Kathryn's Blog: Money Matters

Outsourcing love?

It really does boggle my mind when people complain about how much time looking for love takes.  Don’t they have any idea how much time BEING in a relationship takes?  Just try going though a breakup in a long-term relationship and see how much time you now have on your hands that otherwise went into relationship maintenance!

However, in the spirit of passing on what might be valuable resources for my single friends, here’s the latest: Outsourcing your love life.

Outsource love life to virtual assistant?
By Judy McGuire, The Frisky

(The Frisky)—I am a huge fan of online dating. I met my long-term boyfriend on Nerve.com and the majority of the weddings I’ve been to over the past few years have been between people who met online.

Though I still have friends who are reluctant to try it (you know who you are!), I encourage every single person looking for love to give it a whirl.

But even I raised an eyebrow last year when I read writer/comedian Carrie Seim’s New York Post story on how she entrusted her love life to a virtual assistant in India.

It’s one thing to weed out dudes using their blurry photos and attempts at wit; it’s quite another to have some stranger pick your dates for you. After suffering through too many disastrous fix-ups, I even stopped letting my friends set me up.

But Carrie had a good experience. Suresh, her VA, found her two amazing guys with very little guidance from her.

“I’m very type-A with all aspects of my life, so it was tough for me to give up the reins,” she says. “He himself was a single guy looking for love in Bangalore, so he had a romantic streak. He was absolutely intent on finding me the perfect match. His enthusiasm was contagious—he even went to the point of penning love letters for me!”

Since her story, I’ve read several accounts of people outsourcing their love lives. An expert at outsourcing almost every aspect of his life, Tim “Four-Hour Work Week” Ferriss also tried it with excellent results.

A brief look through virtual assistant Web sites (there are tons) showed rates ranging anywhere from $4 up to $100 an hour, depending on what was expected and where they were based, with the average hourly rate being around $30.

So I was intrigued when I got a press release for a new(ish) company called Virtual Dating Assistants. When VDA began, they only serviced men, but have recently expanded their parameters to include the ladies. For $480 a month, they guarantee you two dates every 30 days. (They count on spending about 40 hours per month on each client, averaging out to about $12 an hour.)

Please note, I’m no supermodel, but for $20-a-month online subscription I was able to get two dates a week—more if I had the energy. But then not everyone has as much free time as I do.

VDA not only figures out which sites are the best fit for you, they select candidates, craft your profile, help you pick the best photos, and then correspond with potential dates. I asked Scott Valdez, one of the founders, how catering to women differed from servicing men.

“When a guy is less attractive, if he has a lot of other things going for him, he can still attract a woman,” Valdez says. Translation: money can buy even the fugliest dude love—a lesson I think we all learned from “Millionaire Matchmaker.”

Apparently this is not so true with a less-attractive woman, regardless of how successful she might be. Valdez and Co ran into a problem when one of their less-cute lady clients wanted them to bag her a fox.

“She was picky from a physical standpoint which made it very hard,” Valdez tells me. “It didn’t matter that she had money or confidence.” Ouch.

While she does have good looks going for her, a year after her original outsourcing, Carrie Seim remains pleasantly surprised by her outcome.

“I think when women search for dates online, we can get so carried away with external qualities, like a man’s education or job or height or bicep size, that we forget to look for values like integrity and kindness,” she says. “Suresh had a knack for sieving out the bad guys and finding treasures.”

So hey, you send out your dry-cleaning, why not give your love life a try?

posted by Kathryn Lord on 01.25.10 at 6.48 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • 0 Comments

High powered women?  Forbes covers the dilemma of finding love

I love it when Forbes magazine writes about dating.  Here’s an article below about the problems of high-powered women in finding love.  While both high-powered men AND women have similar problems making time for romance, women have the additional dilemma of being too high powered for many—if not most—men.  And while power makes men MORE marketable, it makes women less so. 

The Dating Game
Kiri Blakeley

Attention eligible bachelors: Sabina Ptacin would like to meet you. She’s the owner of two successful companies and is energetic and sociable.

She looks a bit like the actress Kate Winslet, with green eyes and sandy blonde hair. There’s only one problem: She spends so much time working, she breaks more dates than she keeps. “I’m not going to marry either one of my jobs,” admits Ptacin, who nevertheless often puts in 100-hour workweeks.

Loretta Talbot, a senior project manager at Wyeth, the pharmaceutical giant, wants a relationship too. She has a zest for life and enjoys photography and sailing. But it’s not a sure thing that a man will call for a second date once he finds out how much real estate she owns.

Finding one’s soul mate is never easy. But for women who are pursuing influential careers—women like Ptacin, Talbot, even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor—the course of true love can be especially tricky. It’s not just a matter of trying to find the time to date when you’re working around the clock. Women face far more complex hurdles. Unlike their male counterparts, who generally become more desirable in the romance arena as they achieve higher career status, powerful women are often handicapped by their success.

And antiquated social mores still dictate that no matter how commanding a woman is at work, she should let her date choose the wine in a dimly lit restaurant.

“Successful men are viewed as highly desirable for women, but successful women are viewed as really scary by men,” says Patricia Cook, who runs a boutique executive recruiting firm and has worked with hundreds of senior level executive men and women. “A man needs to be confident and secure in himself in order to be with a woman who earns more than he does.”

Time Is Not On Her Side

A compatible partner can be hard to find, especially when time is hard to come by. Justice Sotomayor married her high school sweetheart just before starting Yale Law School in 1976, but they divorced seven years later. She subsequently acknowledged the difficulty she faced as a young ambitious lawyer who often had to cancel dates because of late nights at the office or sudden business trips. “He begins thinking, ‘Gee, maybe she’s not that interested,’‘’ she has said. She had hopes of remarrying in her mid-40s, but that fiancé broke off the relationship and ended up marrying a younger woman. At 55, Sotomayor remains single.

The experience is shared by younger women like Ptacin, who turned 31 this year and spent the last half of her 20s co-founding a public relations firm, Red Branch, and a community for women entrepreneurs, Collective-E. She put off romance to focus on her personal and professional growth. Now both of her New York companies are humming along, and she’s ready to pursue a relationship.

But her seven-days-a-week workday begins at 7 a.m., and the e-mailing and problem-solving can go on until as late as 10 p.m., not to mention the evenings she’s out at business events or traveling to visit clients in Toronto, Washington and other cities.

As an entrepreneur, Ptacin has to “triage” her daily commitments by order of importance. Her businesses usually take precedence, especially when she suspects a prospective suitor isn’t going to turn out to be Mr. Right. “You don’t have the luxury of dating someone who might not be a good fit for you and just seeing what happens,” she explains. “There’s no time to date just for fun.”

Not surprisingly, she adds, “I end up canceling dates a lot.” Once, when Ptacin had rescheduled a get-together for the fourth time via text message, the man picked up the phone and “really went off on me,” she says. “He asked if we were ever going to go out or if he should just move on.” She let him move on.

Since the ‘70s women’s work hours have increased steadily, especially for those in managerial, professional or technical occupations. According to a study published in 2004 by Harvard University Press, 17% of women in those fields worked 50 hours or more each week, compared with 8% of women in other occupations.

When there are only so many hours in a day, something has to give, says Ann Smith, a Wernersville, Pa., marriage and relationship therapist. “It’s hard to be great at two things at the same time,” she says. “You can’t put 120% into the office and give the same amount of focus to your romantic life.”

