23 ms·
I had an idea for a dating app a while back, in which the basic idea is that you pay the service to message someone (above a free weekly limit of say 1 msg). T
by vbtemp 7y ago
I had an idea for a dating app a while back, in which the basic idea is that you pay the service to message someone (above a free weekly limit of say 1 msg).
The pricing would be reactive - as popular attractive people get more messages, the more it would cost to message them, growing exponentially in order to limit incoming messages to approx a few a day. Unpopular people who got few messages would have a price that would go down to zero. This would hopefully solve the problem of women getting hundreds of messages a day, and men getting neither any incoming messages nor any replies to their outgoing messages.
It shouldn't be much of a problem to get women on board, as they rarely send messages anyway and it would always be free just to put up a profile and receive messages. And for men it would hopefully be a fair an transparent way to have confidence that their outgoing messages would be received and read (and have fewer immediate competitors), rather than just lost in the noise.
I don't have time for it now, but it's always been something on my mind.
Edit: Thanks for your comments. This is interesting. Lots of hypotheses worth experimenting.
- tantalor 7y agoCan I buy options on sending a message in the future, and then sell those options on a derivative market?
- ookblah 7y agoi mean it does solve that problem of excess of messages, but i think as a woman or man you would want the app to give you the best possible match or through some "magic" find someone who you might not have found through conventional means, not just the person who paid the most.
- clairity 7y agopiggybacking on saynay[0], you could make it cheaper to message people you're better matched with. that also helps negate the negative signal that jedberg points out[1]. not sure pricing messages is a good idea, but it's a fun thought experiment. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21629467 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21629467 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21629401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21629401
- vbtemp 7y agoI would argue the "magic" is that someone considered the risk and cost of messaging you, and feels confident they found something to connect about
- wang_li 7y ago> feels confident they found something to connect “I’ve got a lot of money and you’re young and have great tits”
- derialstrazus 7y agoI can see where you're coming from, but I think in practice this is not a great idea. Even if it's not intentional, it's not going to be great publicity when you have an app that shows different women with different price tags. I imagine it's not great either if, on current dating apps, the number of messages women receive becomes public information. The problem here is less that different women cost different prices to message. The problem is that it's visible. If you can overcome this there might be some merit to the idea. This is just me being open-minded though. It still feels like an icky idea.
- saynay 7y agoYou could probably also scale the price based on other variables as well. Like scaling on the sending side as well as the receiving side, or based on the likelihood the other side responds or something. I would assume the main idea is to put pressure to limit low-effort, low-likelihood messaging from both sides, more than putting a pricetag on a person.
- vbtemp 7y ago> I would assume the main idea is to put pressure to limit low-effort, low-likelihood messaging from both sides, more than putting a pricetag on a person. Exactly.
- manifestsilence 7y agoYeah, this could help a lot. Scaling based on the past response rate of the sender and how many messages the sender has sent recently would make the pricing more relative, and thus prevent a basic enumeration of "prices of people". It would also go a long way to not have these prices be listed on a catalog page, but only when clicked into an individual person, so it's less of a feeling of comparison shopping. The psychology of these UI design things matters a lot.
- hrktb 7y agoOn the other side it must be weird to think that the people reaching to you have gone through an auctioning system and were the ones willing to pay the most. It would be all the weirder for first contact messages for instance.
- LudwigNagasena 7y agoDesperate ugly men will crowd out handsome guys who can get laid on Tinder without paying for anything, and you will basically have a service for finding a sugar daddy.
- vbtemp 7y agoFair point that I had not considered. However, I would not necessarily say desperate but may be risk-taking, strategic thinking, and/or wealthy (enough to handle congestion prices) men
- mewpmewp2 7y agoThe issue I see is that women would not find guys who had to pay attractive because it implies desperation. So the only women who would go there are specifically the ones looking for a sugar daddy.
- user5994461 7y agoDon't worry about that, men already have to pay for dating and it's a non issue.
- notyourday 7y ago> The issue I see is that women would not find guys who had to pay attractive because it implies desperation. Every single mid to high end restaurant, every single successful lounge and a nightclub and the likes of LVMH disagree all the way to the bank.
- mgamache 7y agoWomen still have absolute standards so, no matter how much the desperate ugly guy pays, his odds of success are still low, so the optimal strategy would still be to date around your level, right? Also, maybe the messaging cost goes down for men with high response rates (proving they are attractive).
- 7y ago
- babaeth 7y agoI think it's an interesting model, one of the issues I see is that unpopular users who are almost free to message would seem "cheap" which could make them even less attractive.
