If you get a message from someone you never matched with on Tinder, it's not a glitch — it's part of the app's expensive new subscription plan that it teased earlier this year, which allows "power users" to send unsolicited messages to non-matches for the small fee of $499 per month.

That landscape, in fact, is largely populated by apps owned by Tinder's parent company: as Bloomberg notes, Match Group Inc. not only owns the popular swiping app, but also Match.com, OKCupid, Hinge, and The League.

Match Group CEO Bernard Kim referred to Tinder's subscriptions as "low-hanging fruit" meant to compete with other, pricier services, though that was before this $6,000-per-year tier dropped.

    • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      If I can just tell her how awesome my penis is she’ll fall madly in love! Right now she has no idea!

    • Ronnie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s why I pay for the $1000 a month “ultra supreme user” tier which doesn’t allow me to get blocked!

    • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.

      I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.

      Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you’re SUPER attractive, especially if you’re a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you’re actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.

      For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you’re seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.

      These apps have designed a “dating economy” around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren’t getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It’s slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you’re not “winning” and getting dates they make it clear that it’s YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you’ll get some matches.

      Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it’s their only chance at getting a date. It’s disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.

      I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that’s a different discussion

      • potterman28wxcv@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        On Tinder it would not be in the same context that what you experienced. In OKCupid it’s part of the rules that you can send messages without a match. So people are OK (I guess) with it. On Tinder it’s going to come as unexpected and unwelcome. You will start with a disadvantage. Unless the woman is only interested in money (if you can spend $500/month on an app then you are probably among the wealthier half of the population).

        • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder’s part. The people who own and make the app know that, they’re doing this anyway. So they’re targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a “lifeline” which actually may make their chances worse.

          • potterman28wxcv@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Oh, it most definitely is scummy. It’s no news that Tinder does not care about people well-beings. Actually, they want you to get stuck to the platform as long as you can; if everyone was finding their partner after a week their platform would not be profitable anymore.

      • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I used to use OKCupid, and it was so much better than Tinder. Unfortunately, Tinder’s success changed the game and it seems like all the dating sites follow its general form now. On old OKC people would write freaking novels in their bios, in addition to answering hundreds of questions. On Tinder, if you have even two complete sentences in your profile, you’re an outlier. It’s an explicitly, aggressively shallow platform.

        I don’t think the old message-anyone method scales well, though. Dating sites are far more popular today than they were back when I used OKC. And even back then, every woman I knew who used it turned off notifications because it was overwhelming.

        • shitwolves@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They all follow that general form because the same company (Match Group) bought all of the different dating sites and changed them to the form that makes them the most money.

      • MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I had a similar thought. While I agree with the chorus that this is creepy AF and I in no way condone it, as a man who had to wade through these garbage dating apps to, fortunately, meet a long term partner I can attest to the profound sense of loneliness they cause. When I think back on it I can honestly see why some might consider this.

        These apps suck, but in today’s world they aren’t always optional. My specific situation was living somewhere new at the beginning of the pandemic. It wasn’t really possible to meet people organically.

        Edit: spelling

  • Jables@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    $500 per month?? At that point just go to a prostitute a few times a month. The people paying for this are stupid, but on the other hand it’s super sad that Tinder even made this subscription. They know some desperate people are going to subscribe.

    • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know what the going rate is but I assume that if you just want a throw you could probably get a mid tier prostitute almost once a week for that price.

      • mycatiskai@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably 3 times a month for in a western country. If you are in a long term relationship that is probably around the same amount of times you are getting laid.

        The problem is that the people that would pay 500 to tinder are not the kind of people capable of a long term relationship. Even their fleshlights pray for manufacturing defects so they can get out of long term service.

          • Swallowtail@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/how-often-do-happiest-couples-have-sex-it-s-less-ncna828491

            Once a week or so is the average. I'm at about the same amount of time in a relationship as you and we're about once a week. Personally I feel like sex is nice but it takes time and effort and I'm not always in the mood to spend time pleasing someone else (and I'm not going to initiate unless I'm willing to do that). I could see myself having sex a little bit more often if I had a better work-life balance where I felt less pressed for time. This gets me thinking that I should check in with my partner about this topic though!