The Achievement Dilemma

Even when they do reserve time to date, however, executive women may find that the very qualities they’ve needed to get ahead in business work against them in romance. Prevailing conventional wisdom—reinforced everywhere from the retro dating bible The Rules to the Bravo television series The Millionaire Matchmaker—holds that traits such as assertiveness and decisiveness are a turnoff to men.

“We tell women to let the guy call, let the guy decide if he wants to go out again, let the guy pick you up and don’t grill him on the phone about his background and whether he wants to have kids,” says Sherri Murphy, owner of Elite Connections, a Los Angeles matchmaking service.

Susan Posnick, a Dallas cosmetics executive in her 50s who looks at least a decade younger, thinks men where she lives view her success as a liability. It isn’t that Dallas men don’t like well-heeled women, explains Posnick, who is divorced with a 17-year-old daughter. It’s just that they’re more comfortable with women who have come into money through family or divorce. “They’re not so interested in successful businesswomen,” she says. “They’re more interested in trophies.”

Even younger women who were encouraged to compete with boys in school say they risk getting rejected if they too boldly tout their achievements. Wyeth executive Talbot went out with an information technology specialist who, after seeing her three-bedroom home in an upscale New Jersey suburb, commented, “I’d have to get another job in order to keep dating you.” The potential romance fizzled before Talbot could reveal that she also owned two rental properties and a boat.

Salary and asset differences are deal breakers for many a potential couple. But it isn’t just men who balk when a woman earns or owns more. Many women can’t envision marrying someone they view as lower on the financial and status totem pole, says Helen Fisher, a research professor at the Center for Human Evolutionary Studies at Rutgers University and the author of Why Him? Why Her? Finding Real Love by Understanding Your Personality Type.

“For evolutionary reasons, women have always looked for a partner who has status, resources and money, and can help her raise babies,” she says. “As long as our society holds money so dear, with men as the primary providers, successful women are going to have a problem in the dating market. Although this is changing,” contends Fisher.

Peach Reasoner, a divorced 58-year-old recording studio owner in Santa Monica, Calif., puts it this way: “You have this long laundry list of things you want a guy to be. And when you meet, you’re still computer processing: ‘Does he match up here? Check. Here? Check.’” She’s been dating—finance types, entrepreneurs, a photographer—but over the last two years, none has met all of her checklist criteria.

Love For Money

In order to increase their chances of finding a good match, many women are taking matters into their own hands and are joining online dating sites or hiring a matchmaker.

At the Internet service eHarmony, which caters to singles seeking long-term relationships, the number of female members earning over $125,000 has grown 85% in two years. For one-on-one dating coaches and matchmakers, who charge as much as six figures for their expertise, business has increased 8% since 2005, and the cottage industry now pulls in $260 million annually, according to research firm Marketdata Enterprises. Overall, the dating services industry, which also includes singles Web sites such as Match.com and in-person meet-up groups such as It’s Just Lunch, is a $1.8 billion industry.

Wyeth executive Talbot has been working occasionally with New York dating coaches Matt Titus and Tamsen Fadal, who charge $1,500 for six one-on-one sessions. Titus explains the difference between matchmakers and dating coaches this way: “Matchmakers bring the fish. We teach you to fish.” To that end, the couple advise Talbot on the best New York City watering holes in which to cast her line (Wall Street hangouts Wolfgang’s Steakhouse and Harry’s Café), how to bait a hook (approach a man confidently, hand him your card and then pretend you have somewhere else to be) and how to reel ‘em in (don’t talk too much about your busy schedule, which can make him feel like you don’t need him).

Talbot is still looking but thinks the coaching has been worth the price. “A year ago I wouldn’t approach men. I wasn’t as confident. But I realized unless I take control of things nothing will happen.”

Posnick, the Dallas cosmetics executive, is having fun dating men she has met while on business trips to different cities. And Ptacin, the public relations entrepreneur, now reserves one day a week—usually Sunday—to socialize, either on a date or with friends. “I won’t allow myself to look at the BlackBerry anymore when I’m out with friends,” she says. “And I’m meeting many more interesting people this way.”

She has also stopped dating men from her media and entrepreneurial circles, because that just leads to more work: “Who wants to talk about pitching angles on a date?”

Ptacin is hopeful she’ll eventually find her match because she has known men who enjoyed being attached to ambitious women. Her father, a physician, is her role model. When her mother started a catering business in her 30s, Ptacin’s father did everything from washing dishes to coming along on catering jobs. “I do want a family and a life, but I need someone like my father,” Ptacin says. “Or I need a wife.”

posted by Kathryn Lord on 10.02.09 at 10.00 am
permalink | Categories: • Singles Only! • Still Single? • Dating Tips • Proactive Dating • Money Matters • 0 Comments

FICO before the safe sex talk?

Remember when it was not okay to Google a prospective date?  Those days are definitely over, and how fast time flies!  We’ve skipped right over background checks and are now talking about FICO scores as part of a responsible dater’s resume. 

Recession Has Some Daters Checking Credit Scores

WASHINGTON - The recession has some singles being more careful about who they date. A recent survey shows more than 80 percent of singles are being more selective because they don’t want to get involved with someone who needs their own bailout.

Money may be all the talk these days but at a speed-dating event in D.C., singles say they’re not bringing it up—yet.

“Money thing, that’s serious stuff. I’ll worry about that later,” said one participant.

But concerns about job security and financial stability are close to the surface.

“I know a lot of my friends, their financial situations are difficult right now,” added another participant.

In addition to their own tight finances, many worry about a potential date’s money troubles.

“I met a few female lawyers who told me that they had extreme—like $240,000—debt and yes, that would be an impediment,” said Mel Hutson.

Finance guru Suze Orman shared her advice about that with Oprah and guests.

“Before you get involved in a relationship or anything, FICO first, then sex,” she said, producing laughter in the audience.  “That’s a new dating question,” replied Oprah, “‘What’s your FICO score?’”

For many, one’s credit score is a touchy subject. But it’s not taboo at CreditScoreDating.com, where singles weed out low-credit score holders.

But Michael Karlan, founder of the Professionals in the City dating service, says those restrictions are a double-edged sword.

“What the credit score dating site does is you’re getting people that are pre-selected,” he said. “So within that group, you can find somebody that you’re attracted to and you’ll already know that they’re pre-selected so it helps in that regard. But it still doesn’t avoid that situation of, you have to find the person with whom you’re attracted.”

If not specifically dating by credit score, 84 percent of singles admitted in a Match.com survey they are at least more selective about who they date in a down economy. And online dating Web sites are reporting a surge in business, because many singles say it’s cheaper to find a date online then heading out to the bar and restaurant scene.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 05.01.09 at 5.00 pm
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Search Smart • Mind Your Manners • Money Matters • 0 Comments

Recession proof?  Online dating?

Now here’s an interesting take on the economy and the advantages of online dating.  Beyond the “more fish in the sea,” #3 and 4 are goodies: Use the profile information to ferret out whether you potential Sweetie is similar to you in economic status and spending habits, and think about the economy of shared expenses.  Taking that a bit further: Ladies, it’s time to pony up when the check comes. 

Four reasons why online dating is recession proof

By Amelia McDonell-Parry

With unemployment rates at a record low, mortgage rates skyrocketing, and businesses shutting their doors on nearly a daily basis, the average American is cutting back on expenses BIG time, especially when it comes to their social lives.

Online dating is one social activity that has not been hit hard by the economic recession.

