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.
Recently I moved my email from one Gmail account to another. It was fascinating and a royal PITA to move 55,000 messages, but when all was said and done I learned a lot about what I’ve been paying attention to the last few years and amazed at how many dating sites have come and gone.
Over 200 dating site startups contacted me for consulting and advisory services. At least 100 of them never launched or have entered the deadpool. Some of them I’m sad to see go, others never should have seen the light of a search engine.
For example, where did Wannago.com go? Just last year they were mentioned on TechCrunch and now the site is poof, gone.
I can’t tell you how many url’s no longer point to dating sites, even from two years ago.
This is part of the problem with the dating industry. It’s easy to start a site, but most site owners are not aware of the amount of time, money and resources they are going to need to become successful.
I tell people these days that they are not starting an online dating site, they are becoming an online marketing expert. Most dating site owners have little understanding of their member’s mindset, and the rest could care less, as long as the money is flowing in.
Getting people to care about your groundbreaking new dating site concept is almost impossible. Most of the time I can show you a business plan for a company that tried the same thing three years ago, and failed.
It’s strange that I start most calls with prospective clients with the statement, “The last thing the world needs is another dating or social networking site.” That usually throws them off-guard and their response is a key indicator as to whether or not we’re going to work together.
Want to try running an online dating or social networking site? Go to Ning. I can advise you on an appropriate plan of action and you’re off to the races just like that. Ning and a banner exchange is a good way to get started with your dating/social site. Same goes for World Singles and World Dating Partners, which are a bit more involved, but you get some marketing support as well.
The truth is that there are few dating startups with enough resources to make it these days. The power is in the small niche sites based on hosted platforms. Small startups can’t afford to customize most dating software. Dating software like SkaDate (blog sponsor) and Boonex is fine if you have a solid technical team in place for several months, but unless that is the case, forget it, go with a hosted solution. Before people start yelling, I realize there are always exceptions, I’m talking in generalities here and I love to be proved wrong.
I’m need to write the next chapter to my How to Start a Dating Site series, it’s been ages since I updated it and there are so many new options and lessons learned to share.
The next few posts are going to be me doing quick riffs on things that pop into my mind as I continue to go through my email box.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 22 comments… read them below or add one }
Dave, you are wrong!!!
Fortunately the U.S.A and Canada Market, Europe Market and Latin America Market remain enormous.
There is Plenty Of ROOM for new players!!!
The Online Dating Industry needs definitely the online dating site for serious relationships (for mature persons over 26 years old) which can KILL online dating sites like True, Chemistry, PerfecMatch, PlentyOfFish, eHarmony and others and/or STEAL their users/subscribers!!!!
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi. Since 2001 trying to launch a serious online dating site.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
though i can’t call myself a dating industry expert, i can see clearly that it is a tough market that is probably on the decline due to the competition on the part of social networks.
would you personally start a dating site at this point in time taking into account your experience?
This quote was used in the Feb 2008 IDate by one of the people in the final panel; I don’t remember who the person was but every person in the panel including Markus disagree with the comment.
In one hand I agree, if any online dating startups are planning to brake in to this market with the same concepts and applications the market is based at this very moment, it would be a ‘BIG MISTAKE”
Startups with the same matchmaking system based on another personality test without any intellectual properties will NOT go very far.
At this point it’s hard to find a novel proprietary matchmaking system and/or apps, and if you do, be prepared for any infringement lawsuit from any of the big boys with big and deep pockets.
Even Markus is not moving a finger any more; he’s way to concern if he will or won’t get sued again by the big boys because he does own any intellectual property.
And don’t even think about using personal preference in your matching system or big brother Spark Network will go after you.
Let’s review the matchmaking system you can’t use…
By DNA test, Testosterone level, facial symmetry, two way, one way, using personal preference, not using personal preference, any personality test, symmetry of the palm of your hand and the list can go on and on…. Good luck!
Now. On the other hand I disagree.
The whole market is crying for a new service that makes sense, something new, affordable but yet an effective method of quickly achieving results.
A dating, matchmaking or niche web-site that understands the importance of social network apps to the dating services. I’m not talking about creating facebook apps to be placed on facebooks…..NO… Creating your own applications to your own and unique dating site and if those apps are also intellectual properties of your own, even better, by creating a solid value to your site and differentiating your self from others.
The future of this market is not in niche sites or lost users to social networks it’s creating a new and stronger platform in the online personal market.
At this point in the game, you not only need to be a Founder/CEO with a strong marketing background to make it… NO, you need a complete new vision of the market with bigger goals, to own one or several novel intellectual property’s, be very unique, have a excellent development team, a very good sales team, a good management team, a reliable advisory team, and have a good amount of $$$$ for marketing and PR.
