Match Group

Most singles might agree: we’ve become Tinder-obsessed lately. It’s so easy to flip through photos, rejecting and accepting as many people as possible. It’s become a bit of a sport, or an old game of hot-or-not.

Needless to say, while some people have found true love over apps like Tinder, the majority are still finding it hard to meet people and go on a real date. There seems to be too much choice, too many options for meeting new people. Few daters are focusing on finding a relationship or even dating one person because there are so many options out there.

Studies have shown that people are not great at dealing with too many options. In scientific terms, they become "cognitively overwhelmed." In other words, the more men or women there are to choose from, the harder it can be to pick just one. Kind of like going to a grocery store and choosing from 100 different types of chocolate. How do you really make a good decision about what to purchase?

Fortunately, a new crop of dating apps are addressing this dilemma by trying to give singles what they really want – a more manageable way to date, rather than more options.

CoffeeMeetsBagel is one such app, offering its members one match per day (every day at noon), and you have twenty-four hours to decide if this person is right for you. Matches are chosen based on your Facebook networks, so they are also on better behavior than those you could meet over Tinder and who have no accountability.

Hinge is another such app, offering anywhere from seven to fifteen matches per day to its users, depending on how many Facebook friends you invite to join. It works kind of like a referral service, but since you only get a limited number of matches, you have time to really consider your options and likely accept more dates. Plus, you have to have a friend on Hinge to be able to join, and both your first and last name are visible to your matches. So again, there is some accountability because of your Facebook networks – bad behavior isn’t going to be easily forgotten.

This less-is-more strategy also helps daters in terms of communication. Guys aren’t cutting-and-pasting mass emails to send to as many women as possible on the more selective apps, nor are women receiving many unwanted sexual advances from random guys. It is more of a formal approach, and one that is slow and deliberate.

Are apps like Hinge or CoffeeMeetsBagel for everyone? Maybe not, but if you’re a guy looking to meet women, these are the apps females are more likely to check out and join.

There’s no denying that family has a major impact on who and what we turn out to be. But exactly how big is that impact?

The research team PlentyOfFish set out to understand how your family affects your likelihood of reaching financial and personal success. The study examined the correlation between birth order and long-term relationships, income brackets, and education level. It also looked at the relationship between birth order and hair color, pets, and body type.

The participants in the study were North American singles, both men and women, between the ages of 25 and 45 who are from families of up to six children. All had created a PlentyOfFish profile since 2013, but were a mix of current users and those who had since deleted their accounts.

The study found that firstborns are more likely to experience multiple advantages in life. In comparison to their younger siblings, firstborns are more likely to find a relationship, pursue higher education, and make between $100k and $150k a year. Although the findings differed depending on the number of children in the family, firstborn children consistently came out on top. Fun fact: the eldest of two is also up to 8% more likely to be a redhead.

Middle children across the board are the least likely to find a relationship. On the other hand, they are more likely to make between $100k and $150k a year than their younger siblings. They are also, apparently, 20% more likely to own a bird as a pet.

Youngest children are the most likely to be looking for a relationship. The youngest of two is up to 15% more likely to be blonde and 9% more likely to own an iPhone. Youngest male children are 10% more likely to be thin, while the youngest female child of two is 9% more likely to be athletic and 7% more likely to be thin. The youngest in the family, regardless of gender, is also most likely to own a cat or a dog.

Single children are 9% more likely to be very ambitious and 15% more likely to be seeking a casual relationship. There are also 16% more likely to be overweight, 9% more likely to use an Android device, and up to 19% more likely to have black hair.

Moral of the story: birth order does have a connection to the direction your life takes, and it pays big to be the first born.

Let’s face it – we all have a “type.” Whether he’s tall, dark-haired, and lanky or blond with ripped muscles, there is a physicality we are attracted to, and chances are, you might subconsciously think your ex resembles the dream guy of your future.

At least, dating website Match.com thinks so. Match has teamed up with Los Angeles-based matchmaking service Three Day Rule, a matchmaking service that uses facial recognition software to find matches for people.

