Kathryn's Blog: About Matchmakers and Dating Services
I’ve been helping singles with their online profiles from the very start, in 2002 when I became a Romance Coach. Most usually, I even write the profile essay, using the individual’s own words that they write in answer to some fun questions. I seem to have a particular skill for writing the essays, because my clients usually like them so much that they do not even change a single word. And their profiles get result, which is what we all are looking for.
Occasionally, I’ll get requests, usually from men, to write first emails for them, even once in awhile more than that. Even more occasionally I might do so, but usually only for men who are good guys but severely limited in their writing skills. I do NOT do this sort of writing for people who “don’t have the time.” Dating takes time, and so do relationships. If you haven’t got time to write an email, how are you going to have time to build and maintain a relationship? And no one likes being tricked or fooled. Email recipients are of course going to think that the person sending the email actually WROTE it. Well, maybe they did, since some of these services described below search for candidates, write and send the first emails, then continue the correspondence. They even set up the first date! The next step would be actually going on the date. Yeesh.
What do you think? Would you hire someone to write your emails for you? And what if you found out that you had been corresponding with someone your date hired and not him/her?
The cyber Cyrano
By Claire Prentice
The world of internet dating can be fraught. But, for a fee, a ghost writer will rewrite your online profile with the promise of making you more attractive to others. How does it work?
These modern-day cupids are popping up across the internet. They specialise in ghost writing witty, charming, flirtatious messages on behalf of single men and women unwilling, unable or too busy to do it themselves.
“We’ve noticed a definite trend with more and more of these companies springing up- and there is a huge demand,” says Mark Brooks, editor of Online Personals Watch, a site that tracks internet dating trends.
Clients usually come to these online-dating outsourcing companies because their own attempts to find love in cyberspace just aren’t getting results. Many want to avoid the rejection they feel when their lovingly-crafted messages go unanswered.
“Necessity is the mother of invention,” says Evan Marc Katz, who has worked as a dating coach since 2003 and runs e-cyrano.com, one of the first of this new breed of companies. “There are a surprising number of people out there who don’t know how to market themselves in an original way.”
He stresses that his clients are not losers, but are typically successful, professional and well-rounded people. So what qualifies someone to set themselves up as a dating expert?
“I did online dating myself for years with great success and I worked as a customer-care representative for an online dating company,” says Mr Katz, who is now happily married.
Every date brings financial rewards for the ghost writers, who compare themselves to salesmen, telemarketers and, in some cases, poets. Some offer their services in a range of languages.
Working for a set fee, the companies interview their clients at length over the phone. Using this information, they then write the initial “sell”, the blurb which online daters use to advertise themselves. Many also provide tips and advice on how to optimise your appeal to fellow daters.
TargetLove offers everything, from basic profile writing for £150 to dating coaches who, for around £90 an hour, will talk the unlucky and inept through every step of the dating game.
Some companies will go so far as posing as their client on dating sites and writing messages to potential partners to arrange first dates.
These tactics have provoked controversy. Critics claim it is a dishonest way to try to find true love.
Major turn-off
“It’s awful. You’re misrepresenting yourself,” says Jared Gordon, editor of A Bad Case of the Dates, a blog that collects dating horror stories.
Not so, insists Scott Valdez, the founder and president of Virtual Dating Assistants (VDA). “We are representing our clients as honestly and accurately as possible online,” he says.
VDA does it all: writes a client’s profile, picks out potential matches, sends introductory e-mails and messages back and forth until a date is confirmed. The company guarantees between two and five dates per month in return for fees ranging from £400 to £800 a month.
It bills itself as a company that “specialises in making the dating dreams of busy individuals come true”.
Most of these outsourcing companies are in America and, though the majority of their clients are American, many have customers as far afield as the UK, Canada, Australia, Mexico and South America.
Scott Valdez Mr Valdez says online dating is a ‘screening process’
Typically, the majority of clients are men. Although it says the proportion of women is increasing, 80% of Virtual Dating Assistants’ clients are male.
Mr Valdez, who previously worked in sales and marketing, compares his service to a direct-marketing campaign.
“Online dating is not a date,” he says. “It’s a screening process and a place to filter through the masses to identify potential dates.”
So what tips can would-be daters expect to hear for their money?
“Be specific. And don’t rely on adjectives. Instead of saying you are spontaneous, give an example of an occasion when you were spontaneous,” says Mr Katz.
The dating website OK Cupid does data mining, analysing their users’ data to look for patterns for successful internet dating. Their research suggests that bad grammar and “text speak” are a major turn-off.
Ok Cupid analysed feedback on more than 700,000 photos of daters. The results showed that daters who smiled or look flirtatiously into the camera were rated more favourably than those who didn’t. And people who used pictures of themselves doing something “conversation worthy” such as playing guitar or scuba diving got more positive responses than those who didn’t.
Have they ever had any complaints from clients? “There was one guy who complained we made him sound too cool,” says Mr Valdez.
Most of the companies are relatively small operations, often employing a team of freelance writers. A number have been forced to take on more staff to keep up with demand.
“It’s like the funeral business - there’s always demand,” says Mr Katz. “It’s recession-proof - people are always looking for love.”
More about matching than maybe you want to know….
High-End Matchmakers Dish on Dating
By Val Brown
Online dating has become increasingly de-stigmatized, but there are many who still aren’t comfortable having their photo online and publicly admitting they need help finding a mate: the powerful, the wealthy, and the well-known to name a few. And though you’d think they would have fewer problems than us mere mortals in finding a significant other, apparently they suffer the same slings, arrows and bad dates as the rest of us. Their solution: professional, pricey, discreet matchmakers. They are not the kind of guys who go on on “Millionaire Matchmaker.”
By “they,” I mean men. Men make up the majority of a high end matchmaker’s clients. Women are generally not the clients but potential matches for the men; and in most cases, they simply pay an application or interview fee. I don’t think this is any sexist plot by the modern day Dolly Levi’s, only a reflection of a dating dynamic that is still alive and well—at least where well-to-do men are concerned.
I spoke recently with three matchmakers, Richard Easton, Janis Spindel and Samantha Daniels. Though New York based, all work with clients across the country (and internationally), and Daniels keeps an LA office as well. All offer a unique perspective and approach to their services, and all have toe-curling prices.
How much will this set a guy back? From $25,000-$100,000, depending on the matchmaker and your deal. This will give you a year to 18 months of matches. Matchmaker Richard Easton, new to the New York market and an anomaly among matchmakers—most are women—says he challenges the price resistance he sometimes encounters with a car analogy. “I’m working with guys who pay $150 grand for a car without the blink of an eye. So I ask them, ‘What’s 50K to find your life partner?’” Fair point. He does offer a $10K starter rate for young Wall St. and Silicon Alley/Valley types as well.
A personable former head of his own boutique M&A firm, Easton has parlayed his expertise in marrying companies into the more rewarding realm of marrying hearts and minds. He says he offers a different perspective on the art cum science. “Men feel more comfortable with me, they will say things to me that they won’t say to a woman, about what they’re looking for, what works and doesn’t.” Putting on my marketing hat, it does make sense that that his branding appeals to masculine sensibilities, with nary a heart or pink flower in sight.
Janis Spindel, the doyenne of New York matchmaking, might disagree. A smart, sassy tsunami of self-confidence, Spindel has the chutzpa and sixth sense needed to ferret out the perfect match for her clients . She’ll approach anyone woman who fits the bill—in gyms, Barneys, a parking garage, on the street. A former fashion sales director, she boasts an uncanny ability to know who is right for whom. With hundreds of marriages and countless relationships in her 17 year career, her combination of intuition, persuasion, and calculation—a quick up and down glance can tell her a lot—are her stock in trade. And she gets results.
“You get invited, you go.” So said Samantha Daniel’s grandmother when she was a girl, and she’s been going ever since, attending events, fundraisers, dinners, reunions—not to directly sell or recruit, but to network. She takes a soft sell approach to her metier. A former divorce attorney, Daniels traded acrimony for harmony, deciding she’d rather bring people together than break them apart. She launched her agency in New York 11 years ago, then set up an office in L.A. after going there to produce the TV show based on her life, “Miss Match.” Very social in both cities, she takes on high profile women as paying clients as well—studio heads, CEO’s, and other successful women who need equally successful—or incredibly well- adjusted—men who will not be intimidated by their success. And Daniel’s former career gives her great insight into what breaks couples up (number one: poor communication), so she can offer clear-headed advice as clients embark upon relationships or marriage.
With all the matchmakers I couldn’t help but think that there are some real sad sacks on their books, but they all insist their clients are actually quite social, popular—but just haven’t found the right person.
And while the price of admission is high for men, money will get you in regardless of your age, height, or attractiveness (though I’m assured that the overly odious are turned down). And if you’re not looking your best, you’ll be sent off to an image consultant for a male makeover.
In order to get on the “roster,” women must be very attractive, fit, be either book smart or street smart, and have a successful career of some sort. “Ivy league educated” gets thrown around a lot in describing both the men and women on the matchmakers’ books. Most women are under 40, with some exceptions. (How old are the men? 27 to 78.) They don’t accept many short women, though they do keep a small pool for very short men. They ask for “natural beauty”, so presumably those botoxed into a state of forehead catatonia or sporting impossibly perky triple D’s are less desirable.
I am curious about how they weed out the gold diggers—why would a beautiful, Ivy League educated 25 year old woman need a dating service to find a man? Spindel assures me she can spot them a mile away, and they won’t get on her roster. Perhaps it’s just time management for these 25 year olds—better to shoot gilded fish in a barrel than trawl through the charity, club or Hamptons circuit for five years.
Whether it was to butter me up to write a positive article, or there was some genuine interest, they all said they may have some guys for me. “How old will you go?” Janis inquired.
“Well, if they’re youthful and in shape, 60. 65 in a pinch.” She seemed surprised. I am way over 40, but I know from internet dating that 45 or 50 year old guys are generally not looking for women their age. You have to go older. And anyway, I’ve always liked older men. And younger, come to think of it.
Daniels asks if I would be willing to relocate? Hmm. L.A., London, Paris…? Sure. A zillion acre ranch in Montana? No.
I’m a little trepidatious. I’ve made a good living and have never targeted wealthy men as suitors. I’ve mostly gone for the starving artists. They suited my creative sensibilities, and I’ve also thought that if I were with someone wealthy I would give up some of my power. I’ve never understood how people can marry for money, not love. That would be torture for me—a waste of good years of my life.
So we’ll see if these matchmakers come up with the goods. I’ll keep you posted. If you see me in a restaurant with a 78-year-old, you’ll know it was a set-up .
If you are wondering why Internet dating hasn’t put matchmakers out of business, here’s why.
