For the past few months I’ve been working with CNBC on a new dating special that airs next week. Here’s a clip, which features OKCupid’s Sam Yagan, Match and a few other dating sites.

From the show’s website: NBC News and Today Show Correspondent Amy Robach reveals how online daters are using cutting-edge technology in search of love and how digital entrepreneurs are getting rich helping them do it.

You’ll meet scientists, mathematicians and psychologists who claim they can draw revealing conclusions about you from what you do — and don’t do — on their websites. Can online dating really deliver what it promises? CNBC takes you inside a business trying to unlock the secrets of the human heart with science.

Love at First Byte: The Secret Science of Online Dating
Premieres Thursday, February 9th 9p | 10p | 12a | 1a ET

Related posts:

1. The Science of Love
2. NBC Teams up with Perfectmatch for Science Of Love
3. Science of Love on NBC

Here’s a cautionary tale for all you online dating startups trying to out-Thread Thread. Part history lesson, part obituary, this one’s for the 10+ startups working in the  social  dating space.

In recent years, the dating industry has focused first on niche sites, then it was all about mobile, and now the industry’s newcomers are focusing on social dating. While there are already countless ways to discover new people on the interweb such as millions of blogs, Twitter, forums, newsgroups, email newsletter discussions and so on, everyone is hot on social dating. Why? Two reasons, lower customer acquisition costs and *potentially* faster growth via viral effects and hopefully higher effectiveness due to some people finally starting to understand the power of trust, reputation and vouching systems.

As for history, remember that Match had a social dating feature in 2002. Engage was another early site focused on an early form of social dating.

Now we have everyone jumping on the social dating bandwagon. Social dating takes the best K-factor (viral) growth know-how from Facebook, adds a dash of vouching for friends, a pinch of testimonials and some basic technology to match each other up. It may lead to a friendship, or a hookup, depending on the focus of the service. Profiles tend to be more dynamic, the crowd younger, and nobody pays for anything (yet). As social dating evolves, this definition will no doubt be refined, but we have to start somewhere. Leave a comment if you have something to add to it.

Here’s the conundrum, a social dating site is only as good as its members. If lots of people are highly engaged the site has a better chance at taking off. If people try it, then bounce after a while when the new car smell has gone away, the site isn’t going to do very well and the churn monster rears its ugly head. Then there’s the whole topic of how to you get people to pay for something on Facebook.

While Myspace is generally for connecting with new people and bands, Facebook is for connecting with people you already know, like college roommates and that girl you dated 10 years ago. Now that Justin Timberlake owns Myspace, there is a clear opening for another discovery service for friendship and dating (which is where it gets complicated.)

Reality is that at a self-reported $125 million revenue, Badoo has won the game before the rest of the teams have shown up to the stadium. This depends on how strict your definition of social dating is, and you know how I feel about Badoo. Not enough meaningful interaction with real people, unless you count monetizing hookups and lots of fake profiles, in which case its a blockbuster success. End of story until I meet with Badoo marcom people to get The Real Deal, or at least the party line for their sanitized US efforts.

But first, lets go back a few years for some perspective. When I started the Corante (world’s first blog network) Dating and Discovery Advisory Service in 2005, social discovery was the tip of the spear for our efforts. One of my first clients in the dating space was Engage, the granddaddy of social dating as its defined today. I’ve written a ton about them, use the search function on this blog to dive down that rabbit for a history lesson if you’re interested.

In short, Engage was the first big site to have separate profiles for men and women. Dr. John Grey (Men are from Mars…) worked on the site along with Trish McDermott, who was a driving force for Match early on and now working for another dating site.

Engage was about friends matching friends, leaderboards, non-singles matching other singles and some potentially interesting functionality. Not to mention a clean slate and loads of cash to spend.

The founder, a smart serial entrepreneur, made a series of missteps, trusting expensive design/interaction firms to make things pretty and function like people *supposedly* wanted, and ended up with a so-so looking site that was fairly complicated, featured awkward social features (by today’s standards) and most of all they didn’t grok that its all about ad spend when it comes to starting a dating site.

To top it off, consider how difficult it is to get your friends to introduce you to their single friends. As a professional single person, I’ve resorted to an incentive of two round-the-world airplane tickets if you introduce me to my wife.

And these new companies think that people will flock to their services to hook up their friends? The jury is out on that one and will be for a while.

Of course some sites go viral and blow up big time, but that list is short and those companies exist in rarified air that most entrepreneurs can only dream of breathing.

