Tinder to charge older users more for premium facilities | Hacker News Reader

Tinder to charge older users more for premium facilities

m.bbc.co.uk

86 pointssamoli90 comments

I'm reasonably certain the UK's age discrimination legislation under the Equality Act 2010 could be used to take Tinder to court for this. Basically, it's illegal to charge people more simply because of how old they are.

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/...

Serious questions: Can they give people discounts based on how old they are? Can they give student discounts? Is there a legal line between giving discounts/charging less vs charging more?

Senior discounts (55+) are quite popular in the USA, although I don't hear young people complaining.

They should be, considering how much baby boomers have screwed over subsequent generations economically.

Senior discounts are based on the assumption that this age group is likely to be formed by people who are retired. Similarly, student discounts are intended for full time students that don't have the "expected" source of income that is having a job. I guess Tinder would be ok if they offered student discounts (or senior discounts ;) ). The issue here is whether they can charge 27 year old professionals a different rate than say 30 year old professionals.

That is not a discount for people without a steady source of income. That is potentially a deliberate attempt to skew the demographics of their user base towards younger users (although less of an issue that it would otherwise be, since Tinder without-premium-features remains free to use for 18 year olds, 40 year olds and 109 year olds).

> That is potentially a deliberate attempt to skew the demographics of their user base towards younger users

Or maybe those over 28 are willing to pay more, and this is a move to maximize revenue.

> Or maybe those over 28 are willing to pay more, and this is a move to maximize revenue.

This does happen to be the motivation that Tinder stated.

> Tinder is no different; during our testing we've learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained and need a lower price to pull the trigger."

Student discounts aren't age based, a pensioner can enrol as a student and get a student discount card, it's dependent on being a student, it's not related to age.

Charging less because someone is young would still be open to an age discrimination case, just as the opposite is true.

If it's phrased as a concession to younger users, I'm not sure it would be illegal. Service isn't denied to older users, and the service is generally available to all age groups.

OK Cupid has been price discriminating for at least a year. Does anybody know if they do it in the UK?

http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/1nkdfx/

http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/28oeo6/

Some states in the the US also ban price discriminating based on sex or gender. For example, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin. Does anybody know if OK Cupid price discriminates in the UK?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladies%27_night

I'm not sure how well this might hold up... there are plenty of places that offer senior, military and under-12 discounts in pricing... It does kind of smack in the face as discriminatory based on a pretty non-traditional division in age.

Price discrimination only works if people can't easily identity that discrimination is in play. Otherwise, there will be backlash, which is what has been happening on Twitter this morning.

It's also worth nothing that price discrimination really doesn't work if it can easily be gamed. Many people create secondary Facebook profiles for Tinder; this implementation just ensures that there will be a lot more "27 year olds" on the service.

>this implementation just ensures that there will be a lot more "27 year olds" on the service.

which ultimately hurts the service as nobody will be able to know who is 27 and who is older than 27

I predict that people will put their real age in their bios. Many older people already do this today.

Yes exactly. This is a really badly designed implementation of a pricing tier strategy.

It also seems likely that by incentivizing users to lie about their age, Tinder will create an entire zone of fake ages between something like 25-27, where users do not want to be grouped in with all of the "27 year olds" so they go year(s) lower. Thus, eliminating user trust for ages of anyone at numbers approaching 27.

> Price discrimination only works if people can't easily identity that discrimination is in play.

While this specific pricing model seems odd to me, I don't think I agree with your general claim. I think everyone understands the iPhone product line, with different prices for different amounts of storage space. As far as I know, that works really well for Apple, yet it would be difficult to have a more blatant example of price discrimination.

edit: There are several people claiming that price discrimination requires the products to be completely identical. I maintain that is not how the term is used in economics. I replied with more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9135084

I think what he means is charging different prices for different users for the same product.

I wonder if it matters that Tinder is a service not a product. In MS Office it is possible for two people to have the same user experience. But on Tinder the people that you interact with are the product. Legally this distinction is probably irrelevant.

"Price discrimination" means charging different users different prices for the same product/service. Apple charging different prices for different amounts of storage space is not price discrimination.