            • mycatiskai@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It isn’t ideal but working 5 days a week on opposite schedules once a week is minimum and one week there is a natural occurence that makes one of us feel not super into sexy times.

  • UrLogicFails@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    This move seems absolutely wild, and I think Match knows it; which is why it’s only available to such a small segment of users.

    If too many users have this feature (and who knows how many that would be?) it’'s going to scare away all the regular users. What’s the point in swiping no if that user can just veto your decision anyways?

    This move reminds me a lot of what I’ve heard about mobile gaming. The 500USD/month users are whales, but the whales need regular people to play with or they’ll get bored and leave.

    Right now, keeping the number of whales to a minimum is important to keep the regular users happy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future some cost/benefit analysis shows that they can take the hit on regular users to squeeze out a few more whales.

    It also seems like a bonkers move to pay 500 dollars to talk to someone who doesn’t want to talk to you, too. (But that’s a different issue.)

    • The Bard in Green@lemmy.starlightkel.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’ll milk it when upper management is ready to cash out to massively grow short term profits so they can all take huge bonuses. Then they’ll replace upper management with scapegoats who can be there to absorb shareholder blowback and try to rebuild something of value from whatever’s left.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except what they’re all “playing” for are people (and lets be honest, this is aimed at creepy men who can’t get matched otherwise, so more specifically they’re “playing” for women), with their own wants and needs and often safety concerns, all of which this serves to circumvent, which is definitely not how you “win” at tinder (finding an abuse victim? Sure, but not an actual viable relationship. Which again, tells you who this was designed for and why).

      • Landrin201@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why are you assuming that men who can’t get matched are automatically creeps? That’s not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.

        Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That’s how I met my now fiancee, too.

        Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people’s mental health. They’ve taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They’ve reduced finding a partner to “does this person look attractive to you?” which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.

        Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you’re not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn’t matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn’t matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.

        The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.

        This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I never said men who can't get matched are creeps, I said this is aimed at creeps who can't get matched but would be willing to pay $500 a month to force themsleves on to others. That's who you're jumping to the defence of here.

      • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        No that’s Platinum and also new but the $500 USD per month one is called VIP and also you need to be invited/selected to even be able to get it, which of course is just a ploy to get the selected to feel special and buy it to flaunt that they got invited.

        • averagedrunk@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s also age dependent at the lower levels. Over 35 or 40 and you’ll pay more than someone young. Or at least that’s how it used to be.

        • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You say no like it doesn’t say it in the screenshot that you can send messages to people you’re not matched with.

      • TehPers@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who never did online dating, what exactly are you paying for with these subscriptions…?

        • sabreW4K3@lemmy.tf
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As a guy, you’re essentially paying for the ability to see who liked you. Dating is a seller’s market and the sellers of dreams in the market are women due to numbers. With a subscription, rather than aim for the stars, you’re able to pick the best of the women that are attracted to you?

          I have no idea. In any other industry the Match Group wouldn’t be allowed to exist.

  • Teon@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Want to be a creepy dating stalker?
    $500* please
    *unlimited creepiness included!

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was good for a while, but yeah, they need to make money somehow and I guess that’s how they decided to do it. This one will definitely backfire. The last thing anyone wants is getting dick pics from a sad sack who pays $500/Mo for that privilege. Women are going to leave in droves.

    • TrustingZebra@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the most used dating app. Logically people think that if a dating app has a lot of users, their chances of finding matches are higher. But it’s rigged.

  • Max_Power@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Genius product strategy indeed. However it sucks for the “victims” I guess who will now get messaged by people they did not match with.

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Many years ago™ OkCupid actually had a good system, before it revamped itself and got bought by Match (Tinder).

    In the old version of the website, you could answer any amount of questions from a huge catalogue of sometimes very obscure and specific questions and look for people who had very similar (or very different) answers overall. You could chat freely with everyone and had the option to look just for (platonic) friends.

