>OkCupid gave users different prices based on whether they selected male or female for their profile.
never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.
i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.
Reminds of being a young guy and feeling annoyed when girls are being let into clubs for free without waiting in line, and I had to wait in line and pay. Sometimes I could not get in because the club was "full", but the girls would be allowed in.
In the 80's a club near me got into some sort of trouble for that so they switched to skirt night - only a tiny number of men were willing to wear a skirt to get in free.
In the clubs I used to go as a young man, it was both men and women that jumped the queue, and it tended to be how you looked and who you knew. Although it tended to be good looking women and rich/connected men.
Aren't they going out of business in large numbers? I'm not sure how much of that has to do with the dating scene as much as it has to do with younger people drinking less though.
I think all attempts to explain "why <market based on discretionary spending by young people> is failing" that don't come to the conclusion "we're macro-economically cooked" are wrong.
never heard or thought about this before, but it kind of makes sense for a dating app. its one of the only levers available to them to attempt any sort of balance between user genders. it sucks for everyone (including the users) if the male:female ratio is like 20:1 or whatever.
i would rather pay a couple of extra dollars, relative to the opposite sex, if it meant access to a wider pool of potential matches.