Match.com members will be able to upgrade their current membership in the next few weeks to Three Day Rule’s premium service, which includes sending photos of your ex to show the “type” you find attractive.

But it’s not all about those dark-haired locks or muscles, at least according to Three Day Rule. Attraction is dependent on the shape of your ex’s face – and chances are, you’ve had more than one ex with the same face shape.

“It's not necessarily about height or race or hair color, but a lot of it is about face shape," Talia Goldstein, the founder of Three Day Rule, told Mashable. “I always ask my clients to send me photos of their exes. They say that they don't have a type, but when I see the photos, to me they look very similar. The ex's may be different ethnicities, or have different hair color, but their facial structures are the same."

The service isn’t cheap. In fact, at $5,000 for a six-month membership, it’s more expensive than eHarmony’s new personalized matchmaking service. The new upgrade will be marketed towards affluent singles who are interested in a more personalized touch, so in this respect, they are offering a bit more than just matches with similar bone structure to your ex. Premium members are assigned professional matchmakers, who coach the client, meet with them, get to know their preferences and engage in a “pre-date” with potential mates just to make sure they are what you’re looking for.

Along with the new service, Match.com’s database is growing too – with Three Day Rule clients becoming part of the mix, and even the matchmaker’s personal network.

Will matching members based on characteristics that remind them of their exes work? It seems there’s a reason you broke up with your ex. Would you really want to date him again?

Match.com seems to think so, and it’s a win-win for Three Day Rule who is only expanding their network. The major online dating sites are looking to cater to those who want a personal touch, who can afford more. But does this help or hurt online dating overall? Or do matchmaking services improve the experience for everyone? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

To find our more about this dating service you can read our review of Match.com.

The mobile dating world hasn’t been the same since the launch of Tinder. As a kind of “hot or not” app for grown-ups, Tinder has become a staple among online daters because of its ease, popularity and its accessibility – helping people close by to meet for an impromptu drink or just to chat.

Now, the company wants to move in a more mainstream direction, away from its infamous dating app reputation and towards a wider audience of both singles and couples who want to expand their social networks. So recently, it has launched a feature called “Moments,” which is similar to Snapchat in that it allows users to post photos that also have a limited shelf life. Only instead of Snapshot’s seconds, “Moments” photos last 24 hours, during which Tinder matches can choose to swipe left or right depending on whether they like or don’t like the photo.

Enter a new slew of people judging their potential dates, just for a simple spur-of-the-moment photo.

According to website Tech Crunch, the new feature is a step in the right direction as far as consumers go, with investors clamoring to throw their money at Tinder (which has reportedly been valued at over $500 million in a recent stock transaction). Adding a visual (and ephemeral) feature a la Snapchat seems to be the direction other companies like Facebook are going, too. Tech Crunch argues that this will help people engage with each other a little more over the elusive app. “The photos serve as a way to share a moment and re-engage and conversation–and that could translate to more lasting relationships,” the author says.

The company claims that Tinder is a way for people to meet friends, too – not just dates. The Moments feature will allow them to strike up conversations about similar interests.

Website Gigaom.com disagrees. While they advocate that Tinder needs to move beyond its reputation as “that dating app,” the site maintains that adding a feature like Moments will only add to users’ frustration, especially since Tinder hasn’t fixed certain problems with its app. For instance, you can’t delete someone you’ve already been matched with on Tinder, you can only file them away, so you’re already going to be bombarded with images from people you might not care to engage with further.

But according to Tech Crunch, you are allowed to opt out of the Moments feature if it’s not your thing – but this means you won’t get ephemeral photos from any of your matches, not just the ones you don’t want anymore. You also have the option to “go dark” and not be available to new matches, but still maintain communication with your previous matches.

Is the Moments feature going to launch Tinder into a new space in the mobile app world, or will it only confirm its reputation for being a hook-up app? We’ll wait and see.

To find out more information about this dating app for the iPhone and Android devices you can read our review of Tinder.

With all of the recent studies regarding the growing popularity and effectiveness of online dating (more than one in five married couples have met online), online dating sites are spending more money than ever to attract new users.

