I pay for Strava because there is this little asshole in my area that keeps taking my KOMs by single digit seconds and I must always be aware of him and continually beat him

Uh-oh!

Quite interesting. It really has a tiny user base.

They’re trying everything to make it more mainstream but as everyone in this thread has been saying, it doesn’t seem they really have a niche that isn’t covered or that they can gain value from. It’s just not really that kind of product, I think.

I do have a paid subscription but it’s purely to get into rabbit holes of looking at random people’s training data and having full access to segment viewing requires a subscription. I play around with it when I’m bored. I don’t think the average user is like that though. The training insights aren’t really why people use or would come to the app either.

It maybe has a tiny user base. Simple extrapolation over an estimate of 2015 users, which itself was a pretty crude method of estimating users using assigned user # is not something I'd put a ton of weight in for a variety of reasons.

if we take the estimates as fact, some 50M people have had enough interest to sign up at one point or another - thats not a small market. strava's problem is that 85% of those people have not kept using even the free version. i wonder how much that has changed since they restricted segment detail access?

they're going more and more for an approach of small numbers paying more, whereas most social platforms (which is where strava has value that nothing else does nearly so well, not training analysis) are free so as to maximise numbers which is necessary for social aspects. who is going to be interested in strava if none of their friends are on it anymore and the leader boards are meaningless since you're only competing against 5 other people in your area?

getting the whole world on board for free and monetisation through sponsored challenges and ads (plus maybe selling heatmap type data to roading authorities etc) seems like the proven approach but what do i know...

As someone who makes just over 50k *before* taxes, all I'd have to do to make up the price increase is clock out 1 minute later 1 day each week. Most people I know "waste" far more than $79 a year on lots of things, even those who make well under 50k...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

But you can do that all for free! I get notified anytime one of my KOM or local legend segments are taken. So if that’s all you use it for save some money!

---

Twitter - Instagram

See, this is the problem though. Is it actually providing you with $79/year worth in return? Opportunity cost. Where could you have spent that $79 otherwise? I doesn't matter a lick if you CAN do something daily to afford Strava. It matters if you get your $79 in value, or could use it more wisely elsewhere.

If someone is a local rider just having fun with it, sure. But a person more aligned with a Trainingpeaks account for competition, it's likely just a little novelty item. Maybe someone is on the fence about Zwift. Zwift is $15/mo. Forgoing Strava premium might get that person training a LOT more come off season. It would get them 5 months of Zwift.

5 months of Zwift at $75 >>>>> 1 year of Strava at $79. IMO. I'd make that call easy.

If someone did month to month Strava, no idea why, that makes the value proposition versus Zwift absolutely deplorable.

Er....your math is wrong. $50k per year is $25 / hr...or $0.50 per minute. So, that's $2-2.50 per month. A little more than 1/3rd of the annual cost prorated by month. So, you really need to stay 3 minutes later one day a week (or 1 minute 3 days a week...or 45 seconds EVERY.SINGLE.DAY...at 6:08-6:09 is the "TrainingPeaks Minute", 6:09-6:10 is "the Strava Minute").

However, time and money aren't infinite resources, so you can't just continually stay "1 minute later" every time you want something. Further, that are a LOT of people who are paid a fixed salary, and are not paid by the hour. At some point, you simply hae to decide do you want A (stravaPro) or B (something else...food, electricity, TrainingPeaks, a Garmin watch, etc)?

I don't know what income level has to do with this, anyway? Regardless of my income level, StravaPro simply has no value. I enjoy the social aspect of it. But I don't pay for social media, period. Segments were mildly entertaining (but mostly as a self-measure, not as a "I can beat random internet guy" measure)...now that Garmin has segments, I don't care about Strava for that. Their training metrics are deeply flawed (and woefully limited), and they have no training planning support to speak of in any "serious" sense.

I would pay for Garmin Connect 1000 times before I'd pay for Strava. Not because they have duplicated some Strava features, but for everything else they have that Strava simply does not---and, they don't have the motivation (or resources) to implement. I'm sure I could find most of my Strava friends on GC, and get my athlete social fix that way, if Strava ever went full pay-wall.

I like the social aspect and segments on Strava, and combined with the deeper analysis possible with Strava Sauce, I've been perfectly happy with the annual subscription. And I'm just pointing out that a $20 increase is pretty insignificant, at least for me. I can see where someone who is just scraping by needs to count every penny and has to make some decisions, but the post I responded to implied that someone would need to earn even more than I do in order to afford Strava...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

My math was on. I said to make up the cost of the price increase, not the total cost, would require me to work 1 extra minute a week. A $20 increase in the annual rate would be about 38 cents a week. A little less than I make in 1 minute. Or I could make up the difference by buying 1 less 6" tuna sub every 4th month. Spread out over the year, $20 is a rounding error, something I'd never actually notice. Its not like I'm having to choose between having Strava vs paying the rent.



