22 ms·

Bumble S-1

165 points by tempsy 6y ago

terribledustin 6y ago
I knew Bumble was generating a lot of revenue but surprised by the not-far-off revenue of their app Badoo.
balls187 6y ago
How does Bumble scale, and not just end up a portfolio company for the Match Group?
- tgtweak 6y ago
  I think part of the tactic is to go for more non-dating. If I'm reading this s1 properly however there doesn't seem to be much traction there and majority of activity seems to be on the dating side.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    Because the product makes no sense. Why would I use a swipe system focused on people's appearance to find new friends? The whole meet someone random and chat on an app is already super awkward for dating, but there's motivation to get over it for obvious reasons, and in that context at least attractiveness is a rational dimension to consider. At least something like Meetup pre-selects for fairly specific interests.
    - fastball 6y ago
      I've actually formed a number of long-lasting friendships via dating apps.
      - xxpor 6y ago
        Did you go into it expecting to be friends though?
        fastball 6y ago
        I went into them hoping to meet and hang out with interesting people, and wasn't too bothered with whether it would end up purely friendly or veer romantic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- polote 6y ago
  The same way the Match group scales. Bumble today belongs to the Badoo Network, and is showing strong growth mainly because the product is better and more respectful of girls than Tinder. As long as Tinder exists their number of users will increase
  - balls187 6y ago
    > and is showing strong growth mainly because the product is better and more respectful of girls than Tinder. Precisely. Bumble got popular because Tinder was not successful in helping connect people for meaningful relationships. Tinder works exceptionally well for keeping you engaged, and for a subset of users, good at fostering some sort of connection. As you are aware, Bumble's only innovation over tinder was requiring women to initiate the first message after matching. In their S1 filings, note they do not list any sort of relationship based metrics, rather all usage based. They are not in the business of helping people find love. As other products come on the market, users will eventually migrate away to services that are vested in creating long term partnerships. In my opinion, dating apps still have not solved the fundamental problem for straight couples--for a majority of women, they are overwhelmed, and for men they are lost in a sea of choices. But...that said, I have two dates this weekend from Hinge. Highly recommend Hinge over Bumble.
- tw04 6y ago
  At some point they can't and the question is: where are the government regulators? Honestly are there any other major players in the online dating space besides MatchGroup and Bumble? We've known for over a hundred years that capitalism doesn't work without competition and yet we seem doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Facebook had a dating app before COVID that they were heavily promoting.
    - tw04 6y ago
      I just spent the last week reading from all sorts of people how Apple/google/amazon/facebook/etc have too much power, and your solution to this problem is that they take over yet another industry?
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        No. I mentioned another major player who is in the space, to identify possible entities being discussed.
Apocryphon 6y ago
At TechCrunch Disrupt 2019 there was a Bumble booth that offered makeup for headshots to the convention-goers. Turned out that Bumble was getting into the HR discovery of job applicants for recruitment, but with a dating app-style matching interface. Is Bumble still in the LinkedIn business now?
- jldugger 6y ago
  That was such a cringe pivot.
- jpswade 6y ago
  Their homepage says "We’re not just for dating anymore Bumble Date", it looks like they have a product called "Bizz".
- rcavezza 6y ago
  They also have a "Bumble BFF" mode where you can try to make friends in a new city on the app.
  - mkr-hn 6y ago
    That sounds useful. The problem I had on Tinder was most of the guys used it to look for friends, so I'd get a match and see pictures of someone clearly in a relationship and no indication they were looking to add anyone to it. And the women all had bible quotes for bios, so I didn't have any basis for starting a conversation. I heard they added a way to select nonbinary as a gender, but still force you to pick one or both of the binaries for interests.
- ed 6y ago
  The feature is still in the app, but not popular for the same reason you don't go to McDonald's for salad.
  - ec109685 6y ago
    Heh, McDonald’s salads weren’t bad!
fvrghl 6y ago
I didn't realize they were private. It's crazy to me that "start-ups" are sponsoring NBA teams: https://www.nba.com/clippers/bumble-and-la-clippers-announce-global-partnership-based-shared-principles-gender-equality-and-debut https://www.nba.com/clippers/bumble-and-la-clippers-announce...
jonplackett 6y ago
I wonder, are Bumble struggling right now because no-one can meet for a real date? Or are they doing well, because no-one can meet for a real date? Or maybe it's irrelevant and no-one is doing lockdown properly anymore anyway.
- polote 6y ago
  Bumble business model is not related to people going on date, rather to guys matching more girls. And both things are very poorly linked
  - hammock 6y ago
    Probably inversely linked!
- hardwaregeek 6y ago
  Does seem like it's growing during the pandemic: https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/24/love-in-the-time-of-covid-dating-apps-are-thriving/ https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/24/love-in-the-time-of-c...
- iamsb 6y ago
  I paid for bumble during the pandemic mostly to meet people closer to me who were looking for lock down buddies. Not a romantic or sexual relationship, but a platonic one using the BFF mode it offers. I did meet few interesting people around with that.
- RandallBrown 6y ago
  Seems like they'd be doing better since other ways of meeting people for dates (bars, events, etc.) aren't happening. Most of my single friends still seem to be dating.
monksy 6y ago
.
- monksy 6y ago
  (That's a joke about the most common first message. The app requires the woman to make the first move to reduce spam and bad messages... turns out they can't change their user's behaviour/expectations)
  - polote 6y ago
    The most common first message is :wave: , because it is suggested by Bumble on the UI
    - subjectsigma 6y ago
      Back when I used Bumble nearly every first message I got was 'hi' or 'hey'. It got to the point where I decided that if a girl was going to open like that I would just respond in kind, and as a result the number of conversations I had per week on the app quickly hit zero. It's so stupid how one of Bumble's main differentiators from Tinder, the one they advertise as 'empowering women', is the feature women seem to enjoy the least.
fasicle 6y ago
Revenue: "Bumble and Badoo are two of the highest grossing online dating mobile applications... generated $376.6 million... in the period from January 29, 2020 to September 30, 2020." Actually higher than I was expecting.
Goosee 6y ago
Bumble has been great to use as a college student, especially during covid. I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus. Every dating app got an influx of people due to bordem from lockdowns. I'm biased towards (investing in) bumble because it has anecdotally acted as the best dating 'middleman' compared to tinder/hinge. I've had only great experiences taking bumble girls on dates. Compared to tinder, bumble has more serious people looking to date. The system is set up so girls message first and matches will expire after 24 hr. When a girl messages you first, she is already more invested in getting to you know than when a guy using a cheesy pickup line on tinder. I've always loved the philosophy bumble took to the dating scene compared to the apps part of $MTCH.
- actuator 6y ago
  Surprising. Out of the three you mentioned I like Hinge to be the neatest one in terms of idea, although the worst app out of the three. The prompt/photo comments approach allows for a better conversation starter than bios IMO. Also, being able to see who is liking you by default is much better. Way back when I used Bumble, a lot of girls used to drop 'Hi!'(double standards), and never bothered to reply to my reply which felt very annoying to say the least. I would wish every dating app to add a simple feature, if the other person is active on the dating app and isn't responding to you, just unmatch the pair say after two/three days of the last message. I don't understand what's the purpose of just being a name/chat on someone's list.
  - ralston3 6y ago
    > just unmatch the pair say after three days of the last message. This is a good point. However, some women (due to men spamming them) don't have notifications turned on, so genuinely don't get around to seeing a message until they have time to sit down and scroll through the pile Also (as I'm sure you know), anything that can be used as a "measure of cool" will be used as just that. And having a huge list of matches can be a huge self-esteem boost to some. I agree with your point though. It can be tiresome to have to periodically clean out matches every so often
arcticbull 6y ago
