The biggest surprise to me in this article was how consolidated the online dating market is. Turns out Match Group owns basically everything. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group Azar...
The biggest surprise to me in this article was how consolidated the online dating market is. Turns out Match Group owns basically everything.
Azar
Amoureux.com (Now Redirects To Meetic)
Black People Meet
BLK
Chispa
Disons Demain
Hawaya (Formerly Harmonica)
Hinge
HyperConnect
Lexa.nl
Love Scout 24
Match.com
Meetic
neu.de
OkCupid
OurTime
Pairs
ParPerfeito
Plenty of Fish
Ship
Stir
The League
Tinder
Upward
As a lawyer, my first thought was that someone should investigate filing an antitrust suit in countries where that is an option. Antitrust is not my area, so it is possible it wouldn't be an...
As a lawyer, my first thought was that someone should investigate filing an antitrust suit in countries where that is an option. Antitrust is not my area, so it is possible it wouldn't be an effective strategy in this case, but it seems to me like it should be effective based on what I know. Consult an expert, your mileage may vary.
I don't have a lot of time right now to search for good resources, but individuals can sue for antitrust in the US. No speciific need to wait for government action. Here is one resource that...
I don't have a lot of time right now to search for good resources, but individuals can sue for antitrust in the US. No speciific need to wait for government action.
This only works because actually finding love isn't the goal of these sites. That would mean reduced engagement and fewer profits. Capturing a segmented audience by simply offering them every...
This only works because actually finding love isn't the goal of these sites. That would mean reduced engagement and fewer profits.
Capturing a segmented audience by simply offering them every single option and never letting them leave seems like a winning strategy. If the formula actually worked they wouldn't get away with hosting twenty different dating sites.
There's a great OKCupid document where they point out this conflict of interest where you pay a dating app a recurring subscription. They removed it from the website after they introduced a...
There's a great OKCupid document where they point out this conflict of interest where you pay a dating app a recurring subscription. They removed it from the website after they introduced a recurring subscription, sadly.
That's the entirety of dating apps. We allowed our third spaces to be gutted under the pretense of creeps at bars or whatever in favor of algorithmic matching on 7 dating apps owned by like, 2...
That's the entirety of dating apps. We allowed our third spaces to be gutted under the pretense of creeps at bars or whatever in favor of algorithmic matching on 7 dating apps owned by like, 2 companies.
I frequently find myself enraged by the fact that these companies have monetized human misery. Have you seen the data on reddit about the response rates on dating apps? I think one guy saw something like 30k matches with single digit actual dates and nothing long term.
I don't think "creeps at bars" is just pretense, though. They've always been there but have become more numerous and more shameless with the rapid internet-driven popularization of pick up artist...
I don't think "creeps at bars" is just pretense, though. They've always been there but have become more numerous and more shameless with the rapid internet-driven popularization of pick up artist nonsense its various incel-flavored "dating strategy" spinoffs. Women have reason to be wary in such settings, particularly in metros with a disproportionate number of men.
Dating apps aren't the answer, though. Third spaces need to be taken back by way of driving out the assholes.
Creeps at bars are a real problem, agreed. But they're not an unsolvable one, and we had solutions to them before apps made you radioactive for just talking to people in public.
Creeps at bars are a real problem, agreed. But they're not an unsolvable one, and we had solutions to them before apps made you radioactive for just talking to people in public.
See also modern psychiatry. There are some dedicated therapists out there, and psychedelics are good for some people in some circumstances. There are also good therapists. But from where I sit,...
monetized human misery
See also modern psychiatry. There are some dedicated therapists out there, and psychedelics are good for some people in some circumstances. There are also good therapists. But from where I sit, the incentives are to produce long term interventions, not resolution.
I am not hearing about an abundance of therapists or psychiatrists desperate for business. From what I understand there are way too few of them to cover all the people who are seeking help in a...
I am not hearing about an abundance of therapists or psychiatrists desperate for business. From what I understand there are way too few of them to cover all the people who are seeking help in a timely manner.
