I'm actually surprised it took so long for companies like Tinder to start monetizing their male audience more.
With a 9:1 ratio, it seems like a ripe opportunity to enable progressively more pay-to-play options for men with disposable income (or despair) to try to stand out, by paying their way to the front of the profile advertising queue. They recently introduced the super boost, which is $50, I believe, but IMO that's not going far enough.
You have cities of many frustrated, but wealthy bachelors like San Francisco where men would gladly pay their way into a date.
Ethics and morality aside, there should a platform out there that allows men to bid hundreds, or thousands, on going out with someone, and the highest bidder wins the first spot in line. Of course the woman should not be obligated to take the offer, but it would send the signal that 1. the man is affluent and successful and 2. the suitor is truly committed to getting to know her. This gets somewhat close to the Seeking Arrangement turf, which may or may not be a good thing.
> allows men to bid hundreds, or thousands, on going out with someone, and the highest bidder wins the first spot in line
Women might not be happy about being "bought" in this way, it might feel too close to prostitution. Also, some men might feel entitled to "get something for their money", leading to situations of emotional pressure up to outright rape. I would not expect the women I know to be interested in a platform that makes them feel like a product that's bought and also putting them at potentially more risk than other platforms. I could very well be wrong.
Agreed, prostitution aside, there's a whole grey area here of what's societally acceptable to pay for and what's not, and I don't believe anybody is a true moral arbiter of where that line is.
For example, buying "ad space" (basically Tinder Highlights or Bumble Spotlight, or beyond) with your face on it would be considered not "buying" someone, it would be acceptable. It's just you paying to put your face on a digital billboard, in the hopes to be seen by someone.
Sending someone super-likes, that's again paying for signaling interest, in the hopes that she matches with you.
Paying 20 bucks for extra digital flowers in Coffee Meets Bagel, when liking someone, isn't buying that person, that's again paying to signal interest.
Sending someone $1000 worth of actual roses with your number on a card. That's paying to get someone's attention and signal your interest.
None of that is forcing anybody to do anything, but of course the more you pay, the more they're likely to feel like they need to reciprocate.
And yes, of course some men will feel entitled to get something in return, just like some men will feel entitled to get sex because they paid for lobster dinner. There will always be a scummy, entitled and exploitative portion of the male dating population that will require education or flat out avoidance. They're there, with or without dating apps.
Maybe the key here is that the money doesn't go to the woman. Maybe someone can bid $1000 on a date with someone they really desire, but the money would go to a charity if she accepts and actually shows up. Make the patriarchy pay for important charitable causes :)
> There will always be a scummy, entitled and exploitative portion of the male dating population that will require education or flat out avoidance. They're there, with or without dating apps.
Taking a stance that is essentially equivalent to "rapists exist, there is nothing we can do to discourage them" is another reason women might feel unsafe using a dating service designed by you.
High class escorts don't only offer sex. They have "Girlfriend Experience" packages where you can go out on dates, take them to restaurants, spend the day together, etc. For a lot of people this is more attractive than no strings sex. The OP proposal would basically be like this, maybe without the promise of sex but still with the implication that if your date is being paid for, you need to offer something in return.
Paying someone to go on a date with me just seems weird. Either you're keen to go on a date or you're not, but if I have to pay someone then I'm not even interested.
With a 9:1 ratio, it seems like a ripe opportunity to enable progressively more pay-to-play options for men with disposable income (or despair) to try to stand out, by paying their way to the front of the profile advertising queue. They recently introduced the super boost, which is $50, I believe, but IMO that's not going far enough.
You have cities of many frustrated, but wealthy bachelors like San Francisco where men would gladly pay their way into a date.
Ethics and morality aside, there should a platform out there that allows men to bid hundreds, or thousands, on going out with someone, and the highest bidder wins the first spot in line. Of course the woman should not be obligated to take the offer, but it would send the signal that 1. the man is affluent and successful and 2. the suitor is truly committed to getting to know her. This gets somewhat close to the Seeking Arrangement turf, which may or may not be a good thing.