|
|
Yesterday’s New York Times had a great article about Internet dating, specifically sites that do the matching for you, like eHarmony and Chemistry.com What was REALLY juicy was the companion article and the comments attached. Wanted: Single or Married Adult with Online Matchmaking Story asks for stories from couples who met online, and WOW! Did folks write in or what? You know how I love love stories, so I’ll copy off a bunch here. And I’ll put up “Wanted: Single or Married Adult with Online Matchmaking Story” in another post as well.
Here’s the first article below:
January 29, 2008
Findings
By JOHN TIERNEY
PASADENA, Calif. — The two students in Southern California had just been introduced during an experiment to test their “interpersonal chemistry.” The man, a graduate student, dutifully asked the undergraduate woman what her major was.
“Spanish and sociology,” she said.
“Interesting,” he said. ‘‘I was a sociology major. What are you going to do with that?”
“You are just full of questions.”
“It’s true.”
“My passion has always been Spanish, the language, the culture. I love traveling and knowing new cultures and places.”
Bogart and Bacall it was not. But Gian Gonzaga, a social psychologist, could see possibilities for this couple as he watched their recorded chat on a television screen.
They were nodding and smiling in unison, and the woman stroked her hair and briefly licked her lips — positive signs of chemistry that would be duly recorded in this experiment at the new eHarmony Labs here. By comparing these results with the couple’s answers to hundreds of other questions, the researchers hoped to draw closer to a new and extremely lucrative grail — making the right match.
Once upon a time, finding a mate was considered too important to be entrusted to people under the influence of raging hormones. Their parents, sometimes assisted by astrologers and matchmakers, supervised courtship until customs changed in the West because of what was called the Romeo and Juliet revolution. Grown-ups, leave the kids alone.
But now some social scientists have rediscovered the appeal of adult supervision — provided the adults have doctorates and vast caches of psychometric data. Online matchmaking has become a boom industry as rival scientists test their algorithms for finding love.
The leading yenta is eHarmony, which pioneered the don’t-try-this-yourself approach eight years ago by refusing to let its online customers browse for their own dates. It requires them to answer a 258-question personality test and then picks potential partners. The company estimates, based on a national Harris survey it commissioned, that its matchmaking was responsible for about 2 percent of the marriages in America last year, nearly 120 weddings a day.
Another company, Perfectmatch.com, is using an algorithm designed by Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist at the University of Washington at Seattle. Match.com, which became the largest online dating service by letting people find their own partners, set up a new matchmaking service, Chemistry.com, using an algorithm created by Helen E. Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers who has studied the neural chemistry of people in love.
As the matchmakers compete for customers — and denigrate each other’s methodology — the battle has intrigued academic researchers who study the mating game. On the one hand, they are skeptical, because the algorithms and the results have not been published for peer review. But they also realize that these online companies give scientists a remarkable opportunity to gather enormous amounts of data and test their theories in the field. EHarmony says more than 19 million people have filled out its questionnaire.
Its algorithm was developed a decade ago by Galen Buckwalter, a psychologist who had previously been a research professor at the University of Southern California. Drawing on previous evidence that personality similarities predict happiness in a relationship, he administered hundreds of personality questions to 5,000 married couples and correlated the answers with the couples’ marital happiness, as measured by an existing instrument called the dyadic adjustment scale.
The result was an algorithm that is supposed to match people on 29 “core traits,” like social style or emotional temperament, and “vital attributes” like relationship skills. (For details: nytimes.com/tierneylab.)
“We’re not looking for clones, but our models emphasize similarities in personality and in values,” Dr. Buckwalter said. “It’s fairly common that differences can initially be appealing, but they’re not so cute after two years. If you have someone who’s Type A and real hard charging, put them with someone else like that. It’s just much easier for people to relate if they don’t have to negotiate all these differences.”
Does this method actually work? In theory, thanks to its millions of customers and their fees (up to $60 a month), eHarmony has the data and resources to conduct cutting-edge research. It has an advisory board of prominent social scientists and a new laboratory with researchers lured from academia like Dr. Gonzaga, who previously worked at a marriage-research lab at U.C.L.A.
