Dating: A Mysterious Constellation of Facts

> ...once you have more than a small number of options it’s basically impossible (or feels so) to analyze and compare all options to make what seems like a rational and logical decision.So some people will just get frustrated and pick one arbitrarily, or give up and pick none.

In this context (non-work related decisions) I find the “analysis paralysis” stems from a person not knowing themselves well enough or knowing themselves but not sure how to assert it without coming off in an off-putting way.

For the latter, “which restaurant should we go to tonight?” I take that as whatever I pick is it so I pick what I want (as long as I know the other people dont have allergies to the place or something) and that's it. When people ask for a place to pick they usually mean it (from my experience), and they are happy to tag along whereever -- otherwise they will suggest something and ask others opinion, I take that to mean they want to go there but don't want to seem bossy or some other weirdness, and so we go there unless I have a problem with it that I'll voice and suggests something similar.

For the former, I think people are too worried about coming off as "selfish" (and avoid learning themselves). It makes sense because some people really are, and being around them makes decent people really not want to be that. But knowing what you like and want especially when it's not what you have been told to like and want is the biggest hurdle to getting past the “analysis paralysis” here. If you know you and what you like and want than there is really not much to analysis, the analysis should be happening everyday of your life so when these big things come up you have a solid foundation to go on. Otherwise, a lot of it is trying to figure out what the best option is according to outside guidelines you've been given -- which is great for work, but not so much for oneself.

Of course, maybe there are people who can't do the above for whatever, but it's a skill to know what you like and want and a skill to put it into practice without being rude, just like talking to random people or programming. You get better with real world practice/exposure.

Isn’t market for lemons about a situation where consumers can not tell the difference between good and bad quality product so they only buy the cheapest assuming it’s bad.

Everything about this is wrong.

1) The platforms aren't growing that impressively. Most of their users have been on the platform for a while, were previous users, etc.

2) It doesn't matter how good the app is, you need a network effect. New users are going to go to where the potential dates are.

3) Marketing does wonders. An app can suck and have great marketing. It will get users over an app that actually works and doesn't have good marketing.

4) Lots of people on dating apps are looking for dates (hookups), not partners. If the apps can keep you getting dates, not partners, they can keep you on the app and happy.

Match's growth peaked a long time ago. The site is now trying to grow by "offering new products" and "cutting operational costs."

The relative newcomers - Bumble and Hinge - grew by trying to offer a better experience, especially for women, who are traditionally overwhelmed with unreciprocated interest on conventional apps. Both seem to have admitted defeat now and moved to the usual model.

In terms of revenue, the incentive to keep millions of users spending is far higher than the nominal gains from persuading friends of a successful couple to join up. Given that most users aren't successful, that network effect is tiny.

There's an opposing network effect of *keeping customers unmatched, because this provides gossip and entertainment among friends, which gives them a reason to continue using a service.

We know that string-alongs are a real thing on dating sites - especially, but not exclusively, for men.

There's also a small but not negligible subculture of (mostly) women who use dates for free meals and get a good return on their monthly subscription.

And a lot of sites - not just Tinder - overlap hook-up culture with people seeking marriage and kids. If anything the former is a more popular option now.

I don't think this counterargument holds. It's a hell of a lot easier to get a customer who already paid once to pay a second time than it is to get a customer to pay for the first time. Also, I think most people are well aware that by and large, dating apps have a very low success rate for the majority of their users. People use them anyway.

> The vast majority of the platform's growth will come from new users...

Userbase expansion is new users less leaving users for a time period. So there are two factors, not just "new users."

In any case, Match Group apps are well into the phase of focusing on extracting the most money possible from their paying users as opposed to gaining new users.

After all, infinite users are useless to a company, even if it costs nothing to support them, if none of them pay.

And to add to that- seeing a real world friend go on dates or start a relationship because of an app is better than any marketing you could ever buy.

If you want to drive top-of-the-funnel growth, make the product good even it causes some folks to drop out once they’re in a relationship.

The only thing I can dream up less appealing than that would be dating on Nextdoor.

On the other hand, if it was so easy to find a match, then we wouldn't be trying to use dating apps. I think it is just generally hard to find a good match for many people these days.

I’m sure there are many people who don’t want their dating lives influenced by whatever rulers are in charge of their governments. Democrats won’t like a MAGA dating service, and vice versa.

I think Japan did this last year https://japandaily.jp/japans-government-initiatives-to-boost...

> This is exactly why a dating app should be developed and provided by the government. Side note: If this gives you the heebie jeebies, you are part of the problem.

Bravo, I haven't laughed this much in a while. God-tier satire.

A big part is that it is now socially unacceptable to ask someone out at what were some of the places most likely to produce couples in the past.

For example, it used to be that something like 30-40% of relationships started in the workplace.

I mean, we’re already six years past COVID—something that placed a heavy mental burden even on older generations. I can only imagine how much worse it was for younger people. I’d argue we’ll need another 20 years before most of the effects fade.

Even before then, I don’t think dating apps were the only issue—it was more the general lack of human interaction, with everything shifting online. Being in a relationship is nothing like just "chatting" or being "connected." I’m not complaining, but during my teenage and young adult years, I feel like I had less-than-ideal real-life experiences, which shaped my social skills and expectations. Talking to people in their 30s now, I get the sense they’re only experience this much later in life.

I was suggesting OP may have been influenced by submarine articles since the popularity of speed dating is a potentially unfounded premise of their argument. (Personally, I know very few folks who’ve done speed dating but of course that’s anecdotal.)

If I take a picture I’m not in it. If someone else takes a picture they don’t share it with me. How would I get pictures for a profile?