Dating apps have a supply problem disguised as a subscription business. Men represented 68 per cent of visitors to UK online-dating services in May 2025, up from 65 per cent a year earlier, according to Ofcom. On Tinder, men outnumbered women by approximately three to one. Analysis reported by The Times suggests that, on the apps examined, women secure around four times as many dates, while men can pay five times more per successful date. The scarce side attracts the attention; the oversupplied side finances the marketplace. Romance, it turns out, has a remarkably conventional subsidy model.

The imbalance is self-reinforcing. Professor Taha Yasseri, Director of the Centre for Sociology of Humans and Machines, explained that “as men experience lower match rates, they are incentivised to like a larger number of profiles.” Women, facing a larger pool of incoming attention, become increasingly selective. The asymmetry is therefore “not necessarily a temporary imbalance” but may emerge as “a structural feature of the market itself,” observed the Professor.

Commercially, the model remains viable only while the paying side believes success is attainable. Unequal outcomes do not automatically cause platforms to collapse because “the possibility of success remains attractive,” Yasseri noted. Indeed, “some degree of frustration, uncertainty and gamification can be commercially advantageous” when it increases engagement and encourages users to purchase premium visibility. Hope is a powerful retention mechanic. It is not, however, an unlimited one. 

Frustration becomes commercially destructive when hope turns into disbelief. As a behavioural scientist warned, “The dating-app industry has spent years optimising for engagement. The challenge now is proving that engagement eventually translates into outcomes.” 

The warning signs are familiar to any subscription executive: falling payer conversion, shorter customer lifetimes, weaker renewal rates, rising acquisition costs and deteriorating engagement quality. Once men conclude that premium products sell exposure rather than a materially better probability of success, pricing power weakens. If women simultaneously face increasing volumes of indiscriminate or low-quality outreach, retention deteriorates on both sides.

Match Group reported that payers declined 5 per cent year on year in the first quarter of 2026, while revenue per payer increased 10 per cent. The figures do not prove that male dissatisfaction caused the decline, but they illustrate the fragility of extracting more revenue from fewer customers. Charging the remaining users more can support quarterly performance; it is less persuasive as a long-term growth strategy. 

“THE DATING-APP INDUSTRY HAS SPENT YEARS OPTIMISING FOR ENGAGEMENT. THE CHALLENGE NOW IS PROVING THAT ENGAGEMENT EVENTUALLY TRANSLATES INTO OUTCOMES.” 

Behavioural scientist

Dating platforms also face an unusual incentive structure. As Yasseri commented, “Their most satisfied customers are often those who leave.” In most industries, success improves retention. In dating, success can produce two cancellations and a wedding invitation. Yasseri therefore cautioned against “assuming that firms are primarily optimising for successful relationships.” The strategic challenge is to deliver enough progress to preserve trust without depending on prolonged disappointment to sustain engagement. 

Platforms are consequently moving from the “swipe economy” towards what the behavioural scientist called the “assistance economy.” Users increasingly expect “guidance, filtering and, ultimately, better results”. AI-powered matching, chatbot-style coaching, profile optimisation, identity verification and conversation support could reduce search costs and improve introduction quality. The behavioural scientist noted, “Premium concierge tiers may combine algorithmic scale with human judgement, particularly for users willing to pay more for curation and accountability.”

“PREMIUM CONCIERGE TIERS MAY COMBINE ALGORITHMIC SCALE WITH HUMAN JUDGEMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR USERS WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR CURATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY.”

Behavioural scientist

Pure outcome-based pricing is unlikely to dominate because relationship success is subjective, delayed and frequently occurs off-platform. Hybrid models are more plausible: subscriptions combined with verified introductions, date credits, service guarantees or high-touch matchmaking. “Historically, dating apps sold access,” the behavioural scientist reckoned, “Increasingly, they will be expected to sell outcomes.” 

This creates space for challengers. Relationship-focused and niche platforms may have the strongest mass-market opportunity because they can signal intent, curate participation and build more balanced communities. Premium matchmaking offers stronger near-term monetisation, although it is operationally intensive. AI dating coaches can scale rapidly, but risk commoditisation unless they own proprietary outcome data. Event-led communities may also gain ground by moving users from digital discovery to real-world interaction before swipe fatigue sets in.

“The strongest challenger brands are likely to focus on trust rather than scale,” the behavioural scientist concluded. “Quantity is easy to generate; meaningful outcomes are considerably harder.” 

Men’s willingness to subsidise the dating economy has financed the category, but it is not unlimited. The next winners will measure time-to-date, meaningful-conversation rates, second-date intent and satisfaction following unsuccessful interactions. Sustainable growth will belong to platforms that stop merely monetising attention and start demonstrating credible progress towards a relationship. The thumb may have built the category, but sooner or later it has to put a ring on it.