So far, except for a presentation at a psychologists’ conference, the company has not produced much scientific evidence that its system works. It has started a longitudinal study comparing eHarmony couples with a control group, and Dr. Buckwalter says it is committed to publishing peer-reviewed research, but not the details of its algorithm. That secrecy may be a smart business move, but it makes eHarmony a target for scientific critics, not to mention its rivals.
In the battle of the matchmakers, Chemistry.com has been running commercials faulting eHarmony for refusing to match gay couples (eHarmony says it can’t because its algorithm is based on data from heterosexuals), and eHarmony asked the Better Business Bureau to stop Chemistry.com from claiming its algorithm had been scientifically validated. The bureau concurred that there was not enough evidence, and Chemistry.com agreed to stop advertising that Dr. Fisher’s method was based on “the latest science of attraction.”
Dr. Fisher now says the ruling against her last year made sense because her algorithm at that time was still a work in progress as she correlated sociological and psychological measures, as well as indicators linked to chemical systems in the brain. But now, she said, she has the evidence from Chemistry.com users to validate the method, and she plans to publish it along with the details of the algorithm.
“I believe in transparency,” she said, taking a dig at eHarmony. “I want to share my data so that I will get peer review.”
Until outside scientists have a good look at the numbers, no one can know how effective any of these algorithms are, but one thing is already clear. People aren’t so good at picking their own mates online. Researchers who studied online dating found that the customers typically ended up going out with fewer than 1 percent of the people whose profiles they studied, and that those dates often ended up being huge letdowns. The people make up impossible shopping lists for what they want in a partner, says Eli Finkel, a psychologist who studies dating at Northwestern University’s Relationships Lab.
“They think they know what they want,” Dr. Finkel said. “But meeting somebody who possesses the characteristics they claim are so important is much less inspiring than they would have predicted.”
The new matchmakers may or may not have the right formula. But their computers at least know better than to give you what you want.
Chemistry.com (Match.com’s answer to the matching system of eHarmony) is taking on eHarmony again in a new ad campaign, highlighting what I think are eHarmony’s all too obvious limitations: Its refusal to work with gays and lesbians ("Don’t know how” is not a good enough reason-- Learn!) and its conservative Christian roots. See the article below for more. Another factor I never see mentioned is that it is highly likely that women far outnumber men on eHarmony. The site does not publish gender ratios, though I suspect that women outnumber men by at least 2:1, especially in the older age ranges. I’ve written extensively about eHarmony here on this blog. Scan these entries to read more.
Little Love Among Matchmakers
By DOUGLAS QUENQUA
THE world of Internet dating can be a cold, unforgiving place, particularly when it comes to the fight for customers.
The online dating service Chemistry.com plans to unleash a new campaign that seeks to depict its older and larger competitor, eHarmony.com, as out of touch with mainstream American values. The ads, which will appear in weekly newspapers and magazines starting Monday, attack eHarmony for refusing to match people of the same gender and for the evangelical Christian beliefs of its founder, Dr. Neil Clark Warren.
It is not the first time that Chemistry.com has hit on this theme. In April, the service ran a set of ads called “Rejected by eHarmony” featuring people who were turned away from eHarmony for being gay, not happy enough or simply unmatchable by its system. Chemistry.com spent $20 million on that campaign, and the company plans to increase the budget for this new effort.
Although Chemistry.com has 3.7 million registered users, in contrast to eHarmony’s 17 million, the “Rejected by eHarmony” campaign may be working. Since it was introduced, Chemistry.com has experienced an 80 percent growth rate, said Mandy Ginsburg, general manager of Chemistry.com. She said that enrollments by gays and lesbians have risen 200 percent since the “Rejected” campaign started, and that 10 percent of Chemistry.com’s members are seeking a same-sex match.
