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.
Related posts:
{ 8 comments }
Wow! TRUE.com is sure facilitating a lot of free publicity for the IADW. Dare I say that Herb Vest has virtually put the IADW and other groups on the map!
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
As I’ve said before, in a few months, the major dating sites, which represent around 95% of online daters, will all offer some sort of background checks. Then what? True, along with many other sites that were once the foundation of the industry, will still be struggling and probably have to raise additional funds to stay afloat.
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.
Thanks for comments, Dave. Of course, TRUE.com already considers itself a major dating site — and we do not see our safety efforts as a failure on any level. Moreover, we are extremely happy with our trends. TRUE.com has argubaly started a new foundation in the industry.
James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com
“As I’ve said before, in a few months, the major dating sites, which represent around 95% of online daters, will all offer some sort of background checks.”
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.)
Hi Dan, thanks for chiming in. Nothing could be farther from the truth (pun indented). Background checks have been in the pipeline for quite some time. Long before True started. I have seen no evidence that True can take credit for moving the industry closer to adopting background checks. Let’s drop that assumption right here and now.
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.
“Background checks have been in the pipeline for quite some time. Long before True started. I have seen no evidence that True can take credit for moving the industry closer to adopting background checks. Let’s drop that assumption right here and now.”
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
Dan, by identifying yourself as the son of Herb Vest and posting to an industry forum you do come across as representing True.com. I’m not impugning your character (“to attack as false or questionable”), I’m merely stating how the industry has responded to the True legislation initiatives.
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…
“I’m not impugning your character (“to attack as false or questionable”), I’m merely stating how the industry has responded to the True legislation initiatives.”
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.