Dinners at restaurants have been replaced by cooking at home, seeing movies in the theaters—at a whopping $12 a ticket—seems excessive when you can wait until the film in on DVD, and traveling? For fun? Not in this economy!

But one social activity that’s NOT seeing a dip in participation is online dating. According to The New York Times, Match.com had its strongest fourth quarter in the last seven years. An easy explanation is that though times may be tough, loneliness is loneliness, no matter how much money you have in your bank account.

Rich or poor, employed or recently laid off, everyone wants to have love. With that in mind, here are four reasons why online dating is recession proof.

1. There’s more fish in the pond: The primary benefit of dating online is that you’re casting a wide net. A whole world of romantic possibility is at your fingertips. The chances of meeting someone amazing with thousands to choose from online is far greater than frequenting your local watering hole, in hopes that in between rounds of overpriced cocktails, someone fantastic will walk in and take a seat next to you.

While many people meet possible mates through friends or acquaintances, as you get older, the dating pool gets smaller, as more people get engaged and married. With online dating, there’s little question as to whether someone is available.

“I was sick of going out every weekend, spending money on drinks, as I made small talk with men who bored or offended me,” says Emily Parker*, an editor in New York City. “My budget is super tight, especially since I feel like my job isn’t secure. But I didn’t want to stop dating, either. I joined an online dating site and have met some really cool guys so far. That’s more than I can say about the time I spent trolling the bar scene.”

2. Narrow your options via e-mail, IM, and phone convos: How many first dates have you been on that felt like a waste of time, where you would have preferred to clean your oven than waste two hours talking about the weather with Mr. Not Right?

First impressions are everything, but you can certainly gauge your compatibility with someone in conversations you conduct over Instant Messenger, email, and the telephone, before you commit to an in-person date.

“Online dating is totally cost effective,” says John DeVore, a 34-year-old playwright from Austin, TX. “A guy like me can screen his prospective dates, engage in witty banter, and size up whether there’s a mental click there well before fulfilling his gentlemanly duties and purchasing her dinner or drinks. Better not to waste her time, my time, or my wallet’s.”

“In my time online dating, I’ve messaged with at least a dozen men, but only with a few have I clicked well enough to actually meet in person,” says Jane Walsh, a 27-year-old actress in Los Angeles.

“Nowadays, more people are going Dutch treat on dates, which is a bummer if you’re more traditional, but regardless, it makes you think hard about whether you really want to spend a three hours with that person - and shell out the money for dinner and drinks. You’re forced to consider what qualities are really important to you. In the end, that benefits all.”

3. Fit your financial lifestyle: Are you strapped for cash and can’t afford to take a woman out on a fancy date? Thanks to the handy information offered up on an online dater’s profile, you can sniff out the gold diggers who insist upon four-star meals at restaurants with foreign sounding names. And you can also come across potential dates that share your affordable interests.

“I think there are a lot of creative things that a person can do for a date if they put in the time to plan,” says Jennifer DeChristoforo, 32, a copywriter based in Boston, MA. “Just because times are hard does not mean that being skimpy is acceptable. One of my best dates ever was with someone I met online. We went to the Natural History Museum and then had coffee. It was a great day and not expensive in the slightest.”

Still, if you are looking for a fancy dinner at a classy restaurant and tickets to the opera, you can certainly find the perfect gentleman to provide that online too. Certainly, “John Smith, 34, Investment Banker,” might be down for that.

But beware. Just because the quantity of people dating online is up, doesn’t mean the quality of the dates is always that great.

“I had one Match.com guy tell me on our first, and only, date that he has ‘levels’ for dates,” says DeChristoforo. “First, there’s a drink. One. If things are going well with him, he’ll offer to order a second round ... and if that’s going well, appetizers can be in your very near future! He did ask me out again, because I was worthy of a whole second date, but I politely declined.”

4. You’re that much closer to shared expenses: The fact of the matter is, two people sharing the bills is always more cost effective than one person being singularly responsible for a household. So once you’ve toiled away online, found someone who is on the same financially playing field, and has been deemed worthy of multiple - creative and cheap! - dates, you’re well on your way to shacking up, sharing the bills, and merging bank accounts.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 04.21.09 at 9.42 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • 0 Comments

Feeling poor? You don’t have to be alone…

Here’s another article that points to the good effect that the economy is having on Internet dating and the search for love.  My clients are telling me that they are seeing more quality people online and more activity.  That plus the prime New Years to Valentine’s Day period make for a fabulous time to get on a good dating site and start looking.  (Underlines in the article below are mine)
www.cheapdate.com Memberships are soaring at dating websites as more singletons opt to screen out duds online before spending cash on a face-to-face date

ZOSIA BIELSKI

Cheapos unite, in digital love.

The downturn is proving to be a boon for online dating sites as Canadians look to hide in the arms of lovers they can suss out for free (or a nominal fee) online rather than over pricey fine dining that could yield a dud.

Websites such as Lavalife.com, PlentyofFish.com, Match.com and PerfectMatch.com have seen their memberships soar after September’s stock-market plunge.

Lavalife registrations are up 11 per cent from last month (Toronto is experiencing a 20-per-cent increase), and messaging among members is at its highest point in six months. Likewise, Vancouver-based dating site Plenty of Fish enjoyed a 77-per-cent growth in visits from December, 2007, through December, 2008. About 900,000 people now log in daily.

“It’s a pretty good deal at $25 a month to go out and meet people online, versus going out and spending 50 to 100 bucks per night and possibly not meeting anyone,” says Plenty of Fish spokesperson Mark Brooks, who delivered the keynote speech at the Internet Dating Conference in Miami last week.

The mood in Florida was upbeat, he said, with owners of free and niche dating sites in particular reporting huge growth.

That, Mr. Brooks said, is because unlike the real world, dating sites offer the lovelorn a “completely refined, focused community.”

“At the end of the day, if somebody wants to wander around and meet somebody, that’s not a good idea on two counts: No. 1, it’ll take them a long while and No. 2, if they do meet somebody, they’ve got to get all the difficult questions out of the way.”

Dating sites take care of the formalities: Plenty of Fish, for example, forces aspiring members to list their marital status, disclose whether they want children and how many times they booze it up in a week, and finally to elucidate “what makes you unique.”

In-person dates are, of course, far from extinct, but they are happening later in the romantic process. A survey by Florida-based Avalanche LLC - which operates international sites date.com, matchmaker.com and amor.com - found that 48 per cent of respondents were spending more time online or on the phone with a potential date before spending cash on a face-to-face meeting.

Dating sites have long relied on people’s romantic notions about “the right one” - as well as on their laziness and frugality, says Mandy Ketcheson, a Toronto-based psychotherapist who provides relationship counselling. “Online sites play on that hope with the added bonus of not having to go to a lot of trouble getting dressed up [and] spending money.”

For some of her single clients, cruising free dating sites has become a cheap hobby lately, with people “perusing other people more like commodities,” the way they might shop for deals on eBay, she said.

The psychotherapist adds that some of the searching is simple pragmatics: “There is a rising sense of desire to couple up in poor economic times because pooling resources is a better way to ride a bad economy.”

Joe Tracy, publisher of Online Dating Magazine, agrees that bad economic times force people to “reprioritize their goals in life.”

“People don’t like to face negative news alone,” he says. “It’s nice to have someone to share difficult times with. Thus they look harder for that ‘special someone.’ “

With online dating, the hunt costs a little less.

