If you get a message from someone you never matched with on Tinder, it’s not a glitch — it’s part of the app’s expensive new subscription plan that it teased earlier this year, which allows “power users” to send unsolicited messages to non-matches for the small fee of $499 per month.
That landscape, in fact, is largely populated by apps owned by Tinder’s parent company: as Bloomberg notes, Match Group Inc. not only owns the popular swiping app, but also Match.com, OKCupid, Hinge, and The League.
Match Group CEO Bernard Kim referred to Tinder’s subscriptions as “low-hanging fruit” meant to compete with other, pricier services, though that was before this $6,000-per-year tier dropped.
Why pay $500 a month to get blocked? You can get ghosted for free already
This thread is full of people laughing at people who would pay for this, but I actually kinda empathize.
I got REALLY lucky and met my now fiancee on a dating app. It took about 2 years of trying to meet her, and in that time ithink I had maybe 5-7 dates. ALL of those were on OKCupid, back when it let you message people without matching. I am not the most good looking person, but I could get a good first impression through a message.
Tinder though? It killed my self confidence when I used it. I never got a single date from tinder. It is designed tonot get you dates, unless you’re SUPER attractive, especially if you’re a man. A lot of it is that there are so many more men on dating apps than women, I know that objectively. But it SUCKS when you’re actively looking for a partner and swiping every single day to either never get matches or get matches who are bots.
For a lot of guys like me being able to get a good first message in feels like the only chance, and if you’re seriously looking and starting to feel desperate (and these apps are designed to make you feel desperate) then dropping $500 for a month of being able to get a shot may not actually seem crazy.
These apps have designed a “dating economy” around themselves that tells people that they are not attractive or a desirable partner if they aren’t getting matches, then deliberately tailored their algorithms to manipulate people into coming back every day for a chance to meet someone. It’s slot machines, but with romantic relationships, and it convinces people that dating is like gambling. And these apps want you to feel like they are the only way to date, and if you’re not “winning” and getting dates they make it clear that it’s YOUR fault, and if you drop a little money you’ll get some matches.
Yes, some creeps will pay for this to send dick pics, but I think most people who will pay forthis are actually desperate and convinced that it’s their only chance at getting a date. It’s disgusting these apps are allowed to do what they have done. And I say all of that as someone who won the damn slot machine jackpot and came out with a long term partner.
I personally think these apps are doing some serious harm to our society and need to be regulated but that’s a different discussion
I used to use OKCupid, and it was so much better than Tinder. Unfortunately, Tinder’s success changed the game and it seems like all the dating sites follow its general form now. On old OKC people would write freaking novels in their bios, in addition to answering hundreds of questions. On Tinder, if you have even two complete sentences in your profile, you’re an outlier. It’s an explicitly, aggressively shallow platform.
I don’t think the old message-anyone method scales well, though. Dating sites are far more popular today than they were back when I used OKC. And even back then, every woman I knew who used it turned off notifications because it was overwhelming.
They all follow that general form because the same company (Match Group) bought all of the different dating sites and changed them to the form that makes them the most money.
I totally forgot about spark.com, or was it thespark.com?
Back in the early 2000 area if I recall correctly. I spent way too much time answering questions on there in my college computer lab, then suddenly they added dating.
On Tinder it would not be in the same context that what you experienced. In OKCupid it’s part of the rules that you can send messages without a match. So people are OK (I guess) with it. On Tinder it’s going to come as unexpected and unwelcome. You will start with a disadvantage. Unless the woman is only interested in money (if you can spend $500/month on an app then you are probably among the wealthier half of the population).
I agree, but that just makes this even scummier on Tinder’s part. The people who own and make the app know that, they’re doing this anyway. So they’re targeting people who are already desperate and lonely, and giving them what they will inevitably see as a “lifeline” which actually may make their chances worse.
Oh, it most definitely is scummy. It’s no news that Tinder does not care about people well-beings. Actually, they want you to get stuck to the platform as long as you can; if everyone was finding their partner after a week their platform would not be profitable anymore.
I had a similar thought. While I agree with the chorus that this is creepy AF and I in no way condone it, as a man who had to wade through these garbage dating apps to, fortunately, meet a long term partner I can attest to the profound sense of loneliness they cause. When I think back on it I can honestly see why some might consider this.
