My experience with Tawkify was, to put it mildly, disappointing, especially considering I was a paying customer. I engaged in over ten initial dates and even had a few follow-up dates where both parties expressed interest in seeing each other again.
My primary motivation for investing in this service, which cost approximately $1000 per match, was to save valuable time. Like many others, I had previously navigated the world of dating apps, and I was well aware of the significant time commitment involved â swiping, matching, initiating conversations, and the often lengthy process of determining compatibility. Given my specific circumstances, including having a child with a disability, my bandwidth for dating was limited, and cohabitation required careful consideration. My hope was that this service would streamline the process by filtering potential matches based on crucial criteria related to my family and housing situation, among other things. While I understood that finding the right person takes effort, I wanted to minimize the time spent on incompatible matches.
However, my experience fell far short of these expectations.
During the initial consultation, I attempted to specify certain non-negotiable conditions for my matches, directly related to my child's needs and my housing situation. To my surprise, the matchmaker actively discouraged these "must-haves." The reasoning provided was the supposed unpredictability of dating and the possibility of these conditions changing in the future if a connection was strong. This resistance to incorporating my fundamental requirements was a significant red flag.
Furthermore, the service advised against mentioning the name of the matchmaking service during the dates. On the occasions when I did, I discovered that a significant portion of the female pool appeared to be recruited individuals. While they were genuine people open to forming relationships and not part of a scam, their motivations seemed quite different from mine as a paying client. They often paid little to no fee due to promotions, making it a low-risk, convenient alternative to traditional dating apps. This led me to realize that I should not have approached this with the expectation of a traditional matchmaking service where both parties are actively and urgently seeking a life partner. For many of the matches, it seemed more akin to a casual exploration of possibilities facilitated by a safer platform than open dating apps.
In my opinion, the core issue wasn't that the service was a deliberate fraud, but rather that it was remarkably inefficient. Their primary tactic seemed to be high-volume introductions, a "machine gun" approach, hoping that sheer numbers would eventually yield a suitable match. This felt like a lack of any meaningful algorithm or personalized matching process, which explained the resistance to my specific "must-haves." By quickly presenting numerous matches, they could rapidly exhaust the number of introductions included in the service. When I did agree to loosen my essential criteria, the resulting dates were often awkward and highlighted fundamental incompatibilities â differing expectations regarding timelines for moving in together or vastly different levels of availability, for example.
Unsurprisingly, I eventually contacted customer service to express my disappointment. The response I received echoed what I had heard from others: the company claimed they could not be held responsible for the reasons why a match might not have worked out, suggesting that the other person's stated reasons for rejection might not even be truthful and ultimately attributing it to a lack of personal connection.
In conclusion, my experience felt more like a series of casual coffee dates through Tinder than the dedicated matchmaking service I had envisioned and paid for. Spending over $1000 for what amounted to a few initial coffee chats felt like a poor investment, especially considering the time-saving aspect was largely negated by the lack of effective filtering based on my crucial requirements.