“There will still possibly be that ‘expensive dinner,’ usually around the second date, but the process allows singles to better filter and select who they want to go out with.”

“[Online dating] is like lipstick: It’s one of those comforting things that doesn’t cost a lot,” says Lavalife chief executive Marina Glogovac. “When people get disillusioned or structures are breaking down, they feel less confident or secure with the material things in their lives.”

Indeed, Paul A. Falzone, chief executive of Boston-based LoveAccess.com, says this windfall is reminiscent of what happened after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“It just seems that people, when they’re confronted with any type of dilemma in their lives, they tend to want to migrate back to what’s comfortable to them. They go back to eating their comfort foods, they crank up the heat by the fire instead of going out all night, and they want someone to be able to share things with.”

That said, Mr. Falzone has no time for misers using online services to skimp on chivalry.

“If somebody is being a cheapskate, it’s a lot easier to act on a $29.95 subscription than it is to step up to the line. They might be getting their jollies meeting a lot of people, but they’ll never have a crack at them if they don’t step up and act like a fair human being about it and not expect everything for free.”

posted by Kathryn Lord on 02.12.09 at 10.25 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Internet Dating Advantages • Money Matters • 1 Comments

If Forbes says it, it must be true…

The period between New Year’s and Valentine’s Day is always the BEST for online dating.  The economic slump has interestingly magnified that good news.  People look for relationships and love in times of stress, and we are stressed. 

Depressed Dow Drives Americans into Arms of Online Dating

A handful of online dating sites are reporting activity spikes following September’s global financial crisis.

“On days when the US Dow Jones industrial went down […] by more than 100 points, more people were likely to log in and spend more time on the site,”
stated Senior Research Scientist Gian Gonzaga in an interview with Reuters.

“People seek out companionship in times of stress. Studies repeatedly show that being in a relationship can help a person’s psychological and physical health.”

CEO Thomas Enraght-Moony of Match.com corroborates Gonzaga’s view. “During these trying times, people are looking for hope in their inbox,” he said.

November brought Match.com its largest membership increase in the last seven years.

But even lesser-known dating sites, like Perfectmatch.com, are seeing bounty. The latter reported a 47% hike in membership in the three months to November compared to the previous quarter.

An Opinion Research Corp. poll, sponsored by eHarmony, found 57% of Americans worry more about their love lives amidst the credit crunch. Married men were most affected, with 63% stressed over love.

And 75% of poll-takers between 25 and 34 worried whether the economy would negatively impact their love lives. Younger, single respondents were more likely to pursue a relationship as a result of these concerns.

Older respondents, which were more likely to be married, still worried financial issues would harm their existing relationships. “There are often more fights over bills and household budgets” among couples in climates like this one, Gonzaga pointed out.

The Opinion/eHarmony poll comprised 1,092 users. Meanwhile, a survey by Avalanche LLC — which operates date.com, matchmaker.com and amor.com — found 84% of people are spending more time online or over the phone before meeting face-to-face.

With all that in mind, it bodes well for the online dating industry that the Dow is down 35% this year.

Online dating services became aggressive advertisers in ‘07, with eHarmony spending the most: $110.1 million in total as of February last year. Match.com followed, spending $66.4 million in total.

Their efforts weren’t wasted. Prior to 2008, Mediamark Research found US adults were increasingly receptive to online dating, which was previously stigmatized as an arena for the desperate and unloveable. Men were slightly more likely to log onto an online dating site (52.2% versus 47.8%), and people between 18-34 consisted of over half of the online dating population. Single parents were significantly more likely than average to pursue a ‘net-based romance.

The face of online dating in general has evolved since then. Online speed dating debuted late last year. And last month, online dating conglomerate eHarmony lost a three-year-old suit for refusing to match gays, lesbians and bisexuals. The company will launch a gay dating site, “Compatible Partners,” in early 2009.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 01.13.09 at 5.41 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Internet Dating Advantages • Where are the Good Men and Women? • Money Matters • 0 Comments

Cheaper dates for leaner time

Hey, just because we are in a recession does not mean that love has taken a back seat.  Instead, singles need to get creative on finding lower cost alternatives to pricey dinners out and wild evenings at clubs.  Remember that when you are in love it is even easy to forget to eat.  And sex costs practically nothing, if you use your charms to get it rather than your wallet. 

Amid slump, singles cut dating costs
Slump in economy is sparking creative ideas for a night out — or in
By Jasmin Aline Persch

Earlier this year, Elvert Howard wined and dined women at fine restaurants in Chicago. Now, he’s treating gals to happy hour appetizers and drinks at T.G.I. Friday’s.

Since Howard’s work slowed in March, the advertising account executive isn’t willing to shell out as much on dates. Rather than whisking women to the theater after dinner, he began opting for The Art Institute of Chicago when admission was free after happy hour. He says that by being creative, he can cut costs and still show dates a good time for an entire evening.

“If you approach them with a good personality and you get excited about the museum … [and] if a girl has the same interest in the museum, she won’t mind” that the museum is free, said Howard, 35. “I won’t mention the fact that it’s free.”

The economic downturn and tumbling stock market have forced many singles — especially men — to reconsider the gesture of a costly splurge on date night. While a few are taking a break from dating until their financial circumstances improve, more seem to be opting for less costly options.

“Everybody is anxious about the economy,” said Anna D’Agrosa, director of consumer insights with Zandl Group, a trend-spotting agency. “Even if you’re not personally affected, it’s not as fun to throw down a ton of money — but do something interesting.”

A recent survey by Zandl of 300 people in their 20s and 30s found that singles are less interested in spending money on a night out, with almost half saying they are partying more at home.

Singles are trading down from Whole Foods (nicknamed “Whole Paycheck” for its steep prices) to Trader Joe’s. More are passing up posh clubs for convenient bars, happy hours or house parties, D’Agrosa said. Romantically, singles are turning down swanky restaurants for casual rendezvous or even homemade dinners, she said.

Breaking away from the formal dinner date
Rachel Sarah, 36, returned to the dating scene as a single mom a few years back. She regularly met men at gourmet restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area until about a year ago.

Since then her dates have been more casual, if more original. She has bowled, roller skated and hiked with guys. Besides the chocolate, fruit and water she and her date split on their three-hour hike, the only other price she paid was getting poison oak.

Sarah sees benefits in removing money from the dating equation.

“It can be so much less awkward than sitting at a fancy restaurant and worrying about the bill and how you can split the bill,” she said.

One reason for her view is that Sarah is adamant about covering her chunk of the bill on dates. Finding herself grappling with layoffs in her regular jobs, the freelance writer has nixed upscale restaurants from her dating budget. Sarah is pitching more casual date ideas to avoid winding up at a pricey place she can’t afford. She would feel uncomfortable just letting a guy pay, she says.

Looking good comes at a price, too. To save money on dating outfits, Sarah and some of her gal pals came up with The First Date Skirt. Each woman buys a single, sexy skirt to be worn on her first dates. Recently, Sarah had to buy a new first-date outfit — a $40 blue, tight-fitted dress she picked up at a boutique — to replace the skirt.

“It got so frayed, I can’t wear it on a first date anymore,” she said.

Guys looking to cut back more than gals
While women may be trimming back their spending on apparel, men are particularly keen on cutting the cost of dating, likely because they often pay initially. A recent survey of 2,286 singles by online dating service True.com found that about half of men said they would curb their romantic expenses in a hard economy, compared with more than a third of women.