Chemistry.com, an offshoot of Match.com, both of which are owned by IAC/InterActiveCorp, follows eHarmony’s practice of putting users through an in-depth personality test to generate potential matches. Other online dating sites, like Match.com and Yahoo Personals, allow users to post pictures and profiles of themselves to make connections.
Still, eHarmony says that its approach has little in common with its competitors. “Chemistry.com and eHarmony are fundamentally different companies,” said Jodi Petrie, an eHarmony spokeswoman. “We use our research-driven approach to help people find successful long-term relationships. We don’t consider ourselves a casual dating site.”
EHarmony, which is based in Pasadena, Calif., and was founded in 2000 by Dr. Warren, a clinical psychologist, has long been criticized for its practice of turning away applicants who are gay or lesbian, married or serially divorced. Dr. Warren, a former seminary student who has had several books published by Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian group, has publicly voiced his belief that premarital sex can increase the likelihood of one’s marrying the wrong person.
Ms. Petrie said that eHarmony took no position on premarital sex and had no affiliation with any religion. As for its reason for not offering services to gays or lesbians, she said: “EHarmony’s matching system is based on psychological data collected from heterosexual married couples, and we have not offered a service for those seeking same-sex matches. Nothing precludes us from offering a same-sex service in the future, but it’s not a service we offer now.”
Nonetheless, Chemistry.com is betting that consumers will prefer to associate with a brand that they feel more closely reflects their own values. The campaign imagines a world in which eHarmony’s values — as interpreted by Chemistry.com — were enforced in various ways. For example, one ad shows a sign on a beach that reads “No gays on beach, May-September,” while another features a motel sign declaring, “No premarital sex.” The copy in both ads goes on to assure readers that Chemistry.com does not judge or enforce any moral code on its members.
The ads “demonstrate that eHarmony is out of sync with what is happening in America,” said Ms. Ginsburg of Chemistry.com. The company plans to expand the campaign to include television and more print ads in January.
The ads were developed by Hanft, Raboy & Partners, an independent agency based in New York. “The idea behind the campaign is to globalize eHarmony’s practices, and ask, ‘What would it mean if America had to live by those rules?’” said Adam Hanft, the agency’s founder and chief executive. “What would happen if gays couldn’t go on the beach, or if some paternalistic source says, ‘If you have premarital sex, you can’t get into this hotel’? By amplifying it to that level, it points out the absurdity and discriminatory nature of their practices.”
EHarmony counters that “consumers want to see advertising that is both accurate and positive.” In a statement, the company said: “Chemistry.com’s insinuation that eHarmony is discriminatory is 100 percent false, and we believe that Match.com would be better served improving their own service rather than attacking its competitors.”
Chemistry.com’s increasingly aggressive tactics reflect the heightened competition for customers in the online matchmaking business, which generates nearly $650 million a year in sales. After booming growth in the early part of this decade, with industry revenue increasing by more than 70 percent a year-over-year, the category has slowed down. The market grew 10 percent in 2006, to $649 million, and is projected to grow 8 percent annually until 2011, according to Jupiter Research, an Internet consultancy.
“We’re not projecting any significant growth in the number of new subscribers over the next few years,” said Nate Elliot, a Jupiter Research analyst. “That number is going up relatively slowly.”
As consumers who are new to the category grow harder to come by, competition for those who are already using these sites is heating up, said Mr. Elliot. Hence the negative advertising that seeks to siphon members from other sites. He noted, however, that “double dippers” — people who maintain memberships on more than one site — are becoming more common.
A long-existing bugaboo in online dating has been the feeling of public exposure when posting on a dating site. While it’s like being in a gay bar—everyone is there for the same reason, so there’s not point in being embarrassed—still, for folks like teachers, therapists, and other public figures, the exposure has gotten in the way of them pursuing love. Looks like Chemistry.com has got plans to deal with that need. See the article below.
Best, Kathryn Lord
Match.com to offer users confidential dating service
Match.com, the dating website, is launching a new service that will offer users greater privacy. It will be based in its US introductory service, Chemistry.com, which does not display user profiles on the site.
