What\u00a0Wasn’t Working?<\/strong><\/p>\n Let\u2019s be honest: it takes considerable time, effort, and serendipity to meet new people. Historically, singletons had no way to discover the interests and personalities of potential partners before spending significant time together. The fears of rejection, embarrassment, or awkwardness created additional barriers to finding love. In response, dating websites and mobile applications have attempted to mitigate these everyday problems.<\/p>\n Helping Singles Meet Their Match<\/strong><\/p>\n Widely considered the premiere online dating provider, Match Group, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cMatch\u201d) mission is to \u201cincrease users\u2019 likelihood of finding a romantic connection\u201d[2]. Interestingly, the company owns several online dating brands (including Match.com, Tinder, and OkCupid) in an effort to reach a broad audience with varying consumer preferences[2].<\/p>\n Exhibit 2: Match’s Online Dating Platforms<\/span><\/p>\n The business model hinges on the idea of \u201cmatching markets,\u201d a principle that Nobel prize winner Alvin Roth spent his career studying. Dating sites converge supply and demand, and transactions occur based on information sharing and reciprocated enthusiasm[3]. Match\u2019s capital-light operations utilize both the Internet and smartphone-enabled software to connect singles to one another via formulaically-calculated compatibility and subsequently provide a means of communication between the two parties via online messaging platforms[4]. Match provides value to consumers through:<\/p>\n More Options<\/em>: Match\u2019s software provides visibility to a much larger pool of potential partners than consumers would otherwise encounter. Maintaining a wide user base (a \u201cthick market\u201d) is critical for success in the match-based model[5]. At its IPO in November 2015, Match boasted 59 million monthly active users[6].<\/p>\n Efficiency:<\/em> The company\u2019s platforms allow users to more efficiently spend time searching for love. By quickly filtering through large amounts of data (i.e. interests, geographies, and backgrounds), consumers can limit connections to those who share their romantic preferences, reducing both up-front time invested and outcome variability[7].<\/p>\n Comfort<\/em>: Online dating generally reduces the emotional cost of rejection because the platform only reveals the user\u2019s interest when the feeling is mutual[3], which makes \u201cwooing\u201d strangers not only risk-free, but actually expected.<\/p>\n Convenience<\/em>: Smartphones\u2019 increasing omnipresence allows users to look for love anytime, anywhere \u2013 in short, dating has become a \u201chand-held activity\u201d[8].<\/p>\n Exhibit 3: Match.com Smartphone Application Interface<\/span><\/p>\n Spreading Cheer Proves Valuable<\/strong><\/p>\n If we measure value to the user in happiness, Match has been fulfilling its customer promise. Success stories in the form of engagements and weddings are becoming increasingly prevalent as the applications gain popularity[9].<\/p>\n Beyond advertising revenues, Match captures value by converting free users to paid services as consumers perceive the app can provide real potential for finding love, recognizing a 31% increase in paid users year-on-year as of November 2016[10]. The 2016 Sixth Annual Singles in America study further suggests that online dating increases the chances of going on a first and second date by 150%[11].<\/p>\n Exhibit 4: Tinder-Inspired Wedding Cake<\/span><\/p>\n So Why Hasn\u2019t Everyone Found Love?<\/strong><\/p>\n Some critics of online dating suggest the matchmaking approach is a market failure[12]. Users limit matches based on standard characteristics that they believe they desire; however, these qualities cannot capture \u201cchemistry,\u201d a critical factor in finding Mr. Right[12]. Moreover, people may not actually know what they are looking for in a partner, even if they think they do[1]. Consequently, Match\u2019s vast collection of user data may be better equipped than its consumer in identifying true compatibility. The company could therefore provide two sets of matches: one specified by the user (status quo), and another created by data-driven algorithms based on that user\u2019s behaviors and preferences.<\/p>\n Additionally, given that these platforms\u2019 effectiveness hinges on the provider\u2019s ability to properly match supply and demand, subscriber quality and quantity is crucial. It would be quite a pity if Cinderella was on Tinder, and you were using OkCupid. Match may want to consider aggregating users across its platforms through a universal application to grow the pool of potential mates.<\/p>\n Finally, studies show that people tend to ask safe, high-level questions on first dates that don\u2019t lead to any substantive discovery about one another, much less whether or not he or she may be viable for partnership[13]. To combat this, Match may best serve its users by suggesting \u201cdeep\u201d questions to discuss, in hopes of limiting wasted time.