The “Short Tax” Debate: Should Some Matchmaking Clients Pay More?

What should a matchmaker charge a client who might be harder to match? One dating coach and matchmaker has an unusually direct answer: More.

Blaine Anderson recently drew attention for describing two pricing considerations she calls the “short tax” and “bald tax.” Yes, this means bald and/or short men might have to cough up more cash for the same number of matches as men who are not bald or short. Cue defensive grumbling from follicularly and vertically challenged men on the internet. 

Do these men have good reason to grumble? 

Anderson’s “short tax” and “bald tax” may be controversial labels, but they’ve inspired a useful industry conversation: How should matchmakers determine a client’s difficulty level, and should that assessment influence pricing? For an industry built around highly personalized service, there may not be a one-size-fits-all answer.

This didn’t stop me from asking matchmaker Anna Morgenstern and dating expert Hunt Ethridge about Anderson’s “taxes”. I wanted to learn more about what insiders really think about this practice — and to understand which qualities, physical or otherwise, really do make it harder for matchmakers to find suitable matches for a client. 

What Makes A Client “Easy”? 

Ask anyone in the biz, and chances are they’ll tell you the same thing: The worst kind of client is one who can’t accept that reality won’t always meet their expectations. Once a client’s expectations are in check, they get significantly easier to match. 

“There are many things like politics, weight, and height that people have very strong feelings on,” Ethridge said. “And it might take some more work for the matchmaker to find the right pairing.”  

Having unrealistic expectations is one thing; not being able to understand why your expectations will prolong or complicate the matchmaking process is an even bigger problem, Morgenstern told me. 

“Just because [a male client]  is over 6 feet tall and has a great head of hair, it doesn’t mean he will be less overall work,” she said.

“Anyone who has unrealistic expectations or is not someone I would set up with my sister or friend, I would not take on.” 

When it comes to choosing matchmaking clients, she was clear: Looks do matter, but a client’s personality (and their willingness to trust the process) might matter even more. “I only work with clients who I feel would be a joy to work with and somewhat easy to match,” she said. 

If a client isn’t willing to grow as a person throughout the process, then they aren’t ready to be a matchmaking client.

This is why “Knowing your client and your audience is important,” Ethridge told me. 

Does The Client’s Needs Affect The Price?

I mentioned how matchmaking is not a “one size fits all” business, and this is largely true: Some clients require more dating coaching, more diverse introductions, more sourcing, or more communication than others. And many matchmakers decide to charge more depending on just how many of these resources a client needs. 

“Matchmakers don’t just make up numbers,” Ethridge explained. “Many have ‘tiers’ and costs associated with them.”

Now, it’s not unusual for matchmakers to offer tiered services with increased resources and personalization at every level. It’s up to the client to understand the level of care they’ll need, though some matchmakers will recommend tiers based on their first impressions of the client. 

If their recommendation is based on the client’s physical attributes, they may or may not make their reasoning explicit to the client. This is where Anderson differs. 

If a client requires more work because fewer prospective matches are likely to be physically attracted to him, he should expect to pay a premium, she told Fortune. 

This might sound cold, but according to Anderson, it’s merely pragmatic. After all, matchmakers aren’t selling access to an unlimited pool of compatible singles. They’re selling time, expertise, sourcing and personalized attention. A client who requires substantially more searching and persuasion could consume more of those resources.

And, yes: Anderson knows her explanation of a “bald” and “short” tax are controversial. One’s physical traits obviously “[don’t] actually impact their value as a partner,” Anderson told Fortune. “But it’s just, their search requires more time and care simply because we just have to talk to more women to get them the same number of dates.”

The Not-So-Hidden Expense? Recruitment 

The harder it is to find a match, the more creative a matchmaker has to be with recruiting — and the more time and money they spend in the process. It’s only logical. 

“The matchmaker would have to pay recruiters in all the major cities,” Ethridge explained. Matchmakers might have to “have [recruiters] join Soho House, bar associations, go out to the hottest nightclubs.” 

Some might even go so far as to “[take] out ads in newspapers, commercials, getting [themselves] on TV, highly incentivizing anyone in [their] network and [their] network's network to search,” Ethridge said. 

This kind of recruitment costs big bucks, which is often reflected in the overall matchmaking package price. Anderson's matchmaking packages reportedly range from $35,000 to over $100,000, depending on how difficult they are to match with others. 

And men who are traditionally more difficult to match because of baldness or height will probably pay closer to that $100,000 max, she explained.   

And for people looking for a one-in-ten-million match? “That is going to be a $75,000-$100,000 client,” Ethridge explained. 

Regardless of attractiveness or tiered packages, some matchmakers will charge clients more if their attitude makes recruitment more difficult. Think of it as a “rude tax.” If a client “gets demanding and annoying … the price is now $60,000,” Ethridge said.

Again, not every matchmaker determines price in this way. But with daters being increasingly open — verging on picky — with their needs, this pricing strategy may be the future of the business. 

Is a “Bald” or “Short” Tax Unethical?

There’s a 5-foot-tall, bald elephant in the room: Isn’t charging certain people more money for a service because of their physical characteristics unethical? In the matchmaking world, this question doesn’t have any easy answers. 

Anderson told Fortune that she is always looking for the next big headline-making story — “What’s something I can talk about here to get eyeballs?” — and her use of the terms “bald tax” and “short tax” certainly achieved this goal, even if they make people feel bad. 

Morgenstern, meanwhile, told me that “Every client requires my time and attention to detail to successfully match them, regardless of their shortcomings (pun intended).” This is why she charges every client “depending on their package selection,” not depending on how robust their hair follicles are. 

“I don't think it's fair to charge clients differently based on their height or lack of hair,” she said. 

There’s a world where these kinds of taxes actually narrow a matchmaker’s clientbase, hurting their business in the long run. But I can’t help but think that this high level of selectivity, so different from dating apps, is why people hire matchmakers in the first place.