Connect with us

Business

Younger daters are tired of swiping. A host of new L.A. startups is vying for their attention

Published

on

Younger daters are tired of swiping. A host of new L.A. startups is vying for their attention

When Joseph Feminella matched with his would-be wife on Hinge in 2020, he was already growing tired of traditional dating apps. He told her he’d like to meet in person right away, and they met that night.

The pair were married three years later, and Feminella launched his dating app First Round’s on Me nationwide in August after a four-year incubation period. The app is designed to help people meet in real life and was inspired by his own experiences, Feminella said.

The El Segundo-based app skips the swiping and encourages users to schedule a time and place for a date. Any user can send a date invite to another user, and the chat opens only 24 hours before the planned meeting time.

Feminella’s venture is one of several in Los Angeles and beyond that are trying to challenge the traditional dating app format by introducing innovative ways to encourage in-person interactions. In an industry that relies on the steady demand for human connection, new players are emerging as younger daters are starting to use the major apps less.

Los Angeles has become a hotbed for dating app startups that hope to gain attention in a crowded market and take advantage of cracks beginning to form within the most popular apps.

Advertisement

Joseph Ferminella, founder of dating app First Round’s on Me, runs the El Segundo startup with his wife, Hannah, who he met on Hinge in 2020.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

A select handful of apps including Tinder, Bumble and Hinge dominate the online dating market but have recently been struggling to grow, experts say (Match Group owns both Los Angeles-based Tinder and New York-based Hinge; Bumble is headquartered in Austin, Texas).

One reason: Gen Z uses online dating less than the broader population by about 11%, according to Match Group survey data from financial services firm Oppenheimer Holdings.

Advertisement

“The online dating industry is still making money, but from a growth perspective, they’re facing challenges right now,” said Andrew Marok, an industry analyst at Raymond James. “The customer base is changing and there are differences in the ways Gen Z and millennials want to meet people.”

Bumble, which once distinguished itself from other dating apps by requiring the woman to send the first message, has seen its shares plummet 55% so far this year after missing revenue expectations. Its share price closed Thursday at $6.57, up 1.08%.

Tinder — the dating app giant launched in 2012 — recorded the highest number of paying users in 2022, which peaked at 10.8 million after years of rapid growth. The number of paying users on the app dropped by 5% in 2023, and declined 8% in the second quarter from a year ago.

Match Group, which owns Match.com, reported a 5% drop in operating income in the second quarter to $205 million.

Still, Chief Executive Gary Swidler said in an earnings call this year he believes the company is on track to reach $1 billion a year in annual revenue.

Advertisement

A move away from the ‘swipe model’

When online dating got its start in the mid-’90s, the platforms were largely profile-based and matched users with shared interests and values. It was common for users to take a personality quiz or fill out a questionnaire in order to meet matches.

The release of Los Angeles-based Tinder introduced a swipe model in which users can decide if they “like” or “dislike” a potential date based on photos and a short bio. Other apps such as Grindr, which is headquartered in West Hollywood and caters to gay men, use a location-based model where users can browse potential dates in their area.

“You’re continuing to see some product evolution in the marketplace, but over the last few years the swipe-based model has been the one that’s attracted the lion’s share of attention,” Marok said. “We’re seeing that that doesn’t resonate quite as well with younger users.”

Gen Z daters prefer a slower, more intentional approach to finding a partner, Marok said, one based more on substance and less on split-second decisions. Younger daters are also more likely to turn friends into partners, he said.

“When you look at the swipe-based apps, their objective is to get a large volume of strangers in front of the user, which is kind of antithetical to how Gen Z wants to meet people,” Marok said.

Advertisement

Newer dating apps are trying to offer users a break from swipe fatigue and an abundance of startups in L.A. are embracing more advanced matchmaking services and group events for singles.

Feminella’s First Round’s on Me hosts group social events, such as a recent pickleball gathering in West Hollywood that attracted around 100 singles. The privately held app has garnered about 175,000 users and, like its competitors, has a freemium model in which customers can elect to pay for certain features.

Feminella, 34, hopes his app can offer users a different experience than what they’ve already found on the most popular cohort of dating apps.

“I saw that dating apps were becoming non-intentional and validation driven,” Feminella said. “I think they’re missing the point.”

Several other apps hold in-person events in Los Angeles, including London-based Feeld, which has been available in California since its inception in 2014.

Advertisement

“We strongly believe that people unlock people, not apps, so it was important to create another dimension in real life for our members to connect,” said Feeld Chief Executive Ana Kirova.

Summer, a dating app launched in 2022 by Marina del Rey-based tech company 9count, also aims to prioritize in-person meetups and is creating a members-only social club. When a user matches with someone on the app, they only have 25 messages to arrange a date before the conversation locks.