Ok, so lets talk about Engage. After blowing through something like $6 million, Engage sputtered to a halt and was acquired by Spark Networks. Anyone who knows anything about the dating industry knows where this is going…

Spark Networks did absolutely nothing with Kismeet. For moths, if not years, I never received an email from the service, then all of a sudden, boom, emails started trickling in, and then nothing, for months at a time. Sad, because the service had such promise, but it required evolution and lots of care and feeding to grow, and Spark was unable to or chose not to provide enough resources to grow the Kismeet brand. Throwing out the Engage name and replacing it with Kismeet was the first mistake and things went downhill from there.

Fast forward to today and my inbox has a notice from Spark that Kismeet is closing its doors. Sad but not surprising. I think the acquisition price was around $300k, but I may be way off on that. Engage obviously sweet-talked Spark into the deal, and Spark payed the price, literally. No idea how much Spark made off of Kismeet, but judging by the lack of communication with members, I’m thinking not very much.

Now Spark is trying to transition Kismeet members to  JDate, Christian Mingle and Spark.com. These three services are likely the breadwinners in the Spark portfolio of dating sites. I wonder how many people are going to take the leap?

And so, we bid a sad Adieu to Kizmeet, the greatest social dating site that was ultimately unable to reach that beautiful point where thousands of people are flooding the front door each and every day.

To the myriad dating startups trying to replicate and improve on the 7-year-old Engage model, please contact me and lets do this right so don’t have to write your obituary in a few years. Your investors, family and most importantly your customers will be glad you did.

Related posts:

1. Engage Unites with Kizmeet
2. Live Video Is The Next Big Thing In Social And Dating
3. Spark Networks Acquires Engage

After a bummer of a sale to FriendFinder Networks, which has proven adept at killing off perfectly good acquisitions, Nerve.com has launched a new dating site.

Many people, myself included, consider Nerve/SpringStreet to have been the best “first wave” dating site. Anyone who knows me personally knows how much I like OkCupid and Match, which I tend to write about more than any other sites, but thats because they are doing more than any other sites! Lots of contenders to round out the top five of course, thats for another post.

Speaking of Nerve Personals/FastCupid, back in 2006 I learned that if you spend 100 points a day you become a featured member on search page or that if you spend 2000 points you get your profile highlighted for one month. Sounds like Badoo, right?

Look at eHarmony trying to be all hip and cool. This is what a brand expert would call brand dissonance.

According to Urban Dictionary, The Wingman will always be there to “occupy” least attractive girl of the pair so that you may engage in the “hotty”. If it didn’t say eHarmony, I would have guessed the ad was for HowAboutWe. No word if eHarmony also acts as a “pre-wing“.

Look at this Christian Mingle ad. Cute “Church Girls” that look like they just got out of Bible study class and decided to sit in each other’s laps for a while, how nice. Proves that Christian sites are no different from any other dating sites and will do whatever it takes for more clicks.

Students in The iSchool at Drexel, College of Information Science and Technology completed a study that takes a closer look at the success stories of online daters. Reminds me of the Online Booty Call claim from years ago, “Reaching the one million member mark with only a single reported marriage is a tremendous accomplishment.”

A summary of what they found:

1.       eHarmony – Success = marriage (in 84 percent of success stories reported on the site)

2.       Match.com – Success = dating (49.2 percent of success stories are about getting a date)

3.       OkCupid –  Success = something other than marriage (only 23 percent of success stories on this site are about marriage)

Moonit’s new Social iPhone App is free and offers valuable insights into your romantic relationships. Users can view their percentage compatibility and a short, entertaining paragraph of tangible advice on what to appreciate, what to look out for, and what to work on for that particular pairing.

After receiving their relationship compatibility results, users can continue the dialogue by chatting with each other using the messaging functionality right inside the app and make plans to meet up in person.

RedLightCenter.com, the world’s premier adult virtual world, and UtherConvention.com, the world’s only convention planning and execution company that holds fully interactive virtual conventions, announced they will join together to host the first-ever Adult Entertainment Virtual Convention on Feb. 25 and 26, 2012. Event organizers confirmed this week that Seka (talk about old-school!), the mega-porn star of the 1970s and 80s, will be speaking at the Expo.

Work at OkCupid: They have been growing rapidly, and their team needs the best and brightest to help solve some of the most challenging problems in the field. Want to join ’em?