Jake Harrison, 27, sees reasons to cut back on his dating budget even though his work as a furniture designer is going well. His anxiety about the economy and rising prices have combined to make him more frugal. He’s taken to cooking dinner at his apartment — even on first dates.

“When you bring somebody into your home, there are a lot of things around that can initiate a conversation,” Harrison said. “The problem with the movies: You’re sitting speechless for two hours and then maybe afterwards you talk about it a bit.”

Harrison, who’s gay, also finds it a good test to ask guys out to a favorite hot dog joint in in Brooklyn — something that hasn’t appealed to everybody.

“It’s a good sign when somebody on a first date can have as much fun at a local hotdog stand as a four-star restaurant with expensive liquor,” he said.

The costly dinner date has been an American tradition at least since the 1920s. But Jamie Turndorf, a psychologist and creator of drlove.com, says money isn’t necessary to spark a connection. So what is?

“Spending the time and listening to each other — whatever enables you to do that, it doesn’t have to be at a fancy restaurant,” Turndorf said.

But traditions die hard. Howard misses taking gals to gourmet restaurants. He used to plan his formal dinner dates during off hours to avoid the prime-time hustle and bustle, allowing him to get better acquainted with his dates. Unfortunately, the racket at T.G.I. Friday’s can interrupt the flow of conversation, Howard says.

But he’s recently come up with new dating ideas that may stick after his freelance advertising work picks up. Howard and a date recently grabbed coffee, took a stroll through Lincoln Park and window-shopped.

“When my income returns to the normal level, I’ll do that but incorporate other activities like nicer restaurants and move, on the first date, to the theater to see ‘Rent,’ ‘Wicked’ or ‘Mamma Mia,’” he said.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 12.16.08 at 9.16 am
permalink | Categories: • Romance! • Dating Tips • Money Matters • 1 Comments

Pre-nups and should you?

You can believe that the financial columnist Jane Bryant Quinn would be aware of the need for firm understandings about money for new couples.  For sure when she found herself heading for the altar.  See her article below.

Slicing Up Assets in Advance

It’s one thing to write about prenups, and quite another to live through their making. Doing a prenup isn’t for sissies.
Jane Bryant Quinn
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:18 PM ET May 31, 2008

There I stood, in Vera Wang’s dreamy Madison Avenue shop, trying on a wedding dress. On either side, 25-year-olds, with their mothers, their bridesmaids and their 22-inch waists. In the center, me, trying to pull something white and swishy over my hips. Available wedding dates are few for brides of a certain age. You have to celebrate after your grandchildren get out of school and before your friends go away for the summer. So I’ll be a June bride. I have two more weeks and am hustling to finish the paperwork.

Oy, the paperwork!

When my husband died four years ago, I hadn’t expected love to come back into my life. It did, in the person of Carll and his children. Between us, we have eight. That raises the unromantic question faced by all parents who go to the altar, bringing families along. What do you do about the money?

If you do nothing, state law intervenes. When one of you dies, the other can claim a share of the assets, no matter what it says in your will. If you divorce (gulp), a court can divide the property in ways that seem fair. Couples wanting a different result have to draw up a prenuptial agreement—a legal contract defining the financial arrangement they prefer.

It’s one thing to write about prenups, as I have before, and quite another to live through their making. Most decisions were easy. One, however, required us to dig into feelings that were hard to talk about. Embarrassing, even. Doing prenups isn’t for sissies.

The easy things were our separate assets. Neither of us needs financial support. The prenup says that what’s mine goes to my kids when I die, and what’s his goes to his.

There’s a twist with my retirement fund. You can leave an Individual Retirement Account to anyone you want. By law, however, some or all of your 401(k) or pension trust is earmarked for your spouse. A prenup can’t change that. To free me to leave my pension trust to my kids, Carll has to sign a special waiver after we marry, not before.

So here’s the nightmare (only an obsessive financial reporter could think this one up): I say “I do,” waltz from the wedding ceremony to the party tent, trip on the dance floor, break my neck and breathe my last. Carll inherits the pension trust and can’t give it back to the kids without paying a gift tax. They rebel. I haunt the lot of them.

OK, thoughts like that mean I need calming down. Nevertheless, I asked a lawyer who’ll be at the wedding to drop his notary stamp in his pocket. I won’t take a step until the waiver is signed and legalized.

The tough decision was what to do about the weekend house we own together in upstate New York. When we bought it, we agreed that if one of us died or the relationship failed, the house would be sold and the proceeds divided. That was still OK with me. For Carll, however, the house is now our baby and he’d hate to lose it. If I gave him my half, it would take a chunk out of the assets I’m leaving for my kids. I balked.

This sudden, fierce desire to protect my children’s full inheritance came as a surprise. After all, I’m getting married—for richer, for poorer, and all that. Spouses are supposed to take care of each other financially, as well as emotionally. How could I tell him no? There’s other money for the kids.

Reaching a resolution took several uncomfortable (for me) conversations. In the end, it worked out. Each of us will be able to keep the house if we want, with the kids inheriting it, eventually. And—very important—all the children are in the loop. I don’t believe in surprises when the will is read.

Meanwhile, back at Vera Wang, I arrived for my first fitting. The gorgeous young thing at the desk looked at me and asked, “What’s your daughter’s name?” “It’s me,” I said. “I’m the bride!”

posted by Kathryn Lord on 08.17.08 at 11.28 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • 0 Comments

Economic realities and dating

A tightening economy is putting the pinch on dating in Britain, and probably here in the old USA.  Read about how our single friends in England are doing with less in their dating budgets. 

Credit Crunches Cupid’s Arrow

LONDON, July 21 /PRNewswire/—

- Spend on Love Hits All Time Low as Men Expected to Pick up the Bill
- PARSHIP’s Cost of Love Index, Finds Singles Have Decreased Their Love Shopping Bill by 12%
Spiralling debt, soaring inflation and a stalling housing market are hurting Britain’s 8 million love-seeking singles, according to online dating firm PARSHIP’s annual Cost of Love Index.

In just 12 months British singles’ love “shopping bill” has dropped by 12%. In 2008 singles will spend just GBP11.5 billion in the pursuit of love and happiness, compared to the staggering GBP13.1 billion forked out in 2007. What’s more, the cost of love is likely to hurt men far more than women as singles revert back to traditional dating rituals with the man expected to pay on the first date.

PARSHIP.co.uk’s Love Index found that singles have decreased their spend by GBP207 per year. In 2007 they racked up an all-time high of GBP1647 per person - GBP1008 on nights out on the pull, GBP156 on internet dating services, and a further GBP602 on first dates. However, 2008 has seen the average spend per person drop to just GBP1440.

At the height of the dating boom last year, singles went on seven dates over a 12-month period. 2008 sees a return to more modest dating patterns, with singles clocking up just four dates. Likewise, the cost of a first date has dramatically decreased in the same period from GBP69 in 2007 to GBP48 in 2008. Men now spend GBP49, compared to GBP46 spent by women. All things being equal, you would expect the bill at the end of the evening to be split, however only 40% of women were prepared to go Dutch. No less than 42% now expect the man to pay and only 1% of women would be prepared to pick up the bill, preferring to spend their budget on a new pair of shoes.

Although the average single man now spends GBP146.50 a month in his quest for love, one fifth of men (19%) claim to spend over GBP300, while 9% splash out GBP500 or more. By contrast, only 2% of women are prepared to invest over GBP500 a month in love, with their average spend falling to just GBP93.50, over one third (36%) less than the man.