Last but not least, if you are raising capital (pre-revenue, round A, B est.), make sure to take in consideration one thing; “Some times its not about the quality of the term-sheet but the quality of the Angel or VC”
And that was my 2 cents…
PS.
I’M A FAN OF THIS QUOTE.
“Dating sites should know more about you than any other web property, yet they squander the opportunity to leverage this knowledge to make our lives easier.”
How about existing larger sites doing a better job instead of reinventing the wheel?
Unless you’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a month in advertising your site is not going to have enough people to generate enough revenue to sustain growth.
I am all for new niche sites but the mainstream game is over for now. We’ll always have a new SinglesNet and PlentyOfFish pop up every few years but they remain a rare commodity.
what a successful match is, which nobody seems to talking about. It’s all hand-waving about matching algorithms which I don’t buy for a minute.
Singles have little faith in matching systems at this point because they have been sold false promises for years.
Integrating new systems is expensive and technically difficult.That’s the market reality.
Until these issues are addressed, singles continue will to experience online dating mediocrity.
In today’s “The Paradigm Shift” blog entry, Markus shows that in a survey of dating habits by over 100,000 US plentyoffish users 15.23% are currently active paying subscribers of other dating sites and around 17% of those users are looking for a serious relationship. Another interesting info is that over 90% of those users are subscribe to a matchmaking service and that 3% have more then 2 membership subscription open.
Normally online dating users have 1, 2 and some times 3 paid membership subscription in different matching sites.
I know that all those % don’t seem like big #’s but reality is that matchmaking services are responsible for most of the $1 Billion online personals market.
Vives aqui o en Argentina?
Gracias.
Sites like True, Match, Chemistry, Engage, PerfecMatch, PlentyOfFish, eHarmony, Yahoo!Personals, Ulteem, Meetic, Parship, Be2 and others cannot change/improve their matching methods/algorithms. They had reached their operating ceiling! No matter what bells, whistles, horns, drums or other diarrhea of pyrotechnic devices they try, they are not going to increase their paying members or active members in their database; it means, the Online Dating Industry will reach a point when many online daters will become tired/saturated/jaded/disgusted/bored/fed up of existing larger online dating sites, and will demand more powerful matching techniques from NEW & FRESH online dating sites.
To be honest, I am anxiously waiting the opportunity to launch the personality matching method I had invented.
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Please, lets star thinking outside the box here.
Here’s another example why the matchmaking service is not picking up.
They want to solve the problem with the same medicine that cause the sickness to star with.
You know how many sites haves personality test and method? OKCupids have about a million.
Some other company sales 100s of personality matching method and test by the docent.
They should open a white label personality test and method. Wait,,, that already exist…
Good Luck!
I thought I’d throw my two cents in since the thread involved matching systems.
1. It’s not difficult to conceive a novel proprietary matchmaking system . My team does this all the time, and the results work. Companies can contact me for details. That said, what’s difficult is finding a client willing to invest in the resources needed to actually invest in such applications.
2. Eharmony’s matching system might be a marketing success , but from a psychometric standpoint their system is broken and recommendations work akin to Barnum statements/placebo effects. Still, several other examples of testing applications that “work” from a commercial sense can be cited. eHarmony is not alone.
3. The suggestion that some services can’t change or improve their matching algorithms is incorrect. Actually, this is very easily done if a service collects outcomes data and the vendor keeps current on leading edge research in compatibility science and the original system has a Modern Test Theory framework.
4. Many of the big boys are fighting this patent trolling crap related to matching systems. The prior art (some commercial) is so extensive and well documented that the patent is almost surely to be invalidated eventually. Plus, there are competing patents for essentially the same thing, so who wins what?!
5. With respect to Markus and POF, he is not under attack from infringement claims. For one thing, several of POF testing applications are not matching systems in the traditional sense. They are actually automated dating and relationship coaches, for the lack of a better term. This was apparently an intentional approach that encourages website stickiness and activity, while functioning differently than what one can find on other sites.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
I think Dr. Houran is definitely the Researcher the Online Dating Industry needs to verify if any Online Dating site offering Compatibility Matching / Scientific Matching could match persons who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test (like the Wilson Relationship Compatibility Indicator WRCI test). But Dr. Houran is not exactly an entrepreneur nor a businessman.
Sites like True, Match, Chemistry, Engage, PerfecMatch, PlentyOfFish, eHarmony, Yahoo!Personals, Ulteem, Meetic, Parship, Be2 and others CAN NOT change/improve their matching methods/algorithms, BECAUSE if they do so, they are admitting they were not as good as they should had be.
