In October of 1980, The Conference Board (the business and economics organization focused on corporate governance, HR, business ethics, global corporate citizenship and corporate performance) held a conference titled “Marketing Under Economic Adversity.” The title is apt for today as we are experiencing the highest inflation inn 41 years, at 9.1% in June 2022. We are also experiencing product shortages, population declines, declining consumer sentiment and are expecting recession. Google is limiting hiring. Microsoft is cutting staff. Peloton is moving to outsource manufacturing. 

Brand-businesses must manage through the current volatility implementing strategies designed for sustainable profitable growth during current and predicted hard times. Action now is essential. 

Some marketers believe that hard times are the time for a hard sell, defined as shouting maximized performance or minimized price or both. This is not the way to sell. This is limiting and misleading. In hard times, it is not about selling: it is about buying. Unless marketers are able to generate buyers, there will not be any selling. 

No matter how troubled the times, people do not just buy on price and performance alone. People buy on value. It is an everyday truth: the best value wins. Value is a virtue. But, brands do not just wake up one day and have perceived brand value. Brand leaders must develop and implement strategies for generating brand value.

Perceived brand value is already necessary for brand consideration and purchase. The goal of every marketer in our turbulent economy is amazing value, staggering value, extraordinary quality at a great price. For marketers to generate buying, the goal must be irresistible trustworthy brand value. 

The basic definition of customer value is: value is what you expect to receive, and what you do receive for what you expect to pay and do pay.  We all have a mental value equation when we make a purchase.  A consumer’s value equation is not math: it is a mindset. It is a mental process of evaluating an offering relative to its costs. However, over the decades, the consumer’s value equation has evolved from product or service for the price.

People assess a brand’s worth based on the total brand experience they receive (functional benefits, emotional and social rewards) relative to the total costs (money, time and effort).  But, there is a very important new component to the equation. It is a value multiplier, and that multiplier is trust. Trust is the consumer’s belief that the brand will deliver the experience relative to the costs.

The new mental model of value is total brand experience relative to total experience costs all multiplied by trust. This is today’s new Trustworthy Brand Value equation. And, this must be marketers’ focus. Success in troubled times requires creating and implementing a trustworthy brand value strategy right now. This is how to create buying so there is selling. The threat and consequences of our current pandemic and financial distress may change people’s behavior and habits. But, changed behaviors and new habits will not decrease the importance of value. Value does not vanish due to volatility. Trustworthy Brand Value is vital for a brand’s enduring profitable growth.

Trust is the consumer’s evaluation of a future experience with the brand: How confident am I that this brand will deliver this experience for these costs? If trust in the brand is high, then as a multiplier, the perceived brand value is increased. If trust in the brand is low, then the perceived brand value is decreased. If there is no trust in the brand, if trust in the brand is zero, then it does not matter what the promised brand experience is relative to the costs anything multiplied by zero is zero.

Years of data support the point that credibility or expertise will not matter if there is no trust.  Brand trust significantly affects consumer commitment. This influences price tolerance. Brand trust is a critical piece of the decision process. If you want a strong, enduring, loyal relationship with a customer, you must have brand trust. Trust is essential to the calculative process of brand acceptance.

Here are seven marketing actions for navigating in troubled times:

