E.l.f. Beauty's Dating Show: A Gimmick or a Glimpse into Matchmaking's Future?

E.l.f. Beauty has launched a dating show with Tawkify, positioning premium matchmaking as the solution to dating app fatigue. The partnership arrives as dating apps face mounting criticism over user experience, but the business case for £2,000+ concierge services replacing mass-market apps deserves scrutiny. Matchmaking remains a rounding error in a market where apps command 95%+ share.

Tawkify operates on a fundamentally different model from Match Group (MTCH) or Bumble (BMBL): human matchmakers charging between $500 and $25,000 annually to hand-select matches for paying clients. According to the company's website, it has facilitated over 250,000 matches since 2012. What the release doesn't disclose is revenue, active client count, or what 'largest' actually measures – members, matches made, or simply marketing budget.

Create a free account

Unlock unlimited access and get the weekly briefing delivered to your inbox.

Register free

No spam. No password. We'll send a one-time link to confirm your email.

Dating app fatigue is real, measurable, and worsening. Pew Research Center data from 2023 found that 30% of US dating app users described their experience as 'very' or 'somewhat' negative, up from 23% in 2020. Bumble's own research, disclosed in a February 2024 investor presentation, found that 42% of Gen Z and Millennial women reported feeling 'burnt out' from dating apps.

But fatigue doesn't automatically translate to £10,000 matchmaking contracts. The median Tinder user pays nothing. The median Hinge+ subscriber pays $19.99 monthly, or $240 annually. Tawkify's entry tier is more than double that, and its premium packages cost 100 times more than a year of Tinder Platinum.

Matchmaking's positioning problem

Traditional matchmaking services face the same challenge as luxury goods in any category: converting aspiration into transaction. Everyone agrees that personal service sounds superior to algorithmic matching. Fewer can justify the cost when free alternatives exist.

Consider the market dynamics. Match Group reported 10.3 million paying subscribers globally in Q4 2024, generating average revenue per user of $17.52 quarterly, or roughly $70 annually. If Tawkify has 10,000 active paying clients at an average annual fee of $5,000 – generous assumptions – that's $50M in annual revenue. Material for a private company, negligible in a market where Match Group alone generated $3.18B in 2024.

The appeal of matchmaking rests on two promises: curation by humans eliminates low-intent matches, and accountability drives better behaviour. Both address genuine app weaknesses. Dating apps have spent years optimising for engagement, not outcomes, creating what investors now recognise as a trust crisis. Members pay for access, not results, and platforms face no penalty when matches don't materialise into relationships.

Matchmaking services flip this. Clients pay explicitly for outcomes, creating commercial pressure to deliver compatible matches rather than infinite scrolling. Tawkify's approach emphasises 'no swiping' and 'real connections' – positioning directly against the engagement-maximising features that make dating apps profitable but frustrating.

What the numbers actually show

Yet the regulatory landscape reveals the challenge. Dating apps operating in the UK now face transparency requirements under the Online Safety Act (OSA), particularly around age verification and fraud prevention. Matchmaking services, classified differently, operate under consumer protection law but face less prescriptive oversight. This creates an odd inversion: apps must verify users and report safety metrics, whilst matchmaking services can make broad claims about compatibility and success rates with limited scrutiny.

The Competition and Markets Authority investigated dating services in 2020, finding that 'some dating platforms did not have systems in place to ensure fake profiles were identified and blocked'. That investigation focused primarily on apps, not concierge services, despite matchmaking firms making far bolder claims about vetting and compatibility.

Pricing transparency remains opaque. Tawkify's website requires a consultation to access specific pricing, a common tactic in luxury services but one that makes competitive analysis difficult. The company positions itself against apps, not against rivals like It's Just Lunch or Selective Search. This suggests the real competition isn't other matchmakers – it's convincing app users to spend 20–100 times more for an alternative model.

Where this leaves operators

For dating app operators, the matchmaking resurgence – such as it is – offers both warning and opportunity. The warning: members will pay substantially more for services that credibly promise better outcomes and accountability. Bumble's upcoming 'accountability' features, previewed in its February product roadmap, acknowledge this directly. So does Match Group's investment in verified profiles and identity confirmation across its portfolio.

The real question for operators isn't whether matchmaking will replace apps – it won't – but whether app fatigue accelerates member churn before product improvements restore trust.

The opportunity lies in hybrid models. Bumble tested 'Bumble for Friends' matchmaker features in 2023, allowing users to set up their friends. Match's Stir introduced community events and offline mixers. Hinge added video prompts and voice notes to signal intent. None of these replicate the full concierge experience, but they appropriate elements – human curation, intent signalling, accountability mechanisms – at scale and lower price points.

What's notable is what matchmaking services can't do: scale efficiently. Tawkify's model requires human matchmakers reviewing profiles, conducting interviews, and hand-selecting matches. That's labour-intensive and high-cost, limiting growth to hiring more matchmakers or raising prices. Dating apps achieve 40–50% EBITDA margins precisely because algorithms scale infinitely at near-zero marginal cost. Matchmaking services will always be capacity-constrained.

Match Group's Q4 2024 results showed subscriber declines across Tinder and Hinge. Bumble's share price has fallen 73% from its March 2021 peak, according to the DII Stock Tracker. Investors are watching engagement and retention metrics, not niche competitors.

Services like Tawkify benefit from app fatigue without needing to scale. They're premium alternatives for a self-selecting cohort willing to pay for curation. Recent Tawkify survey data shows 65% of respondents are willing to pursue long-distance relationships, suggesting their client base prioritises compatibility over convenience. Meanwhile, Tawkify's Summer 2025 Dating Trends Report highlights increasing demand for intentionality and adventure in dating – characteristics that apps struggle to facilitate at scale.

For the 95% of the market still using apps, the answer to dating exhaustion won't be £10,000 matchmakers – it'll be whether Tinder, Hinge, and Bumble can fix the engagement models that created the fatigue in the first place.