No, he specifically said at 48.5 minutes into the podcast the idea is to pay $5 a month more to get the major new features as that would allow hiring three more development teams. (New meaning what doesn’t currently exist but is coming in the future)
2 Likes
A couple more ideas thrown in the mix:
- Stop granting legacy pricing. Whoever has today it keeps it, but it’s no longer an option, and/or;
- Pricing insurance: Offer new users an “insurance” against future price increases for a small additional charge, with a discounted break even point at x number of years. I’ve seen gyms do that.
As for my personal experience, I’m an avid forum reader and podcast listener, but not an actual subscriber (I’ve been for approx. 6 months). For a comparable price, I get a workout player, social events and racing on Zwift. I have a couple one-time purchase Fascat plans and use that instead, both inside and outside. I was initially excited by AT and considered switching over, but until it’s more than a workout picker and as long as it doesn’t adapt the underlying plan template, I don’t see the value. That’s still way more intensity than I’m willing to do, however smooth the progression is. Even at 6-8 hours a week, I’ve had better success with more Z2 than what’s in the plans today. I’ll also add that as a Montrealer, there’s zero chance you’ll see me on the trainer in the spring and summer months, so I just cancel my membership then.
1 Like
This. It’s very clear. About $5 extra for the new features above what you already pay today. He’s not clear that the actual number is $5, it could be more or less, but he’s very clear that it’s that amount above what you pay today.
1 Like
I am currently grandfathered in on the annual plan. I am a triathlete, so adaptive training doesn’t really work for me because it won’t account for training stress from my runs and swims. I use a TriDot training plan that accounts for my training load from swim, bike, and run training and adjusts my future workouts. I like the interface of doing my workouts on TrainerRoad, it really allows me to focus on my intervals and doesn’t feel like a video game compared to some of the other plaftofms out there. I use Ride Sync for TrainerRoad to pull my workouts directly from TriDot. This works much better that when I used to import files into TR’s Workout Creator as a way to get my workouts into TrainerRoad.
I know other TriDot athletes that love TrainerRoad for doing their indoor bike workouts, but talking to newer athletes about what platform to do their training on TrainerRoad doesn’t seem like a good value compared to the cost of other platforms they can do imported workouts on. Having a tiered pricing model where there is a basic level that allows you to do imported workouts would draw users not interested in using adaptive training or one of TR’s training plans at a more competitive price point. There could be a different subscription level for people who want to use adaptive training and other TrainerRoad features.
A lower pricing tier for using imported workouts would give TR more subscribers that you wouldn’t have at a higher price point, using essentially a portion of what is already built at a minimal cost to TR per subscriber. TR already has ride sync built for importing workouts from a few different training platforms and more new users on other training plans would come to TR if they weren’t essentially paying for adaptive training and the other training plan they are actually using.
2 Likes
I agree with you. I think the more experienced riders might go through a season or two or even three with TR plans, or plan builder but then recognize that we know ourselves much better than the bell curved designed plans they offer. AT seems cool, but if it can’t account for outdoor rides it’s only good to me for 2-3 months of the year.
It seems like there’s quite a few others like me that love the TR culture, love the library and calendar features, love the outdoor workouts - but until PB gets more refined it doesn’t offer a lot to me.
My sub just auto-renewed (and I appreciate all the messages from TR reminding me of that before it hits my card) and it’s an easy decision @ $129 but like many I’m not sure I’d be willing to pay too much more. So, I’d rather have a stripped down version of TR than have to pay more. Until outdoor workouts can be in AT and PB improves etc… I’m fine with TR for what it gives me at the pricing.
4 Likes
I"m good for tiered workout… going forward for new members…give tiers with features listed… (be careful of creating a hierarchy… more imprortant members because they pay more) for NEW members.
(Grandfathered members though got the “promise” that their price will ALWAYS stay and implied they will always get all the new features, as done / delivered up to now), which for me means, new members… maybe new price, which does not get locked… but honestly hands off the Grandfathered group … It wicked be against the “hand shake” that today you have access to all current and future features and sorry tomorrow you only have put to X, and if you want the new features you then have to pay $5 more.
up to now I’ve used TR in a mix, at times for 3-6 months I use the plans, then at times I have a coach, which assign me workouts via TP, I pull them into TR using the TR plan builder and use the TR interface to “drive” my trainer/Wahoo Kickr.
I’m not using a coach atm, so wetting my feet with AT, also been part of the BETA group for a number of yrs.
also understand, they want more money to develop/add teams to work on swimming and running features, might sound harsh… I’ joined because I ride a bike (and probably a good 80% of the Grand fathered members are in the same boat), those features/capabilities is not important to me/us…
G
1 Like
Legacy $99’er here. I like the concept of TR Basic and TR Pro for additional features and pricing. I have no expectation that my subscription should remain constant for additional features. If TR develops additional/advanced features I would expect to pay more to use them and that my Legacy pricing would remain for TR Basic. There’s a way to reward long time users for their loyalty as well as grow as a product and company. You’ll never make everyone happy so transparency and honesty can go a long way.
5 Likes
Legacy user here for many many years also, and I use TR about 5 times per week, year-round. I have not listened to the podcast, because a 2.5 hour thing is simply too much. Unless your name is Spielberg, you’re not going to take 2.5 hours of my time in earbuds or on my screen.
My 2-cents?