<\/p>\n However, people tend to eschew dates they feel \u201caren\u2019t their type,\u201d and there may be self-selection value in the platforms people use. Would these changes allow more people to find love, or just magnify the number of profiles to sift through while simultaneously diluting the current platforms?<\/p>\n (Word Count: 799)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Endnotes:<\/strong><\/p>\n [1] Ansari, Aziz, and Eric Klinenberg. “How to Make Online Dating Work.”\u00a0The New York Times, SundayReview ed., Opinion sec. 13 June 2015. http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/06\/14\/opinion\/sunday\/how-to-make-online-dating-work.html<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [2] Match Group, Inc. December 31, 2015 Form 10-K, https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1575189\/000157518916000006\/mtch-20151231x10k.htm<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [3] “Optimising Romance.”\u00a0The Economist. 13 Feb. 2016. http:\/\/www.economist.com\/news\/finance-and-economics\/21692926-find-true-love-it-helps-understand-economic-principles-underpinning<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [4] Match Group, Inc. \u201cHow It Works.\u201d http:\/\/www.match.com\/howitworks\/index.aspx?lid=4<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [5] Mims, Christopher. “How Economists Would Fix Online Dating.”\u00a0Wall Street Journal. 08 Feb. 2016. http:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/how-economists-would-fix-online-dating-1454907660<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [6] Reader, Ruth. “Parent Company for Match.com, Tinder, and OkCupid to Go Public, Seeks $100M In\u00a0IPO.”\u00a0VentureBeat. 16 Oct. 2015. http:\/\/venturebeat.com\/2015\/10\/16\/parent-company-for-match-com-tinder-and-okcupid-to-go-public-seeks-100m-in-ipo\/<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [7] Oyer, Paul. “The Economics of Online Dating.” 性视界 Business Review. 30 Mar. 2015. https:\/\/hbr.org\/2013\/12\/the-economics-of-online-dating<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [8] Wood, Molly. “Led by Tinder, a Surge in Mobile Dating Apps.”\u00a0New York Times. 4 Feb. 2015. http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/02\/05\/technology\/personaltech\/led-by-tinder-the-mobile-dating-game-surges.html<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [9] Renfro, Kim. “This Couple Got Married after Swiping Right on Tinder: The App Isn’t ‘just about Hooking Up’.”\u00a0Business Insider. 20 Aug. 2015. http:\/\/www.businessinsider.com\/married-after-meeting-on-tinder-2015-8<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [10] Wells, Georgia. “Match Group’s Profit Jumps as More Singles Pay for Online Dating.”\u00a0Wall Street Journal. Nov. 2016. http:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/match-groups-profit-jumps-as-more-singles-pay-for-online-dating-1478032691?mg=id-wsj<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [11] “Singles in America: Match Releases Its Sixth Annual Comprehensive Study on the Single Population.”\u00a0Match.com MediaRoom, PR Newswire. 1 Feb. 2016. http:\/\/match.mediaroom.com\/2016-02-01-Singles-in-America-Match-Releases-Its-Sixth-Annual-Comprehensive-Study-on-the-Single-Population<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [12] “Love at First Byte.”\u00a0The Economist. 01 Jan. 2011. http:\/\/www.economist.com\/node\/17797424<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n [13] Ariely, Dan. “Where the Free Market Fails: Online Dating.”\u00a0性视界 Business Review. 23 July 2014. https:\/\/hbr.org\/2010\/09\/where-the-free-market-fails-on<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n Photo Credit:<\/strong><\/p>\n Cover Photo:\u00a0“Optimising Romance.”\u00a0The Economist. 13 Feb. 2016. http:\/\/www.economist.com\/news\/finance-and-economics\/21692926-find-true-love-it-helps-understand-economic-principles-underpinning<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n Exhibit 1:\u00a0Kerley, Paul. “The Graphs That Show the 性视界 for Love Has Changed.”\u00a0BBC News<\/em>. 13 Feb. 2016. http:\/\/www.bbc.com\/news\/magazine-35535424<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n Exhibit 2:\u00a0Tenebruso, Joe. “Tinder Ignites Match Group Inc.’s Earnings.”\u00a0The Motley Fool<\/em>. 10 May 2016. http:\/\/www.fool.com\/investing\/general\/2016\/05\/10\/tinder-ignites-match-group-inc-earnings.aspx<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n Exhibit 3:\u00a0Match Group, Inc. \u201cUp To Date: The Official Blog of Match.\u201d http:\/\/blog.match.com\/2014\/04\/24\/match-launches-brand-new-app-for-iphone-and-ipod-touch-dating-never-looked-so-good\/<\/a>, accessed November 2016.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/-2kah8eqfAes\/VuGEsYYmhZI\/AAAAAAAAZok\/6e2ui0oKDCE\/s1600\/How_Met_Partner.png\")
<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/g.foolcdn.com\/editorial\/images\/205494\/mtch-brands-match-group_large.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blog.match.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/ios7_app_blog.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/static01.nyt.com\/images\/2016\/03\/27\/fashion\/27TINDER2\/27TINDER2-master675.jpg\")
<\/p>\n