Matchmakers thriving despite rise of dating Web sites
Turned off by Internet dating sites that offer a vast selection but take a lot of time, singles are spending bigger bucks for more service that leaves the date-picking to a matchmaker.
By Susan Carpenter
What would you pay to meet the love of your life? Twenty dollars a month for an Internet dating site that lets you wade knee-deep into the dating pool and swim with millions of other singles? Or $1,000-plus for a personalized matchmaker who will do the wading, and weeding, for you?
Over the last few years, a surprising number of singles have been choosing the latter, despite the declining economy. Turned off by Internet dating sites that offer a vast selection but take a lot of time, they’re spending bigger bucks for more service that leaves the date-picking to someone else.
“Matchmaking should have been dead by now,” said Mark Brooks of Online Personals Watch, a Web site that’s been tracking Internet dating of all kinds since 2004.
Instead, the opposite has happened, he said. Matchmakers not only have survived but are thriving, having been aided and legitimized by the entity that was supposed to have killed them off — the Internet.
Like social networking, which had many dating industry experts inaccurately predicting the demise of paid Internet dating sites, Internet dating hasn’t killed matchmaking, but fed it. In fact, the three go hand in hand, leading relationship-minded singles to ever higher levels of paid service.
Though social networking sites such as Facebook may bring people together and do it for free, there’s no guarantee that those brought-together people are available and looking for a relationship. And though Internet dating sites such as Yahoo Personals do a better job of bringing together singles who are motivated to get together because they are paying to find dates, they don’t always do a good job of sorting out the serious from the players, or even to help individuals select people who are truly good for them.
Personalized matchmakers promise to do just that. Of course, they also charge a higher price — anywhere from $1,000 to $100,000, depending on the exclusivity of the service, the number of matches they’ve said they’ll provide and how willing they are to go the extra mile.
“You’re the therapist, the mother, the best friend, the sister, the nonsexual girlfriend. You have to be everything,” said Patti Stanger, star of the Bravo reality TV series “The Millionaire Matchmaker” and proprietor of the L.A.-based Millionaire’s Club matchmaking service.
“It’s not good enough to say, ‘Here’s a nice girl.’ You get them a girl, they’ll sleep with that girl, cheat on the girl. Then I’ve got to get that girl back. I have to go in and do an intervention and be on call seven days a week. That’s why I get the big bucks,” said Stanger, who charges men $25,000 a year and female “millionairesses” $55,000 for 28 months of unlimited introductions. (She finds her female clients take longer to match.)
Whether it’s hooking up her clients with a personal stylist to improve their appearance or enrolling them in an improv class to get over their shyness, “there are 5 million things to do,” she said. There are more details to attend to with clients: manners, appearance, expectations. “In the old days, it was, ‘OK. I know who I’m going to give you. Here she is. Bye.”’
There are two ways to work with a matchmaker. There are the clients who pay for introductions to potential partners and the people with whom those clients are paired. In many cases, the potential partners pay nothing, having joined the matchmaker’s network for free after electronically submitting photos and personal information through a Web site. Equipped with an extensive database of singles, the matchmaker then peruses the possibilities to determine who might be a match and calls in good prospects for one-on-one interviews that help to further hone the pairing in hopes of a click.
Then comes the big unknown: chemistry. A couple could look perfect together on paper, but they can’t know until they’re face to face.
Eight years ago, an actress (who asked to remain anonymous because of what she believes is a lingering social stigma) went on a date through a matchmaking service for the first time. At the time, the then-38-year-old woman thought getting set up through a matchmaker “was crazy” but worth giving a try because she “was never very good at going to Starbucks and seeing the cute guy across the room and smiling.”
After talking on the phone for 2 ½ hours, the two agreed to meet for dinner. “There was an immediate click for me,” she said.
Four and a half months later, they were engaged. Eleven months later, they were married. They now have two kids and are getting ready to celebrate their eighth wedding anniversary.
That actress, it turns out, was part of the first marriage put together by April Beyer, founder of the 11-year-old, L.A. and San Francisco matchmaking service Beyer & Co. Working with 10 to 15 “very special bachelors” per year, each of whom pays her $40,000, Beyer’s talents have since paid off in an additional 29 “I Do’s,” a track record she attributes to understanding what a client needs, not just providing what he says he wants — like a significantly younger woman.
“A lot of times, a man doesn’t know to ask for the woman I give him,” Beyer said. “Matchmakers are not computers. Hopefully our clients are giving us the freedom to be creative and have a bit more latitude.”
That’s a very different idea from many Internet dating sites, which can’t verify all the information provided by their members and which match people based on self-selected criteria, allowing singles to choose their own partners, for better or worse. But increasingly, Internet dating is bringing in a matchmaking component.
In late 2008, Match.com expanded its hunt-and-peck model with a service called the Daily 5, delivering “five matches based on our prediction of which two people would most want to engage in a conversation together,” said Match.com Chief Executive Greg Blatt. In December, the site added yet another matchmaking feature called Singled Out, for “when we have a match with a stronger likelihood of connecting and want to highlight that to our users,” Blatt said.
“A lot of people put their relationships on the wrong course because they select the wrong people,” said Gian Gonzaga, senior director of research and development for Pasadena, Calif.-based EHarmony. “A lot of the things that are powerful forces for initial attraction are different from what makes a relationship successful.”
According to Gonzaga, attraction is important because it gets people into a relationship, but it’s the similarities between individuals that keep them together and lead to more satisfying relationships. It’s that philosophy that’s shaped EHarmony’s extensive member questionnaire and given EHarmony its reputation as the most matchmaker-like of Internet dating services.
If dating is, indeed, a numbers game, then Internet dating sites have the edge. But matchmakers have gut instincts. And for many singles, especially those with more money than time, or more discriminating criteria, or those who, for various reasons, would rather not post a photo online for the entire world to see, that’s even better.
“Women are very attracted to the concept because it’s private. They can’t be browsed,” said Julie Ferman, founder of Cupid’s Coach in Westlake Village, Calif., a matchmaking service that charges $2,500 to $25,000 annually for an average of 2.2 introductions per month and takes both women and men as paying clients.
Matchmaking is strongest among thirty-, forty- and fiftysomethings, according to Fermin. Her average client splits the difference at a median age of 46 and makes at least $50,000.
“If you’re having a hard time making rent or saving for your kid’s college education, I’m the first one to tell someone, ‘Don’t hire a personal matchmaker,’ ” Fermin said.
But if they do have money, Fermin is confident she can help. In 14 years, she says she’s formed the beginnings of more than 144 marriages.
Not everyone’s a believer.
“What smooth James Bond character with a great personal image is going to write a check to meet somebody?” asked L.A.-based dating coach David Wygant. “These men are looking for women they’ve never been able to get in their lives. They want the 27- to 31-year-old even though they’re 46 to 65. And the women, they can tell you they’re in it for love, but they’re looking for guys with money. This is not love. It’s a gold digger looking for a guy that wants eye candy.”
“Nothing is better than opening your eyes and flirting with the people in front of you,” Wygant said. “People need to get out of fantasyland and think somebody else is going to do it for them.”
That is, of course, easier said than done. And the thousands of singles using hundreds of matchmakers — ELove, It’s Just Lunch, the Millionaire’s Club — seem to prove it .
I love how you can find just about anything you want on the Web, even, as we well know, Sweetie Pies. But I do have difficulty with the thought that busy people can’t make the time to manage their own love life. How do they expect to make a relationship work, with all the time that THAT takes, if they don’t even have the time to find the guy or gal in the first place? But where there is a need, a service appears. Here’s one that may work for you, if you can’t find the time to do what needs doing.
Busy Women Can Now Outsource Online Dating to VirtualDatingAssistants.com
With the loneliest time of the year right around the corner, Virtual Dating Assistants LLC, a company that has allowed men to outsource online dating since June of this year, has decided to open its doors to time-strapped women. Now busy female professionals can fully delegate their online dating duties to an expert team of virtual dating assistants for only $480/month.
Miami, FL (PRWEB) December 1, 2009—
On June 10th, Virtual Dating Assistants LLC entered the online dating scene with a unique concept. The company proposed to enable busy men to fully outsource their efforts on internet dating sites such as Match.com and OkCupid.com to a team of seasoned pros. The company’s virtual dating assistants handle everything from profile creation to online interaction and, ultimately, bring online dating offline for its male clients.
Since its initial launch, the company’s executives reportedly came to the realization that not offering to service women was a big mistake. According to Scott Valdez, Co-Founder and President of VDA, “While our service was initially designed for men, countless women have gone out of their way the past five months to make it clear to us that they could benefit from a service like ours. Once we were certain we had made a strategic error, we began testing profile strategies, emails and other factors to determine what approaches men respond to on internet dating websites. We had to make sure we were able deliver the same level of service and overall results to women before we officially opened the door.”
What we realized though, after talking to countless time-strapped women, is that they need help weeding through the masses for potential keepers. Plus, many of them want to take a proactive approach to pursuing the most eligible bachelors possible online.
That time is now. For $480 per month, the company’s virtual dating assistants will devote 40 hours towards helping busy women to identify and meet high-quality men through a variety of online dating websites.
“I had always assumed that professional men would find our service most appealing since they have to take a proactive approach and craft hundreds of customized messages to women online, which takes considerable time” remarks co-founder Mark Anderson. “What we realized though, after talking to countless time-strapped women, is that they need help weeding through the masses for potential keepers. Plus, many of them want to take a proactive approach to pursuing the most eligible bachelors possible online. Like our male clients, many female professionals simply don’t have the time to handle these difficult and time-consuming activities themselves.”
The company will guide female clients through the process of defining exactly what they are looking for in a partner (age, ethnicity, body type, physical distance, “deal breakers”, etc.) and then help them to brand themselves properly online so that they attract him. The assistants will continually weed through incoming emails (sometimes hundreds per week) looking for keepers but since the keepers aren’t always the ones doing the emailing, the assistants will also be filtering the databases of various online dating sites to find men that meet the client’s requirements. Once identified and approved by the client, the assistants will craft and send customized emails to them on the client’s behalf.
The company guarantees at least 2 dates per month that meet each client’s criteria but, based on pilot testing results, anticipates arranging an average of 6 dates per month for its female clients.
Statistics show that 58% of single women have tried online dating and that women, on average, have 30 minutes less free time each day, which means less time to devote to finding that special someone. Virtual Dating Assistants now has now opened its doors to these time-starved women looking for companionship.
ABOUT VIRTUAL DATING ASSISTANTS LLC
Virtual Dating Assistants is the first company to allow time-starved singles to outsource their online dating. The company handles everything from profile creation to online interaction and effectively brings online dating offline for its clients by setting them up with dates that meet their specifications.