Given that situation, I seriously doubt there is a perverse incentive going on in those fields currently.
Where I am there a plethora of pa’s who take 10 minutes and drop a prescription or two. I’m not aware of recent research that properly measures success among patients, but a significant number...
Where I am there a plethora of pa’s who take 10 minutes and drop a prescription or two. I’m not aware of recent research that properly measures success among patients, but a significant number either receive some relief or think they do. Last i looked nntt was around 4 for most meds and the fda considers that “effective.” But it’s a lifetime commitment, and what is considered an effect is a pretty low bar.
Quality therapists are in high demand and hard to find. Trained therapists are easy to find but highly variable in their ability to help, especially for complex issues.
Just because the situation doesn't demand it now, doesn't mean it never did or that certain incentives don't arise from treating conditions we don't always understand while leaning on a certain...
Given that situation, I seriously doubt there is a perverse incentive going on in those fields currently.
Just because the situation doesn't demand it now, doesn't mean it never did or that certain incentives don't arise from treating conditions we don't always understand while leaning on a certain amount of legitimacy to continue practicing it. Would we really even know if there was harm being done by telling people they can potentially have something resolved if they see a psychiatrist or therapist (that turns into a lifelong "treatment") rather than not dwelling on conditions that we possibly can't resolve. Of course there's plenty of counters to that, like the harm done from telling people it's hopeless or just deal with it etc. but I don't think this conversation was solely about arguing the net benefit rather than there does exist perverse incentives. There's the possibility that it's higher margin to maintain customers than have a turnover of customers, even if there's an endless supply of customers it could be incentivized to keep the ones you have.
There's far more scrutiny around medicine and treating the body than there is psychological treatments. Even in the extremes when people are dying, it hasn't necessarily been the case that practitioners in all fields of medicine are given carte blanche to treat people like guinea pigs or commercialize treatments of unknown conditions. That doesn't mean there aren't snake oil salesman, but there's still more scrutiny there than in treatments of the mind.
resolution doesn't pay up every month. Likewise, people in happy relationships don't spend on tinder premium. these companies have a vested interest in keeping you miserable.
resolution doesn't pay up every month. Likewise, people in happy relationships don't spend on tinder premium.
these companies have a vested interest in keeping you miserable.
I think as a business model, your market would shrink to nothing since users would be disinclined to reach out to people they aren't 100% confident with, at the risk of losing money. People who...
I think as a business model, your market would shrink to nothing since users would be disinclined to reach out to people they aren't 100% confident with, at the risk of losing money. People who already don't get a lot of matches will now get no matches, and it's hard to monetize people who leave the app because they're fed up.
Interesting though, framing it in the lawyer marketing of "either we win your case or its free"
Honestly I don't think a market solution to love and belonging is the way forward. The profit motive results in perverse incentives, surely basing it on matches would just incentivize lots of low...
Honestly I don't think a market solution to love and belonging is the way forward. The profit motive results in perverse incentives, surely basing it on matches would just incentivize lots of low quality matches to keep you coming back.
Most of the strong relationships I've seen have arisen through means other than dating apps, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Capitalism has had a very long time to get online dating right, and if they can't manage it in the quarter century they've been given, not even manage to come close, I don't see why they should get another chance.
If anything the market is ripe for a meeting people nonprofit, a la tildes.
I've often thought that the next successful dating app should be a free-to-users public good, along the lines of public libraries. That would remove the perverse incentives introduced through...
I've often thought that the next successful dating app should be a free-to-users public good, along the lines of public libraries. That would remove the perverse incentives introduced through running dating apps in for-profit mode.
Many western countries are facing a demographic challenge regarding late/no marriages and falling birthrates, and so this could legitimately be considered as a means of addressing those problems.
It could be supported by users a la public broadcasting, or by philanthropists (need to find and motivate some donors) or by government. I think it is a model worth exploring but it would need a...
