
Tinder to charge older users more for premium facilities - samoli
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31700036
======
onion2k
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/...](http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-
rights/age/new-law-ban-age-discrimination-services-public-functions-and-
associations-–-exceptions)

~~~
skizm
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?

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

~~~
lazaroclapp
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).

~~~
samoli
> 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.

~~~
bazookajoes
> 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."

------
minimaxir
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.

~~~
baddox
> 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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9135084)

~~~
dragonwriter
"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.

~~~
baddox
"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.

------
jyrkesh
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.

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

~~~
citricsquid
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.

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

~~~
logn
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).

------
bazookajoes
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.

~~~
protomyth
"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.

~~~
tsotha
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.

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

~~~
nilkn
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.

~~~
protomyth
"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.

------
jfoutz
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.

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

~~~
richardbrevig
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.

------
devindotcom
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!

~~~
Alex3917
> 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.

~~~
hkmurakami
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)

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

~~~
hkmurakami
I think it was called Instamatch?

(it's been a while)

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

[http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=10204328337611738961](http://www.okcupid.com/forum?tid=10204328337611738961)

------
TillE
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.

------
Dylan16807
>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.

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

------
lazaroclapp
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". '.

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

~~~
bazookajoes
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.

~~~
minimaxir
Via Reddit: [http://i.imgur.com/LtHhRbY.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/LtHhRbY.jpg)

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

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

------
eghad
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).

------
brianbreslin
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.

------
fsniper
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.

------
kelukelugames
Because we have more money or we are more desperate?

~~~
bazookajoes
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.

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

------
smileysteve
The addon features aren't great for the segmentation.

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

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

~~~
krschultz
You are giving them way too much credit.

FWIW, the CEO of Tindr is 27.

~~~
Zelphyr
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."??

~~~
bazookajoes
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.

