http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/...
Charging less because someone is young would still be open to an age discrimination case, just as the opposite is true.
http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/1nkdfx/
http://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/28oeo6/
Some states in the the US also ban price discriminating based on sex or gender. For example, California, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin. Does anybody know if OK Cupid price discriminates in the UK?
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.
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
Charging different prices for similar goods is not pure price discrimination.
which ultimately hurts the service as nobody will be able to know who is 27 and who is older than 27
It also seems likely that by incentivizing users to lie about their age, Tinder will create an entire zone of fake ages between something like 25-27, where users do not want to be grouped in with all of the "27 year olds" so they go year(s) lower. Thus, eliminating user trust for ages of anyone at numbers approaching 27.
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.
* 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.
None. Same service, same price. A tech company, given all the ageist news articles, probably shouldn't price on age.
Not really, it just means you've come to the same conclusion as bars in the US have for years.
When someone right swipes you, they go to the top of your stack, and you see them first. Most men swipe right on every profile. So most women match on almost 100% of the profiles they swipe right.
As a consequence, men swipe a LOT more than women, and it will be mostly men who hit the usage limits.
(I haven't quite figured out the math, as every match is two ways. Nonetheless, it's significantly easier for women to get matches.)
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!
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.
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.
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". '.
That is not stated in the Tinder FAQ, in the BBC article or the TechCrunch article.
Also, really, BBC? You grant anonymity to an "expert" to say that Tinder is sleazy? You really couldn't find someone who would go on the record there?
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.
Ie. People pay for eHarmony over Tinder because they're likely to get better match.
