A Personal Encounter with Marketed Warmth

I was on a business trip last winter and, at 2 a.m., ordered a cup of tea from an app that promised “cozy conversation.” For ten dollars, I got twenty minutes with a stranger who asked how my day went, made one or two quiet jokes, and wished me a good night's sleep. The tea arrived, cold by the time I’d finished the call. I felt — I don’t know — less alone in the moment, oddly both soothed and mildly ashamed. You know that private, ashamed relief? That’s the psychological product markets have begun to bottle, brand, and sell.

Loneliness as an Economic Signal

Loneliness is no longer a private malaise; it’s an economic signal. Recent global polling found that about 23% of people worldwide reported feeling lonely “a lot of the day yesterday” — a startling marker of how many people sit inside the ache capitalism now seeks to monetize.

The Market’s Response

The market response has been swift and ingenious. There are dating apps promising “meaningful matches,” subscription services that promise weekly phone calls from vetted companions, therapy apps that offer micro-sessions on demand, and an emerging army of AI friends and companion robots that will chat, comfort, and never call back. The AI companion market alone was estimated to be in the tens of billions in 2024 and is projected to grow significantly in the coming decade.

Why Pain Sells

Why is there money in loneliness? Because loneliness is painful, and pain sells. Businesses have noticed a gap between human need and human availability. Busy lives, fractured neighbourhoods, remote work, and the thinned-out rituals that once stitched people together have produced markets hungry for intimacy that is predictable, purchasable, and editable. The dating-app economy — which generated billions in revenue last year and sustains hundreds of millions of users worldwide — proves the point: people will pay to be recognized, even if that recognition is half-curated and algorithmically generated.

Therapy in the Subscription Age

Layer on top of that the mental-health sector’s pivot to subscriptionised care. The global mental-health apps market was valued in 2024 at several billions dollars and is forecast to grow rapidly. People who once waited for a therapist’s appointment now subscribe to an app with 24/7 exercises, mood trackers, and—premium tiers—on-demand chats with a licensed counselor. That is both progress and a commercial reframing: therapeutic care becomes an on-demand commodity, packaged in UX flows and monetized via tiered plans.

Technology and Manufactured Loneliness

There’s evidence that technology itself partly creates the demand. Numerous studies link heavy social-media use to increased feelings of social isolation, particularly when online engagement replaces face-to-face contact. In plain terms, we scroll in search of connection and often find comparative loneliness instead. That gap is the market’s open wound. Companies don’t merely fill that wound — they sell salves.

Products of Loneliness

So what are the products? First, the institutionalized: dating platforms, therapy subscriptions, and paid social clubs. Tinder, Match, Bumble — these are not just matchmakers; they’re engagement factories that transform attention into subscription revenue, events, and brand partnerships. Users don’t only pay for matches; they pay to feel visible. Second, the bespoke: “companionship services” that rent human warmth by the hour (phone friends, paid dinner partners, “Rent-a-Friend” models). Third, the simulated: AI chatbots, virtual companions, and companion robots — from comforting avatars to increasingly sophisticated LLM-driven companions — that promise conversation without the risk of rejection. Both bespoke and simulated offerings trade on the same emotional currency: the appetite to be seen, even if the seeing is transactional.

The Seductive Virtues

This commodification has its seductive virtues. For people isolated by geography, disability, or pandemic lockdowns, an app or a robot can be a lifeline. In clinical trials and pilot studies, certain AI companions and moderated online communities have reduced immediate feelings of loneliness and provided a bridge to human services. And that’s real; it matters. But the system’s incentives also reshape what “social” means. When companionship is offered as a product, it becomes predictable, consumable, and calibratable. You can choose your level of emotional labour, tip the caller, or upgrade to premium empathy. That’s convenient — and it’s hollowing out some forms of messy, reciprocal human connection that are stubbornly non-commercial.