These apps suck, but in today’s world they aren’t always optional. My specific situation was living somewhere new at the beginning of the pandemic. It wasn’t really possible to meet people organically.
Edit: spelling
I’m finding out from this that it’s owned by the same company but Hinge has a better formula for that kind of thing. You comment on an aspect of their profile (a picture, their response to a prompt, etc) and that gets sent to them. Then they can reply (which triggers a “match”) or not. You can also send likes without a comment but obviously that won’t be as effective.
In my experience, it’s both. I’m watching a friend of mine go on the apps and she got over 2000 likes (I’m not even exaggerating) in a week. When she sorts through those she first reacts to the main photo, and then looks at their job, and the rest of the profile.
So in order to get matches as a guy, you need to have your life together with a stable job, an interesting personality you can somehow convey in a profile, and good enough looks for that to matter.
I never used dating apps in my life, so just a short question: Is Tinder only about looks? Or could you also be successful if you have a good job or house or something like that? Do people look at the profiles or do they select only from pictures?
In my experience (I’m a few years out of date with how the app works now, keep that in mind) it’s like 90% looks. You CAN build up a profile, but IIRC only the first sentence of it shows up on your picture. A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile before swiping, then read your profile if they’re going to use it to judge you on.
Most of the people I know who used tinder, myself included, didn’t really do that much. We just swiped based on looks, and if someone was borderline then we looked at the profile to make a decision. But that was pretty rare, most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.
The apps is designed to encourage that behavior. When I used it profiles were REALLY not being encouraged, IDK if that has changed (I would guess it hasn’t).
A person has to see your picture and that tagline, be curious enough to actually go to your profile […] most people it was a pretty clear yes/no based on looks.
Is that wrong, though? Would you go on a date with someone you can’t stand looking in the face? There is no amount of profile that could make me swipe “yes” on a duckface, someone who clearly spends half their day at the gym, an over the top sport team’s fan, a photo of a cloud, or a close-up of some ass/tits.
Looks and context of a self-selected picture tell a lot about a person, and how they want to be seen.
deleted by creator
If I can just tell her how awesome my penis is she’ll fall madly in love! Right now she has no idea!
Only for the dick pic to contain a sad lifeless husk of a genital, complete with a strange bend to it.
That’s why I pay for the $1000 a month “ultra supreme user” tier which doesn’t allow me to get blocked!
$500 per month?? At that point just go to a prostitute a few times a month. The people paying for this are stupid, but on the other hand it’s super sad that Tinder even made this subscription. They know some desperate people are going to subscribe.
I don’t know what the going rate is but I assume that if you just want a throw you could probably get a mid tier prostitute almost once a week for that price.
Probably 3 times a month for in a western country. If you are in a long term relationship that is probably around the same amount of times you are getting laid.
The problem is that the people that would pay 500 to tinder are not the kind of people capable of a long term relationship. Even their fleshlights pray for manufacturing defects so they can get out of long term service.
Three times a month for a long term relationship seems really low to me. Over a decade married and ~3-5x a week.
https://www.nbcnews.com/better/health/how-often-do-happiest-couples-have-sex-it-s-less-ncna828491
Once a week or so is the average. I’m at about the same amount of time in a relationship as you and we’re about once a week. Personally I feel like sex is nice but it takes time and effort and I’m not always in the mood to spend time pleasing someone else (and I’m not going to initiate unless I’m willing to do that). I could see myself having sex a little bit more often if I had a better work-life balance where I felt less pressed for time. This gets me thinking that I should check in with my partner about this topic though!
It isn’t ideal but working 5 days a week on opposite schedules once a week is minimum and one week there is a natural occurence that makes one of us feel not super into sexy times.
This is such a disgusting way to think about relationships, I don’t wonder why people are lonely.
This sound like a sex worker is a car or something.
Many years ago™ OkCupid actually had a good system, before it revamped itself and got bought by Match (Tinder).
In the old version of the website, you could answer any amount of questions from a huge catalogue of sometimes very obscure and specific questions and look for people who had very similar (or very different) answers overall. You could chat freely with everyone and had the option to look just for (platonic) friends.
