Rant: I'd be willing to bet that 95% of Tinder's Ad-Clickthroughs are garbage.

by preheatpeshwari. Posted on Sep 11, 2020    32    21

If I were an investor in Tinder, I'd be highly sceptical of any, or all of their advertiser traffic stats.

I find it hard to believe that a multi billion dollar app, can't find a better way to serve ads to its users.

I typically fire through 50-100 profiles a day and every single time I'll accidentally click and open at least 2 or 3 of their ads. It puts me on the verge of frenzy.

The placement of these ads is intentional of course , so they can juice up their numbers and 'wow' their advertisers with claims of a billion impressions per week or month, whatever b.s. they try and sell them on.

It drives me crazy that this shit actually works for them and as long as they keep those numbers pumped up, the ad revenue and investment keeps flowing.

I would bet my house that less than 5% of their total clicks are genuine. Hell, it's probably less than 0.5%! Why are we all trying to build value-driven businesses when the real way to get that pot of gold is to build out a platform, stuff it with bots, fake your traffic, take a piss-weak stab at monetizing your userbase (Want more super-likes anyone?) and sell a stake in your newly minted unicorn. Fuck them.

As an aside, I'm aware that this is common practice (Looking at you Flippa ) but still, there surely has to be a better way? Maybe not.

Source: Bitter Marketing Bod.


i1ducati 1

Tinder only makes 30% of its revenue from ads. Its subscription service drives most of the revenue. Most people worthwhile advertising on Tinder have some sort of attribution in place so they know if the ads are working. So the ads probably do work to some extent. I'm sure if the ROI is not good, they would lose most of their advertisers, but it all depends on the industry and purpose of the ads..

  preheatpeshwari 1

Roughly 3% is ad revenue, 70% subs and the remainder in-app purchases. As per my comment above, 3% of $1.2 Billion is a lot and advertisers don't immediately leave a platform the way you suggest. They'll test out a number of iterations of their ad campaign over 3-6 months. Plenty of time for Tinder to milk their pockets and there's plenty advertisers out their who dont care too much about where their client's money goes. The purpose of ads is to make money so a bad ROI is a bad ROI , simple as that but an unscrupulous agency will be more than happy to keep a client using an ineffective platform for a long time if they know they can get away with it. 20 years in this industry has shown me this is extremely common and Tinder will happily take that money all day long.

i1ducati 1

for sure, but any company advertising for 3-6 months on a platform with bad ROI needs new management.

analytic_tendancies 1

I believe this is true for basically every ad on the internet

cuteman 1

In app display ads are the cheapest cpm because there are so many erroneous and accidental clicks. Many advertisers exclude such inventory for exactly that reason.

ClearFaun 1

I think they are making most of there money from in-app purchases.

BurdenofPain 1

hahaha half rant half truth...

carpora15 2

haha facts

RossDCurrie 3

I agree with your overall sentiment. One thing I have noticed is that they do keep tweaking the ad product. I remember it wasn't that long ago that if you right swiped an ad it would count as a match.

Then IIRC right swipe would make you click out, and now there's a learn more button (with no effect on right swipe) - which I agree I sometimes tap as I'm left swiping

I live in Australia where they test all their new stuff first. It's interesting to see them constantly evolving... Will be even more interesting to see if they can evolve to keep up with the threat of Bumble, Hinge and other new players

  preheatpeshwari 1

Yeah I've noticed this too. I haven't used any other dating apps but it'll be interesting to see how things develop. I think regular advertisers will abandon the platform eventually and what will remain will be the kind of stuff you see on Pornhub etc or older tube sites , forced clicks and scammy adult cam services.

rascalmonster 5

I literally just ran an ad campaign on Tinder just to test it out. What they reported for activations (clicks) was 3x as many as we tracked with our internal system. Even with the 10k+ clicks we tracked on our side, we were able to attribute it to just one single sale. We're going to double check this week to see if that is right, but I'm hoping it's not

  preheatpeshwari 1

Interesting, that's quite a discrepancy! Im always wary of the mukbers reported by most platforms but 3x is crazy. I really think Tinder is going to struggle as an ad platform but would be interesting to hear if you manage to make a success of it after further testing.

RossDCurrie 1

Thanks for sharing. Can I ask what industry you're in?

rascalmonster 2

I'm in edtech, a big online learning platform

chillintheforest 7

Don't they make most of their money off subscriptions?

  preheatpeshwari 2

About 70% from subs, the remainder from in-app nonsense and I'm not sure specifically for ads, but Match Group as a whole make 3% from Ad revenue. Tinder accounts for over half of their total revenue so it's safe to assume about 3% of Tinder's rev comes from ads. About $40MM a year they're getting for selling thin air.

chillintheforest 7

But really I imagine they view their ads as mostly just a way to annoy users into a subscription. I'm not surprised they offer the bare minimum of quality.


Genius way to look at it

  preheatpeshwari 1

Of course , hence my rant. They're pushing for paid users at the expense of advertisers and the practice as whole is slowly turning the internet into a sesspit. Their conversion rate from free-to-paid users is close to 10% which is pretty impressive but they have a really high churn rate that isn't sustainable, at some point in the future they will need to rely on ad revenue , that's quite some time away but it will happen eventually.


The internet survived custom toolbars, it will survive tinder misclick ads


Did it though?