It could be supported by users a la public broadcasting, or by philanthropists (need to find and motivate some donors) or by government. I think it is a model worth exploring but it would need a few highly motivated innovators and some hard work and publicity.
I certainly would. I want something like Lex, before the profile pictures update, that is for anyone to use and lets you filter for what you're looking for. I don't want any engagement bait...
I certainly would. I want something like Lex, before the profile pictures update, that is for anyone to use and lets you filter for what you're looking for.
I don't want any engagement bait nonsense, I don't need likes, I don't need any of that shit. I just want the ability to post, comment, message, and the ability to filter those posts down to what I care about.
This isn't hard to do, it just won't make a lot of money.
I think for most people dating through meeting in person is way better. For those people from the stats they should have stopped using apps once they realize the numbers were so against them. It...
I think for most people dating through meeting in person is way better. For those people from the stats they should have stopped using apps once they realize the numbers were so against them. It can only harm your mental health at that point.
I already have strong negative feelings about how tinder hinders the dating experience for people who are not exceptionally attractive. The old school personality based matching services were...
I already have strong negative feelings about how tinder hinders the dating experience for people who are not exceptionally attractive. The old school personality based matching services were better imho for a higher percentage of people.
There are also paid services like it'sjustlunch.com,
I honestly think that an app developer or more than one could and should disrupt the dating app market, it has become so dysfunctional, however I am also sure that Match Group will use every resource to try to preserve their monopoly.
I know this is peak ignorance for me to suggest it, but how hard could it possibly be to make that app? The hard parts are probably getting people to use it and having enough money to make it to...
I honestly think that an app developer or more than one could and should disrupt the dating app market,
I know this is peak ignorance for me to suggest it, but how hard could it possibly be to make that app? The hard parts are probably getting people to use it and having enough money to make it to monetization.
Maybe a cool way to monetize and keep costs down would be to monetize access to photos that don't suck. Free tier would only be able to access potato quality photos.
Easy to make an app but expensive to maintain. You’re also storing the profiles of people, privacy concerns like crazy, plus you have to deal with a network of creepers. The operating costs are...
Easy to make an app but expensive to maintain. You’re also storing the profiles of people, privacy concerns like crazy, plus you have to deal with a network of creepers. The operating costs are quite high.
Not very hard, but the issue is that the things that people don't like about dating apps is quite hard to fix. If you go to some of the universities that have good CS programs, every time...
Not very hard, but the issue is that the things that people don't like about dating apps is quite hard to fix. If you go to some of the universities that have good CS programs, every time Valentines Day rolls around, there's like 20 different dating apps that come into existence. And in the end, they all die because they have no users after a week.
Ariel Zilber Bloomberg (paywalled) Tinder Offers $500-a-Month Subscription to Its Most Active Users
Ariel Zilber
Tinder has unveiled a $500-per-month exclusive subscription service to the dating app’s most active users who will have access to features including “VIP” search, matching, and conversation.
Tinder Select, which was initially launched in 2017 as a free-of-charge, invite-only tier geared toward “hotties and celebrities,” will now cost $6,000 a year for its services, according to Bloomberg News.
The new pay-for-play tier was offered to less than 1% of Tinder users, according to the company.
We know that there is a subset of highly engaged and active users who prioritize more effective and efficient ways to find connections, and so we engaged in extensive tests and feedback with this audience over the past several months to develop a completely new offering,” Tinder Chief Product Officer Mark Van Ryswyk said.
In July of last year, Tinder’s parent company, Match Group, acquired The League, an exclusive dating app “with a curated member base focused on matching career-oriented users looking for a serious relationship,” in a deal valued around $30 million.
The success of The League, which offers a VIP plan that charges $1,000 per week, reportedly inspired Match Group to roll out a new, exclusive tier for “high-intent users” of Tinder.
Gary Swidler, the president of Match Group, whose portfolio also includes the dating app Hinge as well as sites like OKCupid and Match.com, told a business gathering earlier this month that Tinder Select is expected to draw “a relatively tiny amount of new payers.”
