The Foundation: 5 Core Business Models in Dating
I spent some time considering the best starting point for this Substack series. After drafting a few articles, I realized the single most critical topic for anyone planning to launch a dating product is choosing the business model. It’s the foundation of your entire strategy and, in classic terms, the core of your business plan.
What is a Business Model?
Simply put, a business model is the way your product makes money. It answers two very straightforward questions:
How do we deliver value to our users?
What do those users pay us for?
In the dating industry, the choice of business model dictates everything:
What users can do for free inside the app.
What they must pay for, and the size of your future revenue.
The level of trust users will have in the platform.
The speed at which you can launch the product.
The business’s risks and its long-term stability.
Your operating costs and even your company’s reputation.
It even determines whether you can get into the App Store at all. Getting approved by Apple is much harder now; since 2018, they consider the dating category extremely saturated and vet new apps with heavy scrutiny. (I’ll cover this in a separate post.)
Today, let’s break down the 5 primary business models in modern online dating. Each has its own pros, cons, risks, and ideal use case.
1. The Freemium Model (Tinder, Bumble, Hinge)
This model allows 100% of users to use the core product for free. The most critical action in any dating app (after finding someone you like) is exchanging messages to arrange a date and move the interaction offline (IRL).
In Tinder, if you like someone and they like you back, you have a Match, and you can chat for free forever. Liking and matching—the core value proposition—is always free for everyone.
These applications make money on boosters and premium features that make the online dating process more effective or efficient. The most profitable feature is usually the ability to see who has already liked you.
The apps deliberately hide the faces of people who have liked you. They also don’t show those profiles at the top of your deck by default. This is strategic: it encourages you to swipe on new profiles, which generates more likes for others, making them want to see who liked them. Imagine the efficiency if you immediately saw your matches and could skip straight to the chat. It saves time but drastically reduces the number of total likes you might send out, which reduces overall engagement. This feature would be especially helpful for women, who typically receive significantly more likes from men.
Another common booster is unlimited likes. Limiting a user to, say, 10 likes per day reduces the number of likes in the system but increases user engagement (they must return daily) and forces more thoughtful profile selection. I’ll dedicate an entire article to the typical boosters used across the industry.
The main advantage of the Freemium model is that your active user base grows organically: 100% of users can get real value completely for free.
Advantages
Ability for organic growth and virality
Maximum user trust
Minimal risk of Apple/Google blocks
Good chance to build a recognizable brand
Disadvantages
Dependency on the network effect: no users = no value
Requires large marketing budgets to scale initially
LTV is lower than in more aggressive models
2. Subscription for Access to Messaging (Seeking, eHarmony)
In this model, the user must buy a subscription to be able to send messages to others. Years ago, Match.com used this, requiring both parties to have an active subscription. Post-Tinder, user expectations changed dramatically, and Match Group eventually removed paid subscriptions from Match.com.
Case Study: Seeking.com (Niche Access)
Seeking.com is the leader in the Sugar Daddy niche (which they pioneered in 2006). In their model, the Sugar Daddies pay, and the Sugar Babies use the site for free.
Seeking is essentially selling access to a specific audience, not just the ability to chat. Users could look for partners on regular (”vanilla”) dating apps, but the efficiency would be much lower because they’d need to first establish their intentions. On Seeking, everyone shares the same dating intention, eliminating the need for the “are you looking for sugar?” vetting phase.
The paywall on Seeking also acts as a filter and a marker of seriousness. Not everyone is willing to spend, for example, $375 for a Diamond 30-Day subscription. The pricing is part of the positioning.
Furthermore, the swiping mechanic itself would be redundant on Seeking because, generally speaking, Sugar Babies are open to communicating with most Sugar Daddies and reply readily. Moreover, it is standard practice in this niche for Sugar Babies to message first.
This behavior contrasts sharply with the mass market. Bumble made a strong USP out of a similar idea—after a match, only the woman could send the first message—and used it to differentiate its brand from Tinder. This was a powerful move. However, they later abandoned this rule and allowed men to message first. Why? In Western culture, the expectation that the man makes the first move still dominates, and for many women, initiating contact is socially uncomfortable. Consequently, a significant portion of matches on Bumble “stalled” without a conversation starting, which worsened the product’s economics (by reducing conversion from match to chat) and eventually led to the abandonment of the rule.