The company is the brain child of Scott Valdez and his partner Mark Anderson, who originally had his virtual assistant schedule 79 first dates using online dating sites over a 12 month period. These dates eventually led Anderson to his wife and a happy family life.
For more information, view Virtual Dating Assistants’ website at: http://www.VirtualDatingAssistants.com
Matchmakers, beware! And also, singles: just because the service claims to be matchmakers does not mean that you will find what you are looking for.
Woman sues dating service after several dates and no Mr. Right
CHICAGO (STNG)—A woman who signed up for a Chicago-based dating service hoping to meet her soul mate filed a lawsuit against the matchmaking company Thursday, claiming all the service brought her was heartache, disappointment and stress—and cost her $3,500.
In May, Sheena Finnegan signed a contract with Élan Relationships, which has been “Chicago’s premiere personal introduction service” for 18 years, according to its Web site.
Finnegan, who refers to herself as a “busy, professional Chicago single” whose “time constraints prohibit [her] from getting the kind of exposure necessary to find a life partner” claims she counted on Élan to find her a suitable life partner, according to the suit filed in Cook County Circuit Court Thursday.
In exchange for $3,500, the service allegedly promised Finnegan to find her “genuine, high caliber, professional” matches by setting her up with six “qualified introductions” in a six-month period, the suit alleges.
As opposed to Internet dating, Élan’s Web site claims they “value the significance of personal introductions based on true compatibility and priorities.”
In May, Finnegan met with the company’s director, Mary Harris and owner Eileen Messier for over an hour, explaining what she was looking for in a mate. Harris and Messier are also named as defendants in the suit.
On May 30, Finnegan had her first date scheduled with a man named Mark—he canceled due to “car trouble,” the suit said. On June 6, she went on a date with a man named Steve, who she felt was not a good match. On June 28, she finally met Mark—who bragged about his homes and money, which Finnegan was not pleased with. On June 20 and June 27, she was scheduled to go on a date with Chris—who canceled both times.
On June 26, Finnegan contacted Élan, asking that her membership be extended due to the cancellations. The company agreed to extend it for one month, the suit said. After a few more dates, and two more cancellations, Finnegan said she realized the men she was meeting were not serious about finding a relationship—and that one of the men did not even sign up on his own accord, someone else signed him up.
She again contacted the company, claiming the service was not what she was promised and asking for a full refund. The company refused.
Finnegan said the company’s contract was “misleading…false…fraudulent” and did not make any favorable matches for her. The suit claims Finnegan endured heartache, stress and disappointment and has nothing to show for the $3,500 she spent trying to find a committed relationship.
The suit accuses Élan, Harris and Messier of breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, deceptive business practices, intentional misrepresentation of material fact and negligence. The eight-count suit asks for an unspecified amount of money in damages as well as an injunction to prevent Élan from continuing to practice deceitful business techniques.
One of the best things for me—an inveterate do-it-yourselfer—about Internet dating is just that: the ability to take charge of your romantic life and do it yourself. But a frequent complaint that I hear from singles is the lack of time that doing it yourself takes. Just as “if a need exists, someone will fill the gap,” here’s a way to outsource your dating. While this does make me somewhat uncomfortable to think of able bodied folks hiring out mate finding, this does seem to be a worthwhile service for people who are challenged in some way that would make Internet dating difficult if not impossible, like severe dyslexics who write and read poorly, but might otherwise be good catches. What do you think?
‘Done For You’ Dating Service Proves Romance Can Be Outsourced
A Canadian company has introduced a brazen service that lets singles delegate their online dating to a representative who exchanges messages under their name. Done For You Dating combines the extensive selection of singles on the Internet with the convenience of a personal matchmaker.
Toronto, Canada (PRWEB) July 1, 2009— A Canadian company has introduced a new service that lets singles delegate their online dating to a representative who manages their profile and exchanges messages under their name.
Done For You Dating combines the extensive selection of singles on the Internet with the convenience of a personal matchmaker. Unlike traditional matchmaking services, which match clients within an internal database, Done For You Dating scouts millions of single women and men on the Internet for their clients’ perfect partner.
“Online dating is like hunting for buried treasure,” says Luke Chao, founder of Done For You Dating. “The treasure is there, but it takes an incredible amount of digging through dirt before you find it. And most busy professionals don’t have that much time or emotional energy to spare.”
Dating representatives at the company are selected to be socially savvy, skilled writers who are knowledgeable about popular culture. They receive specific training in online dating and personal branding.
“We promote the client’s best qualities,” says Sue Bedford, a representative at Done For You Dating. “It’s already a borderline immoral service, so we go the extra mile to represent clients fairly, accurately and factually.”
Company founder Luke Chao is the managing director of The Morpheus Clinic for Hypnosis, where he first started helping men overcome problems interacting with women. He is the ghostwriter of several books, including Sydnee Steele’s Seducing Your Woman.
And now Patti gives it to the guys. Go Patti!
Dating Tips From Patti Novak From Online Dating Magazine’s Online Dating Newsletter February 24, 2009
Here are some of Patti Novak’s dating tips for men:
> Make an effort to clean yourself up—it shows that you care about the date. Be sure to shave that day. Don’t wear wrinkled clothes with sneakers.
> When you’re on the date, be attentive, ask questions and really listen. And don’t forget to make eye contact. Eye contact and a nice smile can steal a woman’s heart.
> If you’re going out to dinner, brush up on your table manners. If you hold the fork like a toothbrush, please ask someone to show you the right way.
> If you want to go out with a woman on the weekend, don’t call her on Friday—I find a lot of guys make this mistake. In the first three months, she may not be dating exclusively so don’t assume she’s sitting back and waiting for you to call.
> No matter how excited you are, don’t send flowers after only a couple of dates. It makes women nervous if you come on too strong. Wait until you’re at least a few months in.
Patti Novak is the popular matchmaker from Buffalo, New York and author of the book GET OVER YOURSELF.
Patti Novak’s Dating Tips for Women
By Joe Tracy
(Online Dating Newsletter) Patti Novak is a popular matchmaker in Buffalo, New York and the star of the former TV series, Confessions of a Matchmaker. She’s also written a new book titled “Get Over Yourself!: How to Get Real, Get Serious, and Get Ready to Find True Love.
Leave it to Patti to put it on the line. Here she gives some blunt advice to the ladies:
Here are some of Patti’s Dating Tips for Women:
> Laugh and have fun. If you’re excited to be on the date, really show it. The guy wants to know you’re having a good time.
> Too many women (more so than men) conduct a date like an interview. Don’t ask him how much money he earns or if he has a 401k. You’re not writing his portfolio.
>If you have four cats, he may not need to know that right away. No one loves your pets like you do.
> Don’t ask him what happened between him and his ex. Women have the compulsive tendency to ask this one—we can be the nosiest creatures on the planet.
> In that first encounter, you don’t need to tell him you just lost 25 pounds—it creates a visual you may not want him to have so soon.
> Promote your intelligence, but don’t be afraid to show your softer side. A man wants an intelligent and independent woman, but he also wants her to be feminine.
Jennifer Wallingford may be able to help you get a date—she’s a coach who’s looking for love herself. But does she have the credentials of actually finding a mate? Not yet it seems. I do like her advice about how to say “No, thanks!” underlined below:
By SUSAN THURSTON
St. Petersburg Times
Jennifer Wallingford says she’s just the person to give advice on dating and relationships. She’s single herself and on the lookout for Mr. Right.
A certified life and relationship coach, Wallingford, 35, recently started Focusing Forward to help people develop better relationships and, hopefully, find true love. At the core: understanding what you want and what makes a healthy relationship.
Clients attend two- to four-hour workshops on smart dating, discovering your personality and defining needs. Graduates can join Focusing Forward’s dating Web site for $30 a month or participate in group meetings on the art of attraction. (See focusingforwardcoaching.com.)
We chatted with Wallingford for an introduction to the dating basics.
Q: A common dating mistake?
A: Thinking that a first date should be a Friday- or Saturday-night dinner and movie. There’s so much pressure. It’s supposed to be fun and playful. By doing a short date, you get to experience the person. And if you like them, you get the opportunity to think about them and miss them.
Q: Any others?
A: People feel that there’s interrogation. What do you do, and so on. When we were kids and someone new moved into the neighborhood, you didn’t go, “What’s your jump shot like?” “What’s your favorite action hero?” You let them play and you asked questions along the way. That’s what a first date should be like: “Let’s take a walk and just get to know each other.”
Q: How do you turn down someone nicely?
A: You have to sit down and say, “I think you’re a great person, and I can’t wait to introduce you to a future girlfriend of mine and tell her that I’ve been on a date with you, and I think you’re great. But I don’t think that you and I click.” Everybody networks for business. You can network in your single life, too. You never know who that person knows.
Q: What do you think of reality dating TV shows?
A: I think they’re amusing, but I don’t think they’re realistic. If I was dating a guy and I found out that he was dating 12 other women, I would say, “Nope, you’re a little too preoccupied for me.” It’s sad, but there are some people who watch these programs and actually think that’s how things should be done. They need to realize it’s entertainment.
Q: First-date dos and don’ts?
A: Do something that you enjoy. If you don’t like walking on the beach, then don’t ask someone to go walking on the beach. Be yourself. Do not talk about past relationships. Be current on issues. Watch 30 minutes of CNN or E! Entertainment. If you run out of material, it’s probably a good sign that it’s not going anywhere.
Q: What do you think of online dating and matchmaking services?
A: Oh, I’ve done them. They were for myself, but they turned into research. I don’t think they hurt. But you have to take a self-inventory of where you’re at and where you want to be. If you don’t have any of that, it doesn’t matter where you meet them.
Q: What was your experience?
A: With online dating, it was very rare to meet someone who represented their picture. It was like, “Oh, I took this a couple of years ago.” Was it a couple of years or a couple of decades?
Now even New Zealand has a dating coach. When I was doing online dating back in 1998, there was no one no where to be found.
How to bag a bloke… and other dating tips
By Kim Knight - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 03 August 2008
Dating can be a tough time - and good advice helps.
Related Links
SINGLE? CHECK. Happy? Check. Really?
New Zealand’s first self-proclaimed dating coach is not sure she believes you.
“People won’t initially say they want a long-term relationship, or marriage,” says Denise Corlett. “They’ll say, `oh, it would be quite nice to meet someone’...”
The reality, she says, is once people hit their late 20s, they’re looking for someone special. Someone significant. Permanent. Someone but not just anyone.
Corlett found her second husband on the internet. He was the only man she dated. Friends tell her she got lucky. She says it’s because she got specific.
“I think I filtered out people incredibly quickly. Not in a nasty way, but I was pretty clear about what I was looking for.”