This is tangentially related, but hilarious, so bear with me. Consider that Bumble was started by Whitney Wolfe Herd, after she left the company she co-founded, Tinder. Tinder of course was acquired by Match Group, and went public in November of 2015. The Tinder CEO at the time was, uh, unfamiliar with how quiet periods are supposed to work in IPOs, and, I want to say interviews in general. As such Match had to amend their S-1, filing a free-writing prospectus, to include this absolute dumpster fire of an interview given during the quiet period. If you're having a tough morning, at least remember that you're not responsible for the only instance of the word "sodomy" on the SEC website. [1] I'd highly encourage you to read the whole thing. He continues: “Apparently there’s a term for someone who gets turned on by intellectual stuff. You know, just talking. What’s the word?” His face creases the effort of trying to remember. “I want to say ‘sodomy’?” Rosette shrieks: “That’s it! We’re going to be fired” and Rad looks confused. “What? Why?” I tell him it means something else and he thumbs his phone for a definition. “What? No, not that. That’s definitely not me. Oh, my God.” I can't imagine why Whitney left Tinder lol. On that note, a big congrats to Whitney, huge step for a great company! [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000110465915079968/a15-16521_16fwp.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000110465915...
- Flowsion 6y ago
  That was a crazy read. Thanks for sharing.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I saw it go out back then, and frankly it I can barely contain my laughter every time I'm reminded of it. I'm legit crying lol. It's hard to even imagine how many missteps and failures had to line up just right for us to wind up with this FWP. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
- faitswulff 6y ago
  There are roughly ten results for “sodomy” with the search modifier “site:sec.gov” but it seems like only one of those is there because of sheer stupidity
purple_ferret 6y ago
I used to use Bumble when I was single years ago, and I just looked at their pricing and it seems they've massively jacked up the prices of Boost and added a ton of more expensive things. If you're using multiple dating apps and paying for premium, you could be paying, what, over a $100 a month easily? I remember when paying for dating apps was considered taboo. I don't envy single people...I don't doubt they intentionally make it difficult to get a date now if you're not paying.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  > I remember when paying for dating apps was considered taboo. I don't envy single people...I don't doubt they intentionally make it difficult to get a date now if you're not paying. I wonder how sustainable the boost dynamics are. It does make things a bit pay to play. You sell out the integrity of your game long-term in order for short-term gains. It might take people a while to move on to something new, but they eventually will. OkCupid eventually lost mindshare to Tinder and Bumble. With pay to play is that the players who pay aren't necessarily the best players, per sé. They're just the whales most financially and likely psychologically involved. The more I describe this, the more disturbed I am thinking about how the Bumble and OnlyFans attention economies really work. The whole thing just seems like a skinner box designed to psychologically and physiologically prey on humans in isolation. To harvest their sexual instincts and sell it back to them with interest. It's cruel. Nevertheless, as they say, there's nothing novel about human nature going on here, and none of the fundamental dynamics are really changing. Maybe the most disturbing part is how little has actually changed.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  > If you're using multiple dating apps and paying for premium, you could be paying, what, over a $100 a month easily? In the scheme of things this seems like a relatively small price to pay. People in relationships tend to enjoy significantly higher life satisfaction than single folks. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe the gains are on par with an extra $20,000 in income. (Not to mention all the actual savings that go with consolidating two people into a single household.) If premium dating boosts increase your chance of a relationship by even 5% per annum, then $100/month probably is worth it.
fossuser 6y ago
I do think there's probably an interesting opportunity again in the dating app market that's unfulfilled. Something that is remote first (but regional), group based, and shared activity based. Like playing a board game or among us style game with audio or something with two groups of 3. Might be too short lived with vaccines on the way.
bob_theslob646 6y ago
Will be incredibly interesting to see if investors start to clamp down on what they consider an "active user." Also, I wonder how they deal with fraud? Huge problem for them and Tinder. Tons of phishing attempts / attempt to get you off app to sell you paid Snapchat or Onlyfans Here is an interesting article about the fake profiles on Tinder http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/us-model-sues-dating-1-5-b-over-093851338.html http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/us-model-sues-dating-1-5-b-ove... " The lawyer for a Florida model suing dating site Match.com as part of a 1.5-billion-dollar-class-action-lawsuit said that Match.com can easily weed out fake profiles by using software that can help pinpoint most fake profiles. Yuliana Avalos, a mother and part-time model, said that hundrerd of fake profiles on Match.com have used her pictures without her consent. The class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court on Thursday alleges that copyright laws were broken by the dating site, which also committed common law fraud by allowing fake profiles with unconsenting people's images to be approved, ABC News reported."
- offtop5 6y ago
  Fraud is a key part of the business model. Check the FTC filling against Match. The fake profiles get you engaged, and then you get a notification of your match. By the time you actually view it the other account is disabled. But you already paid. One needs to think of the ideal consumer of this stuff. Let's create a character , Dave. Dave logs on, gets a match the first week. He goes out with Sarah . They hit it off and he cancels his subscription. Very bad for dating apps. That's lost revenue. Let's play it back. Sarah was actually a bot which got disabled before Dave could even chat. But as Dave has no way of knowing this, it motivates him to stay subscribed. Which one of these two scenarios is more beneficial to Match / Bumble , etc ? In my experience I actually went out with a good amount of people. All were 30ish , unemployed and constantly complaining about their parents. Since I'm not interested in people like that I only date in real life. The results have been tremendous. I went out with several six-figure earners in 2019, including one special girl who was making 200k. Plus I don't really trust bumble or whoever to not sell my private information to make a few extra bucks. Life is a journey not a destination
  - cheriot 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
polote 6y ago
It's crazy how they talk of a bunch of risk to their business, but don't talk about their main risk. The more people are able to find interesting people on their app, the more they will loose their paying customers. So basically the better they do their job, the less revenue they make. At least they never advertise or tell in their S-1 than they want people to find exclusive relationships. But they are not alone Tinder neither advertise themselves like that, they always use tricky expression like "Bumble empowers users to connect" Today their product is great compare to Tinder (Tinder is more profitable mainly because their product prevent guys to match with girls, don't forget that dating apps, the less people match, the more you make money) so they are gaining users. But I bet in 2 years, they will have the exact same profitability that Tinder has today, and their product will be as bad.
- raziel2701 6y ago
  I wonder if like many games with microtransactions most of their money comes from a few whales? You raise a good point that if people quickly find a partner they won't pay.
  - nightowl_games 6y ago
    ~50% whales, 50% 4.99$ spenders
- tedsanders 6y ago
  This argument strikes me as shortsighted, because it could apply to many products & services. Consider a company that sells dishwashers. Most people only need one dishwasher, so as you soon as you buy a dishwasher from that company, you're out of the dishwasher market. At that point, the company no longer will get revenue from you, so they might as well sell you a dishwasher that doesn't last and breaks down. And yet, we see that some dishwashers are actually fairly functional and long-lasting. Why is this? It's because (a) you might need another dishwasher in a few years, so it's good to give you a good experience, (b) if you have a good experience you'll recommend this dishwasher to other potential customers, (c) you might be the type of customer who buys many dishwashers in volume and this good experience will cause you to buy more here. All three mechanisms incentivize selling a quality dishwasher. Similarly, a dating app that achieves good outcomes for its users may, in the short-term, deplete its pool of users. But in the long-term, those satisfied users may (a) come back, (b) tell others the app is good, or (c) continue using the app.
baccheion 6y ago
Some woman. Is the reason the gender skew was realized on Tinder. Paving the way for the dating situation (and large vs. normal pool of incels) among youths today. Then Bumble. By the same woman. Targeting women (first), but then better for males actually. As the skew is less via attracting more women. Funny.
- blueline 6y ago
  what?
- cheriot 6y ago