Dr Victoria Lukats, psychiatrist and PARSHIP’s dating expert, commented:

“The rise of online dating as a way of finding a partner may partly explain the reported reduced spend on an average date. When dating on the internet, people may be less likely to spend excessive amounts of money on a first date - because it’s with someone they’ve never met before. Going out for dinner remains a popular choice for a first date, but more and more people tend to opt for lunch, coffee or a drink in a bar. They opt for a less pressured first date to determine if there’s any chemistry before committing to spending a whole evening together.”

“It’s also interesting, but perhaps unsurprising, that men and women alike still expect either the man to pick up the bill on a first date, or for the bill to be split - rather than the woman being expected to pay. Some may feel this is old-fashioned but it’s far from outdated: previous surveys have repeatedly shown that men rate good looks in a partner more highly than women do, while women rate generosity and income of a partner more highly than men do. While these distinct differences exist, it seems that we’re a long way off from women being just as likely to pick up the bill on a first date. Many men still feel a need to demonstrate their generous side on a first date and figures show that many women are still impressed by this.”

The Cost of Love Index survey of 1,000 British singles seeking a long-term relationship was commissioned by PARSHIP, Europe’s largest serious online dating service for single men and women, which features a unique psychometric compatibility test and a methodology that matches you with people who are genuinely right for you.

Cost of love monthly spend Single Men Single Women GBP50 49% 63% GBP100 20% 23% GBP200 12% 8% GBP300 7% 3% GBP400 3% 1% GBP500 9% 2% Cost of a date Region London GBP61 South GBP56 Midlands & Wales GBP38 North GBP41 Scotland GBP55 Northern Ireland GBP118

Notes to editors:
About the survey
The survey was conducted by Innofact in June 2008 and YouGov in August 2007 with 1,000 British adults over the age of 18.
About Dr Victoria Lukats (http://www.drlukats.com) Dr Victoria Lukats, MBBS MRCPsych MSc is a psychiatrist, agony aunt and dating and expert. Dr Lukats is a Specialist Registrar working in the NHS and dating expert for PARSHIP.
About PARSHIP
PARSHIP.co.uk is the UK’s largest compatibility-based online dating service, specifically for people who are serious about forming a lasting relationship. It is the British subsidiary of Europe’s most successful serious online dating service, now with millions of members, predominantly affluent, educated men and women between 28 and 55 years old.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 08.05.08 at 7.11 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • 0 Comments

Gays, lesbians and purchasing power

I’ve thought for a long time that it would be the money that gay people have to spend that would be the key to unlock the proverbial closet. Gay folks, particularly gay male couples, have a lot of money to get rid of—just think about it: Usually two wage earners, both men, who tend to get paid more than women, and most often, no financial responsibility for children.  Gay male couples can be economic powerhouses, and just look at ads in the New York Times to see how the tonier businesses are going after their bank accounts.

This article below spotlights businesses that are leaving gay money on the table, eHarmony being number one.  eHarmony may be getting enough straight dollars to pooh pooh potential gay clients, but in this economic downturn, no markets can be ignored.

What I don’t like about this article is the use of the word “cater.”  The word implies “giving special treatment to” and that is just what the political right tries to portray gays as trying to get: Special treatment.  It is not special treatment to get the same service—or rights—as anyone else.  The dollars may be gay ones, but they are worth exactly the same whether a gay or straight person spends them, and the money is indistinguishable once it is spent. 

Homosexuals’ Money Is No Good Here
Some Businesses Don’t Cater to Gays, Lesbians at a Cost to the Bottom Line
By CLOE SHASHA

June 19, 2008 —

Some businesses still don’t cater to homosexuals, ignoring a potentially lucrative source of revenue, says University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee economist Keith A. Bender.

One of the most well-known examples is eHarmony.com, even as California, the country’s most populated state, began performing same-sex marriages this week. The online dating Web site bills itself as a provider of what it calls unique measurements for compatibility that, according to a representative, do not cater to same-sex partnering.

“The research is based on six Ph.D. psychologists and 29 variables for compatibility called the compatibility matching system,” said David D., an eHarmony representative who refused to give his full name.

The Pasadena, Calif.-based site, which began in 2000, says it serves about 20 million members across the United States, Canada and Australia.

On the sexual orientation issue, “It is false to say eHarmony discriminates against gays or lesbians,” the company said in a statement. “Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It’s just not a service we offer now.”

The Web site’s measurements for matches were developed by Neil Clark Warren, who says that eHarmony is the first online dating service to use relationship science to pair its singles.

Bender, the Wisconsin economist, believes that the Web site eHarmony and other companies could be more profitable if they offered their services to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

“These companies are cutting out a certain segment of the population that they could be getting revenue from,” Bender said. “Statistics I’ve heard say that around 10 percent of the population expresses some homosexual tendencies. One way to think about these businesses is that companies like eHarmony could increase their revenues by about 10 percent, assuming that the same rates of homosexuals as heterosexuals would take advantage of these kinds of dating sites.”

There are 417,044 pairs of unmarried male partners and 362,823 pairs of unmarried female partners living together in this country, according to a 2006 American Community Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau. That does not take into account homosexual singles or married couples.

Robert Lee, the owner and editor of aLoveLinksPlus.com—a dating service directory—said that while some dating Web sites explicitly exclude homosexual singles, others do not make their policies as obvious.

“EHarmony.com is a standout,” Lee said. “But there are also some smaller niche sites that are only for straights, which are not as vigilant in saying you have to be straight to join.”

Some fitness centers, resorts and other services continue to exclude homosexuals as well.

Recent examples include:

In New Mexico, Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer from Albuquerque, told a lesbian couple in April that she would not photograph them because she only works with straight couples.

In July 2007, Rochester, N.Y., couple Amy and Sarah Monson were refused membership at the Rochester Athletic Club. These two women said that they were in a committed relationship and that they should be allowed to buy a membership.

It took until June 2007 for the University of Virginia to allow same-sex couples to join its gym, according to the Washington Post.

In May 2008, Drs. Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton refused to give infertility treatment to a lesbian couple because of their religious views. One of the patients wanted to be artificially inseminated, and the doctors’ refusal led to a case that reached the Supreme Court.

Clinical Coordinator Christopher Johnson of the Gay Men of African Descent advocacy group says these practices are offensive and discriminatory.

“In terms of a social decision, it keeps people who are of the lesbian-gay-transsexual-bisexual community outside of society where they can’t connect to one another through those institutions or those businesses,” he said.

“That is discrimination. Although society has made some progress, there is still a lot of work to do to make people know that gay people have rights as well. The decision to have people keep us out of their businesses is unconstitutional.”

But the legal issues are unresolved, said Emma Dickson, a New York attorney.

“There has been discussion about whether sexual orientation is necessarily included under our civil rights laws,” she said. “As we are moving towards recognizing gay rights as civil rights, we could make a parallel between not serving a black person in a diner because of his or her race and not being able to participate in a dating Web site because of one’s sexual orientation.”

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

posted by Kathryn Lord on 07.14.08 at 7.33 am
permalink | Categories: • Gays, Lesbians, and Transgender • Dating Tips • Money Matters • News About Dating Sites and Types • eHarmony • 0 Comments

Millionaire Scratch?

