I wonder how far you'd get with running on donations. If you're successful in connecting people who fall in love and all that, they're probably thankful and might donate. It'd also kind of be "pay for the result, not for the try". Would you pay $50 to get with the love of your life? I would. Would you pay $50 so you can message people on a site where you don't know if anything will come of it? Meh, depends on how desperate I am, I guess.
Good luck, hitting critical mass is probably even harder than in other areas. You can grow a community or meme site with a few users who are really active, but that doesn't really work for dating.
The problem is that the guys that send dick pics to complete strangers and women that are just surfing for free meals are still out there. They pollute the entire experience by having a large number of low-effort interactions, and in the donation model they are just going to be a net sink of resources and good will.
I don't think online dating gets any better until someone devises a means to bias against people that aren't acting in good faith. Of course the challenge here is that you're going to be hard pressed to find a strong consensus on what actions do or do not constitute good faith in a dating app.
I have no experience in running a dating site, and barely any in using them. Are unsolicited dick picks common even for the pay sites? I've assumed that it's mostly an anonymity issue that goes away when you tie it to identity (via payment or otherwise), but then again I've never felt the urge to send anyone dick picks, so I wouldn't put much weight on my assumptions.
From what I understand, these days it's not just the dick picks but also love scammers, which aren't low-effort and are welcome by the recipients until the scam begins. These are harder to combat, but shouldn't tying it to identities help?
Niche sites probably work better in that regard because e.g. Christian Dating sites have less trouble getting a strong consensus on what's appropriate, wouldn't they?
>Are unsolicited dick picks common even for the pay sites? I've assumed that it's mostly an anonymity issue that goes away when you tie it to identity (via payment or otherwise)
I don’t know from personal experience but from people I know and the woman I’m dating now, the answer is yes. Common enough, and the guys sending them don’t seem to care that their face and name is plastered all over. I was on a hike with my girlfriend and we bumped into a guy that recognized her. They chatted for a bit and after leaving she said he sent her a dick pic a while back.
Scammers are also a major issue, yes. Not sure if tying to identities would help as they presumably could just buy them.
Niche sites don’t really help because most of the time you can’t vet if someone is Christian for example. An acquaintance tried finding a date on Christian Mingle and was almost immediately propositioned in ways certainly inappropriate for the site. And you can’t really message for free on that site, so the men in question were paying.
I think the problem is based on hit rate the number is a lot higher than $50. If you're charging $10/month the average user lasts 12 months and the number of users who marry is 10% then you're charging $1200 for a successful match to get equivalent revenue, not $50.
That's true, but are you getting the same amount of users when you're charging them $10/month for messaging?
I'd assume that payment adds a hurdle that's somewhat welcome to keep out problematic users, just like rent does. Pay 30% more than the market and you'll only have neighbors who can afford that as well, which are much less likely to be unemployed alcoholics with behavioral issues.
Good luck, hitting critical mass is probably even harder than in other areas. You can grow a community or meme site with a few users who are really active, but that doesn't really work for dating.