Online Dating Insider delivers cutting-edge insight and commentary on all aspects of the online dating industry. Topics include industry news, site reviews, emerging trends, analysis of dating site features, discussion about safety safety, finance and other issues important to the online dating market. Don't miss our Startups directory, useful to anyone running dating or social networking sites. Subscribe to the RSS feed (you can subscribe via email as well). Your comments and suggestions for stories are welcomed.
We offer consulting services to dating sites and social networks as well.
Rich Gosse, founder of the IADW, will be interviewed for about 5-6 minutes on Fox News Live on the Fox News Channel on Wednesday morning, March 30, shortly after 8:30am Pacific Time. During the interview Rich will speak out against the proposed legislation in several U.S. state legislatures regarding criminal background checks on dating websites.
The International Association of Dating Websites is opposed to this proposed legislation. Rich hopes you will join the IADW in urging state legislators, particularly the state senators in Michigan, to vote no on this special interest legislation which is harmful to the online dating industry.
{ 8 comments }
It is important to note that TRUE.com is a member of the IADW. Thus, this group does not speak for the entire industry in opposing this legislation. Moreover, it is disappointing that these proposed laws keep being misrepresented by such groups.
These laws do not mandate online dating sites to conduct criminal background screenings. Rather, it is a proposed law of disclosure only. Mr. Grosse and you should be clear on this point. Please be careful and consistent on this fact in the future.
Finally, it is curious that this legislation is constantly being portrayed as special interest legislation. It is special interest legislation for consumer safety — yes — but so far several consumer surveys and bipartisan legislators in multiple states do not agree with the characterization that it as “harmful to the online dating industry.” In fact, the consensus from these other sources is that it is quite the opposite.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
True is spending consumer’s money trying to use the legislation to force the remaing 5% to add a few lines of text to their home pages. A marketing tactic, which while brilliant, will ultimately fail.
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
Isn’t that largely due to pressure from True.com? This is a positive trend that wouldn’t have come nearly as quickly or forcefully were it not for True’s legislative efforts. This may be irksome for some in the industry, but it is a tremendous boon for the consumer.
Dan Vest
(Yes, I’m Herb’s son.)
Dating sites will offer background checks because they see it as an additional revenue stream more than anything else.
I find it troubling that you categorize the distraction as merely irksome. True has completely alienated itself from the industry with statements like this. Does anyone there have a clue about the implications of background checks, the complexity of integration and the nuances of writing effective legislation much less enforcing it? Based on the legislation I’ve read, the answer would be no. Some big players are going to come in and squash this, wait and see.
I remain skeptical about this “new foundation” and “tremendous boon for the customer” you speak of. Are you listening to how you sound when saying these things? The self-serving nature of the initiative is painfully clear to the rest of the industry, and hearing True defend it’s position tends to ring hollow.
Please send me a copy of the consumer survey’s that have been mentioned. I’d like to read them.
Don’t True’s competitors respond to their environment the same way everyone else does? It’s hard to imagine that when the heads of the largest online dating companies learned about this legislation they didn’t at least increase their efforts to secure background checks. Wouldn’t it be simply incompetent not to do so?
“Are you listening to how you sound when saying these things? The self-serving nature of the initiative is painfully clear to the rest of the industry, and hearing True defend it’s position tends to ring hollow.”
1) I neglected to make clear in my previous post that though I’m an interested party, I do not work for or represent True.com.
2) While I honestly don’t mind that you impugn my character, I feel compelled to point out that it is irrellevant to the discussion at hand. “Self-serving” does not mean “false.”
Dan Vest
Self-serving in this case means “we need to get some traction in the marketplace because we were late to the party and need a compelling reason for consumers to pay for our services.”
Notice how PerfectMatch focuses on cross-promotion, television deals, print tie-ins and celebrity spokespeople to gain market share. Quite a different approach than wielding the legislative hammer. The debate continues…
My apologies. I must have mistaken your characterization of an industry position for your position.
“Self-serving in this case means “we need to get some traction in the marketplace because we were late to the party and need a compelling reason for consumers to pay for our services.”"
Yes, I understood what you meant by self-serving, but the point remains that questioning True’s motives does not amount to an argument (even a weak one) against their position.
Comments on this entry are closed.