In Internet dating, the caveat is always “Buyer beware!” and here is another good example of why.  I haven’t the vaguest idea why any millionaire would list on a dating site like MillionaireMatch.com, or why anyone would believe the riches story.  But clearly folks do—believe, I mean.  Remember the other adage, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.”  Underlines below are mine.

Homeless man gets more than $100,000 from online conquests
By Sofia Diogo Mateus

A homeless man posing as a millionaire was arrested for scamming 13 women for more than $100,000.

Through the website MillionaireMatch.com, Paul Kruger, 50, met and convinced eight women that he was a Grammy-nominated music mogul who had worked with Michael Jackson and Quincy Jones, amongst others.

He met the other five alleged victims through one of the women he met on the website.

Later he said needed money for a CD and DVD manufacturing investment, for which the women sent him a total $102,000.

One of the victims was even shown a false stock reports, the court heard, since the operation apparently involved group investment in stock options.

“He did have a good story,” said one victim, a sales manager in Costa Mesa, Calif., who records show gave him $10,000.

The website, which describes itself as the “number one dating site for succesful singles and admirers”, is free and unregulated and anyone can join and claim to be a millionaire, simply by saying that they win $150,000 or more annually.

Steve Kasper, the marketing vice president of Successfulmatch.com, the parent company of MillionaireMatch.com, both bases in Toronto, said it was up to users to self-police.

“We do tell all of our members on all of our sites that you have to take precautions when you’re on the Internet and looking at people that you’re going to meet,” he said.

Charges were filed in Souderton, Pennsylvania, because that is where he told women to send him money; it is also the address of the home of his ex-wife, authorities said.

The money was used to fuel his gambling addiction, since he had various VIP casino accounts, authorities said.

Mr Krueger declined to comment to reporters as he was arraigned on charges of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, theft by deception, deceptive or fraudulent business practices and Pennsylvania Securities Act violations.

The Californian woman said she was willing to be a witness but that the experience had not put her off online dating.

“You have to be careful whereever you go,” said the woman, who is in her 30s. “You could get scammed meeting someone at a bar. It doesn’t matter. You just have to do your due diligence, and I didn’t.”

posted by Kathryn Lord on 06.25.08 at 9.01 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Tell the Truth • Money Matters • Be Safe • Scams and Scam Protection • 0 Comments

Put your money where your heart is…

I always recommend that singles pick a big, established, well-trafficked dating site, one that charges a fee.  And of course, if you join, you should pay.  Here’s a report that backs up some of my rationale—that people who join and pay a fee are more serious and see others posting on the site as more serious too.  Underlining below is mine.

The typical online dater is serious, says report

People who date on the internet tend to be serious about the endeavour, a new report asserts.

According to eMarketer, those who use paid-for subscription services to meet prospective romantic mates are doing so because they want to find a specific sort of person who takes the venture as seriously as they do.

Citing comScore figures that reveal 97 million people visited matchmaking websites in December of last year, representing a ten per cent year-on-year fall, the report comments that a specific demographic is drawn to such resources.

“Online dating site users are looking for a pool of other people who are serious about dating, and pay for access to that pool,” the publication notes.

Meanwhile, an International Herald-Tribune article is cited in which the chief executive of Match.com, Thomas Enraght-Moony, describes internet dating as “highly underpenetrated”.

Hitwise has reported that the term ‘Valentine’s poems’ was the most popular search phrase containing the word Valentine in February 2007.

posted by Kathryn Lord on 03.07.08 at 6.50 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • News About Dating Sites and Types • What the Research Says • Online Dating Facts and Figures • 1 Comments

Match.com drop?

This little piece below is pretty dense with the financial talk, but interesting.  Just keep in mind that even if Match slips a knotch or two, you are still talking about millions of singles who are registered.

Match.com earnings show major decline in subscribers.

Match.com Released their earnings a few days ago. Is this their way of saying subscribers in the US decreased at least 12% year over year? One assumes the US accounts for far more than 50% of their subscribers.

“Revenue growth was driven by a 1% increase in worldwide subscribers, including 13% growth in international subscribers, most notably in the UK, combined with higher average prices in North America. Operating Income Before Amortization grew faster than revenue due to a lower cost of acquisition as a percentage of revenue in North America and flat operating costs, partially offset by higher international cost of acquisition. Operating income in the second quarter of 2007 included amortization of non-cash marketing of $7.2 million.”

posted by Kathryn Lord on 09.17.07 at 6.10 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • News About Dating Sites and Types • Online Dating Facts and Figures • Match.com • 0 Comments

Money - Let’s Talk About It

I don’t know what the big deal is with new couples and money—why is it so hard to talk about? Of course, if folks grew up in families like mine, money was a dirtier topic than sex.  And sex was pretty bad. 

How you and your intended handle (or don’t handle) money is a very big deal.  I love this quote from Money Guru Suze Orman in the Newsweek article below: If Orman had her way, people with poor credit ratings (known in the business as FICO scores) wouldn’t be allowed to get married until they demonstrated at least two years of steady financial improvement. “There’s exceptions to every rule,” Orman says, “but I always say, FICO first, then sex.”

Now wouldn’t that make for an interesting pre-sex discussion?

Best, Kathryn

Marriage & Money: What You Should Know
Getting hitched? Don’t even think of it before you’ve had ‘the talk’ with your beloved. No, not that talk. The one about money.
By Jennifer Ordonez
Newsweek

April 9, 2007 issue - Tax time can tax even the strongest marriages, but newlyweds Brad and Drew Erb, who took their vows last October, should be feeling particularly in love as April 15 approaches. Over the past six months, the couple has done nearly everything possible to avoid the kind of financial conflicts that often lead to nasty fights between husbands and wives: they combined their checking and investment accounts, made each other beneficiaries of their respective 401(k)s and are bumping up their life insurance. Brad, who is now on his wife’s medical plan, saves a few hundred dollars a month. Even better, filing a joint tax return this year gave them a 15 percent higher refund. “Our situation is probably luckier than a lot of people’s,” says Brad, a Winter Park, Fla.-based financial adviser for Edward Jones.

He’s right. All over the country, freshly married couples, confronting that cold 1040 “EZ” form for the first time together, are finding out the hard way that when it comes to marital stress, sex has nothing on money. “Money is the last taboo,” says Olivia Mellan, a psychotherapist and author of “Money Harmony: Resolving Money Conflicts in Your Life and Relationships.” “Money is never about money. It’s about love, power, security, control, old age, self-esteem, freedom, independence.” That, financial advisers say, is why squabbling over finances tops the list of reasons couples divorce.

So how can married couples—or those about to get hitched—keep money worries from ruining their love lives? The quick answer is that old cliché: communication. Preferably the brutally honest type. It may not be easy to come clean about your financial shortcomings. But your mate will find out sooner or later—probably when you’re sitting down to do your taxes—and if it’s later, it’s going to get ugly. Now’s the time to exercise that “better or worse” clause in your wedding vows. What’s your real income—not your “dating inflated” version? How much debt do you really have on those credit cards? Does the repo man carry your picture in his wallet? With marriage and money, advisers warn, ignorance is definitely not bliss.

That’s advice Amie Provencher and James Schiffner, who just tied the knot, are determined to take to heart. The two met online three years ago through eHarmony, the matchmaking Web site. Provencher and Schiffner are like-minded about a lot things, but it’s hard to imagine that money is one of them. Like the cobbler whose children have holes in their shoes, Provencher is a finance manager who, by her own admission, “hates bills.” Schiffner, 38, a computer security analyst, doesn’t. “We actually have really different philosophies. He pays a bill as soon as he gets it. I don’t,” Provencher says. Both are “addicted” to their chiropractor (not cheap) and like to go out for sushi dinners at least once a week. But while Provencher will spend $200 on a haircut and has a newfound fondness for pricey moisturizers (she recently turned 40), Schiffner spends almost nothing on grooming.