What TR shouldn’t be A/B testing is the tipping point between subscription rates and membership. Money is literally free in the markets for companies with strong ideas, robust subscriptions and low churn. Go get the money elsewhere, rather than your user base.
11 Likes
hehehe, it’s a multi day sit down for me… with kids running around the house 2.5 hours does not happen for anything… even the normal 90-110min movie is done in stages. 
G
1 Like
I agree and don’t listen much any more due to the length, but here’s all you need.
I listened to that part and it’s very clear.
You mean 20 minutes to listen to them talk about the new coming features and 3 minutes to here what this thread is about? I posted the times in the YouTube at the start of this thread, no need to watch all of the episode
That is not true at all. That money comes with strings as they want to be paid back and those strings means you give up full control of the company. Sure, some of that money might seem free like in the case of Facebook but like Facebook the only way to not get money from your user base is if your user base becomes the product to sell to others
3 Likes
Honestly I was always surprised but pleased they kept the grandfathered in benefit. It’s a reason I’ve stayed with it as $99 per year is a steal especially as I love their iPhone app. It was always nice that Nate wanted to keep the grandfathered perk but long term I always wondered if it was feasible. For me it’s just comes down to what price point is too much when I pay for TR and Zwift and which gets dropped if I feel I’m paying too much
5 Likes
Legacy annual subscriber here. When I originally signed up I didn’t know that I would be “locked in” to that annual rate. My first thought on reading that later was “that’s not sustainable…”, so I’ve never had any expectation that I would stay at my current rate. IMO, holding Mr. Pearson and the TR team to maintaining the multiple pricing tiers (based solely upon when a user joined) that currently exist is unrealistic. I find immense value in the TR product and the Podcasts, especially in comparison to other annual subscriptions I pay for. For me, the training programs, interface and overall quality work well, and I’ll continue to subscribe and would have no problem having my price increase as necessary to continue this work. I believe in fairly compensating anyone/everyone for their work and don’t believe I’m “entitled” to pay less than a fair price based solely upon when I signed up for a service.
2 Likes
New features / functionality that would add value that would incentivize me to pay more than my legacy pricing:
- Enhanced calendar that handles more than just cycling workouts: walk, strength training, runs, etc. Basically everything I can do in the TrainingPeaks calendar
- Modern Workout Creator that would allow me to build workouts where some intervals are ERG, and some are Resistance mode (and I can set the resistance mode level in the interval)
- Make AT work with custom plans. This could be done relatively easily by upgrading TrainNow to recommend workouts for all Zones, not just Endurance, Climbing, and Attacking. And then let people create plans that only specify workout characteristics (e.g., Zone, Difficulty, Duration). And then AT + enhanced TrainNow would replace the workout characteristic with a specific workout that aligns to the goals + insight from AT
Then there are some minor annoyances I have with the mini-workout player that I’d love for TR to fix:
- Have a transparency mode for when you are overlaying it on a video
- Have a true “mini” / video mode that drops the graphs and just shows the number fields that is a single line high
9 Likes
I never suggested there were not strings attached.
Growing a private, closely held company is tough.
Growing a privately held, VC-funded/outside investor-funded company is tough.
It’s all tough.
I live it daily.
@AlphaDogCycling for President! All 3 bullets, plus your 2 ‘extras’, would have me over-the-moon.
1 Like
I’m in marketing, and when it comes to pricing people need simplicity. If I were CMO at TR I would handle any change to legacy pricing very carefully but also with an understanding that no group is more invested in the long-term success of the product or has more goodwill toward the management team. You can be honest with them. Treat them almost like shareholders in the company. I don’t think very many of us feel permanently entitled to the incredible deal that legacy pricing has become.
I don’t like tiers of service linked to tiers of pricing. It creates an inconsistent product experience and impacts the brand. Plus, everybody hates their cable company and any other company that tries to predict what features are worth extra and which aren’t. Inevitably the temptation is usually too great to put something everybody wants and considers a core feature into a higher tier of price.
What I do think would work is to change “legacy” pricing to Loyalty Pricing. Say you’ve been 3+ years as a subscriber, you enter loyalty pricing at a flat 20 or 25% discount to the current, new subscriber pricing. Not locked, just always lower. Isn’t this what we all wish our cable and phone companies would do? But instead they do it backwards and discount for new subscribers and hope old ones will never notice the price going up and up.
Whatever TR does, I feel confident it will be with the long-term quality of the product and the needs of their user community as the guiding priorities.
45 Likes
I’d actually like TR to rebuild plans using this same construct, given that the plans / plan blocks are different for every user, and even potentially different every time you look at them. It would be much clearer if I looked at a plan block that said on Tuesday, I’m going to do a 1 hour Sweet Spot workout (with Short Recoveries) that is Achievable. This would tell me what I should expect for that day. Now if it said the Difficulty was going to be Stretch, and I knew I had a hard work day, then maybe I could tell AT to tone down the workout.
Saw a ton of this in my consulting days. Surefire way to make all of your customers unhappy at the same time.
9 Likes
I feel the same way about my TR/Zwift combination. I’ve had both since their early days and want to keep it that way. I’ve always felt at some point the pricing would get to a point where it makes no sense to keep both but it’s not gotten there yet.
If it does I’d drop Zwift before TR easily, but I’m one of those level 50+++ guys who has every badge/etc and it would be a bummer to just drop it after all this time. I would though as I care far more about training with TR than I do Zwift “accomplishments”.
1 Like