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.<p><a href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/age/new-law-ban-age-discrimination-services-public-functions-and-associations-–-exceptions" rel="nofollow">http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/your-rights/equal-rights/...</a>
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.<p>It's also worth nothing that price discrimination <i>really</i> 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.
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.<p>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).<p>Now, it's just yet another dating app that isn't worth paying for. Back to OKCupid, I guess.
What better methods of price discrimination do you think they should use?<p>* 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.<p>* 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.<p>* Perhaps users are only charged if they match with more than X people per month.
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.
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.<p>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 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.
>One expert said the move was "sleazy".<p>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.<p>Side note: I'm amused by the people suggesting they push to frame it as a discount. <i>That</i> would be sleaze. This may be jerk behavior but it's not dishonest.
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.<p>That said, I agree with the BBC's unnamed expert (who is probably Paul Kedrosky quoted again at the end of the article):<p>' One expert said the move was "sleazy". '.
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).
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.
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.