Hacker News Reader

Comment by cal5k | Hacker News Reader

I think this number is a massive underestimate of their annual top-line. Based on the cost of a subscription I'd bet it's in the $1B+ range.

View on HN

Agreed. Having worked at a dating app that had a significantly smaller user base, the revenue numbers are definitely low balled.

Is there a variable in particular you think is too low ? I've taken the number of subscribers (3M) from Match Group report. But I've taken the assumption that there's high churn and they don't all pay for 12 months. Let me know what you think, it can be updated :)

The subscription price varies substantially according to age and region. I also suspect that they make a lot of money from "whales", i.e. people with the most expensive subscriptions who also buy their other item packs (superlikes etc.)

True, there might be people spending a lot more than the average cost of a basic subscription. I don't know the product well enough to evaluate if having Tinder Gold is enough or if some users also buy one-off app purchases in addition to that.

Yea I spend $100 or more on Boosts a month in my market, NYC.

thanks, I will try to update that ARPU number

I spent a ton of money on boosts, and have a gold membership, easily $200+. It was worth it. Truth is for busy men with a bunch of shit to do these enhancements completely improve the experience to the point that they are practically mandatory. Any time I’m on a serious Tinder spree I’ll buy up big packs of boost. Boost gets you laid.

>Any time I’m on a serious Tinder spree I’ll buy up big packs of boost. Boost gets you laid.

Agreed. I don't know how they did it, but they finally made a dating product that works for women AND men. Match Group is going to the moon IMO, and I say that as someone who worked for their #1 competitor.

wow, interesting

Not necessarily. Dating apps like Tinder that are focused on hookups have much lower paid subscriber numbers relative to apps focused on relationships.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com