  America, like most countries, has slightly more women than men (51.1%). The "incel" phenomenon seems more about men that don't know how to have a healthy relationship with a women. Ironically, the term "incel" was created by a women before it was coopted https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    It's a bit more nuanced than that. While there are more woman than men, that's because of women outliving men by many years. All of that abundance is due to women in their 50's and up. For people of a more typical dating age, under 50, there are more men than women.
    - mikeyouse 6y ago
      I don’t think that’s necessarily true either - Young men have much higher mortality rates as well - up to 3x in some age groups: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age-and-sex-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age... Primarily from accidents and violence if I recall correctly.
      - reducesuffering 6y ago
        While true, that's still data that is secondary to the main point. These are the real stats that reflect the disparity. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...
8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago
A few thoughts as a power user of Bumble and other dating apps ("personal marketing spend" of around 300-400$/mo), having been an online dating user for over 15 years: * The experiment of making women go first failed, it's simply not something most women want to do. It worked well as marketing, but from a product perspective, it's a gimmick. It's a classic product management error of not separating what users say they want to do, what they think they want to do, and what they actually end up doing. * I commend Bumble on being among the first, if not the first, on having implemented verified profiles. This is a huge issue on apps like Tinder where, at least in big urban hubs, bots can often make up 50-80% of the profiles you're displayed. Knowing that you won't be wasting $2 to Super Swipe a scammer is a relief. * I appreciate that most apps implemented in-app audio and video calls. That's a game changer for people who do not like the idea of sharing their phone number with a total stranger. * I still don't believe they've done much to expunge inactive profiles from the site. It might have gotten better recently, but historically you could spend way too much money on Super Swipes on profiles that haven't logged in months and had no plans of doing so. That doesn't feel amazing as a user, it feels scammy at best. * All dating apps are commoditized at this point. It's fundamentally the same feature set, with the only difference being the pools of users, and even those mostly overlap. Being on multiple apps at the same time gives you the chance to match with someone who swiped left on you on a different app, and gives you access to a slice of the pool that you didn't have on a different service. Having "opportunity 2, 3 and 4" to match again with someone on a different service is typically worth the extra cost in subscription and time spent swiping. * I'm surprised they haven't allowed men to pay more to get ahead. Tinder has been on that road for a while now, culminating in $10 boosts and $40/mo pricing tier. Men are eager to deploy their resources in being successful at mating, and would be happy to spend more if that meant better results. I suspect that app makers simply can't think of anything else they could monetize for a higher price. * I wish companies did more to encourage people to actually interact once matched. As of right now, once you match, often the male has to message the female for days before hearing back at all. It ends up being similar to the Rule of Seven in sales. It would be much better to have the app shut the conversation down if it's obvious that it's going to be one-sided, but why would an app voluntarily reduce user in-app time? Perverse incentives. I don't know if there's a way to make online dating great as an experience, at least in the heterosexual space. Like with job searches, there are lots of resumes submitted into black holes, not hearing back from hiring managers, being in the middle of the process for a role that's about to be filled by someone else, the company suddenly pivoting right after you join and so on. I suspect that there's much, much more that these apps can do to make it a win-win environment for their users, but they also need to keep the cash flowing. I don't know if there's a way for the app to make more money, while also increasing the quality of the matches that their users are receiving, that actually turn into real dates and real relationships down the line. My hunch is that these two drives are not easy to align.
tomc1985 6y ago
Why does Bumble need to go public? Yet another promising company prostituting itself to public shareholders for those precious tendies. Le sigh. Who wants to take bets on how much Bumble is going to suck in a year or two?
- cheriot 6y ago
  So employees can buy houses and achieve other normal financial goals. So those of us that are not VCs or Bumble employees can own a piece. They're transitioning out of a model where investor money subsidized our dating lives. That means things will change regardless of who owns it.
  - tomc1985 6y ago
    And if the company had a reasonable scope, with a reasonable headcount, then all those things would be attainable while staying private, without corrupting the product or spreading one's legs to the markets, as it were. But now, the only thing that's going to work for them in the long run is growth. At all costs. Far beyond whatever is the most appropriate point for what could have been a humble dating site, because the public will demand no less for a return on their investment.
    - cheriot 6y ago
      Because non-public startups don’t grow at all costs and hire too many people? You’re attributing things to public companies that any company can do or not.
- rchaud 6y ago
  > Why does Bumble need to go public? Because VCs aren't charities and prefer to invest in moonshots instead of a potentially sustainable business models. Any company starts to 'suck' from the moment the VC money teat is taken away. These companies are not profitable when they IPO, how can they survive without trying to cash in by any means necessary?
  - 6y ago
throwawayosiu1 6y ago
Honestly, I've had way more success with Bumble when it comes to getting matches, continuing conversations and meeting IRL. That said, IMO the market for Tinder vs Bumble is quite different even though they are in the same space. Anecdotally, my friends use Tinder for FWB / Hookups etc. while Bumble is more-so for casual or serious relationships. I also find the risks interesting. Not a ton of people are paying for dating (which is opposite to the advice given on Reddit for example).
cairoshikobon 6y ago
As someone with a heavy accent, I dislike dating apps... I can write and sound and look like a certain group, but when I meet people in real life my accent becomes an instant turn-off. That's why I decided to only ever go out with ones whom we met first in real life. Not to mention the privacy implications. Lookup stories of people whose photos were used by scammers in other countries on dating apps..
- the_only_law 6y ago
  Yeah I’m really jaded in regards to online dating. Ofc, I’m jaded about most online interaction at this point. I’ve half way considered trying to seriously use one of these apps, but I usually just delete it within a week. I just don’t think I can succinctly reduce my personality to an “acceptable” bio and a handful of pictures. Then again “online” has almost been the only place I’ve met people my age the past few years.
- whalesalad 6y ago
  On a dating app you are selling yourself. If you are not selling yourself accurately, that is not something you can blame on others. Put it in your profile: I have a thick accent.
  - cairoshikobon 6y ago
    What else should I mention? There are countless things you get all when you meet someone in person and talk for 15 minutes that would take very long paragraphs to describe and "justify".
    - whalesalad 6y ago
      Mention the things that make you distinctly you. Even if you think they make you less attractive. Your goal is to be yourself and attract people who like you as you are. Then you don’t have to be someone you aren’t. I’d recommend the book Models by Mark Manson.
- nradov 6y ago
ttam 6y ago
I always found it curious that Whitney would associate herself with Badoo, but I guess that's business as usual. Pre-Tinder, Badoo was a fast growing dating app that was shady af, full of dark patterns on the site/app - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sexual-network https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sexual-network [2011] Then this came out a while ago, and I can't say I was surprised how the founder is portrayed https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2019/07/08/exclusive-investigation-sex-drugs-misogyny-and-sleaze-at-the-hq-of-bumbles-owner/?sh=25a427186308 https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2019/07/08/exclusi... (and I would also not be surprised at all if I found out that Bumble's data was being sold to others - AFAIK no signs of that currently happening)
lwansbrough 6y ago
Just a little market research for the folks in here: what would you think of a dating app that forced you sign up with a counterpart of the opposite sex/gender (if you're straight) (ie. a friend) and then required you to talk via phone call (no video chat, no texting) to your matches. There is two goals here: the first is to ensure the dating pool is relatively unbiased towards one sex (I call this Tinder's "sea of dicks" problem), as well as creating a bit of implicit social validation (this person is on the app essentially because they had a friend of the opposite sex who was willing to vouch for them) and then the other is trying to attack the problem of overly-polished conversation: people who are charming via text when they have a moment to think of a response, and decidedly less clever when speaking in person (this is something I'd like to change about myself, personally.) But the advantage here is that this is true for a lot of people, and puts some humanity back into meeting people online.
