Michigan bill passes Senate committee

Thanks for the comments, Dave.

Many providers in the industry obviously disagree with the proposed legislation to enhance online dating safety and that is their right. But, bloggers, industry insiders, and organizations like SITRAS, IADW, and IDEA OASIS do not speak for the industry — THE CUSTOMERS DO. And, the customers keep telling the industry repeatedly in surveys sponsored by us and others that safety is their number one concern and that they support disclosure laws as proposed by TRUE.com. Specifically, these organziations fail to reflect the views of the 61% of online dating customers that are concerned about increased safety, the approx 80% of national voters that support State safety legislation, and the 20% that believe these companies already run criminal background checks.

TRUE.com chose its business model because its market research revealed that customers had major safety concerns and that new customers would be brought into the industry if those concerns were actively addressed.

Bars, bookstores, and coffee houses do not charge people money to “match them up” and “provide social introductions.” They exist to sell drinks and books. We make them meat markets — not the owners. On the other hand, online matchmaking sites exist and make millions of dollars to essentially fix you up. TRUE feels that business model implies some inherent ethical responsibility to provide at least a minimum level of active safety and screening.

We may not be able directly to enhance safety in people’s personal offline pursuits when they do not enlist professional servuce, but we can do something directly to enhance online dating safety. After all, we freely accept money from customers to provide the business of “introduction and dating services.”

The false sense of security argument is not just weak, it’s shamefully misleading. There already exists a false sense of security. A recent study revealed that 20% of online daters assume companies already conduct background screenings — when they do not. In addition, I hear a certain company claim that there is “no problem” — the same company repeatedly identified in news reports as the website where predators have met victims. The same company that had to reluctantly admit under repreated direct questioning from a legislator at the senate committee hearings in Michigan that there was a problem. Are we to really believe that such companies have the best interest of their own consumers at heart?!

TRUE.com regularly rejects about 5% of its communicating members because they fail background felony screenings and another ~4% because they fail marriage checks. These are important results since research consistently shows that women do not want to meet men online who pose as singles (but are married) and since the Dept of Justice’s statistics show that past felon convictions are the best predictor of future felony activity.

Clearly criminal background and marriage screening are not entirely foolproof (how naive to assume so), however, it is demonstrably a much better alternative to what is currently being done by a majority of online dating sites offered today. Moreover, the industry knows well that consumers often have memberships at more than one site at a given time. These failed applicants are not on TRUE, but they are somewhere else.

TRUE.com is not concerned with pacifying industry insiders. We are here to address customers’ realistic fears associated with online dating that the public has repeatedly told the industry are keeping that industry from growing. TRUE.com believes that a rising tide will raise all ships. I submit that the real fear being voiced by the industry is one of cost. Competitors are so eager and careless to accuse Mr. Herb Vest (CEO, TRUE.com) of creating this initiative solely for financial interests. Ignorant comments like that do not help the image of the industry, and neither does the fact that the companies fighting against the legislation are ones that have financial interests in seeing it not passed.

Herb Vest and all the employees of TRUE.com exist to help reduce the divorce rate by providing a more wholesome and safer environment for courtship, coupled with scientifically validated compatibility tetsing (my forte). No one is trying to legislate TRUE’s business model into law. Too many industry insiders are promoting public perception of these bills as regulatory in nature. The fact is the proposed bills only concern disclosure.

We don’t mind the insults that industry insiders and others levy at the company– after all “no one chases you unless you’re carrying the ball.” To be sure, the fact is that the bulk of the surveyed online dating consumer base and general public feel we have that ball.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

Jim, Of course there are realistic safety concerns. Nobody is arguing that point. The problem was that TRUE started out on the wrong foot by launching the Safer Dating initiative without any buy-in from the industry, so it appeared to be driven by the marketing department.

Nobody is saying that it dating sites shouldn’t do what they can to help their members stay safe. From what I hear it’s the way TRUE is going about promoting the issue that is the problem.