- AgloeDreams 7y ago"My idea of a dating app: Literally enforces class based social ranking" It really doesn't take much to realize that this pricing scheme would exclusively benefit the rich and white, right? Like for a successful, white, male, software engineer like myself I could afford to reach out to whomever I would like anytime I want, this would be heaven! But for someone in a worse social position they would be basically blocked from talking to more than one person, regardless of their looks, personality, or ambitions.
- Jedi72 7y agoSoounds like OP just wants to formalize the existing process. Dating is expensive!
- anewguy9000 7y agomaybe its cuz i live in the country and not silicon valley, but my last date was a walk which cost nothing :) our second date we made a dinner together which also cost roughly nothing. we just like each other's company <3
- noirbot 7y agoThat doesn't mean they're not expensive in other ways - It's enjoyable, but actively dating can be both emotionally taxing and just time-consuming, especially in the initial stages when you're working out if you like someone, or just looking for someone at all.
- altacc 7y agoNot always. People find inventive ways of going on interesting dates. It will certainly put off those who are looking for someone who likes to spend money on them, but that’s an additional benefit.
- malux85 7y agoWhere did “white” come into it? I can see how such a system would benefit the rich, but would it benefit a rich white more than a rich black? No. Why are you bringing race into it?
- jedberg 7y agoThere is a reason movies don't price based on popularity. Because it sends a subtle (and not so subtle) signal of popularity. People would rather do without than do something unpopular. The people with the low prices would still not get messages, because who wants to message someone so unpopular that you're the only one interested in them?
- aty268 7y agoI've always wondered about why popularity based pricing doesn't exist in everyday life. This explanation makes sense. Thank you.
- netsharc 7y agoHah, just like in that Black Mirror episode, where the main character avoids interacting with the waiter with a 3.x rating for fear of being judged by others as someone of lower status (score). Alain de Botton has an illuminating documentary about status (2h30m version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1MqJPHxy6g, 5m version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iipn6yM43sM)
- hombre_fatal 7y agoYeah, one of the last signals you ever want to be sending out in the dating world is how undesirable other people find you.
- _exnk 7y agoPurely a thought experiment here: what do you think would happen if rather than making "ugly people" free to message, you incentivized the message? Pay $1 per message to a hot person, get paid $1 per message to an ugly person. I wonder if that market would find equilibrium. Edit: I guess the "purely a thought experiment" disclaimer got dismissed by everybody looking for a little outrage today. This is not a business plan, I just think it's interesting to think about these things.
- streb-lo 7y agoI swear half the people on this website are social automatons. "Hey, you're so ugly people get paid to message you! Thanks for using our service!" There is no way this would go over well.
- aembleton 7y agoBut only for a short while. If people message you (even if they are paid to), the algorithm will determine that you're not so ugly.
- vbtemp 7y agoInteresting idea, the floor does not have to be zero.
- phantom784 7y agoPaying people would just incentivize them to message people that they have no interest in dating anyways.
- _exnk 7y agoYeah probably. I'm wondering if there isn't a way to incentivize actually taking the time to have a conversation with someone you're not immediately attracted to. Maybe like a conversation-length gate or rewards based on message recipient ratings of the message you send? Alternatively something like a monthly allowance of credit and then an auction style messaging system would be interesting.
- vectorEQ 7y agoalso put in blockchain, everything needs blockchain :O
- dang 7y agoCould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News? We're trying for a bit better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20218608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20218608
- cdirkx 7y agoYes this is indeed what some dating apps do. Other users are free to message if you two are a "match", or directly - unless they are new or receive too many messages, to "protect their inbox". This information is hidden from the popular users themselves, who often have no idea that others have to pay (directly/in-app virtual tokens/premium subscription) to message them. Sometimes there is also the mechanic that if you are popular enough yourself, you can message other popular users, working around the problem of the people you most likely would want to connect with being drowned out by the crowd. Edit: I should mention, this was about paying for the _ability_ to message someone, not paying per message. I think paying per message is largely avoided by legitimate dating apps because it is mostly employed by scam "hookup" sites.
- fortran77 7y agoYou can't control people's affectional preference. People have a right to be attracted to the person of their choice. In a dating app, any consenting other who wants to be messaged should be able to receive it. Nobody's going to 'settle' for someone they're not attracted to just because it's a bargain.
- abstractbarista 7y agoI absolutely love this idea. Do it. Ignore the grumpies suggesting objectification or privilege. It's a market for attention. Nothing more, nothing less.
- tachyonbeam 7y agoDon't you think women would just not use the dating app though? I think most of them enjoy not having to risk approaching guys. It's also known that many women like the ego boost of getting all the attention. I have a hard time seeing how you could convince them to pay to get less attention and force them to make the first move.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoThe idea seems like an engineer's misreading of women. A woman getting dozens of low-effort messages knows that the next message she receives could be from her next amazing relationship. Great people are less common than low-quality pussy-beggars. That's just life. Charging for messages just optimizes for the sort of loser desesperados who are even open to the idea. It really is just a sugardaddy-finder.