That may not seem like such a big deal; but month after month the differences can add up. Financial adviser Suze Orman urges people to pay close attention to little clues like these before they decide to walk down the aisle. Does your boyfriend over-tip at restaurants, even though he has credit-card debt? Orman says that may mean he doesn’t respect his money and will take the same approach to yours.

Provencher and Schiffner are evolving. She says he has helped raise her money consciousness. “James came into the relationship clean, with no debt and a really high credit score. He’s enabled me to get in pretty good financial shape.” Provencher’s willingness to change is a good sign, says Orman, whose latest book, “Women & Money,” urges women to confront money fears instilled in them by a historically patriarchal society. If Orman had her way, people with poor credit ratings (known in the business as FICO scores) wouldn’t be allowed to get married until they demonstrated at least two years of steady financial improvement. “There’s exceptions to every rule,” Orman says, “but I always say, FICO first, then sex.” Orman believes that when spouses have very different credit ratings, it often means trouble down the road. Consider the consequences, she says, of buying a house with your credit-challenged spouse. Your mortgage rate will likely be based on the lower credit score—or, at best, an average of the two. That means more debt and higher monthly payments, not the sort of thing you want to find out for the first time when you sit down with the mortgage broker. “You have to be able to address things beforehand,” Orman says. “Everything.”

Of course, as long as opposites attract, spendthrifts will couple with hoarders—and people like Ruth Hayden, a St. Paul, Minn.-based financial consultant, will have clients. The author of “For Richer, Not Poorer: The Money Book for Couples,” Hayden says the key to marital happiness is compromise. “What I teach to my couples is that 30 percent of their challenges will actually be resolved. The other 70 percent have to be managed.” Brad and Drew Erb have some things to work out. Brad’s father, a university professor, grew up in a Mennonite household where frugality was next to godliness. “Our parents never made a whole lot of money, but they were always conscientious about living below their means,” says Brad, 33. “Debt makes my skin crawl.”

Drew, 28, says her kin couldn’t be more different. They’re “the classic American family where credit cards rule everything.” The first in her family to go to college, Drew says her parents “wanted to help me but their attitude was, ‘Get loans and we’ll help you pay it back’.” During college and afterward, while working as a horticulturist, Drew amassed lots of credit-card debt. But when she and Brad got engaged, she decided to get serious about her finances. She quit horticulture and took a higher-paying job as an office manager. “I felt that I wasn’t contributing very much to our marriage and that Brad would be bearing the brunt of it.” So far, the couple, who live in the house Brad bought before they met, can think of only one real splurge: new furniture. Since they got engaged, they have been able to pay down about half of Drew’s debt.

Another secret to avoiding financial stress: deciding together if one spouse is going to stop working to stay home with the kids. Married last June, Filipa and Eric Bryson moved from her hometown in New York state to her husband’s in Rhode Island. She left behind her job as an elementary-school teacher. She thought she’d find a new job, but after giving birth to their son she had a change of heart. Surprisingly, she loves being a stay-at-home mom. “Now it’s all about, ‘Can we afford for me to stay home?’ ” Filipa says. “I never thought I would be like that.”

For the Brysons, the decision has worked out well, because they both agree it’s what they want for their family. For young couples trying to make every dollar count, it’s especially important to map out short-and long-term savings goals. Amie Provencher and James Schiffner already do this. They both plan to start saving for a house, and would like to have a rainy-day fund. But first, Provencher has to finish paying off her student loans and old credit-card debt. Schiffner, meanwhile, has his own debt to retire. He splurged and bought Provencher’s $10,000 engagement ring on credit. “The way to save money for a home is to just save money,” he says. “And we’re not there yet.” The important thing is, they’re “not there” together.

With Raina Kelley

posted by Kathryn Lord on 06.21.07 at 7.30 am
permalink | Categories: • Dating Tips • Money Matters • 1 Comments

Who Pays for Dates?

First dates, later dates, and who pays?  Big topic of discussion amongst both men and women.  Guys watch what women do, ladies.  So be ready. 

From InsideBayArea.com

Rule No. 3 (see last week): First date has to be cheap

WE GOT some interesting feedback on last week’s column about whether a guy should be expected to pay for most everything in the initial phases of courtship.

(Our position: The guy pays, especially if he does the asking, but we encourage even a halfheartedly mumbled attempt by the woman to spring for something — a round of drinks, the tip, 10 percent of the bail bond — mainly because such a gesture works wonders as a relationship, um, lubricant.)

Nearly all the responses were from guys, most of whom felt victimized to some degree by women who wanted a free lunch or dinner or gourmet picnic in a verdant meadow (more about that later). Interestingly, no women wrote in outraged about how our opinion perpetuates the stereotype of men having to coddle and take care of the opposite sex because they can’t take care of themselves. But then again, maybe our postman — er, letter carrier — has been ill lately.

In any case, one of the missives stood out from the rest, and not just because it sailed through the transom affixed to a brick. It was from a guy named Rob (we won’t identify him further, in case he might ever want to try dating again), who felt we weren’t hard enough on women who seem to expect to be wined and dined ad infinitum. To illustrate his argument, he broke down his expenses for a recent first date, from $7 for parking to $95 for a comedy show and drinks. Oh, and with a high-end dinner in between. The total was around $200 for, he said, “someone I barely even know.”

To which we can only respond: What, no private jet to Maui for a hot-stone massage in Hana?

Say what you will about who should pay for first dates (please discuss among yourselves, because we’re officially sick of the topic), but Rob caused his own problem by going too far, too fast. And that’s not something you’ll hear very often from this space.

Which brings us to today’s lesson: What is an appropriate activity for a first date?

Let’s stipulate that this is not an online-dating first date, for which the only acceptable venue is a Starbucks or a crowded bar with two exits, preferably one near the restrooms. No, this is a true first date, arrived at only after a certain amount of flirting, e-mailing and driving by her house 50 times.

-The movies: No. Too much time spent in tortured silence. There will be plenty of opportunity for that later in the relationship.

-Gourmet picnic in a verdant meadow: No. This smacks of trying too hard. And what if she doesn’t even like beefalo jerky and Coors Light?

-Parking, drinks, dinner, comedy show: No. See above. And Rob, enough with the dating cost/analysis spreadsheets. OK? Thanks.

-Dinner: Yes. Provided it’s at a modest place (sometimes known as a “joint”) that doesn’t serve a diminutive entree on a plate the size of a manhole cover. The fact is, most women are uncomfortable with first dates that are too lavish. (Or have we been misinformed yet again? Ladies?)

-Bowling: Yes. Because if one of you is demonstrably better than the other, you can put up the gutter bumpers and increase beer frames from one to three. In fact, we recommend that from the outset.

-The Boardwalk: Yes, if it’s at night. Everyone looks better in the glow of pulsating neon. Particularly those who’ve just come from a grueling session at the Stardust Lanes.

From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord

posted by Kathryn Lord on 06.02.07 at 6.32 am
permalink | Categories: • For and About Men • Dating Tips • Mind Your Manners • Money Matters • 1 Comments