4 ms·
Thanks for the replies, all. Re: restaurants - maybe not the best analogy. But just like a restaurant, we don't openly advertise it, but when people complain,
by laurenkay 12y ago
Thanks for the replies, all.
Re: restaurants - maybe not the best analogy. But just like a restaurant, we don't openly advertise it, but when people complain, we're always more than generous with credits / refunds.
I'm working on a blog post to explain this better, as it's much more complicated than I could gracefully express in a HN comment, but just because someone is rejected doesn't mean we didn't do our job well. Dating is a numbers game, and success is no where near 50% for any dating site. What we do - unlike most other services - is work behind the scenes to improve success rates for future matches, if we see that certain people are being rejected often.
For some people, though, the $20 model simply won't work if they find they're not getting enough dates. That's why we also offer Premium, which is a more personalized, tailored approach for a higher price point. Some people simply don't do well with photos, or for other reasons, and at $20, no matter how good we are at matching, it's simply not the perfect fit for everyone.
And lastly - this is our first week with this model, so we are taking all of these comments very seriously, and thinking a lot about how to make a sustainable business model that satisfies the most people. When it comes to dating .. you're unfortunately never going to make everyone happy, but we're trying really hard to make as many people happy as possible. What's interesting is that we've heard almost no complaints about the $60/month model, only about the $20/month one. So we're debating how to make that plan more enticing, or if such a low price point works for the amount of personalization that goes into our service.
- TheOtherHobbes 12y agoYou're going to get different demographics for the $60/mo and the $20/mo models. Personally, when I was dating I would have looked at your model and dismissed it instantly, because I would assume from experience that it's damn near impossible to define what a good match is - therefore, at best, you're putting so little effort into your 'matchmaking' that the service is effectively worthless. The existence of a premium alternative wouldn't be reassuring. This may or may not be unfair. But I think it's going to be a common perception among a good proportion of possible users. I might be persuaded if you could provide evidence of improved success rates compared to the competition AND that you're not using a simple matchbot AI to provide something that's standard on other sites. Bottom line is that if I was rating your startup's prospects, I wouldn't be optimistic, because on the one hand you're saying dating is a numbers game, and on the other you're making the numbers as tiny as possible. My guess is Tinder/OKC/POF will continue to eat your lunch because you're in an uncanny valley between the dumb-as-rocks experience they offer and the high-end personalised interviews-and-flattery experience offered by the premium matching services. As it happens I met my partner on a dating site, so I know it can work.