Corlett, 46, trained as an occupational therapist before working in psychological health. She set up as a life coach in 2001 and has most recently worked in the recruitment sector. She encountered many people who were having difficulty finding potential partners.
“People were getting into internet dating, going to agencies and the like, and I just felt there was no one in New Zealand who was addressing the issues that constantly came up: it’s not working, I can’t seem to find anyone.”
And so Dating Advice was born. Corlett won’t set you up with a partner but she will try to equip you with the skills to attract the potentials.
“I promote the idea of saying, `I’m single, and I’d like to be a in a relationship’. It’s OK to let your intentions be known.”
Her Auckland office is all Valentine’s Day reds and creams. There is a box of tissues on the bench and a whiteboard against the wall.
Tell me why I’m single, I demand.
“Why don’t you tell me why you’re here,” she suggests, gently.
(Because my editor made me). But, OK, since I’m here… All men are bastards. I am perfect. Nobody really understands me. Why the hell am I telling you this over a glass of water? Where’s the sauvignon blanc?
I’m kidding. Except for the bit about the liquor. How many women, I ask Corlett, go out on a date that lasts, say, three hours and then embark on a three-day analysis of said date, assisted by 15 assorted best friends and several bottles of wine?
She laughs. “Women are so good at analysing. We love sitting around and talking with our girlfriends, about what he did, and what he said and what does that really mean. But men are simpler creatures. They don’t do that.
“The best approach women can take is to ask them outright, or take it just as it is. Do something else, see other people. If that person’s interested in you, they will pursue you.”
Men, says Corlett, like to take charge of this process (“I might be a bit old-fashioned in that”). Women, she says, must reciprocate by being available, “or making the opportunity for the man to initiate something”.
OK fine. But how do you meet someone who wants to ask you on a date in the first place? Corlett says there’s no one approach. Busy, shyer people might have more luck online, for example.
“The thing with internet dating is initially, it’s such a visual thing, and I’m not just talking about how you look, but also your screen name, and the first few phrases you use if that’s not bringing people in, you might have to change it.”
Singles with wide social networks that put them into regular contact with others could try maximising their opportunities to meet people. Or, says Corlett, who will work with clients on a personalised plan of, er, attack, you could just smile at that man/woman you’ve walked past on your way to work every day for the past three years. “And then the next time you see each other, you might say, `hi, it’s a nice day’.”
Because here’s the thing: “If you want to get into a relationship or do anything new in your life, there’s always some risk involved. At the end of the day, even if you have a fabulous relationship, your partner is going to die, or you’re going to die. To the greatest couples, that’s what happens. Someone is going to have pain at the end of the day.
“You do have to open up, you do have to be vulnerable and even if 10 men or women have broken your heart, you need to learn from that but you still need to open up and be vulnerable to the 11th. There is no connection with someone if you are distant, untrusting and aloof.”
Corlett’s business which includes modules that can be completed online is attracting more male than female clients. “Guys often have this perception they have to be funny, or know the lines, or whatever, to approach a woman. They don’t need to be like that. They need to be themselves.”
Corlett says singles of both sexes need to value themselves more. “To be attractive, you need to value yourself and you need to see yourself as deserving. No matter how you look, what actually is attractive at the end of the day is how you come across. You need to see yourself with the best eyes first.”
I’ve not heard good things about “Great Expectations.” Sounds as if the Attorney General of Arizona hasn’t either. See below.
Pricey dating service accused of deception
Jun. 18, 2008 06:33 PM
The Arizona Republic
Attorney General Terry Goddard on Wednesday accused Great Expectations, a Scottsdale-based matchmaking service, of coercive sales tactics and deceptive practices to sell expensive dating services.
The company, which says it has 30 years of experience in helping people find true love, said the case has no merit and looks forward to going to trial. It declined to respond to specific allegations.
The suit was filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against Sun West Video, Inc., which does business as
Great Expectations for Singles. The suit is seeking refunds for consumers and financial penalties against the company.
The Attorney General’s office alleged that Great Expectations:
• Misrepresented to consumers the overall number of participating members and members in certain age groups.
• Told consumers that two to three marriages occurred among members every month when it had no credible basis for such statements.
• Misrepresented to consumers that it had conducted a criminal background check on all of its members.
• Used high-pressure sales tactics that included sales representatives urging consumers to contact their credit card companies to get an increased credit limit to pay for a membership.
• Showed potential new members written profiles and photographs of people they said were Great
Expectations members when many were not available for dating.
Around Valentine’s Day, Sara Schaefer Munoz posted on a Wall Street Journal blog about high priced matchmaking services. She refers to an article in Financial Times which thank goodness clarified for me that Munoz was writing about introduction services that took both men and women, not like the trend we have seen to match wealthy men with gorgeous young women. I’ve written about those sites before, see here.
Munoz asks for readers’ comments, and she got lots of them! You might want to take a look at the comments yourself. The really interesting part is that practically none of the comments are about high-priced introduction services. Instead, they are about online dating, mostly success on Match.com! Hey, good advertising, huh?
For Busy Professionals Seeking Love, Are Dating Services Helpful?
Posted by Sara Schaefer Munoz
We’ve talked about how busy young professionals have trouble finding the time to focus on dating. According to this recent article in the Financial Times, several elite dating services — modeled on executive head-hunting firms — promise to find you the perfect mate for a price.
One service, the Country Register, charges £10,000, about $20,000, for an 18 month membership in its top tier personal search service, and is currently signing five new city-based clients a month — twice the joining rate for 2000, the piece says. The service spends at least half a day in the client’s home getting to know them and promises that respondents are met and screened in advance.
But why pay a premium when you could meet people at work, or take on inexpensive Internet dating? A former busy professional at Merrill Lynch says in the article that “The last thing I wanted after work was to socialize with bankers or sit down at a computer.” Singletons also say that online dating requires a lot of time to sort through profiles and craft witty responses to potential suitors. (It can take so much effort to present yourself that some are even plagiarizing profiles they find online.)
I’d love to hear from single professionals who are looking for love. What’s your experience with online dating? Where have you met — or looked for — a mate? Would you pay a premium for an elite match-making service?
Four years ago, I lived in a small city where it was hard to meet single, like-minded men. I posted a profile on Match.com and eventually received an expression of interest from a man who lived 90 miles away–someone I would never have met any other way. We e-mailed a few times and then arranged to meet in my city for a drink, which led to dinner…and, about 10 months later, marriage. We now have a 2-year-old son. Online personals don’t work for everyone, but they did for us.
When I met my final “date,” I had already been on Match.com once before. The second time, I posted new and improved photos (of myself) and a rewritten, snappier profile (that I wrote on my own). I resolved to keep the e-mail correspondence to a minimum. I set up in-person meetings as quickly as possible to avoid any fantasy, “virtual” dating, which is easy to fall into when you’re e-mailing someone you’ve never seen before.
For someone who had done everything I could think of to expand my social circle and meet new people in my city, online personals worked better than my other efforts–through which I met some wonderful friends, but no potential boyfriends.
Comment by anonymous - February 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I tend to think that the only real advantage that an ultra-premium service could offer is a signal between matched participants that both are monetarily successful. While online surveys are imperfect, I have no reason to believe that a person can’t put up a facade for half a day to present just as ideal an image to a premium service as they do to an online site. To be sure, there is more of an initial guarantee of the validity of the person’s identity and appearance, but if someone online presents a false appearance, that will be found out quickly in the light of a real meeting.
Totally free sites are probably so diluted as to be useless, but lower premium sites do some analysis to attempt basic compatibility and weed out people who are really on the fence about whether or not to put some effort into it; and ultimately, perception of compatibility is a rather imperfect science anyway, so having a range of options is probably a good thing.
I think that unless someone prioritizes financial success above all else, paying $20,000 is not going to produce markedly better results than paying somewhere in the $100-2000 range.
That said, while the traditional approach of meeting people in life is theoretically great, it’s a rather sensitive issue for people in tightly wound social networks; one bad relationship and one’s entire social fabric can become unwound.
Comment by Clinton - February 19, 2008 at 11:25 am
I watched the first episode of Millionaire Matchmaker and I have to say that even though I have set the Tivo to tape the whole series, I dunno if I am going to be able to stomach watching. The Yick Factor was VERY high.
I sorta liked last year’s Confessions of a Matchmaker. Patti Novak in Buffalo worked with average folks and did what she could to pair them up. I even sat next to Patti this last fall at a conference. She’s “just plain folks” herself. Doesn’t look like A&E has continued the show for another season. Maybe later.
But Millionaire Matchmaker—oooeee! These are not just plain folks at all.
Patti Stanger started The Millionaire’s Club in 2000. From the website: Patti realized that busy, upscale men simply didn’t have the time to go looking for a relationship, weren’t meeting the kind of women that they dreamed about, or were looking for a certain “type” that they couldn’t currently find. These men needed a service where they could be introduced to exceptionally beautiful women in a relaxing, discreet and confidential manner.
The Millionaire Club is based in Los Angeles, and it shows. Money money money— in exchange for looks looks looks. The guys? Puhleeze! On the first show, one of them made his money selling sex toys online, and the other was in his mid 40’s and wanted to date women in their 20’s. Even Patti thought the cradle robber was seriously deluded and told him so. Mr. Sex Toy had to be told to hide the sex toys in his office, but couldn’t be convinced to move the stripping pole there too.
Now, the Millionaire Club staff got together a bevy of gorgeous women for these two to look over—and amazingly enough, none of the ladies left when they found out about the source of Mr. Sex Toy’s money. They were all coiffed and made up to the 9’s, in teensy dresses that they hung out over on all edges, and were teetering around in high heels.
Both guys pick one for a date, both guys wanted to see the ladies again, and both ladies dropped out. Glad to see that the girls at lease had some taste. Mr. Sex Toy and date (Harvard educated, can you believe?) had a nice dinner in a restaurant, then HE TAKES HER BACK TO HIS PLACE AND DOES A DANCE ON THE POLE FOR HER. At least he kept his clothes on. Minus for her that it took her a couple of more dates to say “No thanks.”
Mr. Cradle Robber took his date out on what looked like a huge yacht with its own crew. Even though she said she’s see him again, she didn’t return his calls to set up the date. Bully for her.
I’d like to know what y’all think of these millionaire matching sites. Do they creep you out like they do me?
Here’s a story about other ways to find love other than Internet dating, if you are getting tired of that. I do think the stats they quote are wrong, though—- More like 10-15% of couples are meeting online, rather than the 3% quoted. Maybe folks still aren’t saying if they met on the Net? I’ve written quite a bit about matchmakers before—take a look here.
A match made ... where?