I had incredibly interesting discussions with people who were at the opposite spectrum of my answers. And I made a few acquaintances and two amazing friends who still are my friends today, one is even my roommate for 8 years now! I also found a group of white hackers and Linux enthusiasts for real life meetings and we still hang out occasionally.
Two other friends of mine looked for and found romantic partners there and they are both happily married to the partners they found via OkCupid back then.
It went all down the gutter when people used the “platonic friends” option to get into your pants.
And when OkCupid tried to make more cash by pushing into the sex/romance market more and copying dating apps.
I don’t think something like this would work anymore. Dating apps and the weird culture and thinking about a “sexual market” seem to have broken humans or something. This asinine idea is just another symptom.
OkCupid really used to be awesome. I would not have met my spouse, had I not checked it out because of the amazingly interesting and varied questionnaires.
I’m so sad that it was made shitty.
My wife and I actually met on OkCupid, happily married for 8 years now, and dated a few years before that, so safe to say I haven’t been there in 10+ years.
Sad to hear it’s gone down the drain, it seemed the least vile of the available options 😓
Absolutely LOVED the questionnaire aspect of okcupid. At one point I ran out of questions you could answer. Met some fantastic people using the app.
I also met my boyfriend back then like 7 years ago. It was the best “dating platform” that I ever used. Had a lot of great conversations with many people all over the world. Came back to it a few years ago but they already changed it to a more tinder type of way. It was very disappointing.
Did they get rid of the questions? That was the most awesome part of OkCupid. Because you not only answered the questions but you could pick if you cared what your potential matches answers should be.
I met my wife on OkCupid, we were a high % match according to OkCupid and we did turn out to be a great match. That’s stupid if they got rid of that.
There’s a big conflict of interest in dating apps: if you’re successful you stop using the app, and of course the company doesn’t want that.
But if everyone has a shitty experience with it, they won’t recommend it or even tell people to stay away from it. But if it works well, they’ll praise it, thus gaining more users.
And enshittification and buying up competitors will lead to all sites being the same, which is exactly what has happened. Executives don’t care about providing a useful service, they just care about getting richer
Match Group has basically ruined all of online dating.
My wife and I also met on ok Cupid. Just celebrated our 17th wedding anniversary.
More old trivia is that the original OK Cupid system was written in C, including the actual web server that served the pages. They wrote it in C so that the matching thing could run real-time, which is super impressive, even if writing your own web server is actually pretty dumb.
I loved the days when people just wanted to make fun, useful, quirky stuff on the internet and not just peddle thirst traps and Chinese merchandise.
Another version of “online dating is awful!”
Haven’t heard this one before. The world is better with online dating than it was without it
That’s not what the original comment said if you read it at all. The commenter was making the point that okcupid was pretty good before it was enshittified. There was no direct judgement about whether the world is better with or without OLD. And the subtextual judgment seems to be positive or at least neutral, so I’m not sure what you actually have a problem with.
How I saw this as a different version of the same old stuff is that this comment said essentially “well it used to be good when I used it, but now it’s awful and destructive” which it might be in ways but it’s absolutely a net positive from what I have seen
As someone who online dated for years, up until 2021, I’m very aware of the down sides.
Okay that makes more sense. I do think that “online dating is awful” is a very different statement from “well it used to be good but now it sucks” and the two phrases come with very different qualifications and conclusions.
The former phrase is a pretty blanket judgement on this aspect of society in relation to the whole. But the latter statement has more to do with the enshittification of the internet and the capitalist systems woven inbetween. The latter statement is a historical comparison while the former is a value judgment of society.
As for your opinion itself, I don’t have any strong feelings one way or another. The nature of the internet has paradoxically connected more people than ever before while simultaneously isolating us more than ever before. I personally don’t think that online dating really differs from that mold. I think that this is one small part of a larger problem where capitalism has commodified almost every aspect of humanity, which is accelerated by the internet.
Yeah, this is all fair. I’ve just heard that online dating is bad so many times and so often that it’s become expected. I feel like it typically comes from people who either have never used it, or have only dated that way. Both groups have a less informed opinion than someone who went on a few mortifying “traditional” dates, and then started dating online.
