Those new service sector jobs

Ms. Golden, 43, has developed these no-fly lists in her four years as a dating app ghostwriter. For $2,000 a month, she swipes, chats and charms, impersonating her clients. Once she has earned a client a date, she tags them in and becomes a more traditional dating coach, reviewing each encounter in detailed post-mortems, helping to guide their next moves. Some clients disclose to their dates that they have used Ms. Golden’s services, and others do not.

And what does she use for input?:

Tone is essential to Ms. Golden’s — and her clients’ — success. She learns to imitate their conversational styles through the use of an eight-page intake form that includes specific questions: How do you take your coffee? Have you ever “swam with dolphins or stingrays or enormous turtles”?

By the time a potential client has answered those questions and had an hourlong introductory conversation, Ms. Golden thinks she can mimic them convincingly enough — down to whether they would type “gonna” or “going to” — to start chatting.

Don’t forget this:

She subscribes to a less-is-more mind-set, and much of the work she does is in how little she says.

Here is the full NYT piece by Jonah Engel Bromwich.


Repost: Not sure if my first comment went through, but I had my sister screen dates on a USA dating website and it was a real time saver.

Bonus trivia: pay to get lay in Thailand, but marriage material is in the Philippines.

All I can B is me. Dat who I B. Now, who U?

'Have you ever “swam with dolphins ...': that should be "swum" not "swam". Would you hire someone of marginal literacy to impersonate you?

Being marginally literate, myself, that's an emphatic yes.

Is this your Github account?

Hey Ray! Nice segue into the economic analysis/calculations of renting v. owning.

Mother Goose: "Needles and pins! Needles and pins! When a man marries his trouble begins."

Not familiar with dating apps, but the terms and conditions mut saysomething about the "impersonating" issue. People like Ms Golden destroy the app reputation.

Well, it is pretty hard to impersonate someone on a paid service in a way that the company offering the paid service cares about.

That applies to true for profit dating services. Something like Tinder (and let us just laugh at the idea that Grindr is a 'dating' service) doesn't care. At least as long as one apparently has a Facebook profile to mine, if wikipedia is to be trusted.

I just read the tinder terms of use and they expect you to NOT : (i) "impersonate any person or entity or post any images of another person without his or her permission.", and NOT "use the Service in order to damage Tinder." So, if you give your login information to a 3rd party, Tinder is OK with it. However, when there's a NYT article of someone boasting about deceitful interactions on their app.......well, it's Tinder's problem to decide if this damage them or not.

Just for comparison the terms and conditions of match(dot)com say "the Member or Subscriber must not, this list not being exhaustive, communicate, disseminate, share, make accessible, in any way or for any reason whatsoever, its passwords and/or usernames to any third party, whoever that is."

The reason for the distinction is that Tinder offers a free service (and a paid one also), while the match com family of services (including OK Cupid at this point, more or less) are based on providing a service for pay - and sharing a password means that potential customers would not be paying, at least from match com's perspective.

Of course neither service has any real interest in having large number of fake profiles, but impersonation with user permission is not the same thing from Tinder's perspective compared to match com's. And match com might not care that much in a case like this, where the impersonator is not a potential customer.

Brevity did not work out in this case - match com does not want people sharing profiles, but probably does not care much about the occasional Cyrano scenario. Of course, if Cyrano decides to start a business and offer services to any and all customers, match com might consider this a problem to be dealt with. Tinder probably wouldn't care, to be honest.

And whoops, Tinder is part of Match Group it seems. Shows how much time I spend on the entire subject, but I think the distinction is still relevant enough. Don't know if Match Group management shares that opinion, of course.

The surprise for me is that someone that works in a gray area decides to take an interview from the NYT (profile pics included) and then explain the whole business model. Stupidity, carelessness , hubris?

Will media exposure lead to more client calls or legal action from Match?

Ps. thanks for losing time on this =)

I go with hubris - 'Ironically enough, Golden’s straightforward style stands out in the online-dating world, which is replete with game-playing. I asked her if she had ever been rejected on one of the apps. “Nope,” she chirped, without a pause.

