You’re confusing cost plus pricing with value based pricing.
Answer this question, “How much is it worth to you the customer to be able to...” and that’s probably how they got to $20/month.
Answer this question, “How much is it worth to you the customer to be able to...” and that’s probably how they got to $20/month.
The problem with $20/mo is that its entering exploitation territory. Like a porn site subscription, it exploits chemical and physical addictions intrinsic to humans to derive revenue. You can say the same thing about, say, any addictive service (like Netflix) and you wouldn't be wrong. But at least Netflix prices at cost, not "value", and Tinder is literally playing with a biological drive and interpersonal relationships, not a simple dopamine addiction.
This must explain their terrible earnings and stock performance over the past decade or so.
In other words; a business fundamentally cannot price all of their customers below cost indefinitely, and Netflix is working in the right direction. On the other hand, you can price customers above cost if demand is there, and demand for Tinder is there because their business model relies on exploiting biological addictions in our brains.