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.
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 āWhat does it cost me?ā WIIFM!)
Caveat: Since I first did this calc, @Nate_Pearson has hinted at some pricing policies that change this, but the overall principle appliedā¦ and figures can be adjusted.
-
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?)
-
Assumption: Given people talk about $90 and $125, when the current price is $189, assume the lost revenue is roughly half (Pessimistic?).
-
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%). Iāll use 12% below, just to run the calc.
-
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 wrongā¦ 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 āThis could mean two extra development teamsā.
Just some fun maths from the other end of the telescope. 
feel free to speculate on these numbersā¦
1 Like
As mentioned, Iāve personally paid in Ā£700 over my subscriptionā¦ Iāve also had 10 to 15 people subscribe over my time. My activity has helped developed the platform not hold it back 
Also, you are forgettingā¦I never asked for grandfathered pricing. Wouldnāt expect it. They promised it.
Letās 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 wouldnāt. 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 donāt like it. But like it or notā¦that is the.deal we got. In fact I believe Nate actually called it a promise. Never make promises you canāt keep.
6 Likes
I agree, I think changing the price would make no reasonable change but cause a bit of a backlash.
One thing I think you donāt show in your figuresā¦ALL legacy subscribers are ANNUAL subscribers. A lot of full price subscriberās will be flexersā¦ 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 monthās of the year they would actually lose revenue.
6 Likes
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
2 Likes
Iām not grandfathered, have been using TR for 8-9 years, first 4 years I paid monthly, had a couple of years break and been mostly on and off since then (last year was mainly on, on monthly), so expect my contribution to TR is higher than yours, I also gave away all my referral codes, but I donāt see how this is releveent, I was paying for a service, it was either good for me / or not, Nate might have used that money for new bikes, or to change the app, I donāt know, and it doesnāt matter, he owns the company, and I was paying to use the service, not buy shares in the company, TR doesnāt owe me anything because Iāve put āso muchā money into them, was paying for a service, which I havenāt used
Agreed
Agreed
7 Likes
Why shouldnāt I get the new features? They made the commitment. I didnāt ask for it. I just took the offer they made and have stuck to it taking them at their word.
I also doubt very much youād be happy to change the payment on your bike subscription you mention. When someone gives you a deal and tries to change it it leaves a bad taste.
As for growing the platform, if they change the pricing theyād get less from me. Iām an annual subscriber, Iād move to monthly as I only use it for the winter monthās 3 to 6 months. So theyād get less revenueā¦ Would take even longer to bring new features. The way to increase revenue is grow the user base, cut expensesā¦not just put up prices.
3 Likes
While the net income would probably be equal if they increased the legacy price (according to your calculations), you are forgetting the cost of running the service. The number of servers needed to support TR and the ML models that need to run every time a workout is completed is not insignificant. Plus the cost for those isnāt locked into a legacy price.
For every new feature TR adds to the platform it will cost them more to run them. Now this cost for some things might be negligible (especially split across all users), but some will scale linearly with workouts.
I think this analogy is flawed. If the deal was $3k for a bike with 9speed, and 2012 components every 4 years, but now there is 12 speed wireless, but you need to pay a bit extra to get it. Would you pay it?
3 Likes
I wasnāt saying Iām owed anything for what Iāve paid in/people referredā¦my point of that was that I was accused of slowing development by not paying more when in fact my commitment has helped grow the platform.
Not if someone had made me a deal and wanted to change it. Iād go elsewhere.
I didnāt ask for the deal they offered it.
There seems to be a large difference in what people think āthe dealā is.
1 Like
I think what they are referring to (and I posted this earlier in this thread)
- $99 a year is a smaller percentage of a developers wage than it was 7 years ago due to inflation (and pandemic has caused a increase in developer wages ā¦ for me)
- if you had paid, what I think the service is worth over this period, TR would have received 50 - 80% more revenue from you
And the other thing of course, that a guaranteed income, does not always cause a company to innovate (completion (for your money) is good for business and all that)
So some people could per sieve this as hold the company back, I still donāt see how what you have paid, is relevant to the company going forward, and the company is where it is, with or without
But totally onboard with a promise is a promise (if not a contract)
As I made clear I was only looking at the revenue side. I agree with increased subscriptions, as well as increased staff, new developments, new features requiring larger capacity in tech, licencing etc. etc.the cost model changes or expands. It is not easy to judge the incremental/marginal cost difference of two teams.
I had thought their cost model might be something like (were I to want some working assumptions And they are entirely speculative.)
- Staff costs 40-50%
- Technology costs 30-40%
- Other costs 20%
but that does not help the incremental revenue / two new teams debate much.
1 Like
That wasnāt the commitment. There are a lot of posts making the assumption that he inferred āI will not raise your price but you wonāt get anything newā. He didnāt. He said something to the effect of āas long as I am CEO I will not raise your priceā. There was no caveat and there was none implied.
7 Likes
Oh come onā¦heās a very decent, honest CEO. we know what he meant. Heās not some shifty politician. If he never mentioned we wouldnāt get new features and that was his thinking he should have said that. If that is the āget out of the dealā excuse Iād be even more disappointed.
I agree, itās s good deal for me but probably a bad deal for TR. At the stage the company was at it provided, stable, long term funding. For any tech company this is great.
Iām not saying they canāt change the dealā¦Iād agree it makes sense toā¦but Iād leave on principal.
I use another competitor thatās has some more advanced features than TR at $99. Why would I pay more for less? However, Iāve never left TR as I donāt want to lose legacy pricing.
12 Likes
Iām okay with a flat increase across the spectrum of legacy and new member pricing. A $5 increase across the baseline yearly fee is fine with me, but not sure if that is enough of an increase in revenue for TR to provide the services/features.
Probably get blasted for this. However, its interesting that everyone threatening TR over something that has not happened over a promise not kept, have all broken promises in their life ā whether to themselves or others. But Nate has to keep his or else.
I have used TR off and on for several years. The service has a value to myself. When the pricing vs value changes, then I have the choice over whether to stay or leave. So, do others.
2 Likes
I would rather TR just be honest about having outgrown legacy rather than this
3 Likes
Thatās what people are agreeing with . Change the pricing and you have the choice to stay or go. Some will stay, some will go. Iām fine with then to change the priceā¦ Then Iāll leave.
Personally, I canāt understand why people canāt accept that people may not like a change to a deal they thought they had whilst they remain a subscriber. If they can accept that TR have the right to change a deal they previously offered then why canāt they accept that people may not like that?
4 Likes