Today’s guest post is by Scott Valdez, founder of Virtual Dating Assistants.
It is really a privilege to have the opportunity to write a guest post for Online Dating Insider so early into the development of our company. For understandable reasons, we didn’t receive a considerably warm welcome to the market during the week leading up to yesterday’s official launch so it’s nice to be invited to speak out on one of the key sources of industry information and expertise.
In order to improve our chances of getting valuable press coverage, we decided to use a slightly edgy approach to introduce and market a concept that what was already fairly controversial: giving cash-rich, time-poor men the ability to fully outsource their online dating. We thought this would help us really stand out in the market and invoke emotion (positive or negative). Our approach appears to have helped us achieve that objective.
As some of you may have seen, we have been already been covered by VentureBeat (that article was posted on NYTimes.com) and TechCrunch. Further, we are expecting some additional top-tier coverage soon. Quite frankly, we are even surprised ourselves with the attention we have gotten, especially since we appeared on the websites of all three of the aforementioned information sources prior to yesterday’s launch.
In addition to providing us with thousands of dollars in free marketing research in the form of feedback from hundreds of people including some of the industry’s leading opinion leaders such as David Evans and Evan Marc Katz, the attention the publicity brought us will translate into a quick recouping of our initial investment and will help us to raise capital that can be reinvested into improvements in strategic areas, namely marketing and service execution.
Within the next few weeks we plan to create a package offer for a less comprehensive subscription-based solution that we can market to the group of people who have said that they are definitely not comfortable with us interacting on their behalf but would like for someone to help them narrow down the playing field. We have also decided to begin planning a parallel site and set of services designed for women, who have contacted us on a small scale to see if we can help manage their online dating. In addition to the contacts, we have seen a lot of their tweets with a link to our site or an article about us followed by statements like “I need this service too!â€
I would like to note that although we do not currently have a women and same-sex friendly site, we will not be rejecting customers based on their sex or sexual preference. We are willing to provide a customized service to fit any client’s needs.
We are excited to have finally taken the plunge. We look forward to serving thousands of singles in the years to come that would like to take advantage of the massive candidate pools in online dating sites but simply don’t have the time to do it themselves.
Related Posts
Match and Yahoo Partner in EuropeBeliefnet Launches Soulmatch
Verified Person gets $12M
Socialpeople is moving
Dog Lovers Dating Site For Sale
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
“giving cash-rich, time-poor men the ability to fully outsource their online dating”
cash-rich, time-poor men are not interested in Online Dating because they are clients of Offline Proposals; they do not like Online Dating, at least in the form that it exists right now.
If Virtual Dating Assistants uses a mutual filtering method, it is in the range of 3 or 4 persons who selected each other per 1,000 persons, so in a 10,000,000 persons database, there are as many as 30,000 to 40,000 persons to meet. 30,000 persons is the population of an average small city!!!
The Dating Industry is a USD1.800 million business in the U.S.
Offline Proposals USD900 million / Online Dating sites USD900 million
- Owners and CEOs of Online Dating sites are more worried about:
. attract prospective customers,
. convert them into paying members,
. retain them as paying members as much as possible, if not, leave them as free users to increase database.
* Free online dating sites exist to send prospective clients to paid online dating sites, and paid online dating sites are not performing as expected for their paying members.
It seems they are only good for fun, for instant gratification, for entertainment purposes but not when a serious dater is looking for a long term relationship with commitment. Online dating sites Compatibility Tests are only fueled by big marketing budgets and not by serious scientific evidence.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
“Free online dating sites exist to send prospective clients to paid online dating sites” – I hope you don’t mean all free sites, thats simply not true.
I’m talking to some remarkable scientific matching companies lately, cool things coming soon.
Hi Dave:
Since last 2 months I had been heavily contacted by different companies wanting to launch “the truly revolutionary match-based relationship web site” based on “years of experience and testing in the real world of couples therapy” and well funded (over 6 USD million) but they will offer the same stuff already available! i.e. actual compatibility matching methods could reach “as low as” 3, 4 persons high compatible per 1,000 persons, so in a 10,000,000 persons database, you have as many as 30,000 / 40,000 persons to contact, that means a whole precision LESS than anyone could achieve by searching on one’s own!!!!
You do not need to prove a piston engine when you need a jet engine to break sound barrier.
The next generation of serious online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods
- should express/indicate compatibility between prospective mates like 92.55033557% +/- 0.00000001%
- will have to reach at least:
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database,
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database,
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database,
The only way to achieve [b]the eighth decimal[/b] is using analysis and correlation with quantized patterns (a high precision quantitative method to assess similarity between quantized personality patterns, a part of pattern recognition by correlation)
Anyway I hope they can get a lot of traction and make enough noise in the industry so I will promote my system to competitors.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Thats great to hear there is interest in your system.
