Match.com is paying Dr. Phil an undisclosed sum to offer dating advice to Match subscribers for $12.99 a month. “MindFindBind” will offer provocative tips and techniques, workshops and 50 video segments.
Match CEO Jim Safka:
I would like to see the top 10 list of things members want. If coaching and advice is the #1 request I’ll eat my profile on stage at iDate. People want less fake profiles, more interactive online dating experiences and better customer service to start.
Who came up with the phrase “MindFindBind” for a premium service? That’s the worst branding I’ve seen in a while.
Industry scribes are praising the move, but I think adding more lowest-common denominator content and making people pay 1/2 their monthly subscription fee for it is going to go the way of Match video, Match social networking, Match profile help and all the other attempts at trying to increase the stickiness of the site or wring more money out of members.
Match has consistently shown they know how to maintain the success of their first-mover advantage, but stagnant growth and the glacial pace of innovation has them squarely in the big-box retailer WalMart category. Don’t get me wrong, Match makes decent money as the “Kleenex” of online dating, but today’s online daters want more than what Match or any other dating site out there offers.
When I looked the the terms of use, I see the following:
“The content is generalized, non-individualized information designed for self-help purposes.”
This is precisely the opposite of what we’re trying to do with ProfileDoctor. People need personalized feedback on their specific situation. The problem is that Match, or any other dating site, still views members as a credit card number. This is a high-volume transaction business, with little room for customized features or content. That’s why canned videos are so appealing. I’m sure the videos are decent, and some people will learn mind-bending things like “brush your teeth before a date” and “you have to love yourself before someone else can love you.”
“You understand that this is not a personality test, which can only be administered on an individual basis under the supervision of a professional licensed to administer and interpret such tests.”
Right. Match had a deal with WeAttract, which went south for a variety of reasons. Yahoo came in and picked up WeAttract, leaving Match with no personality tests. Match now conveniently says that personality tests can’t be taken online. Please.
There is reference to tests and questionnaires, perhaps some level of interactivity will be part of MFB.
The first lawsuit will be someone who goes on a date based on what they learned with MFB and ends up in a bad situation.
The service is billed at $12.99 per month. When I went to sign up, in small print it says my credit card will be charged $31.94. I’m on a six-month renewal, I’m guessing that’s the pro-rated cost. I want one month of MFB, to kick the tires, check it out, see if I like it. No way am I going to pay for it for the remainder of my subscription and with auto-renew on by default.
To what extent does Match expect MFB to drive new memberships, extend existing ones or simply act as a new revenue source?
I predict inconsequential revenue from the program, and a slight uptick in memberships if they promote the service effectively.
My myriad issues with offering MFB aside, kudos to Match for landing the good doctor. He’s not a spokesperson, but aligning such a major tv personality is a major coupe.
Now, who is Yahoo lining up, Dr. John Gray?
[tags: match]
Related posts:
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I think the #1 request is to find quality contacts (compatible real persons), like “here you have a list of 48 persons most compatible in a 10 million database’s prospects; for dating or social networkingâ€Â?
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Users need help beyond simply finding the right person. I’d like to see more from the personality profiling sites especially, as they are most qualified to be able to provide this kind of help. Once users find the right matches it would be nice if these services could indicate the potential conflicts they are most likely to encounter and how they might preempt them, and how they would be best advised to communicate and work through these conflicts and aresas of incompatability with their respective partner/matches.
Matchmaking is only half the story. Users need to know how to keep it together. I hope we will see more unisons with notable psychologists and online dating sites.
Mark Brooks
There are two distinct issues here.
First, is dating sites providing additional features and help selecting people
you want to date.
Second is help with the dating process.
Personality tests address the first issue, with results that at best can be
called mixed.
It appears Match is addressing the second with their tests. I haven’t viewed all
the clips though.
I think the psychiologists are fine for spokespeople but Dr. Phil doesn’t know
or care about me the least. The insight he provides doesn’t address my
particular situation, my specific issues, which is what makes me unique.
I want more help finding the right people, I don’t need anyone to tell me how to
start a relationship. I may be in the minority here.
I think personally that the personality tests and psychological pseudo assistance really miss the point about dating. People want to date. Only by dating will they find out who is compatible with whom.
To that end I have decided to create a new dating company that will focus entirely on getting to the point. Our tagline is Signed. Wined. Dined.! Our spokesperson is the IronChef! and our sponsor is Ernest and Julio Gallo!
Really, really! Wanna bet?!?!?
Am too!
Finally, I see a light at the end of a tunnel. Thanks to Dr. Phil confirming that psychological personality tests just don’t work ONLINE! See article “Are Personality Tests reliable?” published here a year ago. http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2005/01/03/are_personality_tests_reliable.php
More in News @ compatti.com