    I had incredibly interesting discussions with people who were at the opposite spectrum of my answers. And I made a few acquaintances and two amazing friends who still are my friends today, one is even my roommate for 8 years now! I also found a group of white hackers and Linux enthusiasts for real life meetings and we still hang out occasionally.

    Two other friends of mine looked for and found romantic partners there and they are both happily married to the partners they found via OkCupid back then.

    It went all down the gutter when people used the "platonic friends" option to get into your pants.

    And when OkCupid tried to make more cash by pushing into the sex/romance market more and copying dating apps.

    I don't think something like this would work anymore. Dating apps and the weird culture and thinking about a "sexual market" seem to have broken humans or something. This asinine idea is just another symptom.

    • Crotaro@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      OkCupid really used to be awesome. I would not have met my spouse, had I not checked it out because of the amazingly interesting and varied questionnaires.

      I’m so sad that it was made shitty.

    • renard_roux@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      My wife and I actually met on OkCupid, happily married for 8 years now, and dated a few years before that, so safe to say I haven’t been there in 10+ years.

      Sad to hear it’s gone down the drain, it seemed the least vile of the available options 😓

    • cicapocok@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also met my boyfriend back then like 7 years ago. It was the best “dating platform” that I ever used. Had a lot of great conversations with many people all over the world. Came back to it a few years ago but they already changed it to a more tinder type of way. It was very disappointing.

    • fox@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely LOVED the questionnaire aspect of okcupid. At one point I ran out of questions you could answer. Met some fantastic people using the app.

      • Axolotling@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That's not what the original comment said if you read it at all. The commenter was making the point that okcupid was pretty good before it was enshittified. There was no direct judgement about whether the world is better with or without OLD. And the subtextual judgment seems to be positive or at least neutral, so I'm not sure what you actually have a problem with.

    • SeriousBug@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Did they get rid of the questions? That was the most awesome part of OkCupid. Because you not only answered the questions but you could pick if you cared what your potential matches answers should be.

      I met my wife on OkCupid, we were a high % match according to OkCupid and we did turn out to be a great match. That's stupid if they got rid of that.

      • Beto@lemmy.studio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        There's a big conflict of interest in dating apps: if you're successful you stop using the app, and of course the company doesn't want that.

        • theUnlikely@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          But if everyone has a shitty experience with it, they won't recommend it or even tell people to stay away from it. But if it works well, they'll praise it, thus gaining more users.

          • interolivary@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            And enshittification and buying up competitors will lead to all sites being the same, which is exactly what has happened. Executives don't care about providing a useful service, they just care about getting richer

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    “We know that there is a subset of highly engaged and active users who prioritize more effective and efficient ways to find connections,” Tinder’s chief product officer, Mark Van Ryswyk, told Bloomberg.

    Regardless of how Tinder tries to spin the new feature — which, it should be noted, only allows the rich and rizzless to send non-match messages twice a week — it’s a very sad set of circumstances, even in the bleak landscape of dating apps.

    The new “Tinder Select” subscription, which will offer three tiers starting at $24.99 per month, was purportedly created in part to help the app compete with other expensive services.

    Indeed, Bloomberg notes that earlier this year, Match Group CEO Bernard Kim referred to Tinder’s subscriptions as “low-hanging fruit” meant to compete with other, pricier services, though that was before this $6,000-per-year tier dropped.

    While this “new offering” may seem like a blatant cash grab to the average person, JP Morgan Chase & Co seemed pretty impressed, as the report notes, naming Match Group’s stock one of its top picks and upping its target price to boot.

    “We expect Tinder payer trends to improve as focus shifts from price optimizations to product & engagement,” a JPMorgan analysis viewed by Bloomberg read.


    Saved 50% of original text.

  • FFF982@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Imagine spending 500$/Month to harass people on a dating app. That's creepy and sad.

  • j4yt33@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you want to rip off rich, desperate men, here's how: just wait for a message from someone you haven't matched with.

    Catfishing just got so much easier

      • rgb3x3@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        "Your hands look weird in all your photos, what's up with that?"

        "…I have a condition."

        • jarfil@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          "…but there is a treatment! Unfortunately my family is too poor to afford the $2847 it takes…"