Tinder charges some people up to five times more than others for the same service. We found prices between $6.99 to $34.37 for a one month subscription to Tinder Plus.
Prices varied by age. On average, people over the age of 30 were offered prices that were more than double the prices given to those who were under 30.
Tinder is using other factors to set prices but isnât transparent about what data drives what people see. There are wild price variations within age groups, ranging from $6.99 to $16.71 in the under-30 group and $14.99 to $34.37 for people over 30. Tinder could potentially be using data on sexuality, gender, location or interests to set prices.
Our big problem with this? Tinder doesnât tell users any of this. It doesnât clearly say that you may pay a different price to someone else or that your data will be used to set prices.
The Tinder privacy policy and terms of service has some lovely statements about how the company will be âtransparent in the way we process your dataâ. Itâs time for Tinder to live up to this statement and actually tell customers how data is used.
We canât even have a conversation about whether Tinder is acting ethically or treating customers fairly by showing different prices until we know exactly what theyâre doing. Transparency is a basic precondition for accountability.
We know Tinder isnât the only company using personal data to set prices. Itâs just the one we caught in the act.
Companies have to think about the ethics and responsibilities they have to customers when they use personal data, not just how they access and store this information.
Iâm not a psychologist but it seems there are many complex issues around how some of the business models tie to our emotional states.
Some of us will happily hold 12cm sized Huntsman Spider on our hand/s, head or back. For others !
I suspect Apps such as Tinder etc can have similar effects, prior to joining or worse, become apparent once in. There is no charter of social accountability or responsibility on the provider of the service.
To me it would be akin to say a car dealer not advertising prices for its new cars and making up a new car price based when a customer enters a dealership. The special customer price is say based on what the customer wears, how they speak, what they look like, what their old car is, where they work etc. Very dangerous step to take and could be seen as discrimination at worst or unethical at best.
âŠor as many Australian companies continue to do by withholding pricing information until a quote is requested, just good old fashioned business of getting what the market will bear.
I am not aware of anything about libertarian or laissez faire capitalism that implies, infers, or requires fairness, only about maximising profits.
Therein lies an ideological problem. If one regulates or makes certain expectations of one, it should (but may not) apply to all.
In the case of sexuality, gender or race - this could be a legal problem for them - but itâs a complex area, as exceptions exist.
As you say, as they are not transparent about what they are doing, it would be difficult for someone to make a formal complaint. That would be a reason for them not to be transparent about what they are doing. Itâs another example of how âalgorithmsâ will be a battleground over the next few decades - as algorithms legitimately serve to obfuscate what they are doing i.e. they themselves may not know.
Back when this would have been relevant to me, and the tablets being used were stone, not electronic devices, there were lower charges for women to participate as compared with the charges for men to participate, due to a shortage of women (in the het section). This is clear discrimination on the basis of gender. Was that OK? Who knows.
I didnât read cynicism in your post or even a rant rather I saw your post as reality. The businesses in the market often charge what the market will bear not what is fair/right/justifiable, just look at smartphones.
In regards to dating via Tinder, perhaps the charges are based on how hard it will be to match an age group, a person, a lifestyle group/person with their match. Fee for service based on a bunch of proprietary markers carefully developed by their system. Okay a bit sarcastic here maybe but I would hazard that data and date matching vary according to many facets of a personâs makeup and pricing might reflect that variance as @phb also noted . Please understand I donât agree with it at all but that may be how they justify how they work out their pricing and why it may be so opaque.
@grahroll âperhaps the charges are based on how hard it will be to match an age group, a person, a lifestyle group/person with their match.â
Seriously? It will not be a person sifting the registrations and carefully âmatchingâ with suitable partners then sending the offerings to your phone. Its an algorythm with no human contact since the day it was finished.
So how hard is it really?
If a service has an overweighting or underweighting of any demographic they price that accordingly.
Even back in the 1980âs dating services (USA) charged men twice what they charged women, and [only] women who dropped out got half price (of their original half price) re-joining offers.
In the instance of us more matured ones, it should be cheaper. Far fewer opportunities for those expensive SMS to advise us of likely matches. Itâs the high rotation amongst those younger or more prone to circulate between relationships (less mature more adventuresome) who will load the algorithm and messaging more frequently. Charge them more for their playtime. Like car rego for pensioners in NSW, membership should be free for the rest of us.
Not necessarily so. If the membership is overweighted to âmatureâ members it could dissuade younger ones, and that would affect the business. Likewise there are probably more mature women since we men generally die earlier, however many of âusâ being technology shy it is more complex than just the numbers.
If there are 10,000 mature women, and only 2,000 mature men, the men will usually be priced to receive a comparative discount, whilst the women might be surcharged to keep from being overweighted further by their demographic. That demographic is weighted against the othersâŠ
Hmm no not very seriously as I noted a bit sarcastic maybe, and âPlease understand I donât agree with it at all but that may be how they justify how they work out their pricing and why it may be so opaqueâ. This means I believe they charge what they think they can get away with but they use any reasons and justifications that support this practice. So it isnât clear to me why they charge what they do, but they do and that is obvious that people still sign up[ to it and pay the prices they do. People who could and should know better still get caught in Scams all the time, why do they continue to do so? Hope, desperation a desire to find a easy way out etc etc etc. Also note Iâm not saying either way that the dating system is or isnât a scam regardless of my beliefs as I have no absolute proof and people obviously do have successful connections through the service whether by chance, good matching, luck or whatever reason.
I also mention that human interaction is still possible within the businessâs matching process they may undertake even if only ever minimally and randomly. Others would have more certain knowledge and could speak authoritatively on that basis. I just donât know if it does or doesnât happen so Iâm not willing to dismiss that possibility until proof either way is made evident.
Perhaps the comment was more directed at Average Revenue Per User (ARPU). We understand that it is likely all fully computerised - so the effort in looking for matches may be negligible and basically the same for all demographics. That doesnât mean that all demographics are equally lucrative. In other words âhard to look for matchâ v. âhard to make moneyâ. Perhaps the variable charging is an attempt to equalise revenue.
Without transparency it is really only speculation - and transparency will likely only come from regulation.
!