I will write a separate deep-dive on the economics of this sugar daddy/sigar baby niche after my time at Seeking.
Case Study: eHarmony (Quality & Intent Filter)
eHarmony is the philosophical opposite of Tinder. The company bets on deep psychological compatibility and long-term relationships. Most people come to eHarmony with serious intent—to find a spouse.
The service is based on its own scientifically developed compatibility model, assessing values, communication style, empathy, and stability. After taking a detailed test, the system selects pairs with the highest probability of a successful union. Swiping mechanics are unnecessary here; users don’t browse hundreds of profiles—they receive a concierge list of pre-vetted matches.
In this context, the paywall is not a barrier; it’s a filter against non-serious users, spammers, casual chat, and “just trying it out” users.
A crucial insight: This model not only improves the quality of the user base but also strengthens the product itself. When people pay for a serious service, they behave more responsibly and are more invested in the dating process. This creates a completely different atmosphere—less chaos, fewer random contacts, and more respectful, conscious communication. This is why eHarmony has one of the highest marriage rates in the industry; the product is optimized for results, not just engagement. (I’ll touch on the dopamine loops of Tinder in another post.)
Advantages
High LTV and stable subscription revenue
Paywall filters non-serious users and improves user base quality
More respectful, conscious communication atmosphere
Disadvantages
High barrier to entry: a portion of users leave before paying
Requires strong, niche positioning to justify the cost
Lower virality: subscription reduces organic spread
3. Credits and Pay-Per-Message (iDates, Dating.com)
In this model, users purchase virtual credits that are then deducted for sending messages. The chat is not just a communication tool; it becomes the primary revenue stream around which the entire product economy is built.
In more aggressive implementations, a portion of the female accounts may be supported by chat agents who are paid to stimulate male users to continue the conversation—and thus buy more credits.
A notable example of this model’s philosophy comes from iDates, which states clearly in its footer: “All chat partners are virtual profiles moderated by exciting real people. Real meetings with them are not possible.” The service openly informs the user that real dates are off the table; the conversation is the product.
Why does this model work?
It’s a misconception that only older users fall for this. Many paying customers know about Tinder but dislike the swipe model: the high competition, low response rate, and emotional uncertainty. In credit models, they receive instant attention, a guaranteed response, and an emotional feeling of involvement—things often missing in freemium dating. They pay, not out of ignorance, but because these services fulfill their emotional needs faster and easier.
Psychologically, this model thrives on the “small cost” effect: each action is inexpensive on its own, and the user doesn’t immediately grasp the total expenditure, which is what drives very high monetization. One active male user can generate tens or even hundreds of dollars in an evening. These “whales” form a disproportionately large part of the total revenue, resulting in an extremely high LTV rarely achievable in other models.
However, high revenue comes with severe downsides. Many users realize too late how much they’ve spent, feel deceived, and initiate chargebacks. This creates constant tension with payment processors, increases the risk of platform blocking, and requires a heavy operational infrastructure: extensive moderation, anti-fraud measures, operator control, and legal protection. The reputation quickly deteriorates, forcing many companies to change domains and brand names to escape the negative publicity.
Advantages
Very high LTV and revenue per active user
Disadvantages
Low user trust, high risk of chargebacks and complaints
Poor reputation: low ratings, negative reviews, need to change domains
High operational complexity: agents, anti-fraud, legal risks
4. AI Partner Dating (Replika, EVA AI)
This is the newest, fastest-growing business model, sitting at the intersection of dating, loneliness, and generative AI. In traditional dating, we connect real people; in AI dating, the product is the conversational partner.
You can easily find these apps in the stores using queries like “AI girlfriend” or “AI friend.
Though apps like Replika or EVA AI don’t always position themselves as dating apps, they compete directly with the industry by offering users a sense of attention, validation, stability, and emotional intimacy. And yes, a major part of the monetization is built around users satisfying their fantasies, which is now supported by LLMs generating high-quality photos and videos upon request.