By Gina Kim - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Friday, August 17, 2007
Boy meets girl. Boy falls in love with girl. Boy and girl live happily ever after.
But what the fairy tales never seem to say is: How does boy even meet girl?
Now that we’re marrying older, working harder and socializing less, sometimes we need a little extra help from a modern-day matchmaker.
Most couples today still meet through traditional channels, according to a 2006 report on online dating by the Pew Internet & American Life Project: 38 percent of those surveyed met at work or school, 34 percent met through family or friends, and 13 percent met at a nightclub, bar or other social gathering.
But people continue to discover new ways to catch Cupid’s arrow, with 3 percent meeting through the Internet and 1 percent being set up on a blind date or through a dating service.
Modern matchmakers range from the professionals—such as a new Roseville company that sends singles on dates—to friends who just seem to understand the ingredients for love.
“Seventy-five percent of single people believe finding love is more of an art than a science,” says Trish McDermott, chief matchmaker at Engage.com and former dating expert at Match.com, as well as a former professional matchmaker.
“You certainly don’t need a degree to be a good matchmaker, but certain people are better at it—these rare people have good strong instinctual feelings and communicate well.”
Make me a match
The numbers say we’re getting married later and not staying married as long as we used to. Since 1960, the proportion of currently married Americans, ages 15 and older, has declined by 13 percent, according to a 2007 report on marriage by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
But that doesn’t mean we’re not interested in wedding bells. About 85 percent of Americans are expected to visit the altar at some time in their lives; it’s 70 percent in some European nations, the report found.
“Love has persevered because it feels good,” says McDermott, who noted a departure from that original purpose of coupledom—reproduction and protection. “We want to reach out and make connections, and most if not all of us feel an emptiness if we don’t.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, singles stepped up their date-seeking avenues, hoping to find a partner to experience difficult times with, McDermott says.
“You have your friends, you have your family, but there’s nothing like coming home and cuddling with somebody who tells you everything’s going to be all right,” says Julie Paiva, founder and chief executive officer of Table for Six Total Adventures, a personal matchmaking company that began in San Francisco in 1997 and expanded to Sacramento four years ago.
Yet with 92 million unmarried Americans—42 percent of U.S. adults in 2006, according to the Census Bureau—there is obviously some bewilderment over how to discover that perfect mate.
“In the past, people used to stay in the same community all their lives. They would meet their sweetheart in high school, or it was someone they went to church with,” Paiva says. “Now, we’re constantly moving and really gypsylike. ... There are no common touchstones.”
... Find me a find
Professional matchmaking has grown into a $236 million industry with at least 1,300 matchmakers, says Lisa Clampitt, co-founder of the Matchmaking Institute, a training and certification organization based in New York. The dating industry as a whole, including online dating, rakes in $1 billion each year, she says.
The Roseville professional matchmaking firm DinnerMatch is joining other dating services in the Sacramento area later this month, setting up three couples at a time during group dinners.
“The personal touch of matchmaking is coming back into style,” says Trish Stokell, who started the company with Ally Bush.
DinnerMatch not only gives singles the opportunity to meet other singles during dinners, whitewater-rafting trips, theater outings and trivia nights, the company also coaches clients on how to improve their appearance, conversational skills and manners. Memberships start at $1,200 a year. But while the company sets the scene, it doesn’t promise that sparks will fly.
“Chemistry is the mysterious element that is unpredictable in any new relationship. You can’t really predict if chemistry will be there—it just happens, it explodes,” Stokell says. “But the more people you meet, the better the chance of meeting the one you have chemistry with.”
Paiva of Table for Six, which charges clients $1,995 for a two-year membership, goes a step further and advises her clients to look beyond initial attraction.
“A lot of people think it’s just chemistry, but when they start a life with them, they’re disappointed when they can’t fulfill many of their needs, whether it’s communication or intimacy,” Paiva says. “People really need to look at a person and think, ‘Would he be a good husband? Would this be a good father?’ “
Paiva says she believes, like the Jewish yenta and the nayan in India, that values-based matches might be the key to lasting happiness.
“It’s not a bad idea to look at it from that angle, of will these lives mesh together easily,” Paiva says. “Physical characteristics are important—I’m not suggesting someone go completely against chemistry—but I think they would be a lot happier if they were looking below the surface and getting to know that authentic person.”
... Catch me a catch
While it may take a village to raise a child, that village may also be necessary to trigger that thing called love.
“It’s hard to meet people,” says Kevin Wehr, assistant professor of sociology at California State University, Sacramento.
Perhaps you’ve met everyone in your softball league and at the dog park. You’ve dated everyone available at work and your yoga studio, too. But you have yet to be bitten by the love bug.
“We’re more and more busy today, and we’re working harder than we’ve ever worked,” Wehr says. “Those things tend to isolate us more in terms of our social lives.”
Plus, Americans are getting their careers on track first and marrying later—the median age of women walking down the aisle is 26, up from 20 in 1960; and men are getting hitched at 27 instead of 23, according to the National Marriage project report.
By the time someone decides wedding bells are in order, it might feel a bit urgent, Wehr says.
Online dating has expanded from what Engage.com’s McDermott calls a “warehouse” model, with millions of people waiting for someone to sift through profile after profile and then offer a wink or a message, into a social community that happens to be on the World Wide Web.
Engage.com was launched in 2005 and allows singles to post the usual profile. Then it allows their single and non-single friends to authenticate what they say and look like, and set them up with other users, all for free. The goal is to move away from exaggeration over one’s rock-solid body or high-paying job.
“If you ask what people in their lives make the best matchmakers, it’s their friends,” McDermott says. “Sites like Engage provide opportunities for people to use technology to fall in love the good-old fashioned way, with a little help from our friends.”
... And make me a perfect match
Friends may know us best. But that doesn’t mean every friend is a qualified matchmaker. Experts agree that some people simply have the right intuition.
Trudy Somers, 47, an English teacher at Franklin High School, has set up at least 20 couples, mostly during her 20s and 30s, with at least half of the relationships ending in marriage.
“I don’t know what it was with me. I was always on the lookout for good matches,” Somers says. “I like to see people happy together, and it seems like when they were alone, they were miserable.”
Somers also had an active social calendar and served in a leadership role at her church. And she has always been a good listener who remembers the interests of her friends.
“I’ve had very few failures, and I think it’s because I figure out where they’re at at their core,” Somers says.
And even if fireworks didn’t explode at first, some of Somers’ matches found love in different packages than they were looking for—bringing meaning to the stories of frogs turning into princes.
“You have to have an open heart. Sometimes what you think you want is not the best fit,” Somers says. “I have friends who I would never set up because they’re so narrow and closed off, and they only want a certain type of person. ...
“But sometimes I can see that two people will mesh well together because their goals are the same, they want the same things and they’re both sincere about what they want—I think that’s the key.”
Last weekend, Drew and I were in New York City (or more precisely, Weehawken, NJ, which is right across the river from Manhattan) at the “Worldwide Conference” of Matchmakers. This was the first one ever, or at least in recent memory, and what an interesting group of people to spend some time with! Graciously, or perhaps to improve the attendance, the matchmakers also included dating coaches, which is why I was there.
I’ve written about matchmakers here in my blog before. Frankly, I am such a do-it-yourselfer that I just can’t see paying someone else to do the work for me. It’s hard for me to take people seriously when they complain about how much Internet dating costs. It’s CHEAP, particularly when you start looking around at matchmakers. One guy at the conference was with a business that charges $60,000 to $120,000!!! Yup, that’s the right number of zeros you are seeing.
Matchmakers have seen a surge in business by riding on the coattails of Internet dating. While dating sites do take a chunk of business that matchmakers might have gotten before, Internet dating has paved the way for people to actually think about hiring someone to help them find love. And the theme I heard over and over was the potential market for matchmakers in frustrated online daters.
Still, the fantasy that many may have about matchmakers being able to find you a mate when you can’t find one yourself has many limitations. First, you still better be pretty marketable yourself: Attractive, in good health, not too old, and with something to offer. Particularly if you are female. ALL the matchmakers complained about the shortage of men, where do you find dates for these ladies?
And remember, matchmakers can only match you with people they have on their own roster. What if your perfect mate lives outside the matchmaker’s area, or would never sign up? Most matchmakers do not allow browsing through their roster either. You are subject to who they pick for you. Me? Uh uh.
Matchmakers also remind me of eHarmony, in that they do not take on people they don’t think they can match. Or the less ethical may take a client regardless of their match-ability, simply for the money. Yick. In fact, matchmakers used to routinely reject all women Over a Certain Age (like 40 or 45). For sure, the older you are if you are female, the greater your chances of being turned down by the matchmaker. Let alone a date.
So if you are male, have the bucks to spend, and no time to waste, you might do okay with matchmaking. However if you are female and over 40, you’d do much better getting online and doing the work yourself. That’s where the guys are.
If you are a “Just give me the facts, M’am” kind of person and you want to know just what is going on in the Internet dating world these days, this article below is for you. Yeah, I know it is long, but it is CRAMMED full of info that curious online daters love.
The secret world of online dating
by Jennifer Litz
Google bought YouTube last fall for 1.65 billion, according to its press center; Time magazine’s last person of the year was “You,” for all “your” participation in online communities—from the MySpace juggernaut, to its many niche offspin communities, like the new “Eons” community targeted to 50-plus-somethings.
A majority of online daters is younger, employed and slightly more liberal than the rest of the population.
People are spending a lot of time online. But more specifically, people aren’t just paying bills, researching papers, and buying books or clothes there. People spend a lot of time as online voyeurs, looking, laughing at, and talking to people they may or may not even know.
Online dating is a natural in this sociological climate. According to a March 2006 report on Online Dating from the Pew Internet and American Life Project in 2004, “dating Web sites created more revenue than any other paid online content category, as they netted roughly $470 million in consumer spending, up from about $40 million in 2001.”A flurry of institute research confirms that online dating emerged as a viable dating alternative several years ago.
In full disclosure, I will tell you that I have had a taste of online dating, but it took me a while to accept the “online dater” label. (A Pew report has spelled out the criteria of an online dater: “Looking at the total Internet population, 11 percent of all American Internet-using adults—about 16 million people—say they have gone to an online dating Web site or [a site] where they can meet people online. We call them online daters in this report.”) As the former resident blogger for an online dating site who met a guy by perusing user profiles, even I am considered an online dater—even though my examination of his user profile was part of my research to write those blogs.
Who Dates Online?
A majority of online daters is younger, employed and slightly more liberal than the rest of the population, but older people are online daters too. A February 2006 paper from the MIT Sloan School of Management called “What Makes You Click? – Mate Preferences and Matching Outcomes in Online Dating” surveyed 22,000 users of an unnamed “major” online dating service; users were located in the Boston and San Diego areas. The study involved observing the daters’ activities for three months, including introductory “profiling” information the users supplied to the sites, such as age, height, income, and other demographic and physical characteristics.
