Of course, also Tinder's profit is directly dependant on you not finding a partner, so you continue to use their service.
Dating, matchmaking, or even just finding friends, is a perfect problem space that is just ripe for a free service to come and try to solve. Why isn’t there a free platform for dating? (not counting the subreddits and FB groups for that, because they’re retooling something else, not built from the ground up to solve problems specific to this space). It’s one of the biggest social issues imo, especially in cultures th…
Facebook does have a free dating inside their regular FB app.
Because sex, age, and race are statistically significant factors in how much the insurance companies will pay out for each demographic. Personalized pricing for a digital service with a more-or-less constant cost-per-user doesn't make sense here (unless you want to maximize profits by unfairly discriminating against certain demographics).
What’s this “unfair” crap? We’re talking about dating and mating. Apart from war there may be no human activity in which fairness applies less. Price discrimination in dating apps is as problematic as in airline tickets. Twenty year old men moan about actually having to try and ask people out if they want a date. Thirty five year old women complain that they can’t find someone who loves them for their career accompli…
I don't know what you're going on about, but this "crap" was in reference to increasing price without offering something in return. If a store sold a woman an specific item for 5x the price they offer to men, they would be sued for discrimination. Unless serving certain demographics costs tinder more (thereby justifying the increase the price), it is objectively unfair and discriminatory. End of story.
Tinder is so extremely effective that it's almost certainly underpriced at all of these levels purely because of perception. I only had gold once and bought a couple of boosts but for over two months I would fill my calendar with 2-4 dates a week at something close to Spotify sub ($20/mo iirc). There is no other way to meet women this efficiently. And it was a lot of fun, too. It took out all the slog out of dating.…
In my experience, the types of women I am looking for would never use Tinder, so although you get more matches it is still completely useless.
You have to really question what kind of young woman is desperate enough to meet a man that she'd use an app, ... not the kind I'm interested in.
Tinder is basically 5/100 guys getting all the matches per 90/100 women.
I believe old OkCupid data (which has since been deleted from their blog) found exactly this. In short, males looking for females are very even in their rating of women along a bell curve. Females looking for males heavily skew towards the top 20% of males, while considering the bottom 80% "below average". Tinder, and every other dating app, absolutely take advantage of this deep truth of human psychology and milk th…
Take that OkCupid stuff with a grain of salt. While I am sure there are general trends that are true, OkCupid didn't isolate the characteristic they were testing.
So their stats were just a crude measure.
Because I'm being charged 5x for the exact same service. Want more money from your wealthy customers? Offer more in return.
Some services give discounts to students without removing any features. Is that bad, since all the other customers are getting the same service but have to pay more for it?
Nope. I don't have an issue with price discrimination if those being favored are given a price bellow the baseline that everyone else gets. That is not what's happening here. Tinder is charging certain people more than other for no reason other than who they are.
If Tinder wants to overcharge certain demographics, they have to do it to the majority or offer something of equivalent value to them in return.
you seem to mistake market efficiency for abuse of an asymmetry. If anything, allowing abuse of an asymmetry leads to decrease in efficiency. They don't need better service if they can just extract more from you for the same service.
The part I don't understand though is why this is a problem. If you think the price of the service is too high, move on to a competitor. I did once I saw how much they were going to charge me this year. Hinge/Bumble are a much better ROI at this moment, and Tinder lost a long time paying customer. That's the market at work.
Last I checked, Tinder has the largest userbase compared to the other apps.
Of course, also Tinder's profit is directly dependant on you not finding a partner, so you continue to use their service.
They have to strike an interesting balance- enough people have to find romantic success on the app (and tell their friends) to get new users, but not be so successful that too many users stop using the app.
Or they utilize underhanded guerilla marketing techniques to push propaganda all over the web that the app is more useful than it actually is.
I think you got that wrong. Top Picks appear to be people who are picked the most, not because I would personally like them. Most of the time I like none of them even if they obviously have a “good” profile (sexy photos, no bio)
Funny you say that. When I was using Tinder I assumed that sexy photos and no profile description or bio were bots or scams. I completely ignored them. Also, if someone can't be bothered to even write a single word. Meh.
You must consider, it does telegraph a certain desperation to bother to write a bio. Tinder is 100% about looks.
Price discrimination is illegal if it's on the basis of gender, race, religion, or nationality. Tinder isn't charging men more however - just older people. It's unlikely age-based price discrimination will ever be made illegal, because it would effectively outlaw senior discounts.
Tell that to all the entertainment venues that offer discounts or no cover for women.