Related posts:

1. Dating Industry News November 12, 2012
2. Online Dating Industry News 2-9-12
3. Online Dating Industry News 6-24-11

Today’s guest post is by Jeff Kauflin, who is writing a book about online dating. An article he wrote about the Match.com founder Gary Kremen recently appeared in Business Insider. Jeff is also Director of Operations at Marketing Evolution, a marketing consulting firm in Manhattan. He can be reached at kauflin@gmail.com.

In early 1995, before Match.com and eHarmony.com were live on the web, before 90 percent of Americans had Internet access, an online-dating site called AmericanSingles.org was up and running. Dan Bender, a self-taught software developer and jack of many trades, had the idea to start a free dating website.

American Singles launched on February 14, 1995. According to Bender, it was only the second online-dating site to go live in the U.S. And just two years after its launch, American Singles often landed in the top 30 of the world’s most trafficked websites.

Born in Heidelberg, Germany, Bender moved with his family to Southern California when he was three. “For various reasons, I was not the average kid,” he recalls. He was a loner, not into sports, and a lifelong vegetarian. In school he carried around a leather bag to hold his books, which was typical for Germans, but not for Americans, who usually carried their books in their arms. “That damn bag was a constant source of teasing, and it was frequently taken or hidden from me,” Bender says. Yet he didn’t stop using it. Bender never felt compelled to change, and he carried this approach for the rest of his life.

Bender was a late bloomer to the dating world; he didn’t get started until his 20’s. His nonconformist nature made it particularly difficult for him to meet women, so he decided to try his luck at video dating services, newspaper personals, and then Prodigy, the online service that pre-dated the web and once competed with AOL. On Prodigy, he met his wife.

Meanwhile, Bender had been pursuing an eclectic career spanning various fields, including broadcasting, real estate management, and computer consulting. In the early 1990s, he began considering computer-based dating as an area for a business opportunity, so he took on software development projects in the industry. First, he worked at a 900-number dating service for swingers. When that company imploded, he worked for Connection magazine, a swingers publication. Bender “wasn’t thrilled” about working in such a risqué niche, but these companies had the database technology he was interested in. Later he worked in database development at Helena VIP, a Hollywood-based Jewish matchmaker that charged customers from $5,000 to $50,000.

While exploring the dating industry as both a user and a developer, Bender saw weaknesses in the available services, as they were often expensive and ineffective. He thought there must be a better way. And then… the World Wide Web appeared.

Bender quickly recognized an opportunity. In late 1994, he went to San Francisco to meet Rich Gosse, the man who owned the largest nonprofit singles organization in the country. Founded back in 1978 as American Singles Education, Gosse’s nonprofit aimed to help people find love by offering classes, organizing singles events, and distributing a personals newsletter.

When Bender pitched the online-dating website idea, Gosse was sold. Soon they adopted both the name and the nonprofit nature of Gosse’s organization for AmericanSingles.org. Bender liked the idea of launching a free site, because he thought a membership fee would intensify the social stigma. He had heard people say, “If I have to spend money to find love, then there must be something wrong with me.”

Shortly after it hit the web, American Singles grew rapidly. Bender and Gosse paid the bills through a combination of user donations and advertising, and for periods of time, they brought in $20,000 in donations per month.

Bender was running the show tirelessly. But his friends and family, including his wife, were telling him he should stop wasting his time, give up his hobby, and get a real job. They called him stupid for not charging customers.

Their opinions didn’t affect him. “I lost not a second of sleep because I knew instinctively that I was right,” Bender says. The site was growing every day, and users seemed satisfied. He kept reminding people of his strategy: “Fill the stadium for free. Sell ‘em peanuts.” Nothing could make him stray from his vision, just as nothing could keep the young Bender from carrying his leather bag. To him, it just made sense.

Bender was working 100-hour weeks to handle the site’s growth. Sometimes, if the site’s servers crashed, he would take the 30-minute drive to Cleveland at 2:00 A.M. to reset them. Although Bender found the endeavor exciting, it was also overwhelming.

Marketing was another critical ingredient in Bender’s recipe for growth. Gosse had thousands of contacts in the media, and his efforts generated national press coverage for American Singles. By 1999, without having spent any money on paid advertising, their site boasted 250,000 personal ads, a huge number by industry standards. And it had made at least 10,000 love connections, or what Bender called “happy endings”—users asking for their ads to be removed because they had met someone and were in a committed relationship.