The MIT report found that online daters tended to be younger than their “general population” counterparts; the median age for a site user was 26-35, while the general populations of Boston and San Diego’s median age ranges were in the 36-45 range. The study also found that site users tended to be more educated and have slightly higher incomes than the general population and online users who did not go on dating sites.
The Pew study confirms these findings—to an extent. Surveying a “representative sample” of 3,215 phone-owning Americans in the continental United States, among the results found was that the online daters tended to be younger and employed. No reports of higher education or income levels were reported. Rather, since the largest segment—18 percent—of online daters were determined to be in the 18 – 29 range, those earning slightly lower incomes were determined to be online daters. Age breakdowns for the rest of site users were as follows: 11 percent in the 30–49 year age-range, and nine percent in the 50- plus range.
That study also found online daters were more likely than the general population to support gay marriage and women’s rights; less likely than the general population to be religious.
As mentioned earlier, about one in 10 Internet users have gone to a dating Web site; more specifically, 37 percent of a group who said they were single and looking to “meet a romantic partner” claimed having gone to a dating Web site, which represents about four million people.
But what is the perception among Internet users about those who used online dating services?
According to the Pew study, 61 percent of adults online do not think that online daters are “desperate”; 29 percent believe that online daters are in “dire straits,” and 20 percent think that online daters are “losers.” The Pew study says that the latter group has less experience online and tends to be less trusting of people in general.
What about the physical characteristics of online daters? It’s hard to ascertain physical attractiveness of online daters, as not everyone posts the optional picture with their profiles—though according to practically every “how-to” online dater’s guide, those with pictures posted get more messages and responses than those who don’t. Liz Edelbrock, a spokesperson for Match.com, says that Match.com members who post pictures get 15 times more attention, in the form of views, correspondence, or “winks,” an acknowledgment feature their site has.
There is, however, the “Reported Physical Characteristics of the Users.” According to the MIT report, 27.5 percent of assessed online daters posted their pictures. For the rest of the non-picture posting users, a survey was used for online daters to rate their own looks. According to the report, 19 percent of men and 24 percent of women reported possessing “very good looks,” while 49 percent of men and 48 percent of women reported having “above average looks.” Those who selected “looking like anyone else walking down the street” included 29 percent of men and 26 percent of women. Less than one percent of users claimed “less than average looks”; a few joked, “bring your bag in case mine tears.”
But are they being honest? According to the MIT report, there is a discrepancy between certain physical characteristics survey respondents supplied and those corresponding to national averages. For example, the average survey-stated weight of women tends to be six pounds less than the national average, while the stated height of men is 1.3 inches taller in the online survey than in national averages. Either online daters are a skinnier, taller, more attractive bunch than the rest of us, or they may be stretching the truth.
One thing certainly rings true in both real and online dating, according to the MIT report: physical attraction is the biggest predictor of dating proliferation.
What do Online Daters Want?
The MIT report found that online daters tended to be younger than their “general population” counterparts; the median age for a site user was 26-35, while the general populations of Boston and San Diego’s median age ranges were in the 36-45 range.
Much like the real world, physical attraction is the biggest predictor of having a prolific online dating experience. Those men and women in the lowest “looks” decile, according to the MIT report, received only half as many e-mails from other online daters as members whose rating were in the fourth decile; users in the top decile were contacted twice as often. Echoing what Edelbrock said about pictureposting daters being more active, the MIT study showed that women with photos received at least twice as many e-mails as those without, and men received 60 percent more e-mails than those without who described themselves as having “average looks.”
The data goes on to confirm that men in the 6’3” – 6’4” range receive more messages from users than those in the 5’7” – 5’8” range, while women from 5’3” – 5’8” fare better than their counterparts. The report even pinpoints the optimal BMI for men and women to receive optimal email messages from online daters: for men, it’s the slightly overweight BMI of 27; for women, it’s the underweight BMI of 17. That latter figure corresponds with that of a supermodel. According to the report, a woman with a BMI of 17 received 90 percent more first-contact emails than a woman with a BMI of 25, which is considered healthy by the American Heart Association. These sorts of physical preferences bear themselves out even in hair length; men with long, curly hair and red hair fared worse than their counterparts with “medium straight hair”; women with long, straight hair faired better than their shorter-hair contemporaries.
Conclusion? Online daters are a picky bunch. What they are, according to many, is serious about finding a mate. “I think Match.com is generally for the serious dater,” Edelbrock says. “We have 400,000 people a year resigning, saying they met the person they were seeking on Match; once they find that person they’re not staying online. People who put themselves ‘out there’ online are saying, ‘I really want to meet someone’—if not for marriage, then at least a serious or long-term commitment.” The MIT’s study corroborates that statement.
How Does Online Dating Work?
Usually, there’s a physical/demographic portion to fill out, followed by a variety of “compatibility tests” to help with member pair-ups. And there’s usually a charge, too—with a cheaper monthly rate afforded to those who sign up for multiple months.
According to comScore Media Metrix, Match.com was only second to Yahoo! Personals as of January 2006 in attracting the most users. It won that distinction with 3,893 unique users that month. Match.com capitalized on its popularity last February by launching Chemistry.com.
According to Chemistry.com press releases, this site is for serious daters who want to be matched with someone compatible, instead of having to search for matches. The “Chemistry Profile,” a lengthy survey the potential site member fills out about his or her personality, likes and dislikes, is common among online dating sign-up protocol. It may be different from other online dating surveys in that “renowned biological anthropologist, author and expert in the science of human attraction” Helen Fisher, PhD, created this particular survey.
Who else but such an “expert” could compile dating questions dealing with the comparative lengths of one’s ring and index fingers? Or have a “sensory perception” interlude that has respondents match figure shapes and sizes…
Then there’s the question in which survey takers are asked, after seeing a book cover with a man and woman— one backgrounded, one in the foreground, and both looking off over the sea—to label it with one of the following titles: “Adventures on the Rhein”; “Anatomy of Friendship”; “Power Plays”; or “Things Left Unsaid.”
Despite questions like this—which some men and women may find off-putting—many people who sign up to find love on the Web do get their wish. According to the people polled for the Pew study, “Three percent of the Internet users who are married or in long-term committed relationships say they met their partners online. That represents about three million people.”
If three percent sounds small, realize that in the Pew’s “representative” study of thousands of Americans, less people reported having met their spouses at church, at a “recreational facility” like a gym, or through a blind date or dating service, to name a few traditional meeting venues.
Of course, online dating is not for everyone. Three years ago, Christine, a Texas-based art director, logged onto eHarmony®. She had just broken up with her off-and-on boyfriend of six years, and was ready to meet the “love of her life” the Web site promised to find. She completed the elaborate entry questionnaire that had asked about her beliefs, ideals, characteristics and upbringing. She then pressed the button that asked if she was ready to find her ideal mate, and waited patiently for twenty minutes while the site combed through its thousands of user profiles to deliver her perfect match.
“We have no matches for you. Try expanding your search area,” the result said. She had already put the whole world. She married her ex-boyfriend.
Here’s the New York Times’ take on “Confessions of a Matchmaker”:
Specialist in Tough (to) Love
By SUSAN STEWART
Published: June 16, 2007
Hype and hokiness aside, some reality shows are appealing because they seem real. Buffalo is the setting for “Confessions of a Matchmaker,” tonight on A&E. Nobody will confuse that town with Hollywood, Manhattan or the castle on “The Bachelor.” Establishing shots show us a gritty, snowy industrial city in the unforgiving north, with a heroine to match.
Patti Novak, who runs a dating service within spitting distance of Niagara Falls, is a fine representative of Buffalo and a fine character for the reality genre. She’s plainspoken but not rude, a classic dispenser of tough love. When Charlie, her first customer comes in, she sizes him up pretty quickly.
“You’ve made a choice between doughnuts and sex,” she says.
“Life takes its toll,” Charlie responds with a shrug. He’s a former Mr. Nude Universe, but those glory days are long gone. Charlie now weighs 346 pounds and was recently kicked out of an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. Still, there’s hope.
“I see sensitivity and a great pair of blue eyes,” Ms. Novak says. She takes him out for a test dinner and cringes as he slurps pasta: “For God’s sake, chew with your mouth closed.”
Charlie learns his lesson better than another client, Ashley. A cocktail waitress, she refuses to give up her fake tan and layers of makeup. “He might want to take you home and roll you over,” Ms. Novak tells her, “but I bet your bank account he won’t want to take you home to Mother.”
Some reality shows are predicated on cruelty, or at least a survival-of-the-fittest mentality. That “American Idol” seems increasingly to fit both those models may be why its ratings are slipping. Sometimes a little kindness is preferable to a freak show. Ms. Novak’s clients are not weird enough to be laughable or pathetic enough to pity. They are people with whom a lot of us could identify, at least on a bad day.
A very bad day, in the case of John. At 41, he says he has never had sex. He blames it partly on the economy. Ms. Novak tells him to get real.
“It’s not cute that you’re a virgin at age 41,” she says. “It’s a red flag the size of Texas.”
It takes John two dates to figure out his problem. (The viewer may guess it sooner.) Over a shared plate of appetizers, dawn breaks. At least Ms. Novak, who is watching, detects “chemistry.”
Ms. Novak’s criteria for success may be debatable. I know a lot of happily married couples who would probably fail her chemistry test, but her heart is in the right place. And heart, on a dating show, is what counts.
From my January 1, 2007, *eMAIL to eMATE*:
Internet dating is LOOKING GOOD!
My, how things have changed since I first tried online dating on
Match.com in 1997. Looking for love on the Net was brandy new
then and quite suspect. A few brave souls were tip-toeing onto
the sites and trying out the medium, but, land sakes, was it
scary or what? And no help anywhere. I know, because I looked.
For you newbies to the Internet dating scene, matters took a
dramatic turn after 9/11. The tragedy suddenly refocused the
country: Everyone now ached for connection and family. Singles
started signing up on dating sites by the hundreds of thousands.
Listing on a dating site became okay, even mainstream. No longer
is it unusual to hear that a couple met online. Now, your
computer is second only to friends and family as a way to connect
with possible mate candidates.
The influx was heady. Online dating sites experienced mammoth
growth for several years as folks signed up and plunked down
their credit cards. Growth has slowed to single digits, but that
does not mean that Internet dating is a fading fad. Far from it.
Did you know that online dating is one of the top money makers
online? “After nearly a decade of double-digit growth, online
dating revenue rose 7% last year to slightly more than $515
million, per Jupiter Media. (Match’s share is about $250
million.)”