- orange_tee 6y ago
  Any dating app that adds friction (compared to Tinder) is doomed to fail, because women have no reason to bother with it.
  - fuzzer37 6y ago
    Wouldn't that at least prove that their potential partners were more dedicated to the app?
  - polote 6y ago
    That's not true, women who are really interested at finding people they like, will bother with it. But any way for the OP, the technology for matching people who like each other is already there. The only piece missing, is to create an app which doesnt have has a goal to make a lot of money. A bit like Signal is free and rely on donations while all others texting app rely on ads
  - immy 6y ago
    The first part of your sentence is true. As a marketplace, dating apps need as many users as possible.
rootsudo 6y ago
Bumble is badoo. Interesting.
fourseventy 6y ago
I don't understand dating apps as a business because the better your product is the less people need to use it.
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  That's the thing, they make it so that the results aren't too good. For example bumble promotes profiles that are new in an area. In theory that sounds good, if you move somewhere it gives you a little help meeting people. In practice, this means that a huge number of profiles I see are just people at the airport. It also means that I get most of my matches when I'm traveling. This way Bumble gives me the dopamine hit of getting multiple matches per day (which never happens at home for me), while reducing the risk I'll get into an actual relationship and leave their service. That, plus their shady handling of user email addresses, has gotten me to prefer other apps
- abadaba 6y ago
  I recently saw a Hinge ad on TV that fully leans into this idea -- an app that's meant to be deleted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q0M12pOmQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q0M12pOmQk It does make we wonder what their pitch to investors looks like.
the_jeremy 6y ago
I got a handful of matches on Bumble (5?). No one actually messaged me, so it was both a waste of time and ego-crushing. Tinder was the crap-shoot you expect it to be for a long term relationship. I only had good luck (LTR 3 years and counting) on Coffee Meets Bagel, which limits your matches each day for both genders to try and make things less of a numbers game.
scarmig 6y ago
Interestingly: > According to OC&C, within the North America freemium market, Bumble has approximately 30% more female users for every male user compared to the gender mix of users in the market who do not use Bumble. The phrasing itself is interesting, as they don't ever reveal the actual ratio of male users to female users AFAICT. But going with the typical 2:1 ratio, that suggests a ratio closer to 3:2.
- Goosee 6y ago
  What I find interesting is that before mainstream dating apps, VCs were worried about churn (if dating apps succeed in their goal, users would delete it and never come back). Realistically dating apps just need to attract females and provide a safe space for them to meet people online. The males will follow.
nknealk 6y ago
Anyone else notice the Adam Newman style loans to the founder in the footnotes? " (ii) cash proceeds to our Founder in an amount of $125 million, (iii) a loan to an entity controlled by our Founder in an amount of $119.0 million, as described further below under “—Loan to our Founder,” (iv) certain transaction expenses and (v) the contribution of $87.0 million to the balance sheet of the surviving company of the Merger."
- kippinitreal 6y ago
  Can't speak to this specific case, but often this is done to help founders exercise shares/pay taxes on gains. Still a kind favor, but it's usually not a Nuemann-esque private jet purchase.
  - nknealk 6y ago
    The loan was collateralized by shares, not used to purchase shares. Also the founder got a sweetheart deal on the interest rate. “ The loan [to our founder] accrues interest at a rate per annum equal to the long-term federal rate established pursuant to Section 1274 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code as in effect on November 8, 2019 (which was equal to 1.93% per annum), is secured by our Founder’s Class A units in Bumble Holdings and any net cash proceeds of such pledged units to the extent received by Beehive Holdings III, LP, and allows for repayment at any time”
    - Robelius 6y ago
      Unrelated, but Beehive Holdings is a great holding company name for Bumble.
permo-w 6y ago
If someone made a dating app where only men could message first, I suspect it wouldn’t be allowed on the App Store Of course, it’s your choice to use Bumble, and I support its right to exist, but it feels odd that it’s largely seen as a progressive take on the dating app, when, to me anyway, it seems regressive and imbalanced, putting one gender in the position to pick and choose, and the other passively waiting for that choice However, I’m sure there are other meritorious perspectives on this, and I’d be pleased to hear them Edit: I’m seeing in other comments that mainly they have this feature for the purely cynical reason of getting female users on the app - and generating publicity. That makes sense, but I’m more commenting on the media reaction itself, than the ethics of the company
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- echelon 6y ago
  > it seems regressive and imbalanced Dating has never been an even playing field. Why would an app be egalitarian?
  - Bakary 6y ago
    In fact, the core of it is its selective aspect by definition
  - permo-w 6y ago
    pretty sure you’re breaking the HN guidelines there
- Bakary 6y ago
  The app just tried to tackle the general equilibrium where men send many requests and receive few responses and women receive many requests but are interested in fewer of them. As other commenters have pointed out, the equilibrium reasserted itself with women on the app just using a generic "hi" as the response. The word progressive has become more or less meaningless but in this case the hypothetical app your described earlier is essentially almost every dating app in actual day-to-day practice. Essentially the status quo is already completely imbalanced, they are just putting a twist on it that serves as the app's hook.
outime 6y ago
Deep down Bumble doesn't seem that different from Tinder (from the perspective of a non-user like me anyway). The crucial difference is that women message first but from what I've heard they'll just say "hi" or some other low-effort message in most of the cases. Why? The answer is simple: women have plenty of options and also absolute power over those choices so no need to do much - it's a natural, rational and logical choice. Hence the dynamics aren't going to change no matter what tech you apply to the "problem". If you forced somehow to write a more thoughtful initial message, they'd just go to some other app (or the majority anyway). How I see it is if Bumble grows as much as Tinder, it'd suffer from the same problems. Except that women will receive less initial gross messages (if that's an actual wide issue, I have no idea). Men are left in the same situation, which is how it should be I guess.
webinvest 6y ago
TL;DR I think Bumble is the better dating app company but that won’t matter if the stock is overpriced or isn’t shareholder friendly. It’s still too hard to tell whether this will be a good investment or not until the boxes left blank are filled in on the S1. What I’m going to be looking for 2 things: 1) Good/fair voting rights for shareholders. Voting rights should be as good as Netflix/Amazon/Tesla/Peloton’s and not like useless like Snapchat/Facebook/Google’s. (Management shouldn’t fear voting rights because shareholders generally vote in agreement with everything management says but it should have language to prevent short sellers from borrowing shares to vote which is known as a “poison pill” to protect the company from bad actors.) 2) A lower market cap to user ratio than Match Group. When Snapchat IPO’d it had the opposite: a higher market cap to user ratio than Facebook so it dropped from $25 to $5 and overall lagged behind it’s competitor. Optional moonshot 3: An in-app benefit or perks system for directly having a share of stock. The uniqueness and demand generation of this would send the stock soaring in the same way Ethereum flew from $350 to $1250 after the transition to Ethereum 2.0 which primarily requires you to possess 32 Ethereum to be a miner — something that hasn’t even been rolled out to Coinbase yet and will likely appreciate much further once it does. Bumble’s “designed by women for women” approach has caused Bumble to do a better job at attracting women to their platform than Tinder or Hinge. More women naturally attract more me. In my area the women on Bumble are noticeably much higher quality in terms of looks, education, and profile description than Hinge’s while on Tinder women are flooded with 100+ matches after a day or two now even if their first photo is just a picture of a floor* while men get magnitudes less attention due to the massive gender disparity. In summary, I think Bumble is the better dating app company but that won’t matter if the stock is overpriced or isn’t shareholder friendly. Short Tinder video of a male vs. a female with a floor photo on TikTok: https://m.tiktok.com/v/6912611072226741509.html https://m.tiktok.com/v/6912611072226741509.html *Disclosure, I already hold Match Group shares (which are pretty good shares to hold) and expect Match to try and at least bid on Bumble by diluting their shares again. Whether that’s an outcome everyone wants is a totally different topic..

