[PastTense]

An interesting picture of the change in use of mobile dating apps in the U.S. in the last couple years:
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress...1020&h=609

As you can see in the first half of 2013 it was basically OKCupid: 58%, Zoosk: 25%, Match.com: 18%. Now it is Tinder: about 83%, OkCupid: 10%. And the substantial bulk of this change took place in about 4 months starting July, 2013.

I ran across this in an article about Zoosk, which has decided to cut staff and NOT go public:
http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/15/dating-...-confirms/

[getdownonit]

The rise of Tinder per that graph is astounding. From launch to over 70% market share over established names in online dating in only five months.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(01-16-2015 01:27 PM)getdownonit Wrote:  

The rise of Tinder per that graph is astounding. From launch to over 70% market share over established names in online dating in only five months.

I figure because it was the first "hookup" app as opposed to sites/services that were focused on traditional, long-form dating. Because when you're just looking for a quick lay, you truly don't care about their interests or hobbies or whatever - you're looking for the most attractive girl/guy who's willing. Online dating up until then hadn't caught up to the rise in hookup culture that's basically overtaken the Anglosphere in force. And as you can see, Tinder's explosive rise is due to its more closely reflecting the culture zeitgeist of our contemporary dating market.

Whoever owns Tinder is a genius, since it literally can't be minimalized any further. There's photos, a blurb for whatever you want to write as personal info, and a chat function. That's it.

HSLD

[Hotwheels]

The problem with tradtional dating sites is you need to continually replace paying members which leads to high advertising costs. For example, I've been seeing a lot of ads for match.com on Espn and other channels of late. They all advertise heavily online.

The problem I see with Tinder, and any other app like it, is monetizing it. It spread virally due to it's ease of use and word of mouth, so advertising wasn't an issue. The fact it's free is what really made it explode however.

Monetizing Tinder is going to be difficult without turning off a lot of the userbase. Also, as it has gotten more popular the quality has dropped. Another byproduct of being free.

I predict the mobile app market will likely become broken down into niche's that gradually erode Tinder's marketshare.

[Dr. Howard]

(01-16-2015 01:32 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

(01-16-2015 01:27 PM)getdownonit Wrote:  

The rise of Tinder per that graph is astounding. From launch to over 70% market share over established names in online dating in only five months.

I figure because it was the first "hookup" app as opposed to sites/services that were focused on traditional, long-form dating. Because when you're just looking for a quick lay, you truly don't care about their interests or hobbies or whatever - you're looking for the most attractive girl/guy who's willing. Online dating up until then hadn't caught up to the rise in hookup culture that's basically overtaken the Anglosphere in force. And as you can see, Tinder's explosive rise is due to its more closely reflecting the culture zeitgeist of our contemporary dating market.

Whoever owns Tinder is a genius, since it literally can't be minimalized any further. There's photos, a blurb for whatever you want to write as personal info, and a chat function. That's it.

HSLD

True, its about as bare bones as you can go without it just being pictures of naked people.

[kmhour]

I don't think Tinder spread because it was a hookup app. it was the first dating app that was basically a game. it isn't socially dodgy because you aren't putting any effort into creating a profile or seeking out people in your area, just putting up pictures like other forms of social networking and then swiping away at other people.

but in the end it's like the old story about robbing banks because that's where the money is - men migrated to Tinder because that's where the attractive young women are.

[DrewP]

^That. We all know the key to a successful dating app is to attract female users (and the men will follow). And to girls, given their herd nature, the social stigma of online dating is a big deal. Filling out a dating profile eats away at their internal narrative that they're desirable and don't need any help finding a man. What Tinder did was give them plausible deniability - "oh, I'm just doing this for fun." From what I gather, there is virtually no stigma to being on Tinder. Most of my friends admit to using it.

I would like to see where Coffee Meets Bagel falls on that chart. It's an up and coming one that a few people I know use, whereas I know no one who's been on Zoosk and never even heard of Hinge.

[themilkman]

Hinge is big in New York for recent post grads, I have had a ton of success on there but have moved towards meeting girls out and following up dates from there if I don't bring them back. I still think the biggest issue with online apps is that women are on edge about actually meeting up with guys. When I do have a first date with a hinge girl, they let me know that this their first time doing an "online date" and I can tell that it's not bs.

[DJ-Matt]

The biggest problem with that graph is a huge player is missing, POF. Plenty of Flakes has the most women by far for my area.

It's hard to gauge how many users Tinder has in my area, but based on the number of matches within 10 miles that I blew through it has to be less than 200.

[kmhour]

After being out of online dating for the better part of a year, POF has gotten murdered by Tinder in my area. the younger 20s demo is barren. Still a decent amount of volume, but slim pickings for quality.

[BlurredSevens]

I'd like to see a chart of the % of population using dating apps before and after Tinder was released.

I'm willing to bet Tinder has substantially increased the number of people that would ever even consider joining a dating site in the first place.

I mean, how often have you seen models, professional athletes, and famous actors using sites like OKC and Match.com? For me, never. But it is commonplace on Tinder in large cities. That's a major cultural shift in how people are approaching "online dating."

Tinder blew the doors open in terms of accessibility to both high quality males and females around the world. I'd love to call the founders genius but I think it was a happy accident. Tearing down huge players like OKC and Match and EHarmony is no easy task and I doubt the founders knew it would happen like that. Regardless, kudos to them on their success, it's been incredible to see it all happen.

[DJ-Matt]

(01-26-2015 02:49 PM)kmhour Wrote:  

After being out of online dating for the better part of a year, POF has gotten murdered by Tinder in my area. the younger 20s demo is barren. Still a decent amount of volume, but slim pickings for quality.

Tinder has way better quality the POF that's for sure, except I never get any matches on it so that pretty much makes it a boring game

[kaotic]

I'd see POF downtrending with the rest of the other apps.

Tinder wasn't spoke as Taboo compared to the others. Girls were proud to advertise it, guys loved to brag about it.

It is more socially acceptable than any of the others because it was based on solely one thing: the way you looked. Not based on match%, questions, life story profile.

Tinder>Every dating app.