Remember that there is only a somewhat finite number of singles,
so at some point the growth would have to stop as the percentage
got close to 100. At present, the estimates are 1/3 of singles
have visited online dating sites. Also, people come on and off
the sites every day. Taking your profile down off the dating
site where you and your Sweetie met has become a sign of
increasing commitment with cyber couples.
My buddy Mark Brooks recently posted some interesting info on his
OnlinePersonalsWatch.com blog: Here’s a summary and link to an
article on dating site usage in 2006.
Interestingly, Yahoo! Personals is pulling way ahead of
the crowd in membership and visits. Since I write for Yahoo!
Personals, I’ll take a little credit for their #1 position.
True.com’s stats are deceptive, as comparing the two charts show.
(I cannot recommend True.com—if you wonder why, look at my
http://www.find-a-sweetheart.com/blog/C37/ ” title=“many blog posts”>many blog posts:.
Match.com (my personal favorite, since that’s where I met hubby
Drew) is stumbling on in 3rd and 4th place on the two charts.
Another of Mark’s postings led me to “Market Spotlight: Online
Distilling the verbiage, it looks like number of visits
to dating sites are down, but revenue is nicely up. To me, that
says daters are getting serious and paying up, and fewer people
are visiting sites to snoop. Good.
Interestingly, the article also points to what I have sensed:
Singles get busy after Christmas, and particularly after New
Year’s. Online dating sites’ business soars then (and so does
mine). Seems as if the loneliness of the holiday coupled with
New Year’s as a time to start new habits gets folks off the
stick.
Tip: That means new people are signing up, right now! This is a
particularly good time of year to be active and looking on your
favorite site. Remember, new people come on every day—and
others drop off as they find partners. Be ready with your spick
and span profile. Be proactive: Contact others. Don’t wait,
because you don’t know how much longer this new Cutie might be
available.
A third posting on OnlinePersonalsWatch is an interview with
Match.com’s CEO Jim Safka. Looks like Match is going stylish and
pursuing a more upscale market: a new look to its site (adding
lots of snazzy black), offering a stylist to help with photos
Lots of
black and white there, too. And Match is piloting a real
matchmaking program with what looks like real matchmakers:
Platinum.Match.com It’ll probably be
pricey, sounds like perhaps around $1000 per year. Still less
that a tractional matchmaker, though.
Yahoo! Personals still looks about the same, and I think is a bit
more unwieldy to maneuver than Match.com. But they are doing
something right at Yahoo! You can’t argue with #1.
So I will stick with Match.com and Yahoo! Personals. Why go
elsewhere, except for a special niche site like JDate? Stay
where the numbers are.
From YOur Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
If you’ve ever thought about finding a millionaire to marry, you ought to read Valerie Gibson’s article in the Toronto Sun: “A Million Reasons to Marry” While the middle of the article is all about Patty Stanger’s site The Millionaire’s Club, Gibson throws in some interesting tidbits at the beginning and end.
(You might also want to take a look at The Millionaire’s Club site: I can’t believe anyone with ten cents would join such a tacky looking site, frankly. But the deal is obvious, I guess.)
(And I have written here about the Millionaire’s Club before: take a look.)
Here’s what Gibson identifies as the risk of marrying rich:
He may not stay a millionaire. He could lose his money and/or end up in jail.
You may be treated as an acquisition that he bought and paid for—which in a sense he did. And he may feel that money is all he needs to contribute to the relationship.
Here’s my piece:
You could become as disposable as last year’s Lexis. Especially as you age and lose your looks. Rich men want the goods they are paying for, and looks and youth are usually part of the deal.
Your rich guy may not be rich. The fancy car could be leased, the debt could be sky high.
And if you have money, don’t bother signing up with The Millionaire’s Club. Owner Patty Stanger says “Most successful men don’t want successful women.” Stanger also lists advice for women who want to marry a millionaire:
Always be a lady.
Always be nice to him and make him happy (being a good cook is essential).
Make his life easier.
Stay positive.
Be willing to relocate.
Don’t be a gold digger.
Be energetic and enthusiastic.
Have long hair and wear minimal makeup.
Cultivate what you shine at.
Be intelligent and educated.
Ugh.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
If you get the cable channel “W Network” (cable channel 34?), you
might want to check out a series they are playing called
“Manhattan Matchmaker.” I don’t get the channel, but the show
looks interesting. Click here for the program schedule.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Oi! Another good reason to avoid the sites that promise to hook you up with a millionaire: Charlie Sheen is looking for love through MillionaireMatch.com. You may remember Charlie as one of the clients of the “Hollywood Madame” Heidi Fleiss. Read here what I have written previously about such sites.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Houston Dating Services sounds like they ought to take a few lessons from the Australian matchmaking service Millionaire Matchmaker International. Houston Dating Services charges more than Millionaire Matchmaker International ($4000 vs. $2995) and it sounds as if Houston Dating Services doesn’t even bother to go out and find dates for their fellas: They set them up with their own employees!
Isn’t there another name for that sort of business, like “Escort Service”? (That’s the polite term.)
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Three different takes on the moves of American men to find “foreign brides” via the Internet or “international matchmaking companies”: The most positive by Craig Harris of The Arizona Republic (focusing on the Phoenix-based A Foreign Affair), a decidedly more mixed take by Erwin Lemuel Oliva for INQ7.com about Philippine matchmaking, and then a poorly written review by Gina Cadavid of a “mockudrama” called “Mail Order Wife” that nonetheless got my attention. (I went looking for what others had to say about “Mail Order Wife” and got links to 41 links for other articles and reviews at RottenTomatoes.com.)
I’ve written about before about this—not new, for sure—phenomenon. I was even sent a book by the author about his own experiences. I’ve conveniently forgotten both the book name and his. He fit right in with what Texas attorney Lisa Schwankrug described: “Many of the men who use such services have become disillusioned with American women, believing they are too career-oriented and not as submissive as foreign women.” The author (I do remember his first name: Sebastian) interviewed scads of women all over everywhere, eventually decided that a Chinese woman less than half his age and size was Ms. Right. Well, okay.
Sounds like “Mail Order Wife” examines the nasty underside. Has anybody seen it? Give us a first-hand review. I’ll have to wait until I am in the same place more than a week at a time (I’m going back and forth between Mississippi and Tallahassee for the next few months) before I renew our Netflix membership so that I can see it, too. The reviews are so mixed that I hope I can manage to sit through it….
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Rich men in Australia are now signing up for dates with “stunning and savvy” women—at up to $2995 per year. Millionaire Matchmaker International has claimed the territory that the 4M Club and the Millionaires’ Club here in the states is working: busy, very rich men and the women who want them.
Sounds like being rich does not necessarily mean tall, dark, and handsome, because Millionaire Matchmaker International also counsels the guys, if necessary, on wardrobe, dating skills, and the need for dentistry and plastic surgery, even. Short on the romance? Millionaire MatchmakerInternational will even do the creative work on the date, complete with ordering flowers and the limo.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Marketdata Enterprises has just released “Matchmakers and Dating Services: A Consumer Guide.” I thought about getting a copy, but the jaw-dropping price of $250 for 57 pages drew me up short. I went to the site to check out the Table of Contents and was not impressed: “Your Odds of Success — Finding A Match” was dealt with in one page. “Types of Dating Services” got four pages. At almost $5 a page, that type better be pretty teensy to get your money’s worth.
The news release for the report has some juicy tidbits though, and here are some of them:
Some Major Findings:
* The Better Business Bureau reports that in most complaints received about dating services, the consumer is at fault because they did not thoroughly read the contract.
* A number of dating services have been sued by state Attorney General’s offices or by consumers. Do you know which ones?
* Research shows that members of minority groups, unattractive or overweight people, those with rigid religious beliefs, singles with more than two children living with them, and chain smokers will have limited success.
* Singles have an equal chance of finding their soul mate no matter what kind of dating service they use. A higher-priced service is no guarantee of better results, although many will claim that their match rate is superior.
* Off-line chains such as Together or Great Expectations typically charge $3,000-4,000. Independent matchmakers (which are growing in number in the U.S.) charge anywhere from $500 to $100,000 for their services. The top ones usually cost $10,000+.
* Virtually anyone can call themselves a matchmaker — no license or certification is required. They are also hard to find, since most do not advertise. Word-of-mouth referral is used instead.
* Matchmakers today may offer many other services to make you more marketable: image makeovers, personal training and weight loss, wardrobe assessment, hair/skin care consulting, professional photos, written profile editing, etc.
And related to my earlier post on dating and matchmaking services:
“In many ways, dating services is a wild west environment, where ‘let the buyer beware’ is very much the rule. The number of services, both on the Internet and companies with physical offices, has exploded since 2001. Each type of dating service has its own positives and negatives. Prices for services vary tremendously — from $20 per month to $50,000+. Consequently, it’s more important than ever for dating singles to know what they are getting into before signing contracts,” according to John LaRosa, Research Director.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
My clients and readers often ask about other resources than Internet dating sites for singles. Matchmakers (people who maintain a list of eligible singles and pair them up for a fee) are favorites with both men women, I think because it allows them to stay relatively passive while someone else (the matchmaker) does the work. Matchmakers charge stiff fees, and also, you are restricted to the people that they have on their lists. You can read more about what I have to say about matchmakers on one of my earlier blog postings.
Dating services are similar to matchmakers, except they seem to function more like business, not relying on one person (a matchmaker) and their intuitive skills, but on employees who change, sometimes rapidly. Dating services are also expensive, maybe somewhat less expensive than matchmakers, but still pricey, starting at a low of about $1000. You can buy a lot of months on a dating site for $1000.
Dating services have poor reputations. Here’s an article about a Houston dating service called Together Dating, poor service they gave one of their customers, and the dozens of complaints that had been filed against Together Dating with the Better Business Bureau. Together Dating appears to be a franchise, not unlike McDonald’s. If you are interested in buying a business, here’s how to get more info on how to purchase a Together Dating franchise—price $98,400 to $254,900.
I’m far too tight to spend that kind of money to have someone else do the picking for me. I want to see what is being offered, have LOTS of choice, and save my money to fix myself up to go on a date. What about you? Anyone out there tried matchmakers or dating services?
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
All the chatter that has been going on here on my blog the last couple of days (see postings and comments on “Who DOES eHarmony Work For Anyway?” and “Your 1% Towards Making the Internet Safe”) the last couple of days has really had me thinking again about the issue of paid/not paid memberships on dating sites. And my correspondents bdb777 and Jennifer have spurred me on to clarify my thoughts. Here they are:
Background for the uninformed—Most Internet dating sites allow people to post a profile without paying. This is to the dating site’s advantage, because they want to get lots of profiles up for people to look at. Big membership numbers are a big incentive to for singles to join a site.