Nonetheless, the company anticipates it will bolster revenue, which has slowed in recent months.
Match Group said that the number of subscribers to its dating apps have fallen in each of the last three quarters, though average revenue per user has grown on a year-over-year basis, according to Bloomberg News.
The biggest surprise to me in this article was how consolidated the online dating market is. Turns out Match Group owns basically everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group
But thankfully, FarmersOnly is safe from their influence!
And JDate and JSwipe!
JSwipe sounds like an open source JavaScript library
As a lawyer, my first thought was that someone should investigate filing an antitrust suit in countries where that is an option. Antitrust is not my area, so it is possible it wouldn't be an effective strategy in this case, but it seems to me like it should be effective based on what I know. Consult an expert, your mileage may vary.
Apparently the federal authorities are willingly choosing to avoid this, according to this note
I don't have a lot of time right now to search for good resources, but individuals can sue for antitrust in the US. No speciific need to wait for government action.
Here is one resource that popped to the top of my basic search https://globalcompetitionreview.com/review/the-antitrust-review-of-the-americas/2022/article/united-states-private-antitrust-litigation#:~:text=defending%20class%20allegations.-,Antitrust%20class%20actions,brought%20under%20federal%20antitrust%20laws.
This only works because actually finding love isn't the goal of these sites. That would mean reduced engagement and fewer profits.
Capturing a segmented audience by simply offering them every single option and never letting them leave seems like a winning strategy. If the formula actually worked they wouldn't get away with hosting twenty different dating sites.
There's a great OKCupid document where they point out this conflict of interest where you pay a dating app a recurring subscription. They removed it from the website after they introduced a recurring subscription, sadly.
This feels like extorting desperate and lonely people. I know it's optional, but still...
That's the entirety of dating apps. We allowed our third spaces to be gutted under the pretense of creeps at bars or whatever in favor of algorithmic matching on 7 dating apps owned by like, 2 companies.
I frequently find myself enraged by the fact that these companies have monetized human misery. Have you seen the data on reddit about the response rates on dating apps? I think one guy saw something like 30k matches with single digit actual dates and nothing long term.
I don't think "creeps at bars" is just pretense, though. They've always been there but have become more numerous and more shameless with the rapid internet-driven popularization of pick up artist nonsense its various incel-flavored "dating strategy" spinoffs. Women have reason to be wary in such settings, particularly in metros with a disproportionate number of men.
Dating apps aren't the answer, though. Third spaces need to be taken back by way of driving out the assholes.
It is also worse with the current availability of date rape drugs
Creeps at bars are a real problem, agreed. But they're not an unsolvable one, and we had solutions to them before apps made you radioactive for just talking to people in public.
See also modern psychiatry. There are some dedicated therapists out there, and psychedelics are good for some people in some circumstances. There are also good therapists. But from where I sit, the incentives are to produce long term interventions, not resolution.
I am not hearing about an abundance of therapists or psychiatrists desperate for business. From what I understand there are way too few of them to cover all the people who are seeking help in a timely manner.
Given that situation, I seriously doubt there is a perverse incentive going on in those fields currently.
Where I am there a plethora of pa’s who take 10 minutes and drop a prescription or two. I’m not aware of recent research that properly measures success among patients, but a significant number either receive some relief or think they do. Last i looked nntt was around 4 for most meds and the fda considers that “effective.” But it’s a lifetime commitment, and what is considered an effect is a pretty low bar.
Quality therapists are in high demand and hard to find. Trained therapists are easy to find but highly variable in their ability to help, especially for complex issues.
Just because the situation doesn't demand it now, doesn't mean it never did or that certain incentives don't arise from treating conditions we don't always understand while leaning on a certain amount of legitimacy to continue practicing it. Would we really even know if there was harm being done by telling people they can potentially have something resolved if they see a psychiatrist or therapist (that turns into a lifelong "treatment") rather than not dwelling on conditions that we possibly can't resolve. Of course there's plenty of counters to that, like the harm done from telling people it's hopeless or just deal with it etc. but I don't think this conversation was solely about arguing the net benefit rather than there does exist perverse incentives. There's the possibility that it's higher margin to maintain customers than have a turnover of customers, even if there's an endless supply of customers it could be incentivized to keep the ones you have.
