Tinder Now Letting Rizzless Sad Sacks Pay $500/Month to Message People Without Even Matching
Tinder Now Letting Rizzless Sad Sacks Pay $500/Month to Message People Without Even Matching
If you get a message from someone you never matched with on Tinder, it's not a glitch — it's the app's expensive new subscription plan.
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.
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.
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.)
Enshittification at its finest.
This is going scare away regular people and especially women pretty fast.
Genius product strategy indeed. However it sucks for the "victims" I guess who will now get messaged by people they did not match with.
That's half my rent
Whoever thought about this idea is a freaking GENIUS.
So they're gonna spend $500 a month to spam some chick's inbox.....and still have no rizz lmao
That should make things easy for gold diggers
You have it wrong OP, Tinder has become official in its online pimp status. Those who have been using Tinder to sell sex are the ones most likely to be charged.
Surely this is just validating SA and misogyny.
Imagine spending 500$/Month to harass people on a dating app. That's creepy and sad.
@UrLogicFails Some of that money should go to the people being messaged without their consent. 😅 JK. That's the direction they seem to be going.
🤖 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.
aww hell ya!!!