Among the top spenders are two of the most well-known sites: Match.com and eHarmony. In just the first five months of 2014, online dating sites have already matched the total category spending on national TV ads in 2013, according to data from research firm iSpot.

TV ads aren’t cheap, even though ratings have drastically dwindled the past few years thanks to on-demand services like Netflix and streaming video on YouTube. Still, Match.com spent over $71 million so far this year on TV ads, mostly to air during shows like Real Housewives on Bravo, and to capture more of the male population, ESPN and Comedy Central. eHarmony’s spending hasn’t been too shabby either. Through the end of May, they have spent over $59 million for ads aired on TNT, CNN, and TBS on shows like Anderson Cooper 360 and NBA Basketball games.

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, of the online dating market’s 14 brands, the top five dating sites account for nearly 95% of the $214 million spent on ads so far in 2014. In comparison, dating sites spent $241 million on national TV ad placements for all of last year. TV ad spending for the industry last year was also heavier in the August-December period than in the first part of the year.

Unless you scroll through all the commercials on your DVR, you’ve probably seen at least one of Match.com’s 14 TV ads this year. They have created many different campaigns to attract users, and earlier this year, hired Perez Hilton and Patti Stanger to host a conference discussing the results of their “Singles in America” study about what singles are looking for today. The company spent $19 million on one 15-second spot called “Why not?” which featured female members, but their most popular has been its “Nikki and Joey; Kindergarten” spot, which starred a shy kindergarten teacher looking to get back into the dating world. That spot has aired more than 2,000 times since its Feb. 5th debut, and generated more than 40,000 online views and nearly 500 tweets, likes and shares.

eHarmony on the other hand, spent $18 million on one ad to share with audiences how many marriages have occurred through members who met over eHarmony (higher than any other dating site). But their most popular ad digitally was a spot that included the founder’s granddaughter, sharing how she advised her teacher to find “hot babes” on eHarmony instead of other dating sites. It had 6,000 online views and more than 1,200 social actions.

A recent article in Time Magazine focuses on the so-called “hook-up culture,” which has become a subject of much concern and debate. Particularly from older Americans who graduated from college a while ago. Now, the students and twenty-something are speaking out.

The writer of the Time article complained about the media coverage of a college professor in Boston named Kerry Cronin, who requires her students to go on a “real date” as part of their class credit. “No thanks,” the writer says in her article, “I’m here to inform that professor that we 20-somethings don’t need help, thank you very much.”

She goes on to reference statistics to disprove that hook-up culture is an epidemic, citing less than 15% of college students have more than two hook-ups per year. Also, “hooking up” means anything from sharing a kiss to having sex, so the lines are a little blurry as to how much people are engaging in risky behavior.

She also argues that it’s much more natural to socialize with people and get to know them in groups and at parties where it feels more organic, rather than over coffee and forced conversation. While she makes good points, she also admits that it is easier for her generation to hide behind a screen, especially when it comes to being rejected. Text is the preferred method of interacting, rather than asking someone out face-to-face as Professor Cronin argues they should.

Her points are valid, but there is definitely room for improvement. While college students (at least in the past couple of generations) have engaged in a higher level of casual sex and hook-ups than at other times in their lives, there does seem to be a shift in college students’ thinking today. Because they are attached to their smartphones, pulling them out at parties or in dorm rooms instead of engaging with the people sitting next to them, they aren’t really learning how to be alone together, to engage in conversation without distraction. This doesn’t help them learn to communicate better in relationships.

Also, there is the drinking that goes on at college. Much of the hooking up takes place after indulging at parties, which means people aren’t making the best decisions when it comes to their bodies.

But does all this mean they aren’t prepared for dating?

I think that college provides a good backdrop for learning how to interact and flirt. There are plenty of single, available people who you have something in common with – which likely you wouldn’t encounter again. So why not experiment with dating in a group setting, among your friends?

All of the formal asking out will happen once they graduate. And even then, hook-up culture exists in even more removed ways – through dating apps like Tinder. Dating is still part of growing up, no matter how you try to avoid the particulars.