Hoever, we’ve heard from you for years about the decimal places, the jet engine and the stats. If system doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter what the percentage match is, much less a lot of decimal places. What are you basing compatibility on? What test or school of psychology? Is it a new testing paradigm?
You need to do is a better job than today’s current state of the art compatibility systems and you have a winner on your hands. You want people saying, “I get better matches and go on better dates on CompanyX dating service.” Create a system that learns and adapts over time, getting better at making matches over time. Think like Google. Your system needs to be able to be tuned based on feedback, for example.
Can you prove that your system is better that whats out there? I’ve not seen proof in the several years you have been talking about this. If you don’t have a working system ready to plug into a dating site, I’m afraid this is just more of the same. Time to put your system up for review. When can I schedule some time to review it and what does it take to integrate with a live dating site?
“What are you basing compatibility on?”
LIFEPROJECT method: compatibility between prospective mates is a high percentage of similarity* between personality* traits (expressed as quantized patterns) for normal and over 26 years old persons interested in serious dating.
*personality: measured with the 16PF5 normative test in different languages.
U.S. market becomes saturated with more than 1.500 sites but NO ONE USES the 16PF5 normative personality test! (nor the 15FQ+ for Asiatic Countries)
OR
a propietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5 complying with IRT (Item Response Theory).
*similarity: calculated using quantum math equations, a method for quantized pattern comparison (part of pattern recognition by correlation)
With the 16PF5 (or similar test with the same traits) the ensemble is 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10 == 10raised16 == 1 * E16
more possibilities than ALL persons in the Earth.
The World Population (WP) is nearly 6,700 million persons == 6.7 * E9
16PF5’s Ensemble == 1 * E16
WP / Ensemble == (6.7 * E9) / (1 * E16) == 6.7 * E-7 == 0.67 * E-6
i.e. All World Population is 0.67 micro part of the Ensemble!!!
To my best knowledge, I haven’t seen any other quantitative method with higher precision than the one I had invented.
e.g.
Client #Man1 —— 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman1 —- 16PF5 Profile 5.6.4.7.7.5.6.6.7.6.3.4.7.6.2.3
#Man1 is 88.38926174% +/- 0.00000001% similar to #Woman1
Client #Man1 —— 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman2 —- 16PF5 Profile 7.8.6.9.9.7.8.8.9.8.5.6.9.8.4.5
#Man1 is 87.58389262% +/- 0.00000001% similar to #Woman2
Client #Man1 —— 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman3 —- 16PF5 Profile 8.9.7.10.10.8.9.9.10.9.6.7.10.9.5.6
#Man1 is 60.23489933% +/- 0.00000001% similar to #Woman3
Client #Man1 —— 16PF5 Profile 6.7.5.8.8.6.7.7.8.7.4.5.8.7.3.4
Client #Woman4 —- 16PF5 Profile 4.3.7.8.5.4.7.8.7.7.6.8.8.5.7.6
#Man1 is 68.15436242% +/- 0.00000001% similar to #Woman4
Average number of “compatible real persons” for one person over the entire database
3 most compatible persons in a 100,000 persons database,
12 most compatible persons in a 1,000,000 persons database,
48 most compatible persons in a 10,000,000 persons database.
———————————————————-
“What test or school of psychology?”
16PF5 test available in different languages.
or
develop a propietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5 test with Item Response Theory.
Dr. James Houran and his team can construct that test.
———————————————————-
“Is it a new testing paradigm?”
No, the 16PF test is ready since 1949 (invented by Dr. Raymond Cattell et al, 60 years ago).
The 16PF5 is the 5th version and also measures the Big Five Traits.
The new paradigm is in how to calculate similarity between quantized patterns.
———————————————————-
“system that learns and adapts over time, getting better at making matches over time.”
“system needs to be able to be tuned based on feedback, for example”
That is a great mistake.
If it can be proved that high compatibility between prospective partners is all about personality* similarity*, no need to be tuned based on feedback, no need to learn and adapt.
*personality measured with the 16PF5 or similar test.
*similarity calculated with the quantitative method I had invented.
———————————————————-
“what does it take to integrate with a live dating site?”
International proposal, could be launched in 5 or more countries at the same time.
Acquire the 16PF5 normative personality test license, available in different languages, in the range of USD 150,000 per year with unlimited use.
OR
Develop a propietary test with exactly the same traits of the 16PF5 test, in the range of USD 100,000 per norm&language.
