Comments on: Nightline visits Match.com

By: hollie fortin

hollie fortin — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:45:15 +0000

I go to school online to the phoenix of arizona, i am taking a class on relationships and sex. One of the questions is: What precautions is Match.com taking when assesing people.? HELP!!

By: Redg

Redg — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:05:30 +0000

@markus ….great deflection…. “emails responded to” is one of the few metrics that we can ALL quantify…it would be a great start at understanding ARG (actual relationships generated) if we care… Skout is focused like Pirates on getting as much ARG across our network as possible.

“Emails sent” is…to repeat myself a “1 to self” metric and to lock into that as a baseline of success is Quixotic in the least, great for PR at best, and in all instances just a practice of self indulgence…I’m just sayin thats all..

By: David Evans

David Evans — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:31:43 +0000

Maybe as a percentage of users That number is low but it should grow over the years. Difficult to monitor and unless you have the resources to follow up like eHarmony. Their statement that they are responsible for 2% of all marriages is brilliant, clear and easy to understand. Agree or disagree with their testing model, they refine it and follow up with members which is something the majority of dating sites simply are not capable of doing.

By: Markus

Markus — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 02:57:22 +0000

And I thought the most important metric was relationships generated….

By: Match.com Gets Plugged: Nightline on ABC | Toronto Dating Scene

Match.com Gets Plugged: Nightline on ABC | Toronto Dating Scene — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:20:34 +0000

[...] dating sites are experiencing this same jumps. PlentyOfFish’s small mention in this piece has resulted in ‘a few thousand extra signups’ apparently. The piece, [...]

By: David Evans

David Evans — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:17 +0000

Customers want access to lots of relevant people nearby. The Viral-ness of an app is more of a business metric. You are correct about it’s value as an indicator of how much people like an app though. But nobody looks at viral stats when they choose a service. As you state, they hear about it from friends or more importantly, friend’s lifestreams. I think we can agree that if they don’t recommend it it’s probably not very good.

MRPU = Monthly Revenue Per User, correct?

Great point re: # emails responded to. Let’s keep going with this. I’ve suffered through several false-starts over the years talking about this here, just sayin’.

By: Redg

Redg — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:31:30 +0000

Dave,

2 Things I can’t resist.
1. Talking about the value of Skout
2. Tongue in Cheek references… :)

MRPU? I think could be valuable very valuable as well.

However granularity is important when focusing on consumer satisfaction.
“See what our customers do. Make it easier and better for them to do “that”….Seems simple.”

I understand all of us in the dating industry are serious about having satisfied customers…However unless we see relevant ROI based on “engagement” numbers it is very unlikely that we will be motivated to enhance the features that our users value the most.

I respectfully disagree about costumers not caring about value growth…as a business term absolutely not. However from a WOM perspective Viral Growth happens from happy customers. I believe viral growth to go hand in hand with satisfied customer interaction and to go hand-in-hand with our new media interconnected social world.

For example…I meet cute girl on Skout…I have a good chat conversation…I tell my friends….Friends get on Skout = Viral Growth

I am playing with the Skout OUT at a bar. I grab my friends and they participate with me on my selection process. My friends see me having fun and are then naturally going to get involved and begin engaging in Skout. = Viral growth

To the 1 to 1 interaction = customer satisfaction.

True 1 to 1 interaction I believe to be the basic goal of all online dating sites. “Automatically” 1 to 1 could not work if in the instance I am looking for something other than what my “co-interactor” is offering. However, in that case I would then not respond so the 1 to 1 is really a 1 to self.

I would be more interested if Markus, and others would define success not in emails sent but rather emails responded to. That is a valuable metric, and rightly symbolizes the 1 to 1 interaction I am talking about. Otherwise we are all just in a 1 to self minded business community, and 1 to self = an unhappy online dating customer….I’m just saying

By: David Evans

David Evans — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:58:52 +0000

Per engagement seems to granular, what about per user per month?

Redg, you’re talking about the value of Skout more than how to measure success.
I don’t see how 1 to 1 interaction automatically leads to higher customer satisfaction and viral growth is not really a metric consumers care about. This is what happens when we focus on business metrics and not what’s important to users. I think the metrics should cover both constituencies.

1 to self, lol I’m not going to touch that one.

By: Redg

Redg — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:48:18 +0000

As a company focused on relevant people in the area. I think there needs to be a mind-shift to ARPE Average Revenue Per Engagement instead of blind traffic. This would allow us to understand what engagements really matter.

I propose a “no brainer” there is greater value in 1 to 1 interaction…it marks conversion, high CSI (Customer Satisfaction Index), and viral growth possibilities. The amount of interaction across Skout for 1 to 1 versus a silo’d “1 to self interaction” is extremely high. However our 1 to Self page views etc. look more modest.

I think we can all agree in dating as in the real world a 1 to 1 interaction has a substantially higher value to an end user than a 1 to self……

By: David Evans

David Evans — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:02:58 +0000

You are singing to the choir, I agree about the lack of useful industry metrics. Markus talks about number of emails sent daily, I like that a lot.

Traffic spikes based on ad buys over time as a trend is useful when viewed with engagement metrics and perhaps # emails sent.

If I belong to a website I want to be able to talk to everyone. Can’t say you have 15 million profiles but can only talk to 1.4 million of them.