"Price discrimination" is widely used to refer to identical or nearly identical products whose cost of production is nearly identical despite being offered at significantly different prices.

Price discrimination is when a business charges different prices to different groups of consumers for the same product or service.

Charging different prices for similar goods is not pure price discrimination.

The widely accepted and used definition in economics refers to products that are identical or nearly identical, or more specifically, whose functions and costs of production are nearly identical. Student editions of software, for instance, are often functionally limited, but it is widely listed as an example of price discrimination. Some econ textbooks will make a distinction of "pure price discrimination," which requires the products to be literally identical. Note that the identity function for products is not always obvious.

I maintain that the iPhone's storage pricing is a clear example of price discrimination.

Movie theaters very clearly show the different prices for different groups (students, seniors, etc.) and no one seems to mind. Same with zoos, museums, etc.

don't those also require the presentation of a valid student id, or some form of senior citizen id ?

student ID-- yes. senior citizen ID is probably just a drivers license with a DOB on it.

not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing with my point?

Also, people are generally better with price CUTS for those perceived as disadvantaged, e.g. the elderly, students, etc. People are also GENERALLY ok with short-lived extra fees for the young and/or provably risky: think credit cards, rental cars, hotel rooms(?). I don't think I've ever seen a case of a price HIKE, though; stereotypically I imagine a grumpy group of older people.

Tinder is really messing this up hard. First this, and now I've run out of "likes" for 12 hours based on some new hard limit.

I've never had any real success using Tinder, and I've only continually engaged because it's a mindless way to pass the time (playing God with acceptance/rejection is fun).

Now, it's just yet another dating app that isn't worth paying for. Back to OKCupid, I guess.

OKCupid and Tinder (and Match) share the same owner, IAC.

and OKCupid engages in price discrimination too, and has done for many years. The price you'll see for OKCupids premium service ("A-list") is based on a variety of factors: attractiveness, age, location, gender... an attractive woman will pay ~$3.99 per month whereas an unattractive middle aged man will pay ~$20.

How do they do the attractiveness rating? Is it an internal eval or some kind of crowdsourced bayesian inferential hotornot?

okcupid is now very similar to tinder in that users can rate each other on a 0-1 scale. (It used to be 1-5).

The rating algorithm is probably a lot like pagerank. Ratings by users that are rated highly matter more.

The potential signals are:

* swipes yes or no

* messages received

* length of conversations

* number of unmatches/blocks received

It's the latter (using things like click through rates). I'm not sure if any one blog sums up their methods, but they write about this topic a lot. In one post I read, they specifically mention that having a high quality camera correlates with their attractiveness ratings and so do different types of poses. So "attractiveness" might be better thought of as popularity, not beauty (though, that's the approximation).

I was surprised at this so I looked it up. Anecdata: http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/28oeo6/alist_subscr...

If this is true, it's pretty cruel. Yeah yeah supply and demand, but that doesn't make it any less harsh.

Seriously? That's just the kind of guy who will be summarily ignored, too. What a waste of twenty bucks.

OKCupid is smart about that too, based on how attractive you are you'll see -- and be visible to -- people in a similar "league" to you. You're not going to be seeing beautiful women who could model if you're an unattractive male. This is pretty good for people who are unattractive, because they can focus on people they're more likely to have success with.

https://www.quora.com/Is-being-one-of-the-most-attractive-pe...

If you're an ugly middle aged man and you're willing to date ugly middle aged women there's no need for a dating site. Women have lost most of their power in the dating market by that point.

I have been told that either the hard limit is only implemented in the client, or that a specific version of the client is required to enforce the hard limit.

What better methods of price discrimination do you think they should use?

* Perhaps men could be charged more than women - it's sexist and a double standard but in many parts of the world men are expected to pay for dates anyway.

* Perhaps users need to say if they are looking for a short term relationship versus a long term relationship and are charged more (or less) to match with others who are looking for a long term relationship.

* Perhaps users are only charged if they match with more than X people per month.

"What better methods of price discrimination do you think they should use?"

None. Same service, same price. A tech company, given all the ageist news articles, probably shouldn't price on age.