Friendship as Architecture

I want to be clear: the problem is not the technology per se. It’s the architecture. When capitalist mechanisms treat human relationships as a revenue stream, they reconfigure expectations. We start to measure intimacy by responsiveness rates and by churn. We learn to expect companionship that’s punctual, customizable, and non-intrusive — which is, you know, a dream product. But it also trains us away from tolerance: from the boring, unpaid, uneven reciprocity of friendship. Real relationships are, let’s be honest, often inconvenient and unpaid. They include showing up when it’s irritating, not when an algorithm predicts higher retention.

The Performance of Care

There’s also a performative layer. Companies sell narratives: “You’re loved. You’re worthy. Subscribe.” Marketers wrap loneliness in reassuring copy — “Never feel alone again” — and make the emotional pitch feel like self-care. But what passes for “care” in a notification is not the same as a friend who remembers to call on your bad days. The consumer logic replaces duty with prompts and depth with instant gratification.

Predation and Exploitation

And any market that grows this fast invites predation. Scammers exploit lonely people; low-quality “companions” supply scripted empathy for tips; vendors harvest intimate data about our vulnerabilities to micro-target offers. The privacy and ethical concerns here are enormous: who owns the recordings of late-night confessions? How do we prevent monetized companionship from becoming a conveyor belt for manipulation? Recent reports flagged platforms that retain transcripts and sell anonymized conversational data to advertisers or use it to tune engagement loops. The emotional labour of loneliness becomes raw material for the attention economy.

Hybrid Models of Hope

Yet humans are adaptive. We already see hybrid models: peer-support networks that monetize minimally to sustain moderation; nonprofit helplines that partner with tech platforms; and community-first apps designed by public-health teams rather than VCs. These models recognize that while some paid services can complement human care, they cannot replace ecosystems of mutual aid — schools, neighbours, faith groups, workplaces that make social roots, not just transactions.

Policy and Ethical Questions

There are policy questions, too. Should companionship be regulated like a utility? Should platforms that profit from emotional support be required to provide human-centered services, training, or crisis response? Some cities already support community centres and outreach programs to counteract isolation; others subsidize mental-health access. The debate is only beginning, and it needs to be framed by the facts: loneliness is a public-health problem — associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes, mental-health burdens, and reduced lifespan — and markets alone won’t solve a social problem of that scale.

Conclusion: Choosing Between Tender and Extractive

Back on that lonely hotel night, my paid-tea companion asked about my childhood. I told her, for reasons that felt both performative and true, about learning to make kites as a kid and how they never flew well. She laughed, gently, and that laugh felt human and small and terribly necessary. For twenty minutes, it mattered. But the next morning, I thought about how easy it would be for me, or anyone, to begin preferring tidy, transactional kindness over the messier labour of real friendships.

Capitalism has given us options: companionship on demand, companionship by subscription. It’s a useful stopgap; it can save lives. But as an enduring social architecture, it is brittle.

If friendship becomes a line item on a monthly budget, we risk turning the quiet, generous obligations that sustain community into optional luxury. Have you ever thought about it? The solution isn’t to ban compassion-as-commerce. Rather, it’s to insist that markets serve community, not replace it: mandate transparency, require platforms to invest in public social goods, and design human-centred interventions that make reciprocal, non-commercial care accessible.

Loneliness is a raw human condition; capitalism has simply found ways to package it. Those packages can be tender and necessary — and they can be extractive. The moral task of our age is to decide which.

References

• Gallup. (2023). Global Emotions Report 2023: Loneliness and Well-being Findings. Gallup, Inc.
• Grand View Research. (2024). AI Virtual Companion Market Size, Share & Trends Report, 2024–2030. Grand View Research.
• Business of Apps. (2023). Dating App Revenue and Usage Statistics (2023). Business of Apps.
• Grand View Research. (2024). Mental Health Apps Market Size, Share & Trends Report, 2024–2030. Grand View Research.
• Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Whaite, E. O., Lin, L. Yi, Rosen, D., Colditz, J. B., Radovic, A., & Miller, E. (2017). Social media use and perceived social isolation among young adults in the U.S. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 53(1), 1–8.
• World Health Organization. (2022). Loneliness as a Public Health Concern. WHO Report on Social Well-being.
• Turkle, S. (2017). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
• Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness: Human Nature and the Need for Social Connection. W. W. Norton & Company.

.    .    .