The sites get non-paying members to convert to paying members, which the sites needs to stay in business, by restricting certain privileges. The most common restriction is that those people who do not pay cannot email anyone. On some sites, you can send out a “wink” or icebreaker, but nothing more.
Most sites give no indication on the profile of who has paid and who hasn’t. How this plays out is that if a non-paying member is emailed by a paying member (who doesn’t know if the other is paying or not), then the non-paying member has to decide if the contact looks good enough for them to pay a fee to make the first contact.
Having to pay a fee (around $20) to email is a powerful incentive not to do so, whether or not the person contacting is a possible match. Even though it seems rude, it’s all too easy online to simply not answer emails at all, especially on dating sites, because of the anonymity. So non-paying members account for a good percentage of the very high non-response rate to first email contacts. For instance, Match.com claims around 1 million paying members. While you never see the numbers paired, they also claim 8 - 10 million members. Only 1 in 8 or 1 in 10 members then (those registered and posting profiles) are paid members. So when a hopeful single sends an email to an attractive other, the odds of an email response may only be 10%.
As my correspondents have pointed out, this policy of free memberships with restrictions also works out well for lots of singles, who can post their profiles, wait to be contacted, and look at who is posting, all without paying. It’s like trolling for fish and throwing back all but the biggest guys. (I’ve always thought that “catch and release” made no sense and was cruel. Who says the fish don’t feel the huge hook in their mouth anyway? It could kill the darned fish, probably hurt like the dickens, and all for the fun of the fisherman.)
Additionally, if the poster is clever or the site allows or misses the action, the poster may also imbed an off-site email address, by-passing the need to join all together.
Who this does not work well for are the folks who are new or who haven’t figured out the system. Here’s why:
- First, their fees are supporting the site for everyone who has posted and not paid up. Conceivably, those fees could be cheaper for all if more members paid their fair share
- Second, newbies (or even seasoned daters) may not understand the difference in privileges between paid and unpaid, and most assume that because everyone is presented equally, that they are members at equal levels.
- Third, new Internet daters are new—they are inexperienced, at least with online dating, and maybe to dating in general. They don’t know “the rules,” they are scared, and they are vulnerable.
- Fourth, fear of rejection looms big with these folks, and even an unanswered “wink” can pack a wallop.
- Fifth, they are jumping right on an already fast-moving speed boat with a “sink or swim” mentality. Who knows how many folks can quickly figure out a dog-paddle, or how many just sink and drop out?
I call this paid, full privileges and unpaid/restricted privileges memberships that dating sites routinely offer as “Internet dating’s dirty little secret.” Dating sites really don’t want you to know the differences. That’s why they never pair the paid and unpaid membership figures. Unless you are an experienced, savvy cyber dater and have figured this out on your own, or unless you have read my many writings on the subject or had me explain the phenomenon, you don’t know why you have such a high non-response rate to your emails. Every single time I have explained this phenomenon to singles, new daters or not, they are surprised. Usually, they assumed that everyone listing was a full member and able to email back. And all had no idea of the disproportionate numbers of paid versus unpaid members (80 or 90% unpaid on Match.com, for example).
Also, I don’t know what the figures are for first-time Internet daters versus the old timers, but I know that new folks are coming online all the time. And as Internet dating has moved into the mainstream, the users who have been on for awhile become more sophisticated and more able to manipulate the systems to their advantage. There is no T-Ball or Little League that I know of for new online daters. Every newbie jumps right into the major leagues, right along with veteran World Series players.
These new players are most often recently out of a long-term relationship and/or have not dated for a long time. They are tender, vulnerable, naive, and easily frightened or discouraged. They have not developed the thick skins that experienced daters, online or off, may have. However, they are excellent mate material, maybe even better than the experienced daters, who maybe jaded, calloused, or just plain not good mate material in the first place.
When my clients ask me why their emails or overtures are not being answered, I tell them about non-paying members, how many of them there are on sites, and how they would have to pay a membership fee to answer back. Then I suggest that they think about what they can infer from this. Here are my theories:
- Most likely, either the non-responding poster is too cheap to join the site and play fair, or he/she is rude, because whether paid or unpaid, not to respond to an overture from another is rude. Or both - cheap AND rude.
- Or the poster may be lazy and not attending to his/her profile as he/she should: If the poster has met someone and is dating, so not available, or perhaps taking a break, planned or unplanned, the poster should hide their profile or resign from the site. Continuing to post when not really available is false advertising.
- The other, more excusable but least likely, reasons for non-response might be broken computer at the other end, sick or dead, or possibly the site has kept up the profile even though the poster has dropped his/her membership (some dating sites reportedly do this routinely to keep the numbers of profiles up).
Spelling out these possible reasons for non-answered emails softens the sting somewhat. Over and over, I tell clients: “People tell you who they are from the very first contact. Are you really interested in someone who doesn’t care enough to be polite? Or is cheap and trying to manipulate the system?” Be aware, those of you who do not answer polite indications of interest: That’s how you may be being seen. Is that the image you want to convey?
It is to everyone’s advantage to take good care of these new daters. Dating sites ought to make clear the differences between paid and unpaid members with some kind of designation, like Yahoo! Premier is now doing. That designation could be seen as a premium and thereby encourage members to pay up. (Yahoo! Premier members have to pay and get a purple P seal on their profiles. While these profiles are mixed right in with all the other Yahoo! Personals, it’s easy to tell who is a Premier member. Yahoo! is also marketing the Premier designation as a membership level for singles who are serious about finding a committed relationship.)
Experienced daters should pay their fair share and kindly and politely email everyone who contacts them. Just because you can do something does not necessarily mean that you should. It’s all too easy on the Internet to be rude and callous in ways that you might never be in face-to-face dealings. Dating sites and experienced daters should take on the obligation of welcoming new folks and helping them get up to speed. Wouldn’t that add to the general ambiance? Isn’t finding a life partner hard enough as it is?
Just think: Your perfect match could be nervously writing their first profile right now, getting ready to post. Don’t you hope that other singles treat Mr. or Ms. Right well until you find him/her, or your Sweetheart finds you? Wouldn’t it be awful if your heart’s desire got treated rudely, got discouraged, and dropped offline? Before you ever met?
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Now that Internet dating has hit the mainstream and so many singles have given it a try, suddenly the old-fashioned profession of matchmaking is re-emerging from the dark ages. (Read my discussion of matchmaker Samantha Daniel’s book. And this is my longer treatment on the subject.)
Here’s why, I think: People are lazy and scared.
Once you get out of high school and college, never again will you be in a situation of such similar others, almost all of whom are single and not wanting to be so. Getting hitched up after that takes effort, usually more and more as you get older. For those of us over college age, online dating sites have been such a welcome respite from the old complaints of “Where can I find a date?” or “There are no good men left!” Dates, plenty of them and all ages of them, are on the Net, looking just like you are.
But finding a good date that may lead to a great mate takes time and work. And we just love our labor-saving devices. So here comes professional matchmakers again.
If you want to pay lots of money, passively let someone else decide who you will meet, and rely on this someone to have a large enough pool of potential candidates to make a match likely, then by all means: Hire a matchmaker.
Not me. I wanted the best. I wanted to see what the choices were. And despite the effort involved, I was willing to do the work.
You know, I had not thought about it before, but my total mate search (not including actual expenses of meeting the guys) was probably less than $100. I already had a computer.
Not a bad deal.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Good Morning America has been doing a series called “Suddenly Single,” and today the topic was starting dating again. The expert of the day was Samantha Daniels, matchmaker and author of “Matchbook” that I reviewed in an earlier blog posting. Don’t you just love how they tell you for two hours that what you want to see is coming up next? Then you watch and watch what you don’t want to see before it finally comes up in the last half hour.
I’ve learned that you can’t depend on morning TV for in-depth coverage of subjects, but Daniels with three mid-life divorced women just didn’t shed much light on the topic. As I said in my review of “Matchbook,” while the book was a fun read, a weakness was that Daniels had not been married. Therefore, she certainly has not been divorced, and I don’t recall that her single clients were divorced, either. So how could she speak with expertise about divorced women starting dating again? Daniels kept repeating that the women needed to accept and feel okay about their divorced state, and be wary about talking too much about their kids. Wow. That really is a big help.
I can think of lots of folks who would have been better choices for this “Suddenly Single” series. Like me, for instance. ButI’m really not interested in being a Network TV “expert,” or I would have hired a publicist who got me that kind of gigue, whether it was appropriate or not. Well, maybe if Charlie Gibson called me personally and begged. Maybe.
By the way, the last segment was baby animals from the zoo, and the cloud panther kittens made my watching the rest worthwhile. They were so CUTE!
Every once in awhile, one of my clients will ask about using a matchmaker to find a spouse. Since I have had no personal experience with matchmakers, I’ve been watching and reading to see what I could learn. I wrote about matchmaker Samantha Daniels in an earlier blog entry. Dr. Phil had a show on recently featuring women who self-identified as gold diggers. The segment about KT featured Patti Stanger of the Millionaire’s Club:
Dr. Phil introduces Patti Stanger, the founder and CEO of the Millionaire’s Club, an upscale matchmaking service where millionaires pay anywhere from $10,000 to $150,000 to meet beautiful, single women. “It goes from the low-end millionaires up to the billionaires that you see in the news and hear about daily,” Patti says about her clientele. “They get married and they get into relationships fairly quickly. They’re marriage-minded men. They want to be married.”
As for the women, she says, “We have about 25,000 women on file and we continue to get new ones every single day. Women just log on, fill out an application, send in professional photos and then we screen them.”
The women list for free. It looks good, ladies, until you find out the pesky gender ratios again: Dr. Phil asked how many active male clients the site had, and as I remember, Stanger finally admitted to 200 or so. 200 guys to 25,000 women??? Guys, if you’ve got the money, got for it. But it doesn’t look too good for the women. Stanger’s website is www.millionairesclub123.com
I got a link this morning to a posting on Ryze.com, a networking site where I am a member. Steve Lewis, a professional matchmaker, wrote about the difficulties of starting a matchmaking business. Now, there’s something you rarely see spelled out, so if you are interested at all, I’d advise that you take a look. His point #9 is:
9. The business model offering women free has worked for many. Theses services usually have only a few male clients that pay 5-50K for a membership. You must be in a large area like NYC, Chicago, LA for this to work.
This seems exactly the model of the Millionaire’s Club. And who knows? Maybe True.com too, which is charging men and not women, evidently (see my last posting). Get lots of women to sign up for free, then the few guys who then pay get their choice of a HUGE pool of ladies. And guess what, ladies? If you are not under 30 and magazine cover material, you don’t stand much of a chance.
|
