Types (Niche)

Online dating has become a typical way to meet people outside of your own social networks. In fact, the majority of people have tried it at least once.

But what about the opportunity to connect via social media? Most people have a Facebook or Twitter account, and they contain a wealth of information about what we like, who we are, who are friends are, and what we do. The natural progression of social media is to harness this information and look to who might benefit from it – including online daters.

In fact, eHarmony released a study recently which found 7% of people who married after meeting online had met for the first time on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and ClassMates – not through matchmaking chat rooms, online dating sites or other romance-based online connections.

In an article in Time Magazine, Jeffrey Hall, associate professor of Communication Studies at University of Kansas, decided to investigate this connection. He wanted to learn more about who was meeting their significant others through social media, and how well these marriages fared.

He surveyed over 19,000 people who had been married between 2005 and 2012, and asked them how they’d met. Those who met on social networking sites were more likely to be younger and married more recently compared to those who met online in other ways. He was surprised to find that those who met via social networking sites were just as happy as those who met online, and those who met online in general were happier than those couples who met in more traditional ways, such as through friends.

Social networking sites have potential advantages over online dating sites, Hall noted. For one, you can meet people through networks of friends, which means there is some connection first. This puts many people – especially women – more at ease. Also, people are more likely to represent themselves in an honest light over Facebook, because their friends are reading their posts and making comments. You get a more complete view of the person you’re meeting – where she likes to eat, what TV shows she watches, what she does for a living. A Facebook page is a little more personal than an online dating profile.

Another interesting finding in the study was that most of the marriages resulting from social media connections were among African Americans. Hall attributes this to the fact that African Americans and Latinos were over-represented on social networking sites between 2005 and 2012, and use social networks to engage with their already close network of friends.

Social media is an important part of making romantic connections, and is growing in popularity every day. Maybe it’s time to check Facebook if you want to meet someone new.

Aaron Schildkrout and his friend Brian Schechter founded HowAboutWe four years ago as an alternative to traditional online dating. In a recent article in The New York Observer, he said that the fundamental problem with online dating sites was that they needed to keep subscribers. The sites work best when people are looking for dates, not when they are in relationships and dropping out. Dating sites depend on a huge database of subscribers.

HowAboutWe’s focus is a bit different for an online dating site. For one, they have branched out from their online dating platform to creating a valuable resource for all people interested in dating and relationships.

The primary goal of their dating site is to help people meet offline (and get them there as quickly as possible), so they can move towards forming relationships. Instead of searching through profiles, members can create an idea for a first date, put it out to the network, and see who’s interested. Schildkrout says it’s a way for people to meet more organically.

Because of the site’s focus on date activities, it was a natural progression to create a site for couples who are looking to be inspired. Many couples are bored with the same old dates they do all the time, but don’t have the time to research or a lot of money to do something more unique. This is where HowAboutWe comes in – they curate dates particular to each city they service, and set the whole thing up for a discounted price.

It’s an appealing idea for couples. As Schildkrout says, “We make the booking process and the reservation process extremely easy — you never have to show a voucher, your name’s already on the list. We do all the work for you. We take care of all the details.”

The company is also getting into media content, acquiring sites like The Date Report and Nerve.com and creating two additional new blogs related to dating and relationships. “We built out a world-class editorial team,” says Shildkrout, “and for the last three months, we’ve been working really hard to create a media wing focused on becoming the authoritative voice on all things love, and have grown traffic dramatically in that process.”

Popular apps like Tinder and the bigger or more traditional dating sites like OkCupid don’t seem to bother Shildkrout. He sees Tinder as more of a lightweight hook-up experience and OkCupid as an algorithm-matching experience which might not match you with someone outside your type. He is focused on his product, on connecting people in a real-world way. And he’s looking to build content that gets a conversation started. 

Is a company that's only 20 months old and has no revenue model really worth $5 billion? Spoiler alert: no.

IAC/InterActiveCorp recently bought back 10% of mobile dating service Tinder. Although it's easily the hottest mobile dating app on the market, it’s hard not to approach Tinder with a healthy dose of skepticism. $5 billion is, to put it bluntly, a completely insane number for such a young company.

According to the market research company IBISWorld, the entire online dating industry is worth just $2 billion. How on earth could a company that gives away its dating app for free be worth more than the entire dating industry? The answer is simple: it can't.

The number, first reported by Bloomberg and quickly picked up elsewhere, was based on the $500 million IAC had allegedly paid to buy a 10% stake in Tinder from venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, but it's far from accurate. Sam Yagan, CEO of IAC’s Match Group (which includes IAC’s online dating companies) recently confirmed that a deal was made, but declined to comment further.

“I can confirm on the record that we did a transaction with Chamath, but this valuation is nowhere near the truth,” he told Forbes. Tinder CEO Sean Rad added that the Bloomberg report was “meaningfully incorrect.” Forbes found that an e-mail to Palihapitiya did not receive an immediate response, but noted that his statement on Twitter read “My Tinder sale for $500M is inaccurate. I sold my stake but value was much less. Thx @samyagan for official IAC pos’n. #wishfulthinking”

That being said, it's far too early to write Tinder off as worthless. Just because it has no revenue model to speak of to date, doesn't mean it has no value to investors. With 10 million active daily users, Tinder is fundamentally changing the way a massive number of people behave and engage with each other. That's bound to be worth something.