What will happen with previous matched persons? Are they going to say: “hey, we changed our matching method, so if you got married or engaged or in a relationship, there could be a more compatible person/s than your actual partner”. The best strategy is to launch a new online dating site with a different marketing plan when they had reached operating ceiling.
operating ceiling == no matter what strategy a dating site applies, it can not increase or sustain active members (free or paying)
I had been checking, since 2003, many actual online dating sites which claim Scientific Matching, creating dummy profiles of men and women and using them as tests points for reverse engineering purposes. I had discovered/noticed that proprietary tests or models used by those online dating sites could have great precision in measuring different psychological variables but the matching algorithm (they apply) has low precision when comparing one profile to others. The whole precision (measurement_of_variables + pattern_calculation) is less than any person could achieve searching by his/her own!
I had also noticed the word compatibility means different things for different persons, for online dating sites, for academics, for researchers, for psychologists.
Sometimes the word compatibility means a high degree of similarity between several variables (religion, attitudes, education, income, personality, likes&dislikes, etc) of prospective mates; sometimes the word compatibility means a mix of similarity and complementarity between several variables; and sometimes when a dating site says compatibility or even chemistry nobody knows exactly what it really means!
Some actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods use the word similarity meaning a proprietary Dyadic Adjustment Scale, others say similarity meaning a proprietary multivariate linear regression equation, others say a mix of similarity and complementarity meaning a proprietary multivariate logistic regression equation, others say a mix of similarity and complementarity meaning a proprietary equation to calculate “compatibility” between prospective mates!
I had been reading many research conducted by renowned researchers/academics; but to my best knowledge, unfortunately I have not seen yet any Scientific Paper (published by any actual online dating site which claims Scientific Matching or any related academic) showing its “recipe” really works, i.e. proving they can offer a long_lasting/enduring/long_term relationship (or even marriage) with a low “divorce” rate.
Last August 2005, Dr. John A. Johnson had told me “there are probably undiscovered factors beyond similarity of any type that determine relationship quality”.
I had invented a high precision quantitative method to compare similarity between personality quantized patterns with an adapted quantum mechanics math equation, which could be useful for dating purposes; codename LifeProject Method.
Like:
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 74,79865772% (+ -) 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 5.7.4.8.7.4.5.6.4.6.8.9.6.8.4.4
The pattern 6.7.6.8.9.6.7.7.8.7.2.5.8.7.3.4 is 92,55033557% (+ -) 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.7.6.8.8.7.6.5.8.7.4.5.7.7.3.4
The pattern 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4 is 88,38926174% (+ -) 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 5.6.4.7.7.5.6.6.7.6.3.4.7.6.2.3
The pattern 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4 is 87,58389262% (+ -) 0.00000001% similar to the pattern 7.8.6.9.9.7.8.8.9.8.5.6.9.8.4.5
LifeProject Method takes into account the *score* and the *trend to score* of any pattern
I think LifeProject Method deserves an opportunity to prove if it can contribute to offer a long term relationship for prospectives mates with a low “divorce” rate, better than couples matched by chance or other typical type of compatibility test.
If not, I also think many persons could be interested in meeting/contacting other persons with nearly the same personality as them, for mature persons over 26 years old, who had proved actual online dating sites and some of them had been hurt in their feelings!!!
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Fernando is a really great guy that I have fun with, but hey, that comment sure packed a punch! In my defense, one of my professional roles and endeavors is an international assessment and training business (www.2020skills.com) for which I’m the president. Plus, I have many side projects that are definitely entrepreneurial and profitable!
Now that we’re past that, let me address another of Fernando’s comments… namely that some services can’t improve or else they admit they weren’t good to begin with. I completely disagree. Many products and services improve as technologies and research reveal better ways. It’s just progress.
I’d be worried if a company never upgraded its offerings as new information and breakthroughs became available. The best businesses constantly learn and apply that knowledge to improve its products. Applications of social science are no different.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
A big cut there.
Same bad results…………….
I liked the report of only 27 questions to 1101 married individuals, including 112 couples.
- Dr. Houran and Alfredo and Ralph to advise on matching systems. Plus a few frustrated people from eHarmony.
- $20 million, at least.
- A few key executives from Match and eharmony.
- Marketing people from SinglesNet and True.
- Markus from PlentyofFish as a consultant ;-)
- a large partnership with newspapers and print media.
- Other secret ingredients.
Fernando, if you need me to help you package and offer your test to dating sites I’d be happy to help, but posting math in the comments is probably not the best way to promote your ideas.
Ralph, James didn’t write that test, AFAIK he worked there for a while but it’s not his resume headliner. I’ve been talking with him on and off for years and he’s one of the good guys, maybe you two should talk.
Cheers,
Dr. Jim :)
I will.