Bumble S-1

165 points by tempsy 6y ago

terribledustin 6y ago

I knew Bumble was generating a lot of revenue but surprised by the not-far-off revenue of their app Badoo.

balls187 6y ago

How does Bumble scale, and not just end up a portfolio company for the Match Group?

tgtweak 6y ago
I think part of the tactic is to go for more non-dating. If I'm reading this s1 properly however there doesn't seem to be much traction there and majority of activity seems to be on the dating side.
- xxpor 6y ago
  Because the product makes no sense. Why would I use a swipe system focused on people's appearance to find new friends? The whole meet someone random and chat on an app is already super awkward for dating, but there's motivation to get over it for obvious reasons, and in that context at least attractiveness is a rational dimension to consider. At least something like Meetup pre-selects for fairly specific interests.
  - fastball 6y ago
    I've actually formed a number of long-lasting friendships via dating apps.
    - xxpor 6y ago
      Did you go into it expecting to be friends though?
      - fastball 6y ago
        I went into them hoping to meet and hang out with interesting people, and wasn't too bothered with whether it would end up purely friendly or veer romantic.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
polote 6y ago
The same way the Match group scales. Bumble today belongs to the Badoo Network, and is showing strong growth mainly because the product is better and more respectful of girls than Tinder. As long as Tinder exists their number of users will increase
- balls187 6y ago
  > and is showing strong growth mainly because the product is better and more respectful of girls than Tinder. Precisely. Bumble got popular because Tinder was not successful in helping connect people for meaningful relationships. Tinder works exceptionally well for keeping you engaged, and for a subset of users, good at fostering some sort of connection. As you are aware, Bumble's only innovation over tinder was requiring women to initiate the first message after matching. In their S1 filings, note they do not list any sort of relationship based metrics, rather all usage based. They are not in the business of helping people find love. As other products come on the market, users will eventually migrate away to services that are vested in creating long term partnerships. In my opinion, dating apps still have not solved the fundamental problem for straight couples--for a majority of women, they are overwhelmed, and for men they are lost in a sea of choices. But...that said, I have two dates this weekend from Hinge. Highly recommend Hinge over Bumble.
tw04 6y ago
At some point they can't and the question is: where are the government regulators? Honestly are there any other major players in the online dating space besides MatchGroup and Bumble? We've known for over a hundred years that capitalism doesn't work without competition and yet we seem doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  Facebook had a dating app before COVID that they were heavily promoting.
  - tw04 6y ago
    I just spent the last week reading from all sorts of people how Apple/google/amazon/facebook/etc have too much power, and your solution to this problem is that they take over yet another industry?
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      No. I mentioned another major player who is in the space, to identify possible entities being discussed.

Apocryphon 6y ago

At TechCrunch Disrupt 2019 there was a Bumble booth that offered makeup for headshots to the convention-goers. Turned out that Bumble was getting into the HR discovery of job applicants for recruitment, but with a dating app-style matching interface. Is Bumble still in the LinkedIn business now?

jldugger 6y ago
That was such a cringe pivot.
jpswade 6y ago
Their homepage says "We’re not just for dating anymore Bumble Date", it looks like they have a product called "Bizz".
rcavezza 6y ago
They also have a "Bumble BFF" mode where you can try to make friends in a new city on the app.
- mkr-hn 6y ago
  That sounds useful. The problem I had on Tinder was most of the guys used it to look for friends, so I'd get a match and see pictures of someone clearly in a relationship and no indication they were looking to add anyone to it. And the women all had bible quotes for bios, so I didn't have any basis for starting a conversation. I heard they added a way to select nonbinary as a gender, but still force you to pick one or both of the binaries for interests.
ed 6y ago
The feature is still in the app, but not popular for the same reason you don't go to McDonald's for salad.
- ec109685 6y ago
  Heh, McDonald’s salads weren’t bad!

fvrghl 6y ago

I didn't realize they were private. It's crazy to me that "start-ups" are sponsoring NBA teams: https://www.nba.com/clippers/bumble-and-la-clippers-announce-global-partnership-based-shared-principles-gender-equality-and-debut https://www.nba.com/clippers/bumble-and-la-clippers-announce...

jonplackett 6y ago

I wonder, are Bumble struggling right now because no-one can meet for a real date? Or are they doing well, because no-one can meet for a real date? Or maybe it's irrelevant and no-one is doing lockdown properly anymore anyway.

polote 6y ago
Bumble business model is not related to people going on date, rather to guys matching more girls. And both things are very poorly linked
- hammock 6y ago
  Probably inversely linked!
hardwaregeek 6y ago
Does seem like it's growing during the pandemic: https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/24/love-in-the-time-of-covid-dating-apps-are-thriving/ https://www.marketplace.org/2020/11/24/love-in-the-time-of-c...
iamsb 6y ago
I paid for bumble during the pandemic mostly to meet people closer to me who were looking for lock down buddies. Not a romantic or sexual relationship, but a platonic one using the BFF mode it offers. I did meet few interesting people around with that.
RandallBrown 6y ago
Seems like they'd be doing better since other ways of meeting people for dates (bars, events, etc.) aren't happening. Most of my single friends still seem to be dating.

monksy 6y ago

monksy 6y ago
(That's a joke about the most common first message. The app requires the woman to make the first move to reduce spam and bad messages... turns out they can't change their user's behaviour/expectations)
- polote 6y ago
  The most common first message is :wave: , because it is suggested by Bumble on the UI
  - subjectsigma 6y ago
    Back when I used Bumble nearly every first message I got was 'hi' or 'hey'. It got to the point where I decided that if a girl was going to open like that I would just respond in kind, and as a result the number of conversations I had per week on the app quickly hit zero. It's so stupid how one of Bumble's main differentiators from Tinder, the one they advertise as 'empowering women', is the feature women seem to enjoy the least.

fasicle 6y ago

Revenue: "Bumble and Badoo are two of the highest grossing online dating mobile applications... generated $376.6 million... in the period from January 29, 2020 to September 30, 2020." Actually higher than I was expecting.

Goosee 6y ago

Bumble has been great to use as a college student, especially during covid. I know a lot of you are married so let me put this out here: I (and most young people) will not put their romantic life on pause cause of a virus. Every dating app got an influx of people due to bordem from lockdowns. I'm biased towards (investing in) bumble because it has anecdotally acted as the best dating 'middleman' compared to tinder/hinge. I've had only great experiences taking bumble girls on dates. Compared to tinder, bumble has more serious people looking to date. The system is set up so girls message first and matches will expire after 24 hr. When a girl messages you first, she is already more invested in getting to you know than when a guy using a cheesy pickup line on tinder. I've always loved the philosophy bumble took to the dating scene compared to the apps part of $MTCH.

