Comments on: Ripped From the Comments: Match.com’s Invisible Millions http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/ Online Dating Industry Consulting & Commentary Thu, 24 May 2012 21:18:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Nate http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-304782 Nate Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:23:44 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-304782 Did anyone get anywhere on elucidating Match's churn %age? Did anyone get anywhere on elucidating Match’s churn %age?

]]> By: David Evans http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-287191 David Evans Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:39:35 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-287191 Start with dontdatehimgirl.com and dateraters.com. Unfortunately the effectiveness of these services is not airtight, but it's a start. Start with dontdatehimgirl.com and dateraters.com. Unfortunately the effectiveness of these services is not airtight, but it’s a start.

]]> By: Sherri Otterson http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-287185 Sherri Otterson Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:06:19 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-287185 Would like to know if there is a site that you can post about profiles on Match? People are not who they are and it would be great to warn future victims from getting sucked in Would like to know if there is a site that you can post about profiles on Match? People are not who they are and it would be great to warn future victims from getting sucked in

]]> By: Scott Valdez http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-268136 Scott Valdez Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:39:06 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-268136 Ross, Just followed you on Twitter (@OutsourceDating). Send me a direct msg with your contact info and we'll chat sometime soon. Ross, Just followed you on Twitter (@OutsourceDating). Send me a direct msg with your contact info and we’ll chat sometime soon.

]]> By: Ross Felix http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-268131 Ross Felix Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:22:22 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-268131 Scott, I agree, regardless of what site I was on in the past, I never bothered emailing people who hadn't logged on within the last week. True, she might be on vacation in Monaco, but it could also be that she had just started a new relationship and wanted to see where it was going to go without meeting new people. By the way Scott, I'd love to have a more in depth discussion on this topic off line... feel free to find me on Twitter - @datingrev Or Dave, if you're reading this, feel free to provide Scott my email address. Scott,

I agree, regardless of what site I was on in the past, I never bothered emailing people who hadn’t logged on within the last week. True, she might be on vacation in Monaco, but it could also be that she had just started a new relationship and wanted to see where it was going to go without meeting new people.

By the way Scott, I’d love to have a more in depth discussion on this topic off line… feel free to find me on Twitter – @datingrev

Or Dave, if you’re reading this, feel free to provide Scott my email address.

]]> By: Scott Valdez http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-268129 Scott Valdez Thu, 03 Sep 2009 18:11:05 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-268129 Thanks Ross. Some good points there! Only one thing I wanted to clarify: You are right when you say "just because they’re not a paying member, doesn’t mean that they didn’t just log on yesterday"... I just mentioned that because we think, for example, that a high percentage of those people whose "Last Login Within" is "Over 3 Weeks" haven't logged in because they never upgraded to a premium membership. You'd think if you were paying $40 per month for a premium membership you'd log in at least once every 3 weeks. There is no way to tell who is a paid and unpaid member but contacting people with the most recent activity should increase your odds of contacting people who can actually reply. Anyway, in addition to the topics I raised made in my last post... I'd be interested to know what kind of response rates others have been able to achieve on Match.com and other sites. Comments more than welcome :) Thanks Ross. Some good points there!

Only one thing I wanted to clarify: You are right when you say “just because they’re not a paying member, doesn’t mean that they didn’t just log on yesterday”… I just mentioned that because we think, for example, that a high percentage of those people whose “Last Login Within” is “Over 3 Weeks” haven’t logged in because they never upgraded to a premium membership. You’d think if you were paying $40 per month for a premium membership you’d log in at least once every 3 weeks. There is no way to tell who is a paid and unpaid member but contacting people with the most recent activity should increase your odds of contacting people who can actually reply.

Anyway, in addition to the topics I raised made in my last post… I’d be interested to know what kind of response rates others have been able to achieve on Match.com and other sites.

Comments more than welcome :)