1. Do not confuse price and value. Many marketers continue to use these terms interchangeably.  Price is what marketers charge. Trustworthy Brand Value is what customers perceive an offer to be worth.  A sign of troubled marketing is defining value as merely low price. Do not reference a particular brand as a “value brand.” Each brand must be a value brand. Each brand is valued for different reasons. Price is important. However, a brand’s worth depends on a lot more than price. Value can happen at any price point. Value is in the eye of the customer: every customer is value conscious.  
2. Maintain relative price. Do not increase price in the hopes of making up for lost sales. Avoid this losing strategy that sacrifices long-term value creation. Do not focus on deals: deals destroy brand loyalty. Deals increase price elasticity. Right now, many consumer brands such as Gatorade and Doritos have raised price significantly. At some point, consumers may no longer see the value in paying over $4 for a bag of Doritos. On the other hand, mobile phone service carriers are providing deals that basically give the customer a new phone for free. According to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis of pricing, the trade-ins for old or damaged phones offer up to a $1000 discount. Same with TV’s. NPD Group indicates that 71% od TVs sold from January through April 2022 were sold at discount.
3. Make sure that your brand’s perceived value is seen as a fair value for the promised experience. Marketers do not determine fair value. Customers do. Marketers set price. Consumers decide fair value: is this brand a fair value relative to competitive alternatives that I am considering? As The Wall Street Journal points out, many consumers are buying whole chickens at $1.56 per pound rather than spend $4.26 per pound for boneless, skinless chicken breasts. These consumers find the price of pre-cut, pre-skinned chicken breasts a poor value relative to cutting the chicken themselves.
4. Focus on maintaining and maximizing Trustworthy Brand Value not merely messaging. Do not allow marketing to focus solely on how to best communicate with customers, when to communicate with customers and across which devices. Brand management is much more than brand messaging. Creating and strengthening Trustworthy Brand Value is the goal of the business, not just finding the perfect messaging and media. 
5. Create and implement a Plan to Win. A Plan to Win aligns the entire enterprise around creating and strengthening Trustworthy Brand Value. A Plan to Win puts the brand’s purpose, its promise, its five must-do actions (people, product, place, price, promotion) and its brand performance metrics on a single page. A Plan to Win is a brand-business roadmap for aligning all business units around the same goals, actions and measures. Create cross-functional teams. Trustworthy Brand Value is not just for marketers. Finance, legal, sales, HR, IT and all other functions have a role to play. 
6. Maintain or increase product/service quality. Cutting quality to reduce costs is wrong. Data show there is better return on investment performance after bad times if a brand maintains quality. Value added is an advantage. A strong value-added business is the best defense in troubled times. A recent article stated that hotels are increasing room rates while not increasing the service experience. This is not the way market during adversity.
7. Defend the profitable business that you already have. It is risky to focus on new products at the expense of beloved, existing brands. Focus on the business you do have before focusing on the business you do not have. Love the customers who already love your brand.

The time to guard against a recession is before the recession starts. Troubled times are trouble: but trouble for some does not mean the trouble for everyone. Do not just accept trouble; create trouble for others. Build and nurture your brands because your brands are your consumer protection. Your brands are a trust assurance policy for the consumer. “Troubled times” is not the threat; troubled marketing thinking is the threat. 

Brand loyalty is not dying. But, you would not know this if you are paying attention to the business press.

Recently, there have been many articles describing the impact of higher prices and lack of product availability on brand loyalty. These articles and opinions state that when consumers do not see their favorite brand due to supply chain issues or price increases, consumers buy some other brand. The conclusion is always that consumers are no longer loyal to their favorite brands. In most cases, the stories feature supporting data showing that consumers are shifting their buying behaviors to new brands or familiar but never purchased brands such as private label brands. 

It is possible that by switching brands, consumers may find a new brand that they love. And, that would be great. However, assuming that a change in purchase due to difficult in-store circumstances is destroying brand loyalty is just not true.  

The pundits, journalists and researchers seem to be overlooking some basic tenets of brand loyalty. Let’s look deeper into brand loyalty.

One: brand loyalty has two dimensions: behavioral and attitudinal. Behavioral loyalty refers to purchase frequency. Attitudinal loyalty refers to the emotional commitment a customer has for the brand. It is a mistake to look only at the behavioral aspect of brand loyalty, as it is possible to create frequent buying based on deals, lack of availability and/or price changes. Repeat purchase in and of itself is not brand loyalty. And, deal loyalty is not real loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty that is based on deep brand commitment, affects repurchase intentions, consumer willingness to recommend to others, and price tolerance. Repeat purchase based on attitudinal commitment to the brand is the true measure of brand loyalty. Focusing on behavioral loyalty alone is misleading.

Two: brand loyalty is not an on-off switch. Customers are not loyal or disloyal. Brand loyalty is a matter of degree. Customers are more loyal or less loyal.  It is the degree of commitment to a customer’s preferred brand. As brand loyalty increases resistance to competitive brand marketing activities also increases. Switching to a new brand due to in-store issues may not generate a lot of loyalty towards the new brand. The new brand may be a stop-gap measure. 

Three: in our data-driven world, marketers tend to look only at behavioral datasets. Any review of the marketing literature will reveal that loyalty is almost always defined behaviorally. Either brand loyalty will be defined as a share of requirements measure or as a pattern in choices often using an experimental design. Citing a correlation such as not-on-the-shelf relative to buy-another-brand is not the same as causality. Having to but a different brand does not necessarily mean that the favored brand in no longer the favored brand.

