Hushed
gossip about Tinder has been gaining momentum recently, even across the
sun-soaked floors of W+K. Today I’m comparing the app world’s new sultan to
Donna Haraway’s article: ‘A Manifesto for Cyborgs’. Tinder is described by
the Evening Standard as ‘What you get if you cross
Facebook with Grinder’ and Haraway’s article is an exploration of the cyborg in
science fiction. 

The
territory of our lives and bodies growing into an ever closer synthesis with
technology is well-trodden ground but still really relevant. Tinder has the
potential to change the way we mate, date and create.

[Basic
premise of Tinder and how it looks]

Haraway
describes a cyborg as: ‘a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social
reality and a creature of fiction’. Tinder seems to be both of these things. It
heralds a new ‘social reality’ in which people find it easier to meet and get
to know new people on their phones, rather than in person.  It is also a ‘creature of fiction’. Just like
Facebook people create their own narratives. They select the photos that tell a
particular story, the story they think will be most appealing to prospective
buyers of the tale. 

The
clever bit of Tinder actually hinges on the ‘social reality’ part. Its founders
have tapped into the most fundamental human fear: rejection.  You only find out if someone likes you on
Tinder if you have in fact liked them yourself. So it’s taking out the shame
bit. The risk. The ‘oh I’m so sorry I didn’t see your wedding ring’, retreat
behind the bar and sink five tequilas for embarrassment bit. Shots for bad
behaviour.

[no
messages are sent until the likes are mutual]

It’s
also based on a platform of the familiar. Founder Sean Rad explains: ‘We don’t
want to create foreign experiences, we want to create experiences people relate
to’. Again simple, but really savvy. Tinder locks into two familiar territories:
Facebook and iMessage. Syncing with Facebook friends gives the app legitimacy.
You can check the person you’re looking at isn’t a complete creep by looking at
the number of friends you have in common. So people trust it. The inbuilt
messaging system when you’ve found a mutual partner looks just like iMessage.
Ok it’s like we’re texting. It’s like we met at a party and you gave me your
number.  God you were charming. It’s not ‘on-line
dating’, on-my mobile and definitely a bit ooo errr.

The
drawback? I have a confession. I haven’t downloaded it even for the purpose of
this article because I’m too scared it’s going to come up on my Facebook feed.
All the literature says it doesn’t. But how can I be sure? Who might see me on
there and not know this is ‘just research’? Another sad human insight.

Haraway
summarises the cyborg’s characteristics as ‘resolutely committed to partiality,
irony, intimacy, and perversity.  It is
oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence’.  I feel like all those qualities could be
mapped onto the modern dating scene and most of them can be found in Tinder. 

[creature
of fiction]

[Thoughts
from Planning newbie Alexa]

This
week’s been all about refining my ideas. To help with this I’ve been looking at
Planning Frameworks as a tool for clarifying what I want to say. I wouldn’t
claim W+K is necessarily a framework kind of place. There are no set formulas
here. Every Planner has their own style and no one is telling me to do it this
way or that. But as a starting structure to shape and tease my ideas learning a
bit about this has been really useful. 

It’s
most useful when you have a huge mass of information. Following my brand
architecture project I had a deck full of ideas and examples. My slides were
organised, but it still felt a little bit all over the place. It was then that
I was given the metaphor of a funnel. I started sketching this as one of our
Planners described it to me. I now have a slightly odd looking drawing in my
notebook that could resemble a GCSE biology diagram of a bladder. This is
actually the funnel.

[the sketch]

At
the top of the funnel is the overarching idea, the first thing you think of
when a particular brand is mentioned. Different levels of the funnel invited me
to question: How does this idea make brand look? What’s the tone? As my project
was about brand architecture the brands going into my funnel were the ‘branded
house’ kind of companies, the ones with lots of subsidiaries. This meant that
there were small puddles at the bottom of my funnel representing each offshoot
of the master brand. How were they different? How were they linked?

It
definitely helped get each brand down onto one slide, with a clear and focused
view on what they were doing. 

[Thoughts
from Planning newbie Alexa]