]]> By: Ross Felix http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-268123 Ross Felix Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:38:35 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-268123 Scott, Things may have changed, but this is my understanding. On several dual tiered (paid / unpaid) sites it works as follows: non paying members can't read emails sent to them but what's even worse, is that they don't know who sent them. Perhaps people would be more likely to pony up the cash if they knew prince charming had just written to them. Sites like these don't want you to know who wrote to you -- since often, it's not from someone you'd want to hear from. They'd rather you just take a chance after receiving, say 5-10 emails, that one of them has to be good, and you'll convert to a paid member. By way, Match.com is now under 1.2 million paying members as per IACI's 2Q 10Q (Match is owned by them). I think one other point that you might have missed in your post - is that just because they're not a paying member, doesn't mean that they didn't just log on yesterday. So, just looking at the last log in date isn't necessarily a good way to check to see if they're a paying member or not. Frankly, "It's ok to look" (one of Match's taglines) while intended (I'm guessing) to make people feel there's no stigma with online dating, alternatively reminds people that over 13 million of Match.com's members can ONLY look and do nothing else. Dating is tough enough in the best of circumstance. Having a >90% failure rate that you can do nothing to control is horrible. But don't think Match is the only one with this problem. I'm sure Yahoo, Spark Networks, Chemistry and eHarmony are right there with them. Scott,
Things may have changed, but this is my understanding. On several dual tiered (paid / unpaid) sites it works as follows: non paying members can’t read emails sent to them but what’s even worse, is that they don’t know who sent them. Perhaps people would be more likely to pony up the cash if they knew prince charming had just written to them. Sites like these don’t want you to know who wrote to you — since often, it’s not from someone you’d want to hear from. They’d rather you just take a chance after receiving, say 5-10 emails, that one of them has to be good, and you’ll convert to a paid member.

By way, Match.com is now under 1.2 million paying members as per IACI’s 2Q 10Q (Match is owned by them).

I think one other point that you might have missed in your post – is that just because they’re not a paying member, doesn’t mean that they didn’t just log on yesterday. So, just looking at the last log in date isn’t necessarily a good way to check to see if they’re a paying member or not.

Frankly, “It’s ok to look” (one of Match’s taglines) while intended (I’m guessing) to make people feel there’s no stigma with online dating, alternatively reminds people that over 13 million of Match.com’s members can ONLY look and do nothing else.

Dating is tough enough in the best of circumstance. Having a >90% failure rate that you can do nothing to control is horrible. But don’t think Match is the only one with this problem. I’m sure Yahoo, Spark Networks, Chemistry and eHarmony are right there with them.

]]> By: Scott Valdez http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-268113 Scott Valdez Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:42:59 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-268113 Now its not that "15 million profiles and only 1.32 million people can email you" its "15 million profiles and only 1.32 million people can read your emails and email you". My understanding is that you used to be able to see the emails as a non-premium user but just couldn't respond to them. Seems that has changed... now you can't even see what people are writing you... you can just see you are getting emails. I'd be very interested to know the churn rate for Match.com. I just did a small sample using 87 profiles and found a monthly churn rate of right at 15%. Obviously, the sample is too small but its the closest thing to real data I've seen on this for Match.com. Although I'd love to know the exact monthly churn rate, what interests me more is how we've been able to get over a 35% response rate for 2 of our clients if only 8.8% (1.32 / 15) are supposed to be able to see the messages, much less respond to them. I know there are some things we do such as pay close attention to how long its been since they last logged in but I have a hard time believe they account for this difference (b/w 8.8% and 35%). Anyway, this is really interesting stuff. I'd love to see more analysis in this area for Match.com as well some of the other major sites. Now its not that “15 million profiles and only 1.32 million people can email you” its “15 million profiles and only 1.32 million people can read your emails and email you”. My understanding is that you used to be able to see the emails as a non-premium user but just couldn’t respond to them. Seems that has changed… now you can’t even see what people are writing you… you can just see you are getting emails. I’d be very interested to know the churn rate for Match.com. I just did a small sample using 87 profiles and found a monthly churn rate of right at 15%. Obviously, the sample is too small but its the closest thing to real data I’ve seen on this for Match.com. Although I’d love to know the exact monthly churn rate, what interests me more is how we’ve been able to get over a 35% response rate for 2 of our clients if only 8.8% (1.32 / 15) are supposed to be able to see the messages, much less respond to them. I know there are some things we do such as pay close attention to how long its been since they last logged in but I have a hard time believe they account for this difference (b/w 8.8% and 35%). Anyway, this is really interesting stuff. I’d love to see more analysis in this area for Match.com as well some of the other major sites.

]]> By: David Evans http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-235071 David Evans Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:50:32 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-235071 Thanks Markus. I've been sick as a dog the last week or so, will dig into the prospectus and pull together some links and analysis. Thanks Markus. I’ve been sick as a dog the last week or so, will dig into the prospectus and pull together some links and analysis.

]]> By: Markus http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/comment-page-1/#comment-235046 Markus Fri, 26 Dec 2008 03:21:50 +0000 http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2008/12/ripped-from-the-comments-matchcoms-invisible-millions/#comment-235046 Just look at the AFF prospectus.. Its 19% for them... I'd say most sites are reporting their 2 year signups as active members. Just look at the AFF prospectus.. Its 19% for them… I’d say most sites are reporting their 2 year signups as active members.

]]>