Why the recent explosion?
The Rise of Loneliness: In AI dating, the bot is available 24/7, answers instantly, is always attentive and polite, and never “ghosts.” You don’t compete with hundreds of other users.
Zero Fear of Rejection: It’s emotionally easier for people to communicate when there’s no risk of being rejected, mocked, or simply uninteresting.
Personalization Effect: The model adapts to the user’s personality, remembers details, and reinforces the illusion of “chemistry,” creating a feeling of a real relationship.
Monetization is based on “payment for emotional intimacy”:
Generating intimate photos and videos on demand.
Purchasing a “premium” personality (more romantic, caring, or playful versions of the AI).
These apps show high engagement in the first few days but often bore users quickly because the interaction remains predictable and simulated. Users experiment briefly, lose interest, and rarely pay long-term, resulting in low retention and low LTV. Ultimately, it’s more of an emotional “casual product” than a sustainable dating business.
Advantages
No Cold Start Problem: The AI is always available, no need for a user base.
Low operational risk: No moderation of live users, fewer complaints, minimal chargebacks.
Scalability: A single AI partner can “manage” millions of dialogues.
Disadvantages
High competition (easy to launch because there is no Cold Start problem here)
App Store Limitations: Apple and Google strictly regulate 18+ content.
Ethical Risks: Addiction, emotional attachment, and regulatory complexity.
5. White-Label Dating with Shared Database (HubPeople.ai)
This model involves launching your dating site on a single technical platform that shares a common user database. A partner creates a simple landing page and drives traffic to it. Everything else—the product, the matching, the database—is handled by the platform. You receive a percentage of all payments made by your users (e.g., 70% to you, 30% to the platform).
This setup promises fast launch, no need for your own user base (no cold start problem), and seems convenient for partners.
The Fundamental Flaw: You own neither the users nor the code nor the product. All user data, all profiles, all messages—they belong to the platform, not you.
A key example is WhiteLabelDating.com, once a major player. It operated on this model for many years but eventually closed, and thousands of partners lost their sites and the entire business they had built. Because the database was not theirs and the code/infrastructure was platform-controlled, people were simply left with nothing.
As CEO of SkaDate, I always advise that white-label is only suitable as a temporary experiment to test a niche. It should never be viewed as a strategic product. The WhiteLabelDating history is a stark lesson: without owning the user base and the code, you are not building a business—you are merely renting it. And the lease can end, leaving you empty-handed.
Advantages
Fastest launch without development costs
No cold start problem (users are immediately available)
Disadvantages
You do not own the database; you lose all users if the platform closes.
Impossible to create a unique product: all sites share the same database and mechanics.
No code, no infrastructure, no ability to migrate—your project vanishes with the platform.
Conclusion: Your Model is Your Foundation
In dating, the business model is the foundation that dictates everything: growth rate, user trust, launch complexity, monetization, and even your chance of passing App Store moderation.
Freemium suits those ready to build a massive product with a long-term horizon and invest heavily in the network effect.
The Subscription for Access model only works when the audience’s value is demonstrably higher than average (like on Seeking or eHarmony), and users understand exactly what they are paying for: access to a specific type of person and a higher quality, more serious dating experience.
Credit models offer the highest revenue but come with major reputational risks and severe operational complexity.
AI Dating is an emotional toy that users burn out on quickly, not a sustainable business.
White-label platforms are great for niche testing, but do not create a real product—without owning the database and code, you are merely renting your business.
The correct business model isn’t just a way to make money. It is a strategic decision that determines whether your product can grow, retain users, pass moderation, and generate stable profit. Choose your model not by potential earnings, but by the unique value you are creating, who it is for, and how truly unique that value proposition is.
Why Build From Scratch?
Choosing the right business model is critical, but coding it is a nightmare. Different models require completely different technical architectures—credit systems, subscription tiers, paywalls, or AI integrations.
This is exactly why we built SkaDate.
We don’t force you into a box. Our engine is flexible enough to power any of these models. Whether you need a Freemium Tinder-clone, a high-end Subscription site like Seeking, or a Credit-based niche app, we have the features ready to go.
You choose the strategy; we provide the engine to execute it.