So, in “Brand Loyalty Takes A Hit From Inflation,” The Wall Street Journal, cites two separate research studies, both focused on consumer behavior. One of these studies showed that if a favored brands were not on the shelf, the favored brand lost “share of wallet” – a share of requirements term the study uses for brand loyalty.  Share of wallet is a term for the percentage (“share”) of a consumer’s expenses (“of wallet”) that a consumer spends on a brand. There are some data showing correlations between share of wallet and brand loyalty. However, share of wallet is sometimes defined as a consumer’s purchase of a particular brand over a period of time. 

For example, a consumer may stop at the same drive-thru for breakfast every day, increasing the frequency of usage. That frequency may be attributed to other things than brand loyalty such as being on the right side of the street, having a double drive-thru or breakfast promotional deals. Or, a person may commute frequently by plane to a city serviced by only one airline. That airline has a huge share of wallet from this traveler but it is not necessarily a reflection of brand loyalty. Brands do not own the consumer. Brands should not confuse repeat purchase with brand loyalty.

Four: sadly, The Wall Street Journal article associates “convenience” with brand loyalty. Convenience is not a good criteria for brand loyalty. No one wants inconvenience. All brands must be easy to choose, easy to use and provide ease of mind.  Inconvenience is a cost that consumers factor into their assessments of brand worth. Being “convenient” is a generic definer.

Five: the era of exclusive brand loyalty (i.e., loyalty to one brand in a category) ended ages ago. We live in a world of multi-brand loyalty. People used to say, “This is my favorite exclusive brand.” Now, they have more than one brand to which they are loyal because they see more than one brand that is good quality and provides value. Consumers have a consideration set of brands to which they have varying degrees of loyalty. Consumers may find that their first choice brand is not available nor affordable but their second choice brand is available and affordable.

Six: it used to be that a loyal consumer would buy their first choice brand even if it meant shopping at a second store. But, right now, what with the price of gasoline, no one is really interested in driving to a second store for their favorite brand when that brand is not on the shelf in the first store. Shopping around for a bag of laundry pods is just not affordable. The consumer will probably switch to an available brand. Data from Kroger, the large grocery chain, supports this: “More than 90% of consumers say they will buy another brand if their preferred choice” is not available. Assuming that this means brand loyalty is dying is a stretch. Consumers may still harbor attitudinal attachments to favorite brands.

Seven: at some point, price sensitivity pops up, no matter how loyal the consumer. Many favored brands thought they could pass along supply chain surcharges to the consumer. These brands recognized that a loyal consumer is less price sensitive. But, these favorite brands did not conduct price sensitivity research to learn just how much prices could be raised. These favorite brands did not consider that at some point the consumer will see the cost of the brand as too high for the brand experience. Instead of rewarding loyal consumers, brands took advantage of them by raising prices too high. 

Today’s economic brand-business situation is similar to the early 1990’s. At that time, there was a lot of hand-wringing over the imminent death of brand loyalty. Step into the time machine and go back to April 2, 1993, a day of stock market infamy called Black Friday. On that day, Marlboro cigarettes announced that the brand (one of the world’s most popular and profitable, as The Economist pointed out) was losing smokers to cheaper brands. Of course, Marlboro’s stock tanked. But so did the stocks of other consumer goods. Polling and other market research showed that brands had raised prices creating huge price disparities between them and store brands. The Economist (June 5, 1993) described the situation as follows: 

“Partly this is due to recession and to consumer-goods firms jacking up prices on many brands until there is a huge discrepancy with own-label rivals.  Last year Kraft was forced to slash prices when it began losing sales to own-label cheeses that were 45% cheaper.  Last month P&G cut prices for the same reason on its two leading brands of nappies, Pampers and Luvs.  Consumers have discovered that the quality of many own-labeled goods is just as high as that of established brands.”

Of course, since then, most of these branded consumer goods have not faded away. Nor have their cadres of brand loyalists. Brand loyalty did not disappear. And, it is not disappearing now.