Based in Venice, Lox Club hosts regular events for its members such as weekly Shabbat dinners. The company recently released two more community-based dating apps: Jade Club for East Asian daters and Amara Club for South Asians. Lox Club is also getting ready to introduce a matchmaking service powered by artificial intelligence and human matchmakers, which has attracted a wait list of 10,000 people, according to Head of Marketing Samantha Ratiner.

“The consensus is that people are over using all these apps and doing all this swiping,” Ratiner said. “It’s so overwhelming and it can be a waste of time.”

Other tech-enabled matchmaking services that stray away from traditional dating app formats already exist in Los Angeles, like the self-described “modern matchmaking” company Three Day Rule.

Advertisement

There’s seemingly a dating app for everyone and every niche. The League is a platform for students and alumni of elite colleges to find each other; Kippo is a dating app for video gamers; the Fruitz app allows users to search for others seeking the same kind of relationship.

“There’s definitely room for apps that are focused on specific interest groups or specific demographics,” Marok said. “In the app-based dating market, the barriers to entry are relatively low but the barriers to scale are pretty high.”

Despite the plethora of smaller apps, the vast majority of the market remains dominated by Grindr, Bumble and Match Group, the three publicly traded dating app companies, said Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Jason Helfstein.

Tinder serves approximately 50 million monthly average users, a scale that no other app in the category has reached, according to a Match Group spokesperson. A 2023 poll conducted by OnePoll on behalf of Tinder showed that 55% of singles between the ages of 18 and 25 in the U.S., U.K., Australia and Canada have been in a serious relationship with a partner they met on Tinder.

Match Group is building its own assortment of community-based dating apps, making the space even more crowded for startups. Between 2020 and 2023, Match Group’s apps for gay men, single parents, Christians and the Black and Latino communities saw direct revenue grow at an annual compound rate of more than 70%, the spokesperson said.

Advertisement

Feminella said his company First Round’s on Me sees subscription and revenue growth month over month and has had success with in-person events. He did not disclose financial details, but said he knows he can’t realistically compete with apps such as Tinder and Hinge.

Tinder user, logo on a cellphone.

Tinder user, logo on a cellphone.

(Match Group / Tinder)

“For me to even get to that point, they would probably just buy me out,” Feminella said.

After a certain amount of growth, smaller dating app companies are likely to fizzle out or be sold to one of the major players, Helfstein said.

Advertisement

“For the private companies that focus on a small niche, it eventually gets too expensive to grow,” he said. “There will never be another publicly traded dating company.”

Helfstein described the dating app industry as profitable but somewhat stagnant — Match Group had 37% profit margins last year and is on track for 36% this year.

But Tinder downloads fell for the third year in a row this year and Bumble shares dropped 30% in August after missing Wall Street estimates. Artificial intelligence and other new technology could completely transform the industry and offer revitalization, Helfstein said.

“Maybe in five years from now, online dating will be reborn through virtual reality,” he said. “Right now it’s a healthy business, but what the market likes is growth.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

Published

on

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

As parents rush into malls for the final days of Christmas shopping, many will be armed with wishlists full of beauty products for their children.

Skin care is a fast-growing phenomenon among Gen Alpha, typically defined as those born from 2010 and on. Dubbed “Sephora kids,” the tweens and teens have been buying up products from buzzy brands including Drunk Elephant, Bubble and Glow Recipe and diligently following multistep, antiaging skin-care routines popularized on social media.

With kids becoming a powerful segment of the booming $164-billion global skin-care industry, brands have been catering to them with new products packaged in colorful, eye-catching bottles and jars.

Dermatologists say getting children into the habit of taking care of their skin is a good thing, but they’re urging parents to exercise caution as they splurge on holiday gifts.

“For pediatric dermatology, we always say to be very mindful and wary of active ingredients that are in products,” said Dr. Jayden Galamgam, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health. “A lot of the time, simple is better.”

Advertisement

What products are OK for my kid to use?

A gentle cleanser, a hydrating moisturizer and a good sunscreen are recommended and appropriate for any age.

“You don’t need to be using all these products; you don’t need a 10-step routine,” Galamgam said. “Use three products. Most don’t need anything more than that.”

Look for broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher; it should be worn daily and reapplied every couple of hours.

What products should I avoid?

Anti-wrinkle serums, exfoliants and peels are not appropriate for children. Avoid products containing potent alpha hydroxy acids, beta hydroxy acids and retinol, Galamgam said.

“I would definitely try to stay away from those, because they can cause a lot of irritation for kids,” he said.

Advertisement

Social media trends often encourage tweens to experiment with cosmetics that are inappropriate for their skin type or age, so parents need to look carefully at ingredient labels before buying, said Sam Cutler, founder of Beverly Hills-based tween skin-care brand Petite ’n Pretty.

