4 ms·

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 to

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.
Goosee 6y ago
Lifetime boost on bumble is $124 last I checked. So if someone only wanted to allocate $100 towards dating apps, bumble would be the best economic decision if their area is active with bumble users they find attractive. I like the idea of that one time fee compared to the monthly IAP through tinder/hinge. However I can’t provide any anecdotes on the paid stuff, I prefer not to spend money on those things. Ya I feel like it was until recently that dating apps attracted normal people. Now references to ‘swiping right’ are common in pop songs. I know many girls that will share their dating app experiences with their parents, which I find odd.

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.

Goosee 6y ago

Lifetime boost on bumble is $124 last I checked. So if someone only wanted to allocate $100 towards dating apps, bumble would be the best economic decision if their area is active with bumble users they find attractive. I like the idea of that one time fee compared to the monthly IAP through tinder/hinge. However I can’t provide any anecdotes on the paid stuff, I prefer not to spend money on those things. Ya I feel like it was until recently that dating apps attracted normal people. Now references to ‘swiping right’ are common in pop songs. I know many girls that will share their dating app experiences with their parents, which I find odd.