Because the post I responded to implied that someone would need to make significantly more than I do to be able to afford Strava...

---

"I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10, and I don't know why!"

Got it. Fair enough.

That said, I would still argue that the assessment should be against the total value of the new price. You value it, that's fine. I do not.




Nevertheless, the same prioritization question is always at play. As noted previously, I think there are ways to spend $80 / year on a training with a much better value-return.

But, to each their own. The point is that Strava doesn't provide enough value to the general training public to trip the "I'll add another $80 subscription to my budget" threshold. For some, yes....for a lot, no.

Its almost like a startup learning curve item even though Strava has been around for 10 years. I have been on the side of pricing decision making for S+P 500 companies, and the basic strategy has always been to try to get a 2-3% annual price increase with discretion by market competition and product life cycle mix.

In a non inflationary cheap money customer grab environment companies like Strava didn't raise prices. But clearly the stuff is hitting the fan and Strava has chosen to deal with this in a very abrubt and foolish way.

I will probably pay it because I will stop my training peaks membership this year - Strava premium + Trainerroad covers the basics of the training diary stuff. I do like the heatmaps in strava, they are great for discovering new trails, routes, and roads. So for me I will pare down my training app subscriptions.

Because I want to support the company. Because I like a couple of the premium features, although, I'd pay $59/year for the public edition. I was surprised, I thought they'd be charging $10/mo or so ($120/year) years ago. No idea why they didn't.

-Eric

I suspect ChatGPT

Or MadLibs

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

The "How to Boil a frog" approach. Hence, my statement that one should always evaluate the full-price, not the price-increment.

I would think that a more reasonable strategy for Strava would be a larger (but still gradual) annual increase. But, at a minimum....with clear, consistent messaging. Not this CF.

I'm not an expert but I would think a company wants to increases prices as much as it can without having public backlash hit some sort of virality threshold. Little increase every year may see a few people leave, but a mass exodus from a poorly managed price spike is a death knell.

I dont know how its the Garmin route builder in the States, but here in Spain is really bad compared to Strava. it doesnt recommend proper routes, often it throws you into gravel or dirt or even trail paths, its clunky, and editing already existing routes is awful. I actually pay 1 month every once in a while on Strava to create a whole lot of routes, because I tried the one in Garmin and relying on it is a recipe for disaster :/

That's one approach to business: craftiness nad opaqueness.

Though I heard an NPR Marketplace episode where they interviewed several business owners who said that they had to significantly raise prices due to inflation and pandemic-related supply chain issues. And they said that when they transparently informed their customers of the price increase and the reasons why, they were suprised to see no significant loss of business. Treat people with respect, and they're likely to respond in-kind. This is just anecdotal evidence. I don't know which method might be more effective. But certainly honesty and transparency is another option to the "boil the frog" method. And I'd think less likely to go "viral."

Especially in a userbase like Strava's, which is largely folks with a fair amount of disposable income. It's easy to play Monday Morning Quarterback, but it seems so obvious to just email all premium users about the price increase more than a few days before automatic renewal. It makes me wonder if their hand was forced by their investors.

I'm in the pricing business. It's all about your addressable market's willingness to pay. There are markets that will follow because they have no choice, and other markets because they're not that sensitive to these specifics in the first place. Strava is largely in the later category. They are doing the right move for them given the market they operate in.

https://dumbrunner.com/...e-we-want-more-money

"Late in 2022, Strava’s leadership team met in one of our tastefully appointed meeting rooms. We had a bunch of papers with rows and columns of data. We discussed how much money the company had, and how much money we wish the company had.

"We quickly realized that the former number was significantly smaller than the latter number. And so we decided to get more money from you, our customers.

"So, simply put: We want more money. We apologize if that wasn’t clear in our initial communications."

****

https://dumbrunner.com/...ready-back-on-strava

"Mark Renton, 31, was one of many cyclists and runners who reacted with surprise, confusion, and anger last week when they learned Strava was increasing its prices. In a tweet dated January 12, he tagged Strava and announced, 'Canceling my monthly subscription now, this is bullshit. #strava #stravapriceincrease'; yesterday, Renton quietly reactivated his account, apparently having agreed to pay the new, higher rates.

"'It’s still bullshit,' Renton told Dumb Runner in a phone interview, referring to the price hike. But I think I made my point.'"

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Where there's room for entertainment and criticism through satire: Mark will find it. :)

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

I tend to find strava's does the same for me. Ride with GPS is far superior IMO.

Mark Renton: Dumb Runner, indeed.

I don't think that point means what he thinks it means.