The secret to success on dating apps is economical (2024)

One in four Aussies under the age of 44 met their partner online. Oddly enough, as a 19-year-old woman, I do not know any of them. My experiences with Hinge and Tinder have been more about playing “smash or pass” when the dinner conversation lulls. But the stats seem to place the dating apps as a pretty good investment.

So, how do dating apps work? It helps, like many things, to think about it, like economics. Imagine that all of your potential partners exist in one market. It is your prerogative to invest time and energy (this is called a search cost) into finding the match that best suits you.

Enter dating apps! More people are within your reach and are brought to your attention more quickly. Gone are the days of singles nights at your local pub – all you need are some good photography skills, strong swiping abilities, and probably a nice glass of red wine.

This process is “thickening” the market, which describes increasing the options available to any given consumer. Is this a good thing? Depends on who you ask. Studies have shown for two decades that minorities are exponentially more likely to use dating apps.

The market has even pivoted so that some markets specialise in hyper-specific consumer bases. BLK, a dating app for people of colour, has had more than seven million downloads. While Grindr, designed for gay, bi, trans, and queer people, has more than 12 million active users.

Loading

Some less renowned dating apps include Bristlr (those attracted to facial hair), Align (which connects you to those with compatible star charts), and Kitty Nip (for cat people). Whatever your idea of purr-fection is, I guess.

No matter which app you swipe right on, users are given access to “thickened” markets tailored to their preferences. A feature of these markets is differentiated goods, meaning that no two options are the same. So, consumers must invest the “search costs” to find the outcome that best satisfies them.

That brings us to a downside of these thickened markets: determining the opportunity cost of choosing one partner over another takes more time and effort, which may be particularly difficult when an algorithm tailors every option to suit you.

Many allow themselves to “invest” in several options before committing to one if they determine that dating multiple people will create the best ROI or return on investment.

Loading

Imagine the notional cost (a theoretical sum of non-monetary variables) of going on a date is $25, but you receive a notional $100 in welfare benefits (in the form of happiness, yummy food, and any other transactions). That is a 400 per cent return! Why wouldn’t you spread yourself across a few options?

Hence, the complications of 21st-century dating culture. I’ve had countless conversations with my girlfriends about what constitutes “exclusive” in a relationship, and if I’ve learnt anything, it’s that everyone has different criteria.

However, there seem to be a few key variables: the number of dates attended, the quality of other potential suitors, and the X-factor. The latter is, of course, my favourite. The X-factor is the indescribable feature that we recognise in a compatible partner and is what makes the marginal benefit of each new date cower to the benefit of a long-term investment.

So, how do you let your X-factor know that you’re interested in long-term investment? Signalling is when one party reliably shares information with another to show genuine interest in a transaction. It involves a genuine commitment that comes at a cost to one party.

Tinder has an option for this, named the “super like”. Super likes are limited but can be accrued by subscribing to Tinder Premium or purchasing à la carte. If used, your profile will be first presented to your person of interest and will inform the subject that you have super-liked them (as opposed to a normal like, which does not inform you until both parties have liked each other).

The limited stock of super likes allowed, the literal financial cost of them, and the risk of potentially looking desperate signals to the other party that the user is willing to put down an initial investment before going all in.

So, how is your portfolio looking? A lot of smaller ventures or one investment?

Siena fa*gan is an economics and media student.