As for the new brands consumers are now buying, these brands should be employing brand loyalty management techniques to convert category shoppers (those who are brand indifferent and see brands as parity) up the loyalty ladder to the point where they become “brand enthusiasts. These loyal consumers have a propensity to account for a greater share of a brand’s overall profits.  They are also less price sensitive and will actually pay more for a product up to a point. Creating and reinforcing brand loyal consumers is the only enduring basis of growth.

Demographers say that aside from an apocalyptic event, demography is destiny. A global pandemic can be considered an apocalyptic event. Covid-19 did not just eliminate the lives of millions worldwide. In developed nations, Covid-19 upended or fast-tracked existing trends that have now changed the landscape of dozens of categories. The effect on brand-businesses has been immediate, profound and mind-blowing. 

At the core of these tumultuous changes is the idea that people want brands to satisfy contradictory needs. The days of trade-offs are over.

It used to be that brands could survive by doing one thing very well. And, although, there are proponents of mono-positioning thinking, the days of one brand-one benefit are long gone. Now, we expect brands to satisfy two conflicting needs at the same time. Covid-19 killed the idea of either/or: post-pandemic, we wanted the best of both and Covid-19 handed it to us on a silver platter. 

Welcome to the Paradox Planet where trade-offs are no longer acceptable. Brand-businesses have no choice but to adapt.

The pandemic made us feel uncertain. When life is uncertain, difficult choices feel more challenging. Making a trade-off – even a simple one -requires too much personal justification for not enough benefit. Rather than having to choose or accept a lesser solution – a solution that is only good enough, post-coronavirus, we seek the maximization of contrary needs. We do not want either/or; we want both. Optimizing contradictory needs into a relevant, differentiated, trustworthy paradox is now defining many aspects of our everyday lives. Entire categories of business are delivering paradoxical experiences. This delivery of two conflicting ideas at the same time is an outcome of the pandemic’s massive uncertainty… and a game-changer for brands.  

It is true that many of these categories were evolving prior to Covid-19.  The evolutions were seen as trends. These changes are no longer trends. These changes are entrenched.

The forces of Covid-19 affected categories and their brand-businesses in ways beyond health and wellness. Just to name a few, the pandemic:

• Changed the way we view entertainment, 
• Changed the way we buy and sell cars, 
• Changed the way and where of work, 
• Changed the way we approach doctor visits, 
• Changed the way we learn and educate, 
• Changed the way we exercise, 
• Changed the way we shop for groceries, and 

1. Before Covid-19, we went to theaters to see the new movies. At home, we could stream with Netflix and watch original series and existing movies, but not always the blockbusters. During Covid-19, we were able to watch movies in their first run directly at home. New streaming channels arrived.  We were able to expand our viewing across multiple streaming brands with extraordinary film libraries. Now, we have the best of both. Theaters are open and we can watch new movies via streaming. Our choices are not theater or home viewing. We have the best of both. 

2. Before coronavirus lockdowns, we purchased cars at dealerships. Yes, Carvana was taking customers. But, it was just the beginning. During the pandemic, public transportation was mostly shunned. Many people opted for buying a car. But, going to a dealership was fraught with fears about Covid-19 exposure. Online auto purchasing became normal. Post-pandemic, car buyers and sellers actually can have the best of both worlds. There is the option of going to a dealership or there is the option of having Carvana deliver and pickup without the dealership. Carvana has made the process easier, more convenient and eliminated the distaste that many have when it comes to buying or selling a car. Since Carvana’s inception, there are now numerous online automotive experiences like Carvana, including ones from dealerships. As for the dealerships, these exist to sell new models. You can only buy a new Ford electric F150 Lightning at a Ford dealership.

3. Prior to coronavirus, it was rare to have people working remotely. Covid-19 changed this. Post-coronavirus, working remotely is commonplace. And, employees are balking at returning to the office.  Coronavirus lock-downs demonstrated that productivity is not especially linked to being in the office.

Elon Musk aside, hybrid scheduling is the new normal, unless you work in hospitality or in a factory or some other serviced role such as in a car dealership or a doctor’s office. A day does not go by without some consultancy or business press writer commenting on how the basic concept of the office has changed. Many employees are opting for 3-day in the office work weeks while others are sticking to 100% remote work. Employers are being creative in how they wish to entice employees back to the office. The New York Times wrote extensively about employers who are bending over backwards to make office workers happy. Employees who do not have to be on site, now can have both work at work and work at home options. For example, this September, Airbnb will be instituting a policy allowing its 6,200 employees to work for up to three months a year from any of Airbnb’s 170 countries and regions of operation. 

