[birken]

There are also many free alternatives which are very good. I'm not suggesting something like Tinder or OkCupid are perfect, but both of them are fully usable for your whole dating lifecycle without ever having to pay a cent (both of them have premium options, but they are entirely optional). Maybe IAC will change that at some point, but they haven't thus far.

Dating is also always going to require work that can't be replaced with money. I can throw money at my laundry, my meals, my house cleaning and completely outsource them. But with dating, regardless of how good the site or matching is, I'm still going to have to meet the other person and have to do most of the "dirty work" involved with dating myself. So I'd think that fact limits the upper bound of money they can charge and upper bound of money a dating company can make.

[sliverstorm]

There will always be some work component for the user, but a site that is so good at matching that every date you go on is a great match- that site is worth a lot of money, because a great date doesn't feel like work.

No one knows how to do it yet, but it would be very valuable. Much like a perfect movie recommendation engine.

[beachstartup]

another problem with dating is simply throwing money at the problem actually decreases the quality of the results!

it's easy to go out on tons of dates with gold-diggers, or the male equivalent, moocher deadbeats. unfortunately people get tired of both very quickly even though on paper it sounds like a lot of fun (dating exciting, interesting losers).

[danieltillett]

Is there any reason the term gold digger can't apply to both men and women? I do agree they are to be avoided as I have yet to meet one even slightly interesting.