“Tinder’s really doing something that has been the Holy Grail for online dating: it becomes fun,” says Mark Brooks, a consultant to the Internet dating industry. Unlike traditional dating sites, surfing profiles on Tinder is fun, low risk, and not time-consuming. Users don't have to fill out tedious surveys and the swiping process practically eliminates the fear of rejection. Thanks to Tinder, mobile dating is exciting and mainstream, a major coup that the rest of the dating industry has never been able to figure out.

“IAC’s not valuing Tinder based on what it’s worth,” Brooks notes. “They’re valuing it based on what they’ll lose if they don’t own it. If Tinder can own mobile and own the younger demographic, then IAC is owning the future with Tinder. It’s an international phenomenon.”

Kids these days. What crazy shenanigans will they come up with next?

The latest word is that online dating may be on its way out – and that even includes explosively popular mobile apps like Tinder – and that social networks may be on their way in.

“But wait a minute,” you say, “weren’t social networks always in?” Of course they were, but it's only now that people are starting to appreciate them for their full romantic potential. And it may surprise you to know that the social network leading the dating charge isn't Facebook or Twitter – it's Instagram.

Elizabeth Wisdom and Dennis Lafargue, a now-engaged and now Internet famous couple, met using the photo sharing service and documented their courtship on the app. They started out trading flirty comments, then moved on to swapping numbers, and even involved their Instagram accounts in their engagement. When Lafargue made their relationship official, he called Wisdom his “instalady” (not entirely sure if that's cringeworthy or cute). Together, they officially declared that “Instagram is the new Match.com.”

It's one thing for a happy couple to document moments of their lives on Instagram, but Wisdom and Lafargue took it to a whole new level. Lafargue prepared a timeline of their relationship via Instagram photos, combining both their moments together as well as their own separate, first moments using the app. It was a fitting tribute to the service that brought them together in the first place.

For those of us who aren't so involved in sharing our every moment with Instagram followers, it sounds a little crazy, but Wisdom and Lafargue are far from the only couple to tell this story. Even celebrities are getting in on the game, like iCarly actress Jennette McCurdy, who connected with NBA star Andre Drummond using social networks.

“I backtracked on his Twitter page a few months and checked out his Instagram,” she wrote in an op-ed. “He appeared personable, youthful, and fun. And judging by the amount of me-related posts he had shared, it seemed he had been expressing his crush on me for quite some time. I found it sweet, gutsy, and flattering. It’s hard not to be impressed by a boy who will express his feelings for you in front of hundreds of thousands of people.” The relationship didn't work out, but while it lasted the two documented their time together on Instagram (of course).

There isn't yet any research to determine whether Insta-dating is just as effective as traditional online dating, but no research is needed to prove it's a real trend. And given that more and more young people are abandoning Facebook and Twitter in favour of Instagram, it sounds like it stands a real chance of becoming the next big thing.

Why are we so attached to our smartphones? And why has mobile dating become the greatest thing since sliced bread (and online dating)?

Psychologists think they have the answer.

Mobile dating apps are not soaring in popularity because they offer an easy way to meet potential love interests, but because they replicate ‘real world’ dating experiences better than traditional online dating sites. Apps like Tinder and Grindr allow users to scroll through pictures of potential dates (or less) in nearby locations, and then chat with members who show interest in their profiles. That focus on the first impression – especially of a user's physical appearance – mimics people's real-life, instinctive impulses much better than traditional online dating sites.

That's not to say that photos aren’t important on traditional dating sites, because of course they are. And of course people make snap judgments based on physical appearance. All the time. But most online dating sites ask members to create detailed profiles outlining their personal attributes and preferences in a partner, in order to match them with potentially compatible dates. The emphasis is on something deeper and more serious, an attitude that's reinforced by the increased time commitment required to use a traditional online dating site.

Some psychologists now argue that mobile dating is a much more social experience that can lead to more "serendipitous" meetings. In the long run, they say, the mobile dating approach may be more romantic than being matched by a scientific dating website algorithm.

Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, professor of psychology at University College London, told The Times: "[Using a dating website] is almost like booking a holiday or a job application, as you try to customize your partners. Mobile dating – and Tinder is a good example – is different. It is more linked to impulse and emotions and focuses on attractiveness and looks, which is more realistic, even if it is a bit more lazy. It replicates the traditional version of dating more closely than Match.com or eHarmony as it allows for more serendipity."

Graham Jones, an internet psychologist said: "Mobile dating apps are a more sociable activity that you can use with friends down the pub rather than sitting at home on your laptop on a dating website."

The tendency is to overestimate the impact of technology on human behavior. In reality, it is usually human behavior that drives technological changes and is responsible for their success or failure. Mobile dating apps like Tinder and Grindr are an extension of mainstream, real-world dating habits – even more so than traditional online dating sites.

BroApp

Let’s say you want to keep your girlfriend’s interest but don’t want to invest the time to text her sweet or flirtatious messages. Turns out, there’s an app for that -  BroApp, a new dating app that calls itself “your clever relationship wingman,” can help you out.

With inspiration presumably drawn from guys who didn’t want to deal with the lofty expectations of girlfriends to text every now and then, the BroApp automatically messages your girlfriend sweet things at the times you request. Of course, you can be creative and write your own texts which are stored in the app and doled out at the appropriate times. But the goal isn’t to win her heart over – it’s so you can free yourself up to spend more time with your bros.

The app has a few complications figured out, too. It will not send messages if it detects that you are at your girlfriend's house (by being connected to her WiFi), or if you have recently messaged her on your own. Well, at least there’s that.