The website is looking to launch the product in the UK and Japan and plans to roll it out to further markets. Match.com chief executive Thomas Enraght-Moony says no date has been set for the launch but it hopes to have launched in new markets within 18 months.
The US service differs from its existing offer as it uses relationship profiling to introduce people - rather than allowing users to view profiles and contact each other. Instead, Chemistry matches a user to other subscribers and puts them in contact via e-mail. They can then chat online before meeting up and dating.
Enraght-Moony explains: “The service is aimed at people who want greater privacy. We launched the service after realising that some users, such as teachers for example, don’t want their profiles to be freely accessible and viewed by anybody. This introductory service means they retain their privacy while being able to use an online dating service.”
Enraght-Moony says the company survived the bleak dot-com boom and bust years because the site “fulfils a need for companionship”.
He says Europe is the company’s fastest-growing market. He adds that while the core market remains users in their 30s, in the US the over-50s segment is the fastest-growing consumer segment, a trend he says is likely to be reflected in other markets.
Ha Ha! I love it when other folks start writing about what I have been writing about for some time—though when am I going to get the credit? See my blog postings “Has Janet Kornblum of USA Today Been Reading My Blog?”, “Focus on the Family,” eHarmony, and Same Sex Couples”, “EHarmony Again and “Focus on the Family” Connections”, “I wish I could recommend eHarmony, True.com or PerfectMatch, but I can’t!”.
See the article below from the Washington Post.
I think it is FANTASTIC that Chemistry.com has noticed the edge it has over eHarmony (Chemistry accepts all comers, eHarmony routinely rejects about 15% of applicants) and is using it in an ad campaign. I’ve always thought and written that bad as it is to get rejected by a potential partner, to get rejected by a dating site? Oooeee! Now THAT’S nasty.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
They Met Online, but Definitely Didn’t Click
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 13, 2007; D01
You think the dating scene can be cold and unforgiving? It may not be half as frosty as the tempestuous relationship between two of the biggest players in the online dating business.
A name-calling catfight, complete with accusations and counter-accusations, has broken out between eHarmony.com and an offshoot of Match.com over a subject familiar to any luckless dater:
Rejection.
In its latest ad campaign, online matchmaker Chemistry.com shows no love for eHarmony.com, its older and larger competitor. Chemistry’s TV commercials and magazine ads feature young men and women wondering why their applications to join eHarmony were turned down.
“I mean, I am a good person. Right?” asks an actress in one of the TV spots, as a giant red “Rejected by eHarmony” graphic slams onto the screen. The ads note that eHarmony has rejected more than one million people who are “looking for love.”
No fair, says eHarmony, concerned that its rival’s ads suggest that eHarmony is being arbitrary—or worse, racially and religiously discriminatory—in turning people away. It wants Chemistry.com’s ads changed or dropped.
To that end, the company’s outside legal counsel, Lanny J. Davis (who spun the media for President Bill Clinton during his “relationship problems” with Monica Lewinsky), last week asked NBC and People magazine to stop running Chemistry.com’s current ads, or at least insist on some fine-print qualifiers about what “1 million rejected” really means. (As of Friday, NBC hadn’t responded to Davis; People magazine said that it wasn’t taking sides in the feud and that it would continue running the ads.)
The complaint offers a glimpse into the online dating world, which has grown in just a few years into a big-money business, with tens of millions of participants and only a few major players.
EHarmony, which is privately owned and is based in Pasadena, Calif., says that more than 13 million people have signed up for memberships since its inception in 2000. Dallas-based Chemistry.com, founded last year, is a fast-growing upstart that says 2 million people have used its service. It is part of IAC/Interactive Corp., Barry Diller’s conglomerate, which had $6 billion in sales last year and which also owns dating industry leader Match.com, as well as Ticketmaster, HSN (formerly Home Shopping Network) and the search engine Ask.com.
Although some specialized services, such as the Jewish-oriented J Date, seek people from particular backgrounds, general services such as Match, Yahoo! Personals and Chemistry are open to almost all adults who apply and pay a monthly fee.
