EXPLORING THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF THE COMPUTERISATION OF ROMANCE

DILAN PATEL (FOUNDER & CHIEF EDITOR @ DIL)

”MY FRIEND MADE IT FOR ME”

I define digital dating as “using technology to find romance, relationships, or connections.” For some, it’s embarrassing to explain. “My friend made the account for me” is a classic cover-up in the biographies of many. Other couples don’t care, being five-star testimonials to showcase on social media.

In this editorial, I explore whether digital dating benefits or disadvantages users, questioning if the approach ought to be dumped for alternatives. I define indicators of digital dating success, before listing typical monetisation strategies executed by companies. It’s now time for a few numbers (as a pickup artist would say); the industry’s recent financials and projections for the remaining decade.

DIGITAL DATING: MARKET ANALYSIS

Let’s look at a few figures from Statista.

Between 2024 and 2029, the industry’s revenue is expected to grow at an annual compound rate of 2.48%, leading to a market volume of $3.56 billion. ‘Revenue’ and ‘number of downloads’ of digital dating applications reflects popularity. 2023 saw Tinder claim first place for the most downloads, with 58 million, followed by Litmatch and Bumble. In 2024 so far, Tinder has retained its dominant position, though, Bumble is now second. In terms of revenue, Tinder still leads, having recorded a whopping $808 million in 2023. Once again, Bumble is Tinder's close shadow. Also, Hinge's declaration as a 'dating application designed to be deleted' is yet to manifest; with $223 million of revenue collected in 2023, this subsidiary of Match Group is respectably third. Other noteworthy (global) names include Badoo, OkCupid, eHarmony, Plenty of Fish, DilMil, Grindr, Happn, Muzz, Coffee Meets Bagel, and Zoosk.

So… it all seems fine for companies. But how about for digital users?

DIGITAL DATING: SOCIAL ANGLE AND DEFINING SUCCESS

Clearly, digital dating is a lucrative industry, demonstrating financial advantages for workforces and governments. Coming up is a discussion of the pros and cons of digital dating for users.

To focus on a social angle to the question, I have omitted financial benefits to corporations. Therefore, if metrics of success, for users, exceed those of failure, digital dating’s positives outweigh its problems, for users. To reach a judgment, what constitutes as 'success' must be specified with preferences and motivations in mind. So, why would someone download a dating application?

Below, I have listed five incentives (success indicators):

Finding a fulfilling long-term relationship
Increasing social connections
Building self-confidence
Playing the field with face-to-face dates
Improving communication skills

To an extent, digital dating companies have vested interests in user success rates. Feedback is vital to improve algorithms, but is often subject to self-reporting and sample bias. Outcomes of long-term relationships, originating from digital, are a tough code to crack for developers too. Nevertheless, digital dating companies still gather insightful data on the rates of matches, messages, and dates.

DIGITAL DATING: MONETISATION STRATEGIES

Here are some ways that digital dating companies generate revenue:

Freemium business models
Tiered subscriptions with extra features
In-app purchases
In-app targeted advertisements
Discounts and incentives
Partnerships with sponsors or brands
Selling data to third parties
Hosting in-person or virtual events

The floor is now open for debate. First up? Digital dating’s benefits.

DIGITAL DATING: THE BENEFITS

Reduction of Barriers
Love ain’t just local. With digital dating, singletons can sift through several potential suitors, regardless of geography. Long-distance arrangements are even possible, especially helpful for those who live in rural or suburban locations, and are tired of their town’s familiar faces. After education, people tend to settle in a city; with digital, fun adventures to new places become a real and exciting prospect.

Opportunities for Introverts
Male A went to an all-boys secondary school, and is awkward in social settings. At a particular club night, Male A spots Female A waiting near the bar, presumably for a flirtatious friend addicted to nicotine. The prospect of speaking to Female A is nerve-wracking, where rejection, ranging from a polite swerve, to savage mockery, is possible. By signing up for digital dating, introverted Male As (and females) are prompted to build their confidence and communication skills in stress-free zone.

Intercultural Exchange
Speaking from experience, young adults of South Asian descent (for example) relate to other South Asians, on a cultural level. As a result, social circles, consisting mainly of South Asians, are common. Digital dating brings together different races, religions, and ethnicities. Singles, at the very least, become empowered to exchange knowledge and perspectives, even if doors to courtship are closed.

Increased and Focused Sample Sizes
In statistical analysis, correct sample sizes are crucial for strong results. This concept is applicable to digital dating too; a wider and more diverse pool of partners increases the chances of meeting ‘the one’. In fact, a study by Rosenfeld & Thomas (2012) found that an enhanced pool of partners led to an increase in interethnic marriages. By seamlessly applying filters to a large number profiles, a user’s search can be narrowed and tailored according to interests, ages, lifestyle choices, and more.

Convenience
Digital dating is accessible for homebodies, and available 24/7. For those with busy schedules, digital accommodates to ever-changing lifestyles. For individuals just exiting a relationship, and afraid to mingle, digital dating is a great alternative to exhausting events. Furthermore, convenience is embedded within the code of dating apps. Features can include instant communication, push notifications, account customisation, and media sharing, which all reduce effort in sourcing ideal companions.

DIGITAL DATING: THE DRAWBACKS

The Paradox of Choice
According to economic theory, choice is generally a good thing for consumers. However, with digital dating, choice presents a paradox. Users (mainly the handsome and gorgeous by society’s standards) may suffer from decision fatigue. Iyengar & Lepper (2000) noted that extensive choice leads to analysis paralysis and decreased satisfaction, justified by the law of diminishing returns. Moreover, Pronk & Denissen (2020) found that a higher number of options sets off a ‘rejection mindset’.