I’m not trying to say I’m an expert but I do think people my age are in a unique position. We saw the world before and after the Internet, and since this change occurred in our youth we had enough awareness to process both versions of the world. If we put some laws into place that protected consumers on a basic level, I sure would drastically prefer the post Internet world. As it stands, some days I don’t feel like the Internet is such a great thing, but most days I do think it’s a better world, on balance.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Thank you for sharing this link. It was quite the read.
This was a nice read, thanks.
Yeah, this whole thing is gross but this post summarizes it best.
It truly is disgusting that they’ve made this model. Tinder has always been severely flawed in my opinion, but this makes it several times worse.
This is the sign you were looking for to get off of dating apps.
I totally agree that it’s a ridiculous thing for them to implement, but saying that consent is required to say ‘hi’ is a bit over the top. I’m assuming the receiving party will still be able to block the sender of course since I’m pretty sure that’s required by Google and Apple.
deleted by creator
Next step: Charging you money if you DON’T want to hear from someone you haven’t matched with.
!remindme 1 year
WTF??? Monetized sexual harassment?!?!
What is even parody anymore?
Wait until you hear how other dating services used to work
Want to be a creepy dating stalker?
$500* please
*unlimited creepiness included!Actual creepiness is limited to two messages per week.
That said, I’m sure that (now the door is cracked slightly) there’ll be another tier with ten messages, twenty, a hundred …
This doesn’t make it better. That’s $125 per message then.
$500/month = ~$125/week, but if you get two messages per week that’s $62.50/message. Still a lot of money though.
Ah whoops.
This move seems absolutely wild, and I think Match knows it; which is why it’s only available to such a small segment of users.
If too many users have this feature (and who knows how many that would be?) it’'s going to scare away all the regular users. What’s the point in swiping no if that user can just veto your decision anyways?
This move reminds me a lot of what I’ve heard about mobile gaming. The 500USD/month users are whales, but the whales need regular people to play with or they’ll get bored and leave.
Right now, keeping the number of whales to a minimum is important to keep the regular users happy, but I wouldn’t be surprised if in the future some cost/benefit analysis shows that they can take the hit on regular users to squeeze out a few more whales.
It also seems like a bonkers move to pay 500 dollars to talk to someone who doesn’t want to talk to you, too. (But that’s a different issue.)
Except what they’re all “playing” for are people (and lets be honest, this is aimed at creepy men who can’t get matched otherwise, so more specifically they’re “playing” for women), with their own wants and needs and often safety concerns, all of which this serves to circumvent, which is definitely not how you “win” at tinder (finding an abuse victim? Sure, but not an actual viable relationship. Which again, tells you who this was designed for and why).
Why are you assuming that men who can’t get matched are automatically creeps? That’s not at all a good assumption, and is a BIG part of the problem with tinder.
Back before I met my now fiancee, I never got tinder matches. I only got matches on OKCupid, back when you were allowed to message people before matching with them. That’s how I met my now fiancee, too.
Tinder is incredibly toxic by design and is designed to damage people’s mental health. They’ve taken dating, something that requires a lot of human interaction, and reduced it to a literal slot machine which tinder can rig however they want. They’ve reduced finding a partner to “does this person look attractive to you?” which is NOT how dating works IRL. I know a lot of people who met their partners IRL and were not attracted to them until they started getting to know each other as friends, then fell for each other.
Tinder not only exploits the problematic beauty standards in our society, but actively makes them worse. If you’re not getting matches you feel unattractive, because every piece of feedback the app gives you says you are. It doesn’t matter how charismatic or interesting you are, it doesn’t matter how much you and a potential match may have in common, all that matters is the pictures you put up, and maybe the first sentence or two of your bio.
The whole system is designed to make people using it feel desperate, men and women both, and this $500 to message first thing is incredibly scummy. They suck you in, kill your self confidence, depress you, then offer you what seems like a lifeline.
This is like a casino offering you a slot machine with a 50% higher win rate for a monthly subscription.
I never said men who can’t get matched are creeps, I said this is aimed at creeps who can’t get matched but would be willing to pay $500 a month to force themsleves on to others. That’s who you’re jumping to the defence of here.
No, you just heavily implied it. If you didn’t mean to then you need to edit you comment. And I laid out how I clearly disagree with the idea that this is “aimed at creeps,” because it’s aimed at people who have been made desperate by the predatory nature of Tinder’s algorithm. Desperation doesn’t necessarily make someone creepy, but it does make Tinder a lot of money.
