Affinity Match Introductions

For

Matchmaking services and member communities that introduce people on shared interests rather than photos

Solves

Dating apps reduce people to photos and bios, missing the deeper signals of shared curiosity and tone.

Delivers

A weekly introduction with a plain explanation of shared interests, and a member view of all material used

Built in

about 2 weeks of creation time, MVP in 2 days

Investment

$5,500 for the MVP, $18,000 for the full product

Run it

Inside your business, or as part of your offer to clients

For matchmaking services, turn the essays, reading lists, playlists and interests that opted-in members choose to share into a weekly introduction to one other opted-in member, with a plain explanation of what they have in common.

1. Let members upload or link the essays, reading lists and playlists they want to share.
2. Summarise that material into topic and tone profiles.
3. Compare opted-in members weekly.
4. Explain each match in plain words.
5. Send an introduction only when both members accept.
6. Let members see, edit and delete everything used.

What goes in, what comes out

The workflow

1. In
   Start with

   Essays, reading lists, playlists, interest answers and links that members add on purpose

2. 1

   Join and consent

3. 2

   Choose what to share

4. 3

   Build the interest profile

5. 4

   Weekly comparison

6. 5

   Matchmaker review

7. 6

   Both members accept

8. 7

   Introduction sent

9. Out
   Finish with

   A weekly introduction with a plain explanation of shared interests, and a member view of all material used

AI does the heavy lifting, people stay in charge

Language models summarise the material each member has explicitly shared (essays, reading lists, playlists, interest answers) into topic and tone profiles and compare opted-in members only. A matchmaker checks every introduction and its explanation before it is sent.

What your team sees

Key screens: Weekly introduction, Shared-interest explanation, My shared material. The introduction shows one other member and the specific overlaps behind the match; members can see and edit exactly which of their own material is used.

Accounts and administration

Consent records for both members, shared-material inventory per member, match history, acceptance records, matchmaker review notes and deletion log.

Integrations and data access

Member uploads and links (documents, reading lists, playlists), the service's member database and email for introductions. No social media scraping.

We build with our own AI software development factory, so most implementations take days to a few weeks of creation time, not months. You see working software at every step, and exact timing depends on availability.

1. 1

   Scoping call

   Day 1

   Thirty minutes on your process, your data and how you want to run it: for your own team, or for your clients. You get a fixed scope and price for the MVP.

2. 2

   MVP

   2 days

   One buyer segment, one recurring use case; first modules: ingestion and weekly match. Manual review in the loop. Built by our AI software factory.

3. 3

   Paid pilot

   3 days

   Accounts, roles, review states, audit trail and the first integration, hardened for two to three paying pilot customers.

4. 4

   Full product

   6 days

   Self-serve onboarding, billing, monitoring and the wider integration set.

5. 5

   Run and improve

   Monthly

   We host, monitor and improve it for a fixed monthly fee, or hand it over to your team. How the retainer works.

Why we start with an MVP

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will matchmaking services and member communities that introduce people on shared interests rather than photos use it to solve "dating apps reduce people to photos and bios, missing the deeper signals of shared curiosity and tone"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. A paid pilot with 40 opted-in members over 4 weeks.
4. Measure, then decide. Track share of introductions accepted by both members and share leading to a second conversation. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. One buyer: a matchmaking service or members' community. One use case: weekly introductions from shared reading and writing. First two modules: shared-material profiles and weekly matching. A matchmaker reviews every introduction.

After the MVP. After the pilot, add group introductions for events and interest circles, and automated drafting of match explanations, with matchmaker review kept for edge cases.

What the build depends on. Language models for summarising shared material, a vector store for comparison, consent and deletion management, and a matchmaker review queue.

A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. You pay per phase, so you can stop after the MVP.

Running costs per month

A rough indication of monthly hosting and AI model costs once it is live, not tested. Real costs depend on usage, file sizes and the models chosen.

Your brand, or this one

Run it under your own brand, or start from this concept style.

Selling it to your own clients: the go-to-market playbook

Pricing to test

Test pricing: USD 19 per member per month for weekly introductions, or a white-label licence for matchmaking services from USD 1,500 per month.

Message to test

One thoughtful introduction a week, based on what you both chose to share.

Where to find buyers

Matchmaking agencies, alumni and professional communities, book clubs and newsletter communities.

Lead magnet

A free interest profile: members add three things they love and get a short summary of their top themes.

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: Consent flow and shared-material upload.
2. Week 2: Interest profiles and comparison.
3. Week 3: Match explanations and matchmaker review.
4. Week 4: Pilot with 40 opted-in members.

Paid pilot

A paid pilot with 40 opted-in members over 4 weeks. Baseline: acceptance rate of the service's current introductions. Decision: continue if at least half of introductions are accepted by both members.

Success metrics

Share of introductions accepted by both members and share leading to a second conversation.

Retention and expansion

Weekly introductions keep members engaged, and each accepted or declined match improves the next one.

Why clients would pick it

Explanations members trust, a pool of opted-in members and matchmaker feedback on what worked make the matching harder to copy over time.

Alternatives and positioning

Dating apps rely on photos and short bios; human matchmakers are thorough but expensive. This gives interest-based introductions at a lower cost, with consent built in.

Main delivery costs

Model costs for summarising shared material, vector storage, consent and deletion tooling, and matchmaker time for reviewing introductions.

Both members must opt in before either is suggested to the other. Only material a member uploads or links on purpose is used; the product never scrapes social media or reads private messages. Members can remove any item or leave at any time, and their profile is deleted. It must not infer sensitive traits such as health, religion or sexuality, and it must not contact anyone who has not joined.