.
2. However, I am referring to a sub-group of those. The specific individuals who are subscribed to TR and who want to jump on and just ride. Likely a sub-set of the wider group. Actually in response to @AldridgePrior I too think this is a small sub group. However its the group Nate would be interested in. They are here for a reason, different to that benefits they get from Zwift or whatever. I know some who use both, especially over winter.

Side note - I started that way. Started with Zwift, did their workouts, they (and Zwift) annoyed me, found TR and got hooked, then started using training plans and now AT.

[PhilSJones]

@Hampstenfan

I particularly find myself nodding in agreement as I’m reading posts from @PhilSJones, @AlphaDogCycling and @rthompson

Thanks @Hampstenfan Appreciated. Actually I am 63, and am definitey looking for effective and efficient ways to train, but in my case for Long Tme Trials. I definitely feel TR helps me with this and removes the clutter (gaming) and noise (music) of other systems.

[PhilSJones]

I thought I would think through the financial impact of Legacy pricing to TR (and not look through the other end of the telescope: ie “What does it cost me?” WIIFM!)

Caveat: Since I first did this calc, @Nate_Pearson has hinted at some pricing policies that change this, but the overall principle applied… and figures can be adjusted.

1. Assumption: TR has grown since the grandfathering. Let me assume it has doubled in number of subscribers each year. If there were X, grandfathered. Now 4x times X. To put it another way, grandfathered people make up 1/4 of the subscribers. (Optimistic growth?)

2. Assumption: Given people talk about $90 and $125, when the current price is $189, assume the lost revenue is roughly half (Pessimistic?).

3. Calc: So revenue from Grandfathered people to day makes up 1/8th revenue (1/4 x 1/2). Roughly 12%. Total lost revenue from grandfathering is 1/2 of 1/4, which is 1/8th of the revenue today, roughly 12%. (Note: If the increase in subscribers is less, then, this figure could be higher - possibly 20-25%). I’ll use 12% below, just to run the calc.

4. Assumption: Now divide the grandfathered into three groups (Assume 1/3 in each group in the absence of any other figures):
   a) Those who stick with grandfathered (contribute today 4% of revenue)
   b) Those who are annoyed and leave/unsubscribe (contribute today 4% of revenue)
   c) Those who pay the higher price. (contribute today 4% of revenue)

So what is effect of changing the pricing? Well it depends how the groups move. A Keep it simple calculation says.
Group 1: make no extra contribution (But Nate suggests differently - ignore for now)
Group 2: All leave. So 1/3 of 12% leave. So 4% revenue lost.
Group 3: Decide to upgrade, doubling their payments. So 4% gain.

On these figures, this nets out to zero change - and some hacked off users. So the figures and assumptions are wrong… but the principle of the calculation is looking at the right thing.

(Note: The first time I ran these figures I came up with a 2-4% gain, so maybe my maths is out this time. Still oddly small though so some assumptions are wrong).

I suspect any significant subscriber growth dwarfs this minor perturbance to the revenue model and distribution on subscribers.

I (we) simply do not have the figures to plug into this. And neither have I included the latest Nate suggestions on pricing. I assume someone in finance in TR is running (has run) sensitivity calculations on this to get to “This could mean two extra development teams”.

Just some fun maths from the other end of the telescope. feel free to speculate on these numbers…

[Chester_Grimpeur]

As mentioned, I’ve personally paid in £700 over my subscription… I’ve also had 10 to 15 people subscribe over my time. My activity has helped developed the platform not hold it back

Also, you are forgetting…I never asked for grandfathered pricing. Wouldn’t expect it. They promised it.

Let’s say you had a deal to buy a new bike every 4 years for the rest of your life at say $3k. On the third bike they say hey deal has changed, you can either keep the bike you have or if you want the new one you have to pay $5k now. Would you pay it? Course you wouldn’t. They took the view that it was better to keep regular long term subscribers than those that flexed. It gives them more stable long term funding.

I feel I get a great deal at $99, I can understand why people on non legacy pricing don’t like it. But like it or not…that is the.deal we got. In fact I believe Nate actually called it a promise. Never make promises you can’t keep.

[Chester_Grimpeur]

I agree, I think changing the price would make no reasonable change but cause a bit of a backlash.

One thing I think you don’t show in your figures…ALL legacy subscribers are ANNUAL subscribers. A lot of full price subscriber’s will be flexers… annual/monthly so the legacy pricers may make up more of the total revenue. Also those legacy pricers who are moved to the new price say $160 with the 5 bucks month increase may move from annual to monthly. I would. And if I only used it for 4 month’s of the year they would actually lose revenue.

[PhilSJones]

@Chester_Grimpeur

One thing I think you don’t show in your figures…

Oh, yes, there are lots of assumptions that could be changed: I was only putting out a simple scoping calculation to get people to start looking through the other end of the telescope :). The assumptions are definitely wrong, but as with all models - has some use