I love your newsletter, and your analysis is really insightful. That said, I think you're getting suckered into Peloton's engagement metrics game.
As you know, they're presenting their rider engagement by number of workouts. The thing is that Peloton is artificially inflating the number of workouts by nearly eliminating the 45 and 60 minute rides that have traditionally been the mainstay of spinning classes and the Peloton platform for most of its existence.
Instead of continuing to program as many long classes, they've introduced "stacked" classes which sort of approximate a longer workout but which have the benefit of doubling or tripling the number of "workouts" that a rider takes for a given period of time. Which also, conveniently just happens to boost the metric that Peloton has framed for the market as the key data point for engagement.
The engagement question that analysts *ought* to be asking is how the aggregate minutes of workout per subscriber compares MtM and YoY.
I love your newsletter, and your analysis is really insightful. That said, I think you're getting suckered into Peloton's engagement metrics game.
As you know, they're presenting their rider engagement by number of workouts. The thing is that Peloton is artificially inflating the number of workouts by nearly eliminating the 45 and 60 minute rides that have traditionally been the mainstay of spinning classes and the Peloton platform for most of its existence.
Instead of continuing to program as many long classes, they've introduced "stacked" classes which sort of approximate a longer workout but which have the benefit of doubling or tripling the number of "workouts" that a rider takes for a given period of time. Which also, conveniently just happens to boost the metric that Peloton has framed for the market as the key data point for engagement.
The engagement question that analysts *ought* to be asking is how the aggregate minutes of workout per subscriber compares MtM and YoY.