Also, why are you making it seem like someone sending a message to someone else on a dating app is somehow a kind of, like, assault? You’re using very aggressive language to describe normal behavior by people trying to date, AKA talking to other people who they may be interested in
Men who would do this are definitely creepy.
It’s not your decision alone to decide if you are a good fit for someone, though.
If someone, for example, doesn’t want to date people who are older than them, there shouldn’t be an option for people to just write to these people anyway. Because they think: “but I am so nice and we have so much in common”.
How would they even know that anyway? As you said so yourself, Tinder is basically a collection of photos and a few very shallow stats. It will be used by people to write to others they assume wouldn’t match with them in the first place!
They’ll milk it when upper management is ready to cash out to massively grow short term profits so they can all take huge bonuses. Then they’ll replace upper management with scapegoats who can be there to absorb shareholder blowback and try to rebuild something of value from whatever’s left.
Rebuild? Checks notes not seeing that step, it just says “cash out”, “promise you’ve changed”, “wait to fall out of the news cycle”, and “repeat”
It’s only £20 per month
No that’s Platinum and also new but the $500 USD per month one is called VIP and also you need to be invited/selected to even be able to get it, which of course is just a ploy to get the selected to feel special and buy it to flaunt that they got invited.
It’s also age dependent at the lower levels. Over 35 or 40 and you’ll pay more than someone young. Or at least that’s how it used to be.
You say no like it doesn’t say it in the screenshot that you can send messages to people you’re not matched with.
It has a subtitle though that it lets you attach a note to super likes. I don’t think it’s blanket, “Message anyone freely” like the VIP tier implies.
As someone who never did online dating, what exactly are you paying for with these subscriptions…?
As a guy, you’re essentially paying for the ability to see who liked you. Dating is a seller’s market and the sellers of dreams in the market are women due to numbers. With a subscription, rather than aim for the stars, you’re able to pick the best of the women that are attracted to you?
I have no idea. In any other industry the Match Group wouldn’t be allowed to exist.
Yup, definitely feels like a p2w game pricing model
Tinder power users sound like extremely poor dates.
They sound like the type of people who would refer to themselves as “High Value Men”.
Every time I see something about tinder it’s just worse and worse. why would I want to use it?
It was good for a while, but yeah, they need to make money somehow and I guess that’s how they decided to do it. This one will definitely backfire. The last thing anyone wants is getting dick pics from a sad sack who pays $500/Mo for that privilege. Women are going to leave in droves.
That’s fine. For every woman who leaves, 10 more bots will join, and they’ll appreciate the extra attention!
pretty sure you can’t send images on tinder
The ladies will be so impressed with just how much 8 is equal to D!
why would I want to use it?
You wouldn’t, but that’s fine with Match Group: JP Morgan[1] are loving this new monetization strategy. If they think they can get more money out of their users they will, the experience and usefulness of their app be damned. Very similar to aggressively monetized mobile games, but extra icky since they’re monetizing human relationships.
I’m sure other investment firms are pleased as well, but JP Morgan was the firm mentioned in the article ↩︎
It’s the most used dating app. Logically people think that if a dating app has a lot of users, their chances of finding matches are higher. But it’s rigged.
If you want to rip off rich, desperate men, here’s how: just wait for a message from someone you haven’t matched with.
Catfishing just got so much easier
Time to make a new profile with a few AI generated photos… 🤦
“Your hands look weird in all your photos, what’s up with that?”
“…I have a condition.”
“…but there is a treatment! Unfortunately my family is too poor to afford the $2847 it takes…”
Enshittification at its finest.
This is going scare away regular people and especially women pretty fast.
If someone pays $500+ to talk to me, I’ll talk back.
Also: I feel like this is gonna lead to most women on Tinder leaving Tinder after they get flooded by creeps. Rich creeps, but still creeps.
I don’t know it might be a good opportunity to get with some politician and then have a scandalous relationship. And positive it’s going to happen.
This is Tinder, not Grindr.
One of OKCupid’s founders - Christian Rudder was in a band called Bishop Allen (along with Justin Rice). Awesome band. That has nothing to do with this thread - just thought I’d recommend you check them out.
Sir, This Is A Wendy’s