Mental Health and Social Development
Coduto, Lee-Won & Baek (2020) conducted a survey of 269 participants, to reveal adverse effects of digital dating on those already dealing with loneliness. Previously, we have mentioned that digital dating provides opportunities for introverts, a point supported by research from Fox & McEwan (2017), who applaud the benefits of ‘conversational control’ for anxious users. However, building face-to-face connections may be a permanent solution to a pressing problem. Also, digital dating may damage self-esteem, separate singletons from their authentic personalities, and worsen phone addiction.

Misrepresentation
Algorithms may favour those who receive more matches, reinforcing a culture of superficiality. Stoisescu (2000) expressed that dating applications contribute to the ‘McDonaldisation of romance’, where love is pursued in an ‘accelerated and unsustainable’ manner. Such situations involve users crafting idealised versions of themselves. Additionally, some spiritualists believe that love stories should be left to a higher power. Sima Thaparia, a matchmaker inspired by horoscopes, is one example.

Privacy Concerns and Data Protection
Digital dating companies collect information and data, daily. It’s a practice that supposedly optimises user experience. Because of this, users are becoming increasingly concerned about misuse of their personal information, especially as companies aren’t always transparent about the details of data-driven monetisation strategies. In addition, users are seeking outcomes in unfamiliar environments. Bandinelli & Gandini (2022) noted that online daters act as brands, facing ‘the structural uncertainty of interacting with quasi-strangers’, perhaps due to concerns over information shared, and personal safety.

People Versus Profit
There’s a conflict between the outcomes desired by users, and the interests of digital dating corporations. Companies may design algorithms and incentives, to maximise screen time and in-app engagement, rather than genuine connections and outcomes of success. In an age of corporate social responsibility, prioritising profit over people is questionable, even if freemium versions of dating apps exist. Heino, Ellison & Gibbs (2010) once compared online dating to a marketplace, consisting of buyers and sellers of love. To reduce romance to a product, to be consumed by humans, is a shame indeed.

DIGITAL DATING: RESPONSIBLE COMPANIES

Despite digital dating’s drawbacks, three companies are diversifying in conjunction with technology.

To supplement a standard dating application, Thursday hosts events in over 60 cities, encouraging real-life connections and face-to-face socialising. Also, Filteroff combines convenience with authenticity, where professional matchmakers discuss preferences with users, prior to video dates. Lastly, Ditto is on a mission to swipe left on swiping altogether. The application assigns pre-set dating times for video speed dates, where over 45,000 have been completed already.

ROBO-ROMANCE

Digital dating presents many opportunities, benefits and challenges. It democratises romance, provides introverts with opportunities, breaks down geographical barriers, fosters intercultural exchanges, and offers convenience. However, too much choice is perhaps overwhelming. The very essence of romance can be misrepresented. Users can suffer mentally, whilst being used for both information and profit.

Not all are bad. There are (more than) three opting for USPs of social responsibility.

So… does digital dating deserve a dumping? Not necessarily. Instead, technology ought to open avenues for face-to-face human interaction, rather than replace it altogether. Our robo-romance recommendation is to find alternative companies, with new methods, that pledge to rehumanise digital dating.

REFERENCES

Bandinelli, C. and Gandini, A. (2022). Dating Apps: The Uncertainty of Marketised Love. Cultural Sociology, Volume 16, Number 3, pp. 423-441. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/17499755211051559

Coduto, K. D., Lee-Won, R. J. and Baek, Y. M. (2020). Swiping for Trouble: Problematic Dating Application Use Among Psychosocially Distraught Individuals and the Paths to Negative Outcomes', Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Volume 37, Number 1, pp. 212-232. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407519861153

Fiore, A. T. and Donath, J. S. (2004). Online Personals: An Overview. CHI ‘04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1395-1398. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/985921.986073

Fox, J. and McEwan, B. (2017). Distinguishing Technologies for Social Interaction: The Perceived Social Affordances of Communication Channels Scale. Communication Monographs, Volume 84, pp. 298-318. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1332418

Heino, R. D., Ellison, N. B., and Gibbs, J. L. (2010). Relationshopping: Investigating the Market Metaphor in Online Dating. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Volume 27, pp. 427-447. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361614

Iyengar, S. S. and Lepper, M. R. (2000). When Choice Is Demotivating: Can One Desire Too Much of a Good Thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 79, pp. 995-1006. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.995

Lancaster, K. (1990). The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey. Marketing Science, Volume 9, pp. 189-206. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.9.3.189

Lenton, A. P. and Stewart, A. (2008). Changing Her Ways: The Number of Options and Mate-Standard Strength Impact Mate Choice Strategy and Satisfaction. Judgment and Decision Making, Volume 3, pp. 501-511. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000772

Pronk, T. M. and Denissen, J. J. A. (2020). A Rejection Mind-Set: Choice Overload in Online Dating', Social Psychological and Personality Science. Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 388-396. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619866189

Scheibehenne, B., Greifeneder, R., and Todd, P. M. (2010). Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload. Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 37, pp. 409-425. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/651235

Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins Publishers. Available at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/198

Stoicescu, M. (2020). Social Impact of Online Dating Platforms. A Case Study on Tinder. 19th RoEduNet Conference: Networking in Education and Research, pp. 1-6. Available at: 10.1109/RoEduNet51892.2020.9324854

LOVE LTD: DOES DIGITAL DATING DESERVE A DUMPING?