actuator 6y ago
Surprising. Out of the three you mentioned I like Hinge to be the neatest one in terms of idea, although the worst app out of the three. The prompt/photo comments approach allows for a better conversation starter than bios IMO. Also, being able to see who is liking you by default is much better. Way back when I used Bumble, a lot of girls used to drop 'Hi!'(double standards), and never bothered to reply to my reply which felt very annoying to say the least. I would wish every dating app to add a simple feature, if the other person is active on the dating app and isn't responding to you, just unmatch the pair say after two/three days of the last message. I don't understand what's the purpose of just being a name/chat on someone's list.
- ralston3 6y ago
  > just unmatch the pair say after three days of the last message. This is a good point. However, some women (due to men spamming them) don't have notifications turned on, so genuinely don't get around to seeing a message until they have time to sit down and scroll through the pile Also (as I'm sure you know), anything that can be used as a "measure of cool" will be used as just that. And having a huge list of matches can be a huge self-esteem boost to some. I agree with your point though. It can be tiresome to have to periodically clean out matches every so often

arcticbull 6y ago

This is tangentially related, but hilarious, so bear with me. Consider that Bumble was started by Whitney Wolfe Herd, after she left the company she co-founded, Tinder. Tinder of course was acquired by Match Group, and went public in November of 2015. The Tinder CEO at the time was, uh, unfamiliar with how quiet periods are supposed to work in IPOs, and, I want to say interviews in general. As such Match had to amend their S-1, filing a free-writing prospectus, to include this absolute dumpster fire of an interview given during the quiet period. If you're having a tough morning, at least remember that you're not responsible for the only instance of the word "sodomy" on the SEC website. [1] I'd highly encourage you to read the whole thing. He continues: “Apparently there’s a term for someone who gets turned on by intellectual stuff. You know, just talking. What’s the word?” His face creases the effort of trying to remember. “I want to say ‘sodomy’?” Rosette shrieks: “That’s it! We’re going to be fired” and Rad looks confused. “What? Why?” I tell him it means something else and he thumbs his phone for a definition. “What? No, not that. That’s definitely not me. Oh, my God.” I can't imagine why Whitney left Tinder lol. On that note, a big congrats to Whitney, huge step for a great company! [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000110465915079968/a15-16521_16fwp.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000110465915...

Flowsion 6y ago
That was a crazy read. Thanks for sharing.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I saw it go out back then, and frankly it I can barely contain my laughter every time I'm reminded of it. I'm legit crying lol. It's hard to even imagine how many missteps and failures had to line up just right for us to wind up with this FWP. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
faitswulff 6y ago
There are roughly ten results for “sodomy” with the search modifier “site:sec.gov” but it seems like only one of those is there because of sheer stupidity

purple_ferret 6y ago

I used to use Bumble when I was single years ago, and I just looked at their pricing and it seems they've massively jacked up the prices of Boost and added a ton of more expensive things. If you're using multiple dating apps and paying for premium, you could be paying, what, over a $100 a month easily? I remember when paying for dating apps was considered taboo. I don't envy single people...I don't doubt they intentionally make it difficult to get a date now if you're not paying.

yowlingcat 6y ago
> I remember when paying for dating apps was considered taboo. I don't envy single people...I don't doubt they intentionally make it difficult to get a date now if you're not paying. I wonder how sustainable the boost dynamics are. It does make things a bit pay to play. You sell out the integrity of your game long-term in order for short-term gains. It might take people a while to move on to something new, but they eventually will. OkCupid eventually lost mindshare to Tinder and Bumble. With pay to play is that the players who pay aren't necessarily the best players, per sé. They're just the whales most financially and likely psychologically involved. The more I describe this, the more disturbed I am thinking about how the Bumble and OnlyFans attention economies really work. The whole thing just seems like a skinner box designed to psychologically and physiologically prey on humans in isolation. To harvest their sexual instincts and sell it back to them with interest. It's cruel. Nevertheless, as they say, there's nothing novel about human nature going on here, and none of the fundamental dynamics are really changing. Maybe the most disturbing part is how little has actually changed.
dcolkitt 6y ago
> If you're using multiple dating apps and paying for premium, you could be paying, what, over a $100 a month easily? In the scheme of things this seems like a relatively small price to pay. People in relationships tend to enjoy significantly higher life satisfaction than single folks. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I believe the gains are on par with an extra $20,000 in income. (Not to mention all the actual savings that go with consolidating two people into a single household.) If premium dating boosts increase your chance of a relationship by even 5% per annum, then $100/month probably is worth it.

fossuser 6y ago

I do think there's probably an interesting opportunity again in the dating app market that's unfulfilled. Something that is remote first (but regional), group based, and shared activity based. Like playing a board game or among us style game with audio or something with two groups of 3. Might be too short lived with vaccines on the way.

bob_theslob646 6y ago

Will be incredibly interesting to see if investors start to clamp down on what they consider an "active user." Also, I wonder how they deal with fraud? Huge problem for them and Tinder. Tons of phishing attempts / attempt to get you off app to sell you paid Snapchat or Onlyfans Here is an interesting article about the fake profiles on Tinder http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/us-model-sues-dating-1-5-b-over-093851338.html http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/us-model-sues-dating-1-5-b-ove... " The lawyer for a Florida model suing dating site Match.com as part of a 1.5-billion-dollar-class-action-lawsuit said that Match.com can easily weed out fake profiles by using software that can help pinpoint most fake profiles. Yuliana Avalos, a mother and part-time model, said that hundrerd of fake profiles on Match.com have used her pictures without her consent. The class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court on Thursday alleges that copyright laws were broken by the dating site, which also committed common law fraud by allowing fake profiles with unconsenting people's images to be approved, ABC News reported."

offtop5 6y ago
Fraud is a key part of the business model. Check the FTC filling against Match. The fake profiles get you engaged, and then you get a notification of your match. By the time you actually view it the other account is disabled. But you already paid. One needs to think of the ideal consumer of this stuff. Let's create a character , Dave. Dave logs on, gets a match the first week. He goes out with Sarah . They hit it off and he cancels his subscription. Very bad for dating apps. That's lost revenue. Let's play it back. Sarah was actually a bot which got disabled before Dave could even chat. But as Dave has no way of knowing this, it motivates him to stay subscribed. Which one of these two scenarios is more beneficial to Match / Bumble , etc ? In my experience I actually went out with a good amount of people. All were 30ish , unemployed and constantly complaining about their parents. Since I'm not interested in people like that I only date in real life. The results have been tremendous. I went out with several six-figure earners in 2019, including one special girl who was making 200k. Plus I don't really trust bumble or whoever to not sell my private information to make a few extra bucks. Life is a journey not a destination
- cheriot 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

polote 6y ago

It's crazy how they talk of a bunch of risk to their business, but don't talk about their main risk. The more people are able to find interesting people on their app, the more they will loose their paying customers. So basically the better they do their job, the less revenue they make. At least they never advertise or tell in their S-1 than they want people to find exclusive relationships. But they are not alone Tinder neither advertise themselves like that, they always use tricky expression like "Bumble empowers users to connect" Today their product is great compare to Tinder (Tinder is more profitable mainly because their product prevent guys to match with girls, don't forget that dating apps, the less people match, the more you make money) so they are gaining users. But I bet in 2 years, they will have the exact same profitability that Tinder has today, and their product will be as bad.

raziel2701 6y ago
I wonder if like many games with microtransactions most of their money comes from a few whales? You raise a good point that if people quickly find a partner they won't pay.
- nightowl_games 6y ago
  ~50% whales, 50% 4.99$ spenders
tedsanders 6y ago
This argument strikes me as shortsighted, because it could apply to many products & services. Consider a company that sells dishwashers. Most people only need one dishwasher, so as you soon as you buy a dishwasher from that company, you're out of the dishwasher market. At that point, the company no longer will get revenue from you, so they might as well sell you a dishwasher that doesn't last and breaks down. And yet, we see that some dishwashers are actually fairly functional and long-lasting. Why is this? It's because (a) you might need another dishwasher in a few years, so it's good to give you a good experience, (b) if you have a good experience you'll recommend this dishwasher to other potential customers, (c) you might be the type of customer who buys many dishwashers in volume and this good experience will cause you to buy more here. All three mechanisms incentivize selling a quality dishwasher. Similarly, a dating app that achieves good outcomes for its users may, in the short-term, deplete its pool of users. But in the long-term, those satisfied users may (a) come back, (b) tell others the app is good, or (c) continue using the app.

baccheion 6y ago

Some woman. Is the reason the gender skew was realized on Tinder. Paving the way for the dating situation (and large vs. normal pool of incels) among youths today. Then Bumble. By the same woman. Targeting women (first), but then better for males actually. As the skew is less via attracting more women. Funny.

blueline 6y ago
what?
cheriot 6y ago
America, like most countries, has slightly more women than men (51.1%). The "incel" phenomenon seems more about men that don't know how to have a healthy relationship with a women. Ironically, the term "incel" was created by a women before it was coopted https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  It's a bit more nuanced than that. While there are more woman than men, that's because of women outliving men by many years. All of that abundance is due to women in their 50's and up. For people of a more typical dating age, under 50, there are more men than women.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    I don’t think that’s necessarily true either - Young men have much higher mortality rates as well - up to 3x in some age groups: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age-and-sex-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age... Primarily from accidents and violence if I recall correctly.
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      While true, that's still data that is secondary to the main point. These are the real stats that reflect the disparity. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the...