EHarmony—founded by a clinical psychologist named Neil Clark Warren, who appears in many of the company’s ads—is more selective. The company acknowledges that it routinely rejects certain types of people.
EHarmony, in fact, says that it has rejected about a million people since its inception. But the company insists that the reasons aren’t arbitrary, that it has never collected any fees from those it rejected, and that Chemistry is trying to suggest otherwise.
The biggest reason for rejection, it says, is that the applicant is married. Stunningly, nearly one-third of the company’s rejects (30 percent) fell into this category. Others are blocked because they’re younger than the minimum application age of 21 (27 percent) or because the applicant gives inconsistent answers (9 percent), based on responses to eHarmony’s 258-question application.
“We were founded with the mission to find happy, lasting relationships for people,” Greg Waldorf, eHarmony’s chief executive, said in an interview last week. “It pains me that we’re being put down or criticized for ensuring that we’re doing the best job possible for our members.”
But eHarmony also turns people away for more controversial reasons. One is being gay. Chemistry.com notes as much in an ad that shows a young man leafing through a magazine that appears to be Playboy; he’s more amused than aroused by what he sees. “Nope,” he says with a sigh, “still gay.” Then comes the “Rejected by eHarmony” stamp.
Waldorf says eHarmony’s matching system is based on psychological research about heterosexual relationships. Because it doesn’t have similar data on gay people, he says, the company isn’t confident that it can offer successful matches to same-sex couples. “I’m not saying anything precludes us from going into the same-sex market in the future,” he says, “but it’s not a service we offer now.”
Chemistry.com, on the other hand, matches people looking for same-sex relationships.
EHarmony also rejects anyone younger than 60 who’s been married more than four times, as well as those who fail its “dysthymia scale,” another proprietary metric designed to screen people who, the company says, might have “severe depression.” (Dysthymia actually refers to a chronic but less severe form of depression.)
EHarmony’s gay and psychological screening methods have generated criticism for years among online daters, says David Evans, who writes the Online Dating Insider blog (and has consulted for several dating companies, including Chemistry.com). “You hear it all the time: People say, ‘I filled out this long questionnaire, and I got rejected for not being happy enough,’ “ Evans says. “You do this deep-think about your personality, and then it feels like you got smacked across the face.”
Chemistry says its ads are designed simply to highlight differences between it and eHarmony. “We’re saying, ‘We’re a very accepting, non-judgmental’ “ service, said Mandy Ginsberg, Chemistry’s general manager. “Philosophically, we believe that anyone who’s looking for a relationship is entitled to a relationship.”
But eHarmony sees more than that in Chemistry’s campaign. One TV spot features a young black man who says that he, too, was rejected—which Waldorf says falsely implies that eHarmony rejects applicants based on race.
A Chemistry print ad shows another black model, with text that asks, “Was it my love for Buddha?” This is a particularly sensitive issue for eHarmony, which began by focusing on Christian singles. Waldorf says the “Buddha” reference could raise questions about whether eHarmony uses a religious test, which he denies.
Firing back, eHarmony accuses Chemistry’s parent company of hypocrisy. It notes that IAC made formal overtures to buy eHarmony in 2004, but a deal never came off. Now, eHarmony says, IAC is running ads criticizing eHarmony’s business practices. Says Waldorf, “When we got to know IAC, they were very admiring of our business model. I don’t know what’s changed.”
From Mark Brooks’ Online Personals Watch:
OPW—Feb 26—Chemistry.com has done a great job of reeling in the ladies. Possibly too good a job. Here’s an email that was sent to Match.com members today. - Mark Brooks
“We have too many women* and we need your help. We created a marketing campaign to attract as many of the most captivating women to our site as possible. And it worked! Actually, it worked so well that our ratio of women to men is way off. So men, come visit Chemistry.com and see what it’s like to have the odds in your favor! *Disclaimer: We know you see a lot of disclaimers at the bottom filled with all kinds of legal mumbojumbo, however, we just want to use this space to reassure you, we really do have too many women and need your help.”
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
|
|