As the late 1990s approached, Bender had his head down, buried “in the operational sand.” He was sending 500 emails per day to provide prompt customer service. He knew little about the competitive landscape. Then one day, MatchNet, the owner of JDate.com, approached American Singles in an attempt to buy them out.

Bender says he became somewhat caught up in the frenzy of the Internet bubble in 1999, as he began to entertain the MatchNet offer. Gosse thought it was time to cash out, because the other major player in online dating, Match.com, had a strong user base, much more money to burn, and was poised to dominate the category. In May 1999, they sold American Singles as part of deal to MatchNet for $3.6 million.

Bender is about as fair and generous as they come, perhaps to a fault. Although he had come up with the idea for their business and invested the most time into it, he had asked Gosse and an attorney named Will Knedlik to join as equal partners, which meant they split the $3.6 million equally between the three of them.

Today, Bender deeply regrets the sale. “Had the site been developed to the next level, I think it could easily have sold for $10 million or more a year later,” he says. It pains him to see the current success of PlentyOfFish.com, the free site with more page views than any other online-dating site in the country. “That’s where American Singles should be today! Instead of a memory from the past.” American Singles’ parent company, which changed its name from MatchNet to Spark Networks in 2005, retired the site in 2009 in a strategic shift to focus on its niche dating sites.

But since American Singles, Gosse and Bender’s lives have been far from boring. Gosse began organizing events for “cougars”—adult women who are attracted to younger men (“cubs”). His “Cougar Cruises” are extremely popular; they often have a waiting list for “cubs” eager to get aboard. Meanwhile, Bender has become an avid world traveler. Recently he refreshed his video production skills; he’s now in line to work on two documentary projects.

Bender doesn’t see a future for himself in online dating, neither professionally nor personally. He says the technical complexity and marketing costs involved in launching a site today are too tough to overcome.

And a few years ago, Bender had the opportunity to join the many customers he once served. After going through a divorce, he signed up for Match.com. He didn’t reach a “happy ending,” as he was plagued by the “kid in the candy store effect.” But he doesn’t expect online dating to work for everyone. “No one size fits all,” he says.

Despite Bender’s plans not to reenter the industry, he’s grateful for its positive social impact. “It gives the shy wallflower the option to get into the dating game,” he says, admitting that he once counted himself among that group. And Bender sees online dating as a “needed tool for singles from different cultures, regions and lifestyles.” It allows people to connect based on limitless criteria, and for a broad-minded nonconformist like Bender, that’s the biggest win of all.

Related posts:

1. SinglesPodcastingNetwork Launches
2. Dating in the Gray Zone
3. Hot Or Not Goes Free, Online Dating Continues to Suffer

 Lately I’ve become more and more concerned with what websites and apps are doing with my personal information on Facebook. As previously noted, I have disconnected just about every single dating app, Facebook and website/web service from Facebook, because I had absolutely no idea what any of these companies were doing with my information and I wasn’t seeing a whole lot of value from these deep connections with my “social exhaust”.

Leveraging Facebook Connect to streamline the customer signup process can be quite useful to dating sites and singles alike, but leaving that connection in place doesn’t make much sense if the dating site isn’t doing anything useful with your information. And guess what, most sites don’t. They can vacuum up your information all day long, and to what purpose? Where is the transparency past the generic “Facebook wants to access your wall, Likes, Friends, Etc, click here or be gone.”

I’ve long been a proponent of Facebook-based dating apps and Facebook Connect, and still, nobody is doing anything very interesting with your Facebook data. Lots of companies claim to be revolutionizing online dating with Facebook. Exactly three companies are doing this, Zoosk, Are You Interested and Badoo. Where is the innovation here?

Innovative matching based on FB interests? Nobody is doing that. Posting interesting stuff on my wall? Nobody is doing that. Knowing the names of everyone in my family on Facebook? No thanks. The granularity of sharing your personal information on Facebook is way to loose-goosey for my tastes.

To make matters more complicated, dating sites need to earn my trust before I allow them access to my feed and its associated data (photos, likes, etc). From now on, I’m signing up for all new services , not just dating sites, with an old-school username and password. I’m happy to connect via Facebook if the site in question can prove that doing so will be more beneficial than not. But you have to earn my trust, its not going to be implicit and “one click and here we go” any longer.

I shouldn’t be so hard on dating sites. This is big complicated stuff that has nothing to do with lowering customer acquisition costs, anti-fraud and credit card billing. But then I wouldn’t be doing my job.