AND
A software with the algorithm I had invented.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Let me get this straight, you have an algorithm based on a 60 year old personality test. You need money to license a test and you need someone to develop a system that runs your algorithm. You have an idea at this point, but nothing to sell or license.
I still don’t understand the value of your algorithm. I see lots of numbers but they don’t mean anything to me because you are incapable of sharing the value proposition of your idea in a simple way that non-experts can understand.
Part of the reason people don’t pay attention to you is you keep saying the same thing year after year, without actually saying anything we can grasp and say “wow, that sounds fascinating, I should look into that”, because you keep hammering us with numbers for which we have no context to understand.
I talk to scientists all the time and everyone else is able to tune the message to my level of comprehension. You need to work on that skill, it’s lack is hurting you.
You need to focus on who you are trying to pitch your concept to. Maybe work with someone to put together a whitepaper that you can share with mere mortals that explains why you are so passionate about your algorithm.
If you can reply without stating any numbers, that would be appreciated.
Hello again Dave:
Here is the explanation in plain English, without math!
* In compatibility matching methods there are 2 steps:
1) to measure personality traits or other variables.
2) to calculate compatibility between prospective mates.
* No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods uses the 16PF5 normative test available in different languages, the 5th version actualized after Census 2000. Those sites are using the Big Five, or other proprietary models instead (like Chemistry or PerfectMatch), to measure personality traits, and all of those tests are more simplified versions than the 16PF5. No actual online dating site offering compatibility matching methods measures the 16 personality factors as stablished by Dr. Raymond Cattell in 1949.
* Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods are only fueled by big marketing budgets and not by serious scientific evidence. No one (nor eHarmony, nor Chemistry, nor PerfectMatch, nor PlentyOfFish Chemistry Predictor, nor Yahoo!Personals) can prove its matching algorithm can match prospective partners who will have more stable and satisfying relationships than couples matched by chance, astrological destiny, personal preferences, searching on one’s own, or other technique as the control group in a peer_reviewed Scientifc Paper. They are all like placebo, because
* Actual online dating sites offering compatibility matching methods, when calculating compatibility between prospective mates, have less or at least the same precision as searching on one’s own. [in the range of 3 or 4 persons compatible per 1,000 persons screened]
* That is because they use:
a) simplified versions of personality traits, instead of the 16PF5 or similar with the complete inventory (16 variables)
b) inadequate quantitative methods to calculate compatibility between prospective mates, like eHarmony which uses Dyadic Adjustment Scale or other sites which use multivariate linear / logistic regression equations o other equations.
“I still don’t understand the value of your algorithm”
I propose:
-) the 16PF5 or similar normative personality test to measure personality of normal persons over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
-) a new quantitative method to calculate compatibility between prospective mates, based on quantized pattern comparison (part of pattern recognition by correlation).
The value of my algorithm is to achieve far more precision than searching on one’s own [in the range of 3 persons compatible per 100,000 persons screened]
and
try to prove if only high level on personality* similarity* between mates is the core of relationship stability and satisfaction for normal persons over 26 years old interested in serious dating.
*personality: measured with the 16PF5 normative test in different languages.
*similarity: calculated using the method I had invented.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
Do ya get it now, Dave? Huh? Huh? Huh?
If I can’t scratch glass with it, I ain’t interested!
I’m happy to announce a competing firm that is going to develop the dating representation market even further: http://www.DoneForYouDating.com
I had been developing my company since April 2009 (proven by domain registration records) and although I was planning to launch later in the summer, the announcement of the other company forced me to launch with minimal market testing. I can’t say yet whether there is a significant market for the service, but in order to differentiate my company, I have chosen a per-date pricing model and female representatives who are based in Toronto, Canada. Other than that, we provide the same “done for you” online dating representation that VDA does.
I fully expect other companies to enter the market, and in order to survive, each company will be improving upon the services already offered by Mr. Valdez’s firm and mine. Competition fuels the spirit of entrepreneurship, and I’m looking forward to seeing the new developments that lie ahead.
Hello Scott and Luke! I love the fact that this work is getting such a buzz! I see no reason why we can’t work together, as I only work with clients in the California/Orange County area. I prefer to be face-to-face if possible. I would be happy to refer anyone in other demographics closer to you both.
Also, I offer services to men and women. Currently, I have 3 women I am working with and 4 men. It’s just me right now and I offer this service as a standalone or as part of my coaching packages. I actually thought I invented it until I saw Scotts site! Maybe we can all do a BlogTalk radio show together.
Visit my sites at:
http://www.cassistjames.com
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cassistjames
Thanks!
Mary Ann Kilgore
coach “cassi”