Case Study.
Framing Question.
How might we make it easier for singles to find their life partners?
Objectives.
Conduct generative research to understand:
What the full dating journey looks like from finding a match to following up after a date.
How singles search for partners today.
What is easy and what is difficult about the current search options.
How dating fits into their life today.
What single’s ideal dating experience is.
Participants.
Behaviors
Active daters who've had 1+ date in the last 30 days
Those who have been dating for 6+ months
Those on the lookout for life partners or long-term relationships
Demographics
Current relationship status: Single
Age range: 28-40
Gender: Male & female
Sexuality: Heterosexual
Geographic area: Major cities
Screener survey: https://forms.gle/b4E3NznVLVCdGMSRA
Methodology.
Participants completed 4 Miro activities:
Resources: Discuss what resources they use to find dates today, what resources are they interested in using to find dates in the future, and how easy/hard are each of these.
Journey: Discuss a recent date, how it came to be, what was easy/hard.
Ideal Experience: Design their ideal experience including tone of the service, resources for dating, and tools to support their dating.
Lightening Round: Get reactions to quick pitches for 3 dating products/services.
Interviews.
We conducted five 1:1 one-hour in-depth video interviews where participants and an experienced researcher walked through the activities in Miro.
During the interview, participants view the researcher’s Miro screen and talk through the exercises. Notes are captured live for participants to see and confirm.
Sample clip from interview (audio removed).
Synthesis.
Once interviews are completed, it’s time to synthesize the findings.
In the past, we’ve had a note taker type line by line notes during the interviews. After the interviews are complete, we go through each line (hundreds!) and tag them with themes. This is a highly time consuming process, but is important for eliminating bias in the research.
Today with AI, we’re able to speed this up. We use AI tools to automatically:
Create transcripts of the interviews so a note taker does not have to type line by line notes.
Summarize the conversation by key chapters.
Conduct line by line sentiment analysis so that we can easily zoom in on highlights and pain points.
This allows us to quantify our qualitative data in a timely manner. Ultimately, AI tools help us to eliminate noise and focus our analysis on the key points in the conversation.
Key Findings.
Participants are missing context on people they meet in-person, which makes it difficult to approach and invest in potential matches.
It’s important to understand if someone is single, key stats about them, and their life goals, but these questions can be awkward to ask up front (5/5 participants indicated this).
“I want to know if someone’s looking for a relationship, if they want kids, if they’re religious or not. But, I can’t start a conversation that way.”
“I look at the ring finger [to see if they’re married] and then look them up on Instagram later.”
“I have no idea how old people are and often people think I’m younger than I am.”
Participants may be interested in:
A hybrid online / in-person dating method. Daters can get stats and demographic information online prior to every day activities (e.g., Barry’s classes), networking events, and singles mixers.
Participants are less interested in:
A physical indicator of singleness. Multiple participants brought up the Pear Ring, which is a distinct ring worn by singles. Participants liked the idea of others wearing the ring, but would be embarrassed to wear the ring themselves.
2. Participants want a more time efficient way to select matches from online apps who are aligned with their goals and values.
Before going on a date, participants spend a lot of time filtering through potential dates on dating apps (namely Hinge), but it’s still difficult to know if an online conversation will translate to an in-person connection with aligned goals (4/5 participants indicated this).
“Her personality was great over text but did not jive in person.”
“I get served people on Hinge who are clear no’s for me, like they’re religious”
“[On an online profile I see] ‘my life goal is to eat an entire thing of Parmesan cheese’ - is he serious [about meeting a life partner]??”
Participants may be interested in:
A highly personalized experienced. 4/5 like the idea of using AI filtering and matching to find better fits for them.
Participants are less interested in:
Matchmakers who are one-sided and don’t understand them or know what they’re looking for. They want a third party who deeply understands both parties in the match.
3. Participants want a fun and energizing way to date that takes the pressure off of finding a romantic connection.
Going on 1:1 dates or to dating events is high pressure since the only goal for the activity is to find a romantic connection. It can also be a draining experience. Participants discussed feeling exhausted from constantly having to chat with people online and then ultimately it not working out (4/5 participants indicated this).
“Talking on Hinge isn’t my highest priority - it’s high stress—what do I say? I don’t even know these people, I’d rather talk to my friends.”
“I’m exhausted from the process of dating and am not excited to go on dates.”
“It adds a weird pressure when you call it a dating event.”
Participants may be interested in:
A fun and lower pressure experience like group dates that revolve around an activity. For example, you could match with people on an app and then be put into small groups of mutual matches to volunteer at the food bank together.
Participants are less interested in:
Going to large events that are exclusively meant for singles. They want context on the people there and something else to focus on (like an activity) to take the pressure off of forming a romantic connection.
4. Participants don’t want to be in the dating experience alone. They want support to feel confident that they are making the “right” choices.
Dating is full of decisions. Should I message this person? Should I go on a first date? What about another date? He doesn’t do my hobby, does it matter? It can be difficult to navigate the experience alone (3/5 participants indicated this).
“After a date I often justify things to go out again. I need help thinking through that out loud—how did [the date] feel?”
“Is the way I’m dating serving me?”
“Do I like this person? Do I want to go on a second date?”
Participants may be interested in:
A therapist or support group to help talk through the dating decision process. A support group could be filled with people in the same region, same gender, and also looking for long term relationships. It’s important that those in the group understand the current dating experience.
Participants are less interested in:
Sharing their experience with people they don’t know online. Dating is highly personal and they want to feel safe with those they’re sharing with.
Prototype.
Why Prototype?
After the initial round of generative research, the next step is to create prototypes. Creating and testing prototypes helps us to further narrow in on the opportunity areas for new products and features.
About this Prototype
This prototype stems from the following finding:
Finding #1: Participants are missing context on people they meet in-person, which makes it difficult to approach and invest in potential matches.
It represents a hybrid online / in-person dating method. Daters can get stats and demographic information via an app prior to an event they are attending.