It's kind of a stretch to call Tinder a tech company. It's a hook up site, basically, and they want to charge less attractive people more money for the same reason fat people can't find stylish clothes - too many unattractive people will hurt your brand.

Age is not a good discriminator of looks, particularly starting at 28.

I'm not sure I agree. And it's not just about looks. It's about youth and the hook-up culture. College students are more likely to be into that sort of culture than older working professionals, which means they're more valuable to Tinder as users.

That said, I don't agree with this pricing strategy.

"youth and the hook-up culture"

I agree that age is probably a good indicator on that. I still think any tech associated company that brings in age is just asking for trouble.

Yes it is, particularly for women.

The demographics of tinder have changed over the past year. Many people on it are not looking for hookups.

In this case tinder is not charging unnattractive people more. Tinder has an algorithm that shows (mostly) only attractive people to other attractive people. That part is free!

I don't think that they're using age as a proxy for attractiveness.

Rather, I think they're trying to profit from an asymmetry that they believe exists: that there is a significant population of people over 28 who would really like to hook up with people under 28, and are willing to pay for the privilege.

They may also believe that they will be more attractive to their core demographic if there are fewer older people in their system.

They may even believe that they will be more attractive to their core demographic if their older demographic skews richer.

No idea whether they're right, but they presumably have a pretty good data-set to work from.

The problem with your argument is that basic tinder is still free and tinder plus gives you almost no competitive advantage.

It gives you undo, which is a minor advantage, and it gives you passport which can be accomplished for free on any unrooted Android phone or any jailbroken IPhone.

In the future it will prevent you from needed to see ads, but I imagine that will also be a minor advantage.

It presumably affects people on the margin.

What potential effect and margin are you thinking of?

Marginal utility of Tinder probably increases for premium users, and I presume that marginal use also increases for those users.

Marginal use of Tinder probably decreases among people who feel excluded by the price discrimination and do not buy into it.

Marginal utility of Tinder probably increases for the college-aged target demographic if marginal use of Tinder by older (especially poorer and older) users declines.

At least, that's what I think Tinder is hoping will happen.

We know that tinder's long term goal is to become a method of social discovery method for anything. That is why I don't think that their goal is to decrease any usage of their product as long as that usage is not "incorrect" in their minds.

I don't know that, actually -- I'm sure that Tinder has said something along those lines at some point, but founders of companies saying that their company is going to move into some ultra-broad undefined space that they have little demonstrated competence in is not exactly rare.

But in any event, even if they were going to move into "social discovery of anything" as a technology company, it does not follow that the current Tindr app and accounts is going to be used for "social discovery of anything," because it is obviously absurd to imagine that people want to use a hook-up app for "social discovery of anything." There is no market for people who are like, "Hey, I want to find the perfect drapes for my living room remodel and also at the same time look for casual sex."

That's true, but I think it is very likely they will start suggesting movies, bars and restaurants for dates.

I'm surprised they're charging women. Perhaps this just reveals my sexism. They obviously have the data, I guess it's impressive they're able to charge men and women the same price. I'd always put tinder in that category of hookup-ish bar that doesn't charge women cover.

Many people in tinder are using it for real dating, not just hookups. Many bios include "Not looking for a hookup".

My personal experience with these types of apps is that what people post in their profile and what actually happens upon meeting are not highly correlated.

"Perhaps this just reveals my sexism"

Not really, it just means you've come to the same conclusion as bars in the US have for years.

I don't expect women to pay. The way Tinder work for most people is that men get few matches, and women have a stack of a few dozen to a few hundred potential matches waiting.

When someone right swipes you, they go to the top of your stack, and you see them first. Most men swipe right on every profile. So most women match on almost 100% of the profiles they swipe right.

As a consequence, men swipe a LOT more than women, and it will be mostly men who hit the usage limits.

(I haven't quite figured out the math, as every match is two ways. Nonetheless, it's significantly easier for women to get matches.)

I really think this was the most boneheaded monetization plan I've seen in a while. This group is the flightiest, most experimental bunch of early adopters, and that kind of price tag is going to make them laugh out loud. It is ten times what I thought it was going to be.

