[stanford_labrat]

> They're in a sticky spot where their most successful customer is one that they will never see another dime from, and there's not really a way around it.

naive question: why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure? i understand that the current business model is much more lucrative...but i feel like with how fed up people are with the inability of modern online dating to provide quality, long-lasting relationships a new platform that optimizes for match quality and longevity would eat all of Match Groups offerings lunches. i guess there just isn't enough money to be made so it's not even worth it?

[Sohcahtoa82]

> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?

You've identified the problem but failed to adequately describe a solution.

The matchmakers need to make money, even to just pay for the costs of running the service.

A monthly subscription to use the service creates the perverse incentive to give bad matches. A one-time fee makes unsuccessful users feel cheated out of their money. A "pay us once you get married" option is ripe for abuse.

Even if the service is free and paid for by selling ads, you'd run into the same problem of the subscription model: They'd be incentivized to keep you perpetually single so you see more ads.

[lolc]

What I want to see is a dating service where I can pledge some money to some charity. Everybody on the site can check what I've pledged, and I can release it anytime. The service can take their cut, fine.

Now when I meet somebody through the service, and we think it's serious, we can release that money. And we can check whether the other did too!

Sure there will still be profiles with people that don't pledge, because they're just testing the waters, or poor, or scammers. Whatever. Point is I can send a signal that at some point I want to be done with the service, and then pay them for that.

[AntiDyatlov]

How can the service know that the users have really entered into a relationship?

[lolc]

Why would it need to? Users police themselves :-)

[miki123211]

There should be a "dating tax."

If you get married, there should be a "what app did you meet on" question on the marriage application. Apps should get $10/month for each relationship they create, for as long as the partners live or until they get divorced.

This would encourage app makers to "get rid" of their users as fast as possible, getting them into successful, long-term relationships, instead of keeping them on the apps for as long as possible to milk subscription revenue.

Considering the fertility crisis that most western countries are facing, this is overwhelmingly likely to be long-term revenue-positive for governments.

[johnnyanmac]

> why has no one made an app with the reverse incentive structure?

1. Network effects. An app isn't like a new local business where people will naturally wander in. They may already exist but the market's captured everyone on the skinner box services

2. App stores. The deeper you look into the things needed to advertise as a mobile app, the more obvious it becomes. You need milliions up front just to be featured in your critical launch time. If you don't, you fall into #1 and it's hard to recover from the "it's so empty" early impressions.

3. As you said, any success despite #1 and #2 is destined to fail. ad won't make that money up, so the only viable idea is relying on a premium or subscription model. But paid models in the era of "free" mobile apps is a hard sell unless you can guarantee success. And dating is anything but guaranteed.

That said other models have been tried to correct the issues with the big apps. Limiting matches, reversing the gender dynamics, based around special interests, etc. The only one I think I saw any kind of success from is one tailored towards rich/famous people meeting other rich/famous people (surprise, surprise).

[busymom0]

Also note that as of now, Apple developer guidelines warns specifically of creating more dating apps. They consider it spam.

[true_religion]

The reverse incentive is used by match makers. It works well for people seeking marriage since there is a legal endpoint to be reached that can’t be faked and is meant to be permanent.

[socalgal2]

https://whatsyourprice.com

They used to have a sister site. They had these kind of hilarious animated ads that made the whole thing seem so logical. One ad targeted at women and the other at men, both claiming that money meant you only got serious requests. I wish I could find those ads, they were classic.

--

Found one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFo-da_2rdI

--

Found the other: https://vimeo.com/21179683

[leptons]

I have no idea if they do this, but they should partially or fully sponsor weddings of couples that met on their service in exchange for a small ad at the venue. There's a captive audience of potentially lots of single people watching two people that met on their service get married. It's a great advertising opportunity. I'd have happily put a "This wedding brought to you by OK-Cupid" banner at the bar at my wedding for $500 or $1000 towards the open bar.

[Telaneo]

What insentives can an app maker provde to turn the structure around?