According to Colleen Ammerman at director of Gender Initiative at Harvard Business School, a larger issue stemming from the change in how we work is “… rethinking what it means to be on a leadership track, what it means to be a high performer and get away from that being associated with being in the office all hours.” Worker stereotypes are changing. 

4. Technology has made telemedicine a reality for many people. That doctor’s office visit does not have to happen unless there is a real need for such an experience. For example, special tests and blood draws require in person visits. But, finding out the results of those tests do not. The availability of home testing is growing. Many medical centers and doctors’ groups have online websites where patients can log in to see their tests, their visit summaries, their appointments and their medications. It is all very transparent. Patients can now decide whether it is worth the trip to have a doctor visit.

5. Putting aside the travails and loneliness of elementary-through-high school remote learning, technology allowed classes to continue. Educators were able to sort out the benefits and negatives of schooling at home. Many schools have used that learning to create hybrid education plans. At universities, there was creativity, for example, in how to generate MBA networking when in-person networking became impossible. Brands like Coursera, mass open online courses, increased in popularity. As with the other categories, education, learning and libraries benefitted from both online and in-person teaching. Students and educators have options and do not have to trade off.  

According to one international educational study on the role of cloud-based video in education, “Despite returning to in-person learning, many institutions successfully implemented hybrid solutions…. 98% of institutions have students taking at least one hybrid course this academic year with 58% responding that over half the student body will have at least one course that is both in-class and online. 95% of schools will have some students that are receiving a fully remote education.”

6. When gyms closed, in-home fitness expanded meteorically. Brands such as NordicTrack, and Bowflex which have been around for some time and Peloton, a relative newcomer, saw incredible increases in activity. Even though gyms are now open, coronavirus showed the benefits of working out at home or through an app. Peloton Outdoor provides training for running and walking, no studio or home needed, just the great outdoors.

 A tour through You Tube indicates that several fitness centers are combining in-person and virtual for workouts. As with education, video can be very engrossing. Although instructors enjoy the feeling of training rooms of engaged individuals, instructors are also conscious of their physical health, especially since individual status of exercisers is unknown. Hybrid solutions balance the needs of exercisers with the needs of their trainers and coaches.

7. Grocery delivery was available before our virus lockdowns. But, it was the pandemic that turned in-store shoppers into online shoppers and delivery devotees. It is a habit for many that is here to stay, especially for people with full-time jobs. Instacart, Amazon Prime and others became life savers for those who dared not venture outside and into a store. The grocery stores also entered the fray. As did dairies. In Seattle, WA, a local dairy delivers milk, eggs, butter and other dairy products as well as items from a local bakery such as croissants to a tin box place outside your door. Additionally, the delivery companies have now branched out into same-day delivery of more than just groceries… regardless of order size.

As complicated as these changes are for brand-businesses, these changes are creating brand value. In today’s social, economic, political, institutional, personal and business environment, finding solutions to address contradictory has helped to create and build value for customers, shareholders, employees and other stakeholders. Forcing customers to make either/or decisions is yesterday’s behavior. People want the optimization of conflicting benefits. Winners will be brands that satisfy paradoxical benefits.

Peloton’s new CEO, Barry McCarthy, recently reported to analysts on his turnaround plan. He stated that a turnaround plan is hard work. He said that in turnaround situations there are always a lot of surprises. He said the turnaround would take a lot of time. If he was looking for support, he did not receive any kudos. Analysts and investors were not impressed.  Maybe this is because most of what Mr. McCarthy said were not elements for a turnaround plan but elements for a conventional growth plan. There is a big difference. 

A conventional growth strategy is not appropriate for a brand in urgent need of a turnaround. A growth strategy is very different than a survival and revival strategy. A conventional growth strategy is for a brand that is on a sustainable upswing. A conventional growth strategy is a longer term outlook. Typical growth plans are either a 3-5 year mid-term plan or a 5-10 year long-term plan. A conventional growth strategy is for going forward, full speed ahead. It is designed to accelerate quality revenue growth. 