8f2ab37a-ed6c 6y ago

A few thoughts as a power user of Bumble and other dating apps ("personal marketing spend" of around 300-400$/mo), having been an online dating user for over 15 years: * The experiment of making women go first failed, it's simply not something most women want to do. It worked well as marketing, but from a product perspective, it's a gimmick. It's a classic product management error of not separating what users say they want to do, what they think they want to do, and what they actually end up doing. * I commend Bumble on being among the first, if not the first, on having implemented verified profiles. This is a huge issue on apps like Tinder where, at least in big urban hubs, bots can often make up 50-80% of the profiles you're displayed. Knowing that you won't be wasting $2 to Super Swipe a scammer is a relief. * I appreciate that most apps implemented in-app audio and video calls. That's a game changer for people who do not like the idea of sharing their phone number with a total stranger. * I still don't believe they've done much to expunge inactive profiles from the site. It might have gotten better recently, but historically you could spend way too much money on Super Swipes on profiles that haven't logged in months and had no plans of doing so. That doesn't feel amazing as a user, it feels scammy at best. * All dating apps are commoditized at this point. It's fundamentally the same feature set, with the only difference being the pools of users, and even those mostly overlap. Being on multiple apps at the same time gives you the chance to match with someone who swiped left on you on a different app, and gives you access to a slice of the pool that you didn't have on a different service. Having "opportunity 2, 3 and 4" to match again with someone on a different service is typically worth the extra cost in subscription and time spent swiping. * I'm surprised they haven't allowed men to pay more to get ahead. Tinder has been on that road for a while now, culminating in $10 boosts and $40/mo pricing tier. Men are eager to deploy their resources in being successful at mating, and would be happy to spend more if that meant better results. I suspect that app makers simply can't think of anything else they could monetize for a higher price. * I wish companies did more to encourage people to actually interact once matched. As of right now, once you match, often the male has to message the female for days before hearing back at all. It ends up being similar to the Rule of Seven in sales. It would be much better to have the app shut the conversation down if it's obvious that it's going to be one-sided, but why would an app voluntarily reduce user in-app time? Perverse incentives. I don't know if there's a way to make online dating great as an experience, at least in the heterosexual space. Like with job searches, there are lots of resumes submitted into black holes, not hearing back from hiring managers, being in the middle of the process for a role that's about to be filled by someone else, the company suddenly pivoting right after you join and so on. I suspect that there's much, much more that these apps can do to make it a win-win environment for their users, but they also need to keep the cash flowing. I don't know if there's a way for the app to make more money, while also increasing the quality of the matches that their users are receiving, that actually turn into real dates and real relationships down the line. My hunch is that these two drives are not easy to align.

tomc1985 6y ago

Why does Bumble need to go public? Yet another promising company prostituting itself to public shareholders for those precious tendies. Le sigh. Who wants to take bets on how much Bumble is going to suck in a year or two?

cheriot 6y ago
So employees can buy houses and achieve other normal financial goals. So those of us that are not VCs or Bumble employees can own a piece. They're transitioning out of a model where investor money subsidized our dating lives. That means things will change regardless of who owns it.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  And if the company had a reasonable scope, with a reasonable headcount, then all those things would be attainable while staying private, without corrupting the product or spreading one's legs to the markets, as it were. But now, the only thing that's going to work for them in the long run is growth. At all costs. Far beyond whatever is the most appropriate point for what could have been a humble dating site, because the public will demand no less for a return on their investment.
  - cheriot 6y ago
    Because non-public startups don’t grow at all costs and hire too many people? You’re attributing things to public companies that any company can do or not.
rchaud 6y ago
> Why does Bumble need to go public? Because VCs aren't charities and prefer to invest in moonshots instead of a potentially sustainable business models. Any company starts to 'suck' from the moment the VC money teat is taken away. These companies are not profitable when they IPO, how can they survive without trying to cash in by any means necessary?
- 6y ago

throwawayosiu1 6y ago

Honestly, I've had way more success with Bumble when it comes to getting matches, continuing conversations and meeting IRL. That said, IMO the market for Tinder vs Bumble is quite different even though they are in the same space. Anecdotally, my friends use Tinder for FWB / Hookups etc. while Bumble is more-so for casual or serious relationships. I also find the risks interesting. Not a ton of people are paying for dating (which is opposite to the advice given on Reddit for example).

cairoshikobon 6y ago

As someone with a heavy accent, I dislike dating apps... I can write and sound and look like a certain group, but when I meet people in real life my accent becomes an instant turn-off. That's why I decided to only ever go out with ones whom we met first in real life. Not to mention the privacy implications. Lookup stories of people whose photos were used by scammers in other countries on dating apps..

the_only_law 6y ago
Yeah I’m really jaded in regards to online dating. Ofc, I’m jaded about most online interaction at this point. I’ve half way considered trying to seriously use one of these apps, but I usually just delete it within a week. I just don’t think I can succinctly reduce my personality to an “acceptable” bio and a handful of pictures. Then again “online” has almost been the only place I’ve met people my age the past few years.
whalesalad 6y ago
On a dating app you are selling yourself. If you are not selling yourself accurately, that is not something you can blame on others. Put it in your profile: I have a thick accent.
- cairoshikobon 6y ago
  What else should I mention? There are countless things you get all when you meet someone in person and talk for 15 minutes that would take very long paragraphs to describe and "justify".
  - whalesalad 6y ago
    Mention the things that make you distinctly you. Even if you think they make you less attractive. Your goal is to be yourself and attract people who like you as you are. Then you don’t have to be someone you aren’t. I’d recommend the book Models by Mark Manson.
nradov 6y ago

ttam 6y ago

I always found it curious that Whitney would associate herself with Badoo, but I guess that's business as usual. Pre-Tinder, Badoo was a fast growing dating app that was shady af, full of dark patterns on the site/app - https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sexual-network https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sexual-network [2011] Then this came out a while ago, and I can't say I was surprised how the founder is portrayed https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2019/07/08/exclusive-investigation-sex-drugs-misogyny-and-sleaze-at-the-hq-of-bumbles-owner/?sh=25a427186308 https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2019/07/08/exclusi... (and I would also not be surprised at all if I found out that Bumble's data was being sold to others - AFAIK no signs of that currently happening)

lwansbrough 6y ago

Just a little market research for the folks in here: what would you think of a dating app that forced you sign up with a counterpart of the opposite sex/gender (if you're straight) (ie. a friend) and then required you to talk via phone call (no video chat, no texting) to your matches. There is two goals here: the first is to ensure the dating pool is relatively unbiased towards one sex (I call this Tinder's "sea of dicks" problem), as well as creating a bit of implicit social validation (this person is on the app essentially because they had a friend of the opposite sex who was willing to vouch for them) and then the other is trying to attack the problem of overly-polished conversation: people who are charming via text when they have a moment to think of a response, and decidedly less clever when speaking in person (this is something I'd like to change about myself, personally.) But the advantage here is that this is true for a lot of people, and puts some humanity back into meeting people online.

orange_tee 6y ago
Any dating app that adds friction (compared to Tinder) is doomed to fail, because women have no reason to bother with it.
- fuzzer37 6y ago
  Wouldn't that at least prove that their potential partners were more dedicated to the app?
- polote 6y ago
  That's not true, women who are really interested at finding people they like, will bother with it. But any way for the OP, the technology for matching people who like each other is already there. The only piece missing, is to create an app which doesnt have has a goal to make a lot of money. A bit like Signal is free and rely on donations while all others texting app rely on ads
- immy 6y ago
  The first part of your sentence is true. As a marketplace, dating apps need as many users as possible.

rootsudo 6y ago

Bumble is badoo. Interesting.

fourseventy 6y ago

I don't understand dating apps as a business because the better your product is the less people need to use it.