So, when are we going to see a dating site do something cool with Facebook? Throwing your dating site in an iFrame is not exactly leveraging Facebook for all its worth. I do receive periodic emails from people claiming to be at the brink of revolutionizing online dating. Thats great, I’m ready to have a look when you are. Don’t forget the boatload of cash you’ll need to get traction and the cautionary tales of the scores of companies that crashed and burned trying similar things on Facebook before you.

While thinking about this post, I went to sign up for Grouper, and it turns out that the only way one can join is via Facebook. Grouper is a Facebook-based social application, so the Facebook signup makes sense, but they should absolutely let people sign up with a traditional username/password combo. I wonder how many people bounce off the home page at the sight of the Facebook Join button? Here’s an Interview with Grouper founder Jerry Guo.

Group dating, social dating, entrepreneurs are doing anything they can to get away from “traditional” dating sites. They know they can’t beat Match in a fair fight, and niche (pretty much done and done at this point) and social are really the only options unless you want to go big and create a more effective matching algorithm which isn’t for the faint of heart, or pocketbook. Oh and mobile too. Same story there. A handful of apps that are 1/2-decent, with 50 copycats and a bunch of other apps that never got anywhere and disappeared before anyone could find out about them. Talk about a tough market to win in. Thank God for Huffington Post, otherwise most of these apps would remain in obscurity.

What new and cool dating apps are you using in conjunction with Facebook? I’m sure I’m missing some hot number that has just launched.

No related posts.

The crappy screenshot above shows that dating site HowAboutWe does a good job at letting members know that the more you log in, the more dates you post, the more messages you send, the more they will put you in front of other people.

Many dating sites reward members who send messages (and more importantly respond to, one would hope). However, few are up front about the benefits of being active. Why is this?

Badoo and Are You Interested are more straightforward. The more you pay them, the more often you show up in front of other members. Easy-breezy. Someone should dive into both sites and figure out why Badoo is supposedly approaching $100 million in revenue and AYI is at about a quarter of that.

While both approaches have their merits, I’m more of a fan of activity-based exposure, along with trust and reputation metrics. Organic activity trumps paid exposure when it comes to serious dating, but with the casual dating market getting so large and unruly, expect many more sites to launch based on the Are You Interested/Badoo model. There’s simply too much short-term money to be made churning through millions of horny guys around the world willing to part with $25-$50 a month for potential hook-ups. Although most guys have no intention of meeting with the women on these sites. Its Myspace voyeurism with a paid layer on top. Unless for most everyone, but pretty damn smart given the size of the market.

Question of the week: Dear Lazyweb, someone wrote in to say they had too many ugly people on their dating site, asking if I knew a way skew the site towards better-looking people. Besides buying profiles from BeautifulPeople and a few other possibilities like rejecting certain photos for being to blurry or some other white lie that I’m not entirely comfortable with, how can this site up the hotness factor of their members?

No related posts.

HowAboutWe has launched a new feature, Double dating.

When you want to post a great double date idea, simply add a friend’s email address into the date idea form along with your “How about we…”, Date location, and Category.

This feels clearly like a 20-something feature, what is the age cut-off for double dating? 30 or 35 or am I sounding like an old fart?

There are a lot of old people over 40 on HAW, we’ll see what the interest level is like after I cajole a friend into a double-date with me and a few lucky ladies. Indoor skydiving, mountain oyster tasting or ice skating at the park, hmmm.

Perhaps HAW’s double-dating idea will take off somewhere unexpected, like Ignighter and their success in India. Are some countries more double-date friendly than others?

Thankfully their VC shared a lot of tidbits on a recent press release.

“HowAboutWe has grown tremendously with its team of 16 people and without much capital. Last October users sent 24,138 messages on the dating site. Last month 302,047 messages were sent. More than 400,000 dates have been posted on HowAboutWe since its launch.”

How many emails were sent is not very interesting. I want to know how many messages were responded to.

Currently signing up around 1,600 new members per day (paid subs or free accounts?), HAW’s fresh $15 million in the bank will enable them to initiate some seriously loud “busy season” marketing.

If HAW is currently signing up 1,600 new members per day and assuming that members are paying customers and not free accounts, that number jives with what top dating sites convert daily. If not, what better way to spend $15 million?

HowAboutWe has also been securing publisher partnerships. It powers personal pages for more than 15 publishers including New York Magazine and Parenting.com and takes a cut of the revenue. I’ve been waiting for White Label Dating to make a big splash in the US for years now. Has HAW beaten them to the punch in terms of partnerships?