“Just let me say, it’s not me,” she added. “I’m not like, tooting my own horn.”'

That last sentence can be intriguingly parsed - of course she is tooting her own horn, but she is also pointing out that the real horns being tooted are those of her clients, who are apparently guaranteed 100% success, at least if they can pay her fee.

It's not impersonation in the sense that matters. She's acting as a representative/proxy of, not catfishing. High quality, invested persons won't dilute the brand either, the opposite infact.

'High quality, invested persons won't dilute the brand either, the opposite infact.'

Hard to tell, to be honest. People generally don't like being deceived, at least when they become aware of deception.

God knows how many speeches, articles and corporate presentations are ghostwritten. Looking for a hot date for some people is understandably far more crucial than some powerpoint talk you need to give the Kiwanis next Tuesday.

'God knows how many speeches, articles and corporate presentations are ghostwritten.'

Essentially all of them (if by article you mean editorial) - one of the first things that one learns if one works at a PR department that handles such activities.

Oddly, though, the vast majority of people still take such things at face value as being from the person doing the speaking or writing, regardless of how often it is pointed out that this is not true. Maybe because it is a sort of inside joke - those who do it are fully aware of what is going on, but they have no incentive to let anyone outside of that circle in on the joke.

Oddly enough, this just might be one of the things that makes Trump so attractive to many - it is exceedingly obvious that no one with any actual PR talent involving words or writing is involved in his utterances, or his twitter feed.

"Undateable" on her no-fly list of course meaning "not suitable for people willing and able to pay $2,000 a month for a dating app ghost writer"

Well someone who starts flossing in public during dinner will be put on my no-fly list too, and I pay $0 per month on dating app services.

Wait, people 'date' on Tinder?

Really? In which case, then the number of under 30 year olds who have talked about how they use it (admittedly, in Germany) are apparently using it the wrong way. Especially if the shared laughter that greeted one person's suggestion that Tinder is a way to meet friends is any indication.

Isn't all or almost all of what's written on a dating app fiction? Is the issue here that it's an impersonator writing for an impersonator because the latter lacks creative writing skills? And who, exactly, is the con: the impersonator or the person reading the fiction and believing it? According to Kristen Roupenian, it's the person who chooses to believe the fiction who is the con - she is conning herself.

When I was first trying to find a wife on dating sites, back in 2010, I let a female friend of mine use my account for a weekend, figuring that since she was a woman she might know what women want to hear in a first message.

I logged back into my account on Monday, to find that my friend had spent the weekend having a very lengthy conversation (as me) with a woman about a novel that I had never read, indeed by an author whom I had never read.

I guess you have to pay a professional to avoid stuff like this.

C'mon, please finish the story and tell me your friend ended up leaving her husband and moving to Hawaii to run a yoga retreat with the woman she met on your account

There's lying and impersonation occurring on the internet? On dating site no less?

Cue Inspector Renault...

I just patented an app called "Cyrano" where everyone works through proxies. The app then sends an Uber car to pick you up and take you to the meet. As I understand it, the rest can be outsourced too.

I see what you did there. Cute.

Wow, the NYC solution is so low tech and labor intensive -- here's a potential SF alternative:

After reading the posts from this gentleman I conclude that he should be shot.

"Tinder's Gini coefficient is 0.58, meaning 'it has higher inequality than 95% [of] the world's national economies'"

Reminder that 80% of women compete for 20% of men.

Replace "compete for" with "are shared by".

Smart, witty and flinty. Enjoy sharing and caring, long walks along the beach. No smokers or MAGAs please.

That'll be $2,000, please. But Lucy from Peanuts could probably open a booth and do it for five cents a shot.

This is not that impressive if you know that women have the pick of the litter for the most part on dating apps and in most cases the key decision is not the man talking to a woman and deciding he likes her, but her *bothering to reply to him in the first place*.

Men essentially follow a shotgun approach, messaging as many woman they find acceptable as possible, and women then pick from the random messages constantly sent to them.

Her job is entirely superfluous; any guy already talking to you has probably decided he's willing to date before the conversation starts.

Comments for this post are closed