Rebelgecko 6y ago
That's the thing, they make it so that the results aren't too good. For example bumble promotes profiles that are new in an area. In theory that sounds good, if you move somewhere it gives you a little help meeting people. In practice, this means that a huge number of profiles I see are just people at the airport. It also means that I get most of my matches when I'm traveling. This way Bumble gives me the dopamine hit of getting multiple matches per day (which never happens at home for me), while reducing the risk I'll get into an actual relationship and leave their service. That, plus their shady handling of user email addresses, has gotten me to prefer other apps
abadaba 6y ago
I recently saw a Hinge ad on TV that fully leans into this idea -- an app that's meant to be deleted. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q0M12pOmQk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q0M12pOmQk It does make we wonder what their pitch to investors looks like.

the_jeremy 6y ago

I got a handful of matches on Bumble (5?). No one actually messaged me, so it was both a waste of time and ego-crushing. Tinder was the crap-shoot you expect it to be for a long term relationship. I only had good luck (LTR 3 years and counting) on Coffee Meets Bagel, which limits your matches each day for both genders to try and make things less of a numbers game.

scarmig 6y ago

Interestingly: > According to OC&C, within the North America freemium market, Bumble has approximately 30% more female users for every male user compared to the gender mix of users in the market who do not use Bumble. The phrasing itself is interesting, as they don't ever reveal the actual ratio of male users to female users AFAICT. But going with the typical 2:1 ratio, that suggests a ratio closer to 3:2.

Goosee 6y ago
What I find interesting is that before mainstream dating apps, VCs were worried about churn (if dating apps succeed in their goal, users would delete it and never come back). Realistically dating apps just need to attract females and provide a safe space for them to meet people online. The males will follow.

nknealk 6y ago

Anyone else notice the Adam Newman style loans to the founder in the footnotes? " (ii) cash proceeds to our Founder in an amount of $125 million, (iii) a loan to an entity controlled by our Founder in an amount of $119.0 million, as described further below under “—Loan to our Founder,” (iv) certain transaction expenses and (v) the contribution of $87.0 million to the balance sheet of the surviving company of the Merger."

kippinitreal 6y ago
Can't speak to this specific case, but often this is done to help founders exercise shares/pay taxes on gains. Still a kind favor, but it's usually not a Nuemann-esque private jet purchase.
- nknealk 6y ago
  The loan was collateralized by shares, not used to purchase shares. Also the founder got a sweetheart deal on the interest rate. “ The loan [to our founder] accrues interest at a rate per annum equal to the long-term federal rate established pursuant to Section 1274 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code as in effect on November 8, 2019 (which was equal to 1.93% per annum), is secured by our Founder’s Class A units in Bumble Holdings and any net cash proceeds of such pledged units to the extent received by Beehive Holdings III, LP, and allows for repayment at any time”
  - Robelius 6y ago
    Unrelated, but Beehive Holdings is a great holding company name for Bumble.

permo-w 6y ago

If someone made a dating app where only men could message first, I suspect it wouldn’t be allowed on the App Store Of course, it’s your choice to use Bumble, and I support its right to exist, but it feels odd that it’s largely seen as a progressive take on the dating app, when, to me anyway, it seems regressive and imbalanced, putting one gender in the position to pick and choose, and the other passively waiting for that choice However, I’m sure there are other meritorious perspectives on this, and I’d be pleased to hear them Edit: I’m seeing in other comments that mainly they have this feature for the purely cynical reason of getting female users on the app - and generating publicity. That makes sense, but I’m more commenting on the media reaction itself, than the ethics of the company

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
echelon 6y ago
> it seems regressive and imbalanced Dating has never been an even playing field. Why would an app be egalitarian?
- Bakary 6y ago
  In fact, the core of it is its selective aspect by definition
- permo-w 6y ago
  pretty sure you’re breaking the HN guidelines there
Bakary 6y ago
The app just tried to tackle the general equilibrium where men send many requests and receive few responses and women receive many requests but are interested in fewer of them. As other commenters have pointed out, the equilibrium reasserted itself with women on the app just using a generic "hi" as the response. The word progressive has become more or less meaningless but in this case the hypothetical app your described earlier is essentially almost every dating app in actual day-to-day practice. Essentially the status quo is already completely imbalanced, they are just putting a twist on it that serves as the app's hook.

outime 6y ago

Deep down Bumble doesn't seem that different from Tinder (from the perspective of a non-user like me anyway). The crucial difference is that women message first but from what I've heard they'll just say "hi" or some other low-effort message in most of the cases. Why? The answer is simple: women have plenty of options and also absolute power over those choices so no need to do much - it's a natural, rational and logical choice. Hence the dynamics aren't going to change no matter what tech you apply to the "problem". If you forced somehow to write a more thoughtful initial message, they'd just go to some other app (or the majority anyway). How I see it is if Bumble grows as much as Tinder, it'd suffer from the same problems. Except that women will receive less initial gross messages (if that's an actual wide issue, I have no idea). Men are left in the same situation, which is how it should be I guess.

webinvest 6y ago

TL;DR I think Bumble is the better dating app company but that won’t matter if the stock is overpriced or isn’t shareholder friendly. It’s still too hard to tell whether this will be a good investment or not until the boxes left blank are filled in on the S1. What I’m going to be looking for 2 things: 1) Good/fair voting rights for shareholders. Voting rights should be as good as Netflix/Amazon/Tesla/Peloton’s and not like useless like Snapchat/Facebook/Google’s. (Management shouldn’t fear voting rights because shareholders generally vote in agreement with everything management says but it should have language to prevent short sellers from borrowing shares to vote which is known as a “poison pill” to protect the company from bad actors.) 2) A lower market cap to user ratio than Match Group. When Snapchat IPO’d it had the opposite: a higher market cap to user ratio than Facebook so it dropped from $25 to $5 and overall lagged behind it’s competitor. Optional moonshot 3: An in-app benefit or perks system for directly having a share of stock. The uniqueness and demand generation of this would send the stock soaring in the same way Ethereum flew from $350 to $1250 after the transition to Ethereum 2.0 which primarily requires you to possess 32 Ethereum to be a miner — something that hasn’t even been rolled out to Coinbase yet and will likely appreciate much further once it does. Bumble’s “designed by women for women” approach has caused Bumble to do a better job at attracting women to their platform than Tinder or Hinge. More women naturally attract more me. In my area the women on Bumble are noticeably much higher quality in terms of looks, education, and profile description than Hinge’s while on Tinder women are flooded with 100+ matches after a day or two now even if their first photo is just a picture of a floor* while men get magnitudes less attention due to the massive gender disparity. In summary, I think Bumble is the better dating app company but that won’t matter if the stock is overpriced or isn’t shareholder friendly. Short Tinder video of a male vs. a female with a floor photo on TikTok: https://m.tiktok.com/v/6912611072226741509.html https://m.tiktok.com/v/6912611072226741509.html *Disclosure, I already hold Match Group shares (which are pretty good shares to hold) and expect Match to try and at least bid on Bumble by diluting their shares again. Whether that’s an outcome everyone wants is a totally different topic..