Look at these PlentyofFish ads. Defecating animals, the usual “hot girls messaged you at POF” and now we have ads that trick members into clicking them because they look exactly like, and are positioned directly next to, photos of people on the site. Crap ads (literally) and click scams, welcome to the worlds largest online dating site.
I thought that maybe Match would come in and elevate the free dating game, but they only lasted a few months before they threw in the towel. Unfortunate, as it would have been nice to see POF and Match battling it out based on effectiveness and quality. Instead, free dating remains synonymous with a low quality experience. This is not good for consumers or the dating industry in any way shape or form. Glad to see OKCupid has chosen to stick with high road.
PlentyofFish is down-market and OKCupid is edgy. Expect to see a mid-market free dating site on the scene in 2010 which swoops in and takes the middle of the market away from both free and paid dating sites. Huge market opportunity to wedge in-between POF and OKC. Problem is, buy-in at the free online dating table is cost-prohibitive at this point. Maybe Zoosk will morph into more of a dating site and establish a position in the middle, but they’re stuck at the lower-end like POF, necessitating the need to go upscale to hit the fertile middle ground. Can you tell that I’m beginning to put together my 2010 online dating industry predictions?
Related posts:
{ 18 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh you are absolutely right. In 2010 there will definitely be an upscaled changed to the free and paid dating game. I’m just curious as to what your prediction is as I think I have the same one.
And props to OKCupid as they’ve definitely taken the high road.
Disgusting!
These crap ads can do nothing but to make users leave the site, and search for a better and serious one.
I agree totally with this. This is why I’m building Gelato. I just wasn’t happy using the other dating sites. We still have a ways to go with Gelato, but we’re getting there.
You’ve been writing a few to many okcupid press releases.
Markus, I write about them because they are doing fascinating innovative things and changing the industry through transparency, freemium offerings and the OKCupid research blog.
POF is enormous and keeps getting bigger. That is a tremendous story which has been told over and over again, here and elsewhere. The recent attention you are receiving reflects the results of your monetization strategies.
Let me know who else is changing the game at this level and I’d be happy to talk about them as well. What other free dating sites should we talk about here? I’m all ears, seriously.
I’d love to hear more about the challenges you face, what you are working on, your plans for 2010 and whatever you want to talk about. Let’s set up an interview, I’m sure everyone who reads this blog would be eager to tune in.
Sorry, the article is dead wrong. I’m on PlentyOfFish and OKCupid. POF got me laid twice, OKCupid, zero.
Stephan, I think you just proved one of Davids points.
Speaking of POF, I have seen a ton of their ads lately on a wide variety of websites.
Who could know and prove if the owners of PlentyOfFish, Kanciar and Frind, had been spending 60% of the revenue in promoting PlentyOfFish, buying its traffic?
If the revenue of PlentyOfFish is about USD 15 millions this 2009.
Did they spent almost USD 9 millions in ads at different sites during this 2009?
I know the free bigger Argentinean sites by traffic need to spend 60% of their revenue in promoting themselves, that growing “worth of mouth” is all a lie. They need to burn a lot of money to sustain its enourmous traffic, and if they stop promoting themselves, they suddenly become to fall.
Take for example the Argentinean free social networking site named Sonico (now in decadence because Facebook is killing Sonico), compare it with PlentyOfFish. Sonico had MORE traffic than PlentyOfFish during some periods during last 2 years.
Regards,
Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
ardenghifer@gmail.com
It needs to be mentioned that POF also has “freemium” offerings in the form of very innovative adaptive testing applications that provide customized coaching advice across different stages of relationships. Plus, POF also has a research and advice blog. These things have been around awhile, so I don’t see anything OkCupid is doing along these lines is original, much less changing the industry.
And as for Stephan’s comment about hooking up… it doesn’t prove Dave’s point… it proves Stephen’s point. People use online dating for different agendas. The same is true for dating sites — even the ones that supposedly cater only to serious relationships. Stephen found what he was looking for at POF, which makes it a success story. To say that such a situation proves POF is low end is puzzling.
I would like to see hard data that proves that consumers perceive the POF brand as being low end (or OKCupid high end). Dave is entitled to his personal opinion, but unless there’s some clear evidence the argument isn’t convincing beyond one person’s view.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
http://www.OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Dr. Houran is correct about the features being on POF. But there’s the problem. Go ask 10 people if they were aware the POF has these features, I bet only two know about them.
Where he is wrong is not acknowledging that the OKCUpid blog has done more to help daters than any dating site ever has with it’s public research. Surely that rates.
There is plenty of evidence. Mine is based on talking to many people about how they perceive dating sites. Admittedly some bias on my part, someone has to tell the story. Not puzzling at all, simply reality based on the results of one type of marketing as opposed to another.
I think OKCupid is deemed more as a high end dating site because it is viewed as offering a service to find long term relationships. POF is looked at more of a casual or hookup dating site. Both achieve their goals but, casual dating by society’s standards is not as lofty goal as the pursuit of a long term relationship. I’m not saying POF doesn’t produce long term relationships, in fact I bet they produce more because of their overall traffic volume, it’s just the perception I get from people who use these two dating sites.
I thought by the headline this would be a review of the new POF self-serve ad platform that recently launched.
“These crap ads can do nothing but to make users leave the site, and search for a better and serious one, ” says the SEO comment link spammer.
On several occassions we have blocked POF ads from appearing on our free dating site, Metrodate.com, through our ad networks because of their ad quality. My favorite one said something like “Why are you on this terrible site? Go to POF”. (Sorry, I dont’ remember exact wording.) POF is not the only site to showcase ads that try to look like the site however.
I didn’t say they were the only site, lots do the same thing. Anything to make a dollar, right?
Dr. Houran and Markus, I went back and looked at POF to look at the test. I see a 100-question test, which I took a while ago. I don’t see any customized coaching advice across different stages of relationships. Can you speak to this? Maybe I’m not seeing the link, or just confused.
I don’t see how it’s an adaptive test, there are 100 questions. I thought adaptive meant the questions changed depending on previous answers, like an adaptive survey? I do see see a filter on the page before the test based on EasyGoingness, Openness, Self control, Family orientation and Self confidence. Is this the adaptive part?
I assume the results of this test drive who is displayed across the site? I know there is a lot going on behind the scenes that members don’t see in terms of who is displayed, but it’s not clear how the test affects who I’m shown on the site. I should remove my test results and browse again, but I don’t feel like answering the 100 questions all over again. Would be cool to be able to pause the test filter and see what happens.
One last thing, the multiple checkboxes on the “Block up to 5 attributes you DON’T LIKE” feature, shouldn’t they be radio buttons? I’m choosing a selection from a range, checkboxes shouldn’t be used here. Not seeing much change in the results regardless of what I check or don’t check. This is a confusing feature.
Nice article.
FreeDating4Singles is more than happy to wedge in the middle during 2010!
One thing is definitely for sure, during 2010, those of us who provide free dating services really need to work hard to quell the perception of a poor or low end dating experience. The whole purpose of providing a service is that you provide it and promote it to the standard that you would be happy to use yourself.
{ 1 trackback }