Singles Suffer in Online Dating War

PR WEB -- June 29, 2005 -- A war is being waged on the Internet for dominance of the online dating world and surfers are caught in between. Some smaller dating sites have come to fight and have prepared very well. Said Jeff Mayhew, owner of LoveMatch.com, "competing in the online dating market used to be really easy. But in the last two years it has gotten a lot harder."  The return on advertising revenue is slim so he's been forced to take a cautious approach. LoveMatch spends about $30 a month on advertising, relying heavily on top lists and smaller sources of traffic to populate the site. Jordan Ravka, owner of CasualKiss.com, said he spends about $50 a month on marketing. Then there are companies like True.com, which advertised it's need for an ad sales company to manage a multi-million dollar advertising budget. "In all honesty, I have no idea how people find out about CasualKiss," said Ravka. "We charge about five times less than our competitors, therefore we will never be able to spend as much to acquire new customers." Charging less and providing more for consumers seems like a decent way for smaller companies to compete, but not all practice this approach. FULL RELEASE @ PR WEB

Mark Brooks: When users sign up for online dating sites they expect to be able to search from as large a pool of people as possible, for the best possible matches.  Small sites that pretend to be large sites, offering extremely limited pools of users, are a huge disservice to the industry. The smaller the pool of users, the less the utility.  $20 a month fees are 'throw-away.'  Everyone can afford $20.  Monthly fees simply demonstrate user commitment.  We're seeing companies such as True and eharmony up the ante on fees for two reasons.  1. Marketing costs are indeed rising.  2. Higher fees filter for those who are committed to the process.  Users put more time into searching, responding and dating when they are paying $50 a month; higher response rates, overall activity rates and a better user experience overall.  This is good.  I urge users to conisder the value of their time and the importance of finding a good match, rather than the paltry fees the online dating services charge.   

Comments

[Dave Evans]

Mark, I disagree with your premise that smaller pools of users are less useful. You're ignoring the emergence of niche sites completely.

$20 a month is throw-away money to consumers? Explain your logic please, that doesn't make any sense.

I agree that higher fees filter out the less-inclined, but people that pay more do not necessarily put more effort into it. Neither do they enjoy higher response rates or a better user experience. Pay more does not equal better user experience. Look at the popularity of Eharmony, people sign up because Eharmony does all the searching for them.

[Robert Lee]

Mark is right on target here.
$20.00 is a throwaway amount for online dating. Any service that wants to be successful with a small market of users must have a large market in a small geographical area to be a success, otherwise they’re just ‘cashing checks’ and not really offering any service of value. Or a great niche that serves a particular audience well.
I have personally joined hundreds of online services as I maintain my website and the majority of services that have great features to offer have too small a pool of local-to-search members to be large successes. I am finding that the smaller successful services are becoming niche players. Through affiliate programs and small-budget marketing, they are finding their customers and their sources of traffic/members.
Higher membership fees really just qualify the members’ commitment to the experience. Free dating services and services that offer extended free trial periods that have full access to services, lose out in the long run with too many uncommitted members.
The user experience is only successful when offline meetings can be made by members, regardless of “system matches” in member completed profiles.

[markus]

First off i don't think cupidsreviews is exactly a reliable source. Its got fake domain registration info, the owner is really from toronto. The 2 sites with the "highest" reviews are unheard of sites from toronto. hmmm

I remember robert joined my site 2 years ago when there were less then 1000 people signed up to review it. At the time the number of visitors returning and actively using the site was low. As the database increased so did the number of users returning to use the site. I'm sure all the successful dating sites work well because they have a huge active membership base that keeps returning. Registered members then pressure friends into signing up and become paid etc. Smaller sites don't have this word of mouth and unless they have 5 million+ to spend in getting critical mass they can't compete.