“We want to caution parents about the growing trend of products marketed as ‘kid-friendly’ due to their bright, playful packaging, which can be misleading,” she said. “Many of these products are formulated for adults and contain harsh ingredients, such as hydroxy acids, retinoids and artificial fragrances, which are too aggressive for young, delicate skin and can cause irritation or long-term damage.”

My kid wants antiaging products anyway. What should I say?

You can talk to them them about the potential harmful side effects, and about the risks of following the advice of online “skinfluencers.”

“There are a lot of teens that are using these products inappropriately due to misinformation or wanting to fit in with their friends based on what they’re seeing on TikTok,” said Dr. Carol Cheng, a pediatric dermatologist and an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at UCLA.

“They’re easily susceptible. A lot of them don’t realize that these influencers are probably being paid to promote certain products.”

Advertisement

Is anything being done to protect kids from potentially harmful skin-care products?

In February, California Assemblymember Alex Lee introduced legislation to ban the sale of antiaging products to kids under the age of 13, but the bill failed to pass in the California Legislature.

Continue Reading

Business

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Published

on

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Before the answers to life’s questions fit in our pocket, you used to have to turn a dial. If you were lucky, Phil Donahue would be on, ready to guide you toward enlightenment. In a stroke of deluxe good fortune, Dr. Ruth Westheimer might have stopped by to be the enlightenment. He was the search engine. She was a trusted result.

Donahue hailed from Cleveland. The windshield glasses, increasingly snowy thatch of hair, marble eyes, occasional pair of suspenders and obvious geniality said “card catalog,” “manager of the ’79 Reds,” “Stage Manager in a Chevy Motors production of ‘Our Town.’” Dr. Ruth was Donahue’s antonym, a step stool to his straight ladder. She kept her hair in a butterscotch helmet, fancied a uniform of jacket-blouse-skirt and came to our aid, via Germany, with a voice of crinkled tissue paper. Not even eight years separated them, yet so boyish was he and so seasoned was she that he read as her grandson. (She maybe reached his armpit.) Together and apart, they were public servants, American utilities.

Donahue was a journalist. His forum was the talk show, but some new strain in which the main attraction bypassed celebrities. People — every kind of them — lined up to witness other people being human, to experience Donahue’s radical conduit of edification, identification, curiosity, shock, wonder, outrage, surprise and dispute, all visible in the show’s televisual jackpot: cutaways to us, reacting, taking it all in, nodding, gasping. When a celebrity made it to the “Donahue” stage — Bill Clinton, say, La Toya Jackson, the Judds — they were expected to be human, too, to be accountable for their own humanity. From 1967 to 1996, for more than 6,000 episodes, he permitted us to be accountable to ourselves. 

What Donahue knew was that we — women especially — were eager, desperate, to be understood, to learn and learn and learn. We call his job “host” when, really, the way he did it, running that microphone throughout the audience, racing up, down, around, sticking it here then here then over here, was closer to “switchboard operator.” It was “hot dog vendor at Madison Square Garden.” The man got his steps in. He let us do more of the questioning than he did — he would just edit, interpret, clarify. Egalitarianism ruled. Articulation, too. And anybody who needed the mic usually got it.

The show was about both what was on our mind and what had never once crossed it. Atheism. Naziism. Colorism. Childbirth. Prison. Rapists. AIDS. Chippendales, Chernobyl, Cher. Name a fetish, Phil Donahue tried to get to its bottom, sometimes by trying it himself. (Let us never forget the episode when he made his entrance in a long skirt, blouse and pussy bow for one of the show’s many cross-dressing studies.) Now’s the time to add that “Donahue” was a morning talk show. In Philadelphia, he arrived every weekday at 9 a.m., which meant that, in the summers, I could learn about compulsive shopping or shifting gender roles from the same kitchen TV set as my grandmother.

Advertisement

Sex and sexuality were the show’s prime subjects. There was so much that needed confessing, correction, corroboration, an ear lent. For that, Donahue needed an expert. Many times, the expert was Dr. Ruth, a godsend who didn’t land in this country until she was in her late 20s and didn’t land on television until she was in her 50s. Ruth Westheimer arrived to us from Germany, where she started as Karola Ruth Siegel and strapped in as her life corkscrewed, as it mocked fiction. Her family most likely perished in the Auschwitz death camps after she was whisked to the safety of a Swiss children’s home, where she was expected to clean. The twists include sniper training for one of the military outfits that would become the Israel Defense Forces, maiming by cannonball on her 20th birthday, doing research at a Planned Parenthood in Harlem, single motherhood and three husbands. She earned her doctorate from Columbia University, in education, and spent her postdoc researching human sexuality. And because her timing was perfect, she emerged at the dawn of the 1980s, an affable vector of an era’s craze for gnomic sages (Zelda Rubinstein, Linda Hunt, Yoda), masterpiece branding and the nasty.

