Match.com Makes News:Bits
1. Match.com is changing its look —and from appearances, the kind of singles it is trying to recruit. Style-wise, the site has gone black and white, with a little crisp nave blue, and added the cute motto “It’s okay to look!” And they have also added a stylist to help with advice for profiles and presentation. (Although that guy Jay Manuel looks very weird. Is he made out of plastic?) Looks to me like they are aiming at a higher end market. The site now makes regular sites like Yahoo! Personals and especially true.com look pretty cheesy. Fees are up, for sure, to $34.95 for a month, $16.99 each if you sign up for six. Still a bargain, when you think that even at full price, that’s just a little over a dollar a day for access to millions of singles.
2. Then, in a bow to just how famous Match.com has become, The Washington Post published a piece on 1/28/2007 that is basically an angry rant about the plight of single women by an anonymous woman in her 30’s. It’s sort of amazing that the Post would even publish an anonymous piece, let alone one that blames Match.com and other dating sites for her ills.
However, like most rants, there are grains of truth. Granted, men (and women) have gotten spoiled by the seeming plethora of “hotties” of both genders. Never mind that these folks practically never return emails. Anonymous goes on to list her demands for dignity and respect, for all single women to to start “dignified dating behavior.” Some of the list makes sense, like honesty, keeping in shape and not dressing provocatively. But just as her anger reduces the effect of her message, some of her guidelines negate the rest. Like “If you don’t receive flowers by the third date, dump him.” Gosh.
Remember, the Internet and dating sites like Match.com are the medium, like a telephone. Phones changed people’s lives, too. We are in the middle of a big change period for dating and mating. It feels like with Internet dating going mainstream (out of the shadows), we are now in a bit of the opposite extreme, of people going sort of wild with expectations, and then having massive disappointment.
3. Then, practically on the same day as the Post piece (1/29/2007), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about Match.com and baby boomers. Match. now has the largest number of paid subscribers among U. S. dating sites. Match.com’s subscribers (paid members) now number 1.3 million, up by 1/3 over the past two years. How? Match has been reaching out to singles over 50 and divorcees, pitching itself as a destination for mainstream daters who want serious relationships. Yowzah! Is that what we want to hear or what???
Here’s more:
At Match, 23 percent of subscribers are over 50, more than double the number two years ago. Yahoo Personals has seen double-digit growth in the number of users over 50 in the past two years, thanks in part to a new service that provides extra control, privacy, and security. EHarmony’s fastest-growing age group last year was the over-50 segment.
Here’s something you rarely see: the number of paid subscribers to Match.com (1.3 million) and the number of “registered users” (15 million—total of PAID and UNPAID users), in the same article. These figures are rarely paired together, because of what I call “Online Dating’s Dirty Little Secret”—by far the largest percentage of folks with their profiles on dating sites are unpaid, and therefore not able to answer your email without paying up first. That’s more that 11 to 1, paid to unpaid, on Match.com. That means for every 11+ first emails you send out, you should only expect to get 1 back! Why is this so? Read my earlier posting to find out.
Here’s a bit that I found interesting but confusing:
The site is also branching out to daters desiring privacy, like executives or teachers reluctant to post their pictures online where subordinates or students may find them. It has introduced Chemistry.com, a premium service that shows a subscriber’s profile only to those candidates deemed suitable by a personality test developed by an anthropologist.
I’ve had a number of clients who are professionals in their community and really worry that their clients will see and recognize them. Some way for them to take advantage of online dating and protect their privacy would be great, but I don’t think Chemistry.com is going to do it. Chemistry.com has dud written all over it. The best part of Chemistry.com is it’s name. I have heard no good buzz at all. A commentator on Mark Brooks’ Online Personal Watch listed fiascos for 2007, and Chemistry.com is fifth on this list.
I love Match.com. It’s where I met my Sweetie Drew in 1998. But it’s not perfect. And worst of all, it ignores ME! A successful Romance Coach who met her now-husband right there! The epitomy of dumbness, wouldn’t you think? Now, Yahoo! Personals knows a good thing when they see it. I got RECRUITED to write for Yahoo! Personals. Wake up, Match,com!
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
Dear Kathryn: You are so right on so many points. Online dating has seen its ups and downs and those downs have been bordering on the perverse. What’s wrong with the over 50 crowd? Baby boomers are here to stay and are looking for serious, not serial dating!Best of luck in your new position. Janet
Posted by Janet Reiss on 02/01 at 02:53 AM