Limiting interaction with the app (driving users to the next service, conveniently located at the icon next door) was strike one. This is strike two. Who's going to wait for strike three? Not people who want to meet someone new and are being told they can't use this app the way they have for the last six months, that's for sure!

> I really think this was the most boneheaded monetization plan I've seen in a while.

If the goal is to actually make money and not just maximize their number of users, this could be a good thing. For people over 28 willing to pay, their odds of getting a date just went way up. And for people over 28 not willing to pay, it doesn't matter if they leave anyway. I'm not saying this definitely isn't going to be the next Digg 2.0, but I think success here is at least plausible.

I wonder what the reaction from each segment of the current Tinder userbase would be if someone outright cloned Tinder as a new, standalone app (i.e. not embedded inside of an existing brand with a preconceived image, a la OKCupid's Tinder clone)

When you say okcupid's tinder clone are you talking about locals?

I think it was called Instamatch?

(it's been a while)

OK, it was called quickmatch, then locals, now it is called OkCupid Dating.

http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=10204328337611738961

Why do you think their odds went up? Basic tinder will still be free. Tinder plus offers little competitive advantage to paying users. The only features are Undo and Passport

I wonder what % of Tinder users swipe more then the threshold they have set, i.e. ~100 likes. That's a critical number.

If nothing else, that's some pretty awful PR. Why not sell it as a "student discount" or similar? Nobody wants to hear about the cold business logic of setting prices.

>One expert said the move was "sleazy".

Oh screw you, BBC. Expert on what? If you want to insult it, go ahead, but don't pretend that calling it 'sleazy' is an act of journalism, an expert explaining facts.

Side note: I'm amused by the people suggesting they push to frame it as a discount. That would be sleaze. This may be jerk behavior but it's not dishonest.

Yea they should of just said discriminatory. Well that's kinda sleazy too.

Keep in mind this is only for the infinitesimal subset of Tinder users that will be paying for the "premium" feature set anyways. Basic Tinder remains free for all ages, as far as I understand.

That said, I agree with the BBC's unnamed expert (who is probably Paul Kedrosky quoted again at the end of the article):

' One expert said the move was "sleazy". '.

Basic Tinder was crippled (swipe limit) in order to convince people to buy the premium version.

How do you know that Tinder Plus doesn't have the same swipe limit?

That is not stated in the Tinder FAQ, in the BBC article or the TechCrunch article.

Via Reddit: http://i.imgur.com/LtHhRbY.jpg

Thank you, it is interesting that that is not in FAQ

I think Tinder's users are pretty inured to being thought "sleazy."

Also, really, BBC? You grant anonymity to an "expert" to say that Tinder is sleazy? You really couldn't find someone who would go on the record there?

Alternative Headline: Tinder to open market for over 28 year olds to much more competition.

Sounds like an anchoring strategy--articles direct their attention to the higher price point for users older than 30, and the $10 monthly fee for the premium version doesn't look that bad in comparison (which for the 2 added features is a little steep imho).

This could be a fascinating price discrimination experiment. They could constantly change prices on people based on their behavior in the app, or how many times they see the upgrade offers, effectively maximizing their revenue.

I think this price discrimination will have some backlash. If they have gone with the pitch "discounts for younger users" it would be more easily accepted.

Because we have more money or we are more desperate?

Probably, yes - and yes.

Those are factors, but also because older people are typically looking for a long-term relationship and young people are typically looking for a short-term relationship.

People are willing to pay a lot more for a potentially life changing long-term relationship. I think eharmony and match.com's pricing strategy proves this.

Under the Age Discrimination Act 2004 s28 "Goods, services and facilities", this would be illegal under Australian law.

The addon features aren't great for the segmentation.

Ie. People pay for eHarmony over Tinder because they're likely to get better match.

This is such a bad idea that it strikes me as a PR stunt.

You are giving them way too much credit.

FWIW, the CEO of Tindr is 27.

I suspect you're right but damn; didn't SOMEONE on his board pull him aside and say, "uh, yeah... you don't want to do that."??

I imagine that they didn't realize this would blow up because it didn't blow up when okcupid started doing it. However they probably forgot that tinder is on much larger stage than okcupid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com