The principal components of a conventional growth plan are to:

• Broaden the brand’s appeal to build a bigger customer base. 
• Focus on changing people’s attitudes in order to change their behavior – you have time to spend on slowly changing the way people think in order to make them use the brand.
• Expand to new geographies.
• More customers (new customers, new segments of people).
• More occasions (new occasions).
• Extend the brand offers – new products that appeal to new customers and/or satisfy new occasions.

Implementing a conventional growth strategy for a brand that is in need of a turnaround will only accelerate brand decline. 

A turnaround plan is a business approach for a business that is going in the wrong direction at an accelerating pace.  For a troubled business like Peloton, an aggressive turnaround plan is not an option. It is an imperative. It is not a long-term plan as Mr. McCarthy insists. It is an immediate short-term plan for business survival and brand revival. 

In his report, Mr. McCarthy mentioned many tactics such as rethinking Peloton’s capital structure; growing international users (Peloton’s goal is to hit 100 million subscribers globally, up from the 2.9 million it had at the end of March 2022); focusing on the digital app; shifting to a broader base of users by lowering prices on hardware; attracting more men to Peloton; and using third party retailers. Additionally, there is the discussion of a flat fee for hardware rental plus all-access to classes. Peloton has already contacted current customers alerting them to a monthly increase in access charges. These are tactics out of a conventional growth strategy. These are not tactics for a brand that finds itself in a doom-loop.

A turnaround plan has specific short-term objectives. It has specific actions designed to achieve those specific objectives. It has a specific timeline. At Peloton, the short-term objective must be to focus on achieving specified, measurable turnaround objectives in 24 months or less. With losses mounting and slowing customer acquisitions, Peloton does not have time. The marketplace is already questioning whether Peloton’s much discounted stock price is a reason to buy or a reflection of something incredibly wrong with the brand.

A turnaround strategy is a plan of thinking and action that immediately moves to stop a deteriorating situation. A turnaround strategy jettisons all non-core activities until the brand or business is stabilized in a sustainable manner. A turnaround strategy is all about earning the right to grow again. Wall Street did not hear a definitive short-term plan except for a binding commitment with JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs for a $750 million loan.

All turnaround experts agree that the most immediate “must-do” action when a brand is in trouble is to “Stop the bleeding.” Stop the financial bleeding and stop the bleeding of the customer base. Stopping the bleeding requires a set of quick, decisive decisions. As Mr. McCarthy pointed out in the earnings call, Peloton is “thinly capitalized” burning $747 million in the most recent quarter. This left Peloton with $879 million in cash. 

Some analysts worry that focusing now on expanding the customer base will cost a great deal of money that the brand does not have. Going after new customers is expensive. It costs at least 4 times as much to attract a new customer than it does to maintain a current customer. And, using cheaper fees to attract new customers will attract the wrong kind of customers. These will be customers who love the deal rather than the brand. By attracting deal-focused customers, Peloton’s churn rate may rise. Mr. McCarthy has been extremely impressed by the low churn rate at Peloton. His possible actions may reverse this bit of good news. The short-term turnaround goal should be to reduce capital expenditures by stopping the shrinking of the current base and restoring profitability. As one managing director at an equity firm told Barron’s, the weekly financial newspaper, Peloton should be focusing “…on its loyal customers, rather than chasing growth.”

This leads is the second critical element of a turnaround plan: reinforcing the brand’s core business. The core business must always be protected. The core business is what will finance the turnaround profitability and finance the platform for the future. The main business must always be protected before moving on to a new approach. Moving to a more digital, less hardware, services brand may be a good call once the brand is stabilized. But, for now, the core business needs to be strengthened. The potential introduction of a rowing machine may be a core-strengthening move.

Peloton has a devoted customer base. Mr. McCarthy should be looking at increasing the frequency of usage and the loyalty of current customers. Core Peloton customers already love the brand. The plan should be to focus on Peloton strengths and reinforce these effectively to Peloton core customers. Rather than penalizing core customers with higher fees, Peloton should be creating ways to reward its core customer base. One analyst remarked that with people returning to gyms, you see the draw of the social aspect of working out. Peloton actually has a huge social component. Connections are part of its mission. But, this has never been a part of its advertising strategy.

Peloton is not ready for a growth plan. Yet, the tactics from Mr. McCarthy focus on growth. This is a mistake. The core business needs shoring up not ignoring. Peloton needs to earn the right to grow.