There's far more scrutiny around medicine and treating the body than there is psychological treatments. Even in the extremes when people are dying, it hasn't necessarily been the case that practitioners in all fields of medicine are given carte blanche to treat people like guinea pigs or commercialize treatments of unknown conditions. That doesn't mean there aren't snake oil salesman, but there's still more scrutiny there than in treatments of the mind.
resolution doesn't pay up every month. Likewise, people in happy relationships don't spend on tinder premium.
these companies have a vested interest in keeping you miserable.
For those unfamiliar with the sociology term Third Place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
It makes me wonder if the market is ripe for a new business model where people pay per match or some other such method?
I think as a business model, your market would shrink to nothing since users would be disinclined to reach out to people they aren't 100% confident with, at the risk of losing money. People who already don't get a lot of matches will now get no matches, and it's hard to monetize people who leave the app because they're fed up.
Interesting though, framing it in the lawyer marketing of "either we win your case or its free"
Honestly I don't think a market solution to love and belonging is the way forward. The profit motive results in perverse incentives, surely basing it on matches would just incentivize lots of low quality matches to keep you coming back.
Most of the strong relationships I've seen have arisen through means other than dating apps, and I don't think that's a coincidence. Capitalism has had a very long time to get online dating right, and if they can't manage it in the quarter century they've been given, not even manage to come close, I don't see why they should get another chance.
If anything the market is ripe for a meeting people nonprofit, a la tildes.
I've often thought that the next successful dating app should be a free-to-users public good, along the lines of public libraries. That would remove the perverse incentives introduced through running dating apps in for-profit mode.
Many western countries are facing a demographic challenge regarding late/no marriages and falling birthrates, and so this could legitimately be considered as a means of addressing those problems.
It could be supported by users a la public broadcasting, or by philanthropists (need to find and motivate some donors) or by government. I think it is a model worth exploring but it would need a few highly motivated innovators and some hard work and publicity.
I would imagine that grateful people would donate if the nonprofit worked for them.
I certainly would. I want something like Lex, before the profile pictures update, that is for anyone to use and lets you filter for what you're looking for.
I don't want any engagement bait nonsense, I don't need likes, I don't need any of that shit. I just want the ability to post, comment, message, and the ability to filter those posts down to what I care about.
This isn't hard to do, it just won't make a lot of money.
I think for most people dating through meeting in person is way better. For those people from the stats they should have stopped using apps once they realize the numbers were so against them. It can only harm your mental health at that point.
I already have strong negative feelings about how tinder hinders the dating experience for people who are not exceptionally attractive. The old school personality based matching services were better imho for a higher percentage of people.
There are also paid services like it'sjustlunch.com,
I honestly think that an app developer or more than one could and should disrupt the dating app market, it has become so dysfunctional, however I am also sure that Match Group will use every resource to try to preserve their monopoly.
I know this is peak ignorance for me to suggest it, but how hard could it possibly be to make that app? The hard parts are probably getting people to use it and having enough money to make it to monetization.
Maybe a cool way to monetize and keep costs down would be to monetize access to photos that don't suck. Free tier would only be able to access potato quality photos.
Easy to make an app but expensive to maintain. You’re also storing the profiles of people, privacy concerns like crazy, plus you have to deal with a network of creepers. The operating costs are quite high.
Not very hard, but the issue is that the things that people don't like about dating apps is quite hard to fix. If you go to some of the universities that have good CS programs, every time Valentines Day rolls around, there's like 20 different dating apps that come into existence. And in the end, they all die because they have no users after a week.
Ariel Zilber
Bloomberg (paywalled) Tinder Offers $500-a-Month Subscription to Its Most Active Users