Tinder, everyone’s favorite dating site punchline, recently rolled out a new paid service in an effort to monetize its massive user base.

Since the introduction of Tinder Plus, many have complained about the company’s decision to charge older users more money for the new “premium” service. So that means the app’s pricing model is ageist, right?

No.

Jeff Gibbard About Jeff Gibbard is a 34-year-old single man who uses Tinder, OKCupid, Hinge, Bumble and Wyldfire. He tried Match.com but didn't like it. Gibbard is Founder and President of True Voice Media, The Social Business Agency, headquartered in Philadelphia, PA.

This is not discrimination based on age; it’s price discrimination based on age. And in the context of the capitalistic country we’re living in, this is by no means the worst instance of price discrimination, nor the most worthy of our attention and anger.

From my perspective, Tinder's new policy is not ageist, it’s just incredibly stupid.

Why Tinder's Pricing Policy Is Bad Capitalism

I live in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, arguably the birthplace of this great country. Whether you are here, or Silicon Valley, or middle America, we live in the same country, with the same capitalist DNA. This is where we live. In America, corporations do their best to avoid paying taxes. Companies are celebrated for turning profits, often without any regard for their methods. The cost of everything is climbing while wages remain largely stagnant (for the middle and lower classes, at least).

And in this place, we apply price discrimination wherever possible because, with only a handful of exceptions, pricing largely is left up to businesses themselves with no oversight. So in a country where a bakery can refuse to make a same sex wedding cake, are we really all that worried Tinder is charging higher prices based on age?

First of all, the hot-or-not dating app is far from the first to change its pricing for one group of people, for one reason or another. Does anyone remember the report about Orbitz showing Mac users higher prices than PC users?

The examples of price differentiation go on and on. Car insurance companies charge higher premiums for red cars, sports cars, or—brace yourselves—lower credit scores. Health insurance companies charge higher prices for older people, or people that represent a higher risk. Airlines charge more for flights the closer they are to leaving. Price discrimination is everywhere. Typically, it’s called “smart business.”

I’m by no means a hardcore capitalist, not even close, but even I see most of these examples as free market capitalism.

Companies in this country are encouraged to look at the market and maximize profit and shareholder value. It’s why Uber is still growing despite using surge pricing during catastrophes and why Morgan Stanley survived the housing market collapse: because we applaud profits.

So if it isn’t ageist, and it is capitalistic, why is it stupid?

The Free Market Advantage

In a competitive market, one beautiful thing is that customers have choice. Don’t like the price on Orbitz? Go to Priceline. Don’t want to pay Allstate’s high premiums? Name your own price with Progressive. Don’t like your healthcare insurance premiums with Aetna...um, well, you may be stuck because I've found everything else is pretty bad, too.

But healthcare aside, the free market means products that appeal to customers can succeed, and in the absence of a good solution competitors can easily come into the market and capture a share of disgruntled customers. This is typically done by alleviating the pain points that currently exist. So riddle me this: how hard is it to disrupt Tinder at this point?

Not hard at all. It’s incredibly easy to replace. Tinder doesn’t have a single thing that makes the platform unique. I could build a hot or not site by this evening if I chose to. In fact, here are four more already on the market: Hinge, Bumble, Wyldfire, and OKCupid. Each of these sites has a right and left swipe. Each are either free or have a free option.

So Tinder's price is inconsistent with value. In terms of pricing, Tinder didn’t add additional value for the monthly cost, in fact, in one case they are asking you to pay for features you once had for free. In the old free Tinder you could swipe on however many people you wanted. Now, you Tinder is incentivizing the paid upgrade by making unlimited swipes a "premium feature."

Whether you’re under 30 or over 30, spending $10 or $20, the cost of Tinder is comparable to the other dating sites, and therefore way off because we should clarify: It’s not a dating site! There’s virtually no profile, and there is no compatibility algorithm. It’s a hot-or-not messenger.

Paying for a dating site is the hallmark of someone who is serious about dating … there is nothing serious about Tinder. So if you’re serious about dating, which site do you choose for your $10 or $20?

Wait a minute.

Tinder is owned by IAC, which owns Match.com, OKCupid, and How About We.

Given their extensive experience in online dating it’s surprising that they would implement pricing that’s so sure to drive away older users from Tinder to more serious pay sites like … Match.com and OKCupid.

Oh.

That’s it! The pricing move isn’t stupid, it’s genius! The goal is to get rid of people who belong on a more serious dating site.

I take it all back; the pricing is brilliant. And not ageist.