ELove Thinks It has the Answer

MASS HIGH TECH -- Aug 22 -- "What's the price tag of finding a person for the rest of your natural life?" asks Paul A. Falzone, chief executive officer of eLove. ELove is a marriage between an online service and a bricks-and-mortar dating shop.  Staff will take video and audio clips of you. Then they will check to see if you are married. They will run a criminal background check to see if you've been cooling your heels lately. Membership is $995 plus monthly payments of $19.95 in NY.

The full article was originally published at Mass High Tech, but is no longer available.

Mark Brooks: It was only a matter of time before real world dating sites hitched their horses to the safety bandwagon