Remember when Spring Street Networks powered all the great media sites? After it crashed, nobody really came in and took over the market, at least in the US. ELove and a few others had some wins, but nothing much to speak about.

Now it looks like HAW is going to come in and take all of those plum media partnerships. Good for them I say, but will dates based on date ideas work for media platforms?

Has anyone else noticed that most people tend to clone their Match/OKC/POF profile and use it on HOW? The amount of membership duplicity between the two sites is amazing.

The question used to be, “When is HAW going to copy a Match feature (snicker). Now it’s “When is HAW going to get big enough so that Match will buy them and they can repay investors?”

Amazing to think that HAW could have bought PerfectMatch several times over.

There’s been a surfeit of interesting things going on in the dating industry in the last month or so, much of which I have not commented on. Maybe its time to do a podcast and blast through it all.

No related posts.

I for one am not buying the hype surrounding Badoo. I hear too many people talking about systems in place for creating fake profiles, the rampant address book mining, the hundreds of women I see in Boston with Spanish-language profiles, and the scores of messages I’ve sent, only to receive a handful of replies (asking me to contact them at their Yahoo or Hotmail addresses, which means they are camgirls most of the time.)

And 50% of online contact leading to offline meetups? I’m not buying it. While the company is clearly earning considerable revenue, this is a hype-driven company which is going to struggle to survive for much longer once people get clued into the scammy/fake nature of the site.

Few people knew about the company until they got to this 130-million member number. Why is that? They want funding, high valuation and are probably praying for a big sale while the valuation is up in the clouds.

At this point, Badoo could clean up its image and do a mea culpa like Mark “I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away” Pincus at Zynga. If they don’t do that, Badoo is going to be the second coming of Myspace, meaning it’s nice to be able to mine the Internet for a few hundred million before people move on to something else (#envy).

While everyone was busy focusing on niche sites or trying to compete with Match on features (you really can’t), Badoo went out and crushed it, quietly and outside of the US. Now this 130-million-member scam-tastic juggernaut is coming to the US.

Are You Interested, POF and Zoosk are #facepalming over Badoo, which has run right past these more established players. At this point it doesn’t matter how many times POF shows up in Lady Gaga videos, they missed out on monetizing social dating big time. Zoosk and AYI did slightly better but the revenue just isn’t there. Supposedly Zoosk was on track to make $100 million this year, but these “run rate” shenanigans don’t impress, especially when one take into consideration that many successful dating companies are in the red at the end of the year.

I’d love to see the Comscore numbers for Badoo, send a screenshot if you have one.

Does anyone stop and think about what 130 million members mean? Is that like Match’s 20 million profiles where you have a few million active profiles and the rest are aged/stale/inactive? $1 revenue per member, but how much are acquisition costs? For perspective, a Facebook user is generally valued at around $125 per user these days.

I have one question for casual dating site owners, how come you didn’t copy Badoo? Why didn’t you all jump into the “pay for exposure” game a few years ago?

Related posts:

1. Zoosk Claims 50 Million Members
2. Social Dating Is The Big Story of 2011
3. eHarmony’s media spending and membership stats

This is easily one of the most questionable dating site launch efforts I’ve seen. YouLoveMe is a dating site for teenagers and early twenty-somethings that among other things, pays its members to recruit new people.

This kind of writing warrants a stern lecture for the PR person responsible for the following:

“When you join YouLoveMe.Com you will be part of an elite group comprised of the youngest, hippest, and coolest members to the best dating social networking site on the Internet.” Yup, that just happend.

It gets better. If you completely fill out your member profile information and add 5 friends you can earn between $1 to $20 on your very first month of membership. Well what is it, $1 or $20? Paid virality = Fail.

Profiles include video= cam girls and prOn.

Personalized profile pages, just like Myspace!

Seriously people, lets try a bit harder on the dating site launches. Its like they took the playbook of what works, threw it out the window and decided to wing it. Don’t even get me started on the website itself.

In a world where a site like Badoo makes 10′s of millions, expect a whole new crop of questionable dating sites like this trying to milk the trend for all its worth.

Meanwhile, the Match empire and its various outposts around the world continue to dominate their respective geographies.

No related posts.

TurkishDirect.com is the world’s leading free Turkish dating website for Turks abroad. 60,000 members (100-150 new members every day). Monthly advertising revenue is £2600 per month and of £800 monthly marketing cost. Contact fatihgg@gmail.com for details.

No related posts.