Hers was the age of Mapplethorpe and Madonna, of Prince, Skinemax and 2 Live Crew. On her radio and television shows, in a raft of books and a Playgirl column and through her promiscuous approach to talk-show appearances, she aimed to purge sex of shame, to promote sexual literacy. Her feline accent and jolly innuendo pitched, among other stuff, the Honda Prelude, Pepsi, Sling TV and Herbal Essences. (“Hey!” she offers to a young elevator passenger. “This is where we get off.”) The instructions for Dr. Ruth’s Game of Good Sex says it can be played by up to four couples; the board is vulval and includes stops at “Yeast Infection,” “Chauvinism” and “Goose Him.”

On “Donahue,” she is direct, explicit, dispelling, humorous, clear, common-sensical, serious, vivid. A professional therapist. It was Donahue who handled the comedy. On one visit in 1987, a caller needs advice about a husband who cheats because he wants to have sex more often than she does. Dr. Ruth tells Donahue that if the caller wants to keep the marriage, and her husband wants to do it all the time, “then what she should do is to masturbate him. And it’s all right for him to masturbate himself also a few times.” The audience is hear-a-pin-drop rapt or maybe just squirmy. So Donahue reaches into his parochial-school-student war chest and pulls out the joke about the teacher who tells third-grade boys, “Don’t play with yourself, or you’ll go blind.” And Donahue raises his hand like a kid at the back of the classroom and asks, “Can I do it till I need glasses?” Westheimer giggles, maybe noticing the large pair on Donahue’s face. This was that day’s cold open.

They were children of salesmen, these two; his father was in the furniture business, hers sold what people in the garment industry call notions. They inherited a salesman’s facility for people and packaging. When a “Donahue” audience member asks Westheimer whether her own husband believes she practices what she preaches, she says this is why she never brings him anywhere. “He would tell you and Phil: ‘Do not listen to her. It’s all talk,’” which cracks the audience up.

But consider what she talked about — and consider how she said it. My favorite Dr. Ruth word was “pleasure.” From a German mouth, the word conveys what it lacks with an American tongue: sensual unfurling. She vowed to speak about sex to mass audiences using the proper terminology. Damn the euphemisms. People waited as long as a year and a half for tickets to “Donahue” so they could damn them, too. But of everything Westheimer pitched, of all the terms she precisely used, pleasure was her most cogent product, a gift she believed we could give to others, a gift she swore we owed ourselves.

Advertisement

I miss the talk show that Donahue reinvented. I miss the way Dr. Ruth talked about sex. It’s fitting somehow that this antidogmatic-yet-priestly Irish Catholic man would, on occasion, join forces with a carnal, lucky-to-be-alive Jew to urge the exploration of our bodies while demonstrating respect, civility, reciprocation. They believed in us, that we were all interesting, that we could be trustworthy panelists in the discourse of being alive. Trauma, triviality, tubal ligation: Let’s talk about it! Fear doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Or if it did, it was never a deterrent. Boldly they went. — And with her encouragement, boldly we came.

Wesley Morris is a critic at large for The New York Times and a staff writer for the magazine.

Continue Reading

Business

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Published

on

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Party City, the party and costume supply chain with more than 70 locations in California including several in Los Angeles, is shutting down operations immediately and laying off its employees.

In an online meeting Friday viewed by Bloomberg News, Party City Chief Executive Barry Litwin told corporate employees that it would be their last day of work. CNN reported that employees would not receive severance pay.

“That is without question the most difficult message that I’ve ever had to deliver,” Litwin said in the video. The company will be “winding down” immediately, he said.

The chain, which has been in business for nearly 40 years and has around 700 locations, according to its website, could not handle a decrease in consumer spending triggered by everyday high prices, Litwin told employees.

Going-out-of-business sales began Friday, just 14 months after the company emerged from bankruptcy and four months after Litwin began as chief executive. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023 with about $1.8 billion in debt and emerged from the restructuring process under a plan meant to ensure its viability.

Advertisement

The company, however, continued to struggle and was considering reentering bankruptcy earlier this month, Bloomberg reported. The New Jersey retailer was falling behind on rent at some locations and running out of cash, according to the report.

Several retailers and fast-casual restaurant chains have struggled this year amid rising operating costs and inflation-wary consumers, including Big Lots, which is preparing to sell its stores, and Red Lobster, which filed for bankruptcy in May. Bricks-and-mortar locations in particular are scrambling to keep up with online retailers and big-box chains.

Continue Reading

Trending