- vbtemp 7y agoThey would not have to make the first move -- at least not the attractive ones anyway. They would just be fewer, higher-quality messages. All the cruft and messages that came from guys "firing from the hip" would disappear.
- gddvhy 7y agoIMHO, a flat membership fee with manual verification would work better. Why do rich folks pay 200k/year for a golf club membership? Becayse they want access to a high quality crowd of their peers.
- adatavizguy 7y agoOr, make it a silent auction like in charities auctioning off dates. That way the current bid is shown just to message the woman.
- HunOL 7y agoWell, such mechanism exist in Badoo. I am not sure if it present in US and West Europe, but it's present in East Europe. Beside classic like/dislike/match there is possibility to look who is around and directly message person. Depending how person is popular it could be free to start conversation or you will have to use "coins".
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- user5994461 7y agoBesides the challenges mentioned in other comments. This will probably have troubles with ranking new users, how to rank new users before they get tens or a hundred messages? Little known fact about dating apps is that the churn is pretty high. Users try and leave within a few weeks, or a few months for the most persistent.
- Nav_Panel 7y agoThis is what Luna was doing (https://www.meetluna.com/ https://www.meetluna.com/) if I recall correctly, with the added bonus that it would also pay out when you read and reply to messages. So, that would incentivize attractive people to actually use the app. In theory. They seem to have failed-to-launch, unfortunately (fortunately?).
- fossuser 7y agoI think the Tinder mutual swipe before message requirement solves this - women’s messages are limited by who they swipe right on (presumably restricting messages to people they’re interested in). I suppose this leaves out the potential for unswiped men to differentiate themselves with an interesting initial message, but I suspect the success rate for that is pretty low.
- invalidusernam3 7y ago> I suppose this leaves out the potential for unswiped men to differentiate themselves with an interesting initial message, but I suspect the success rate for that is pretty low. Tinder kind of offers something like this: super likes which cost a small amount of money (users get one free one per day) which notify the target that they've been super liked and highlight the super likers profile. It's basically a way to pay to stand out from the crowd. There are also other things like boosts which maximise the number of people seeing your profile for a short amount of time. I honestly can't see anything replacing Tinder for the next few years. Besides the matching thing being a really clever, its biggest asset is how socially acceptable it is. It's made online dating "cool"
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago> This would hopefully solve the problem of women getting hundreds of messages a day, and men getting neither any incoming messages nor any replies to their outgoing messages. The former might be solved, but I highly doubt the latter would be.
- asdfman123 7y agoThat would just make it harder for attractive guys who primarily message women in their own league, which could actually result in a worse experience for women.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- neardanger 7y agoJust admit that looks are the only thing that matter on dating apps that push casual encounters. It's not hard to comprehend; sure it's a tough reality to swallow but once you realize where you are and why you aren't getting dates on these apps its almost cathartic.
- MadWombat 7y agoI thought about similar ideas, but I think it solves a problem (women want to get fewer messages) while ignoring the main goal (women want the messages to be from the guys they would like to meet). Once messages start costing a significant amount of money, only the truly desperate and/or predatory will be sending the messages.
- perl4ever 7y agoA simple method of filtering that occurred to me a long time ago - Make the service completely free, but require a credit rating above a certain threshold. Possibly apply that to men but not women.
- likeclockwork 7y agoIf you insist on treating every man who wants to use your service like a john I'm not sure you're going to like the men you get.
- perl4ever 7y agoIt's obviously something that would upset people, but the point is that it's very significantly different than making men pay (like a john) and much more aligned with what people really want. You don't need or want a filter to determine who is desirable; you just want to eliminate everyone who is completely unacceptable and provide a fairly large number of options that are all decent. It might also be necessary to provide some sort of clever cover, so it didn't seem like the business was doing what it was doing. From a marketing perspective, I don't think it would sell, but from a results perspective, I think it would.
- MadWombat 7y agoYou assume that financially responsibility is the primary or strictly required characteristic women are looking for. I am a man, so I am not going to offer an opinion, but it seems like a very bold assumption.
- noman-land 7y agoWouldn't this create a scenario where the most attractive people only end up talking to the wealthiest courters?
- kylebenzle 7y agoWomen use those apps to boost self esteem, not find a date.
- hippich 7y agoOr perhaps just remove profiles from search results once such profile received X number of messages per day/week/month. Or maybe based on unresponded/unreacted messages. Or something along that way where limit realistically allows to process messages.
- supercanuck 7y agoHow is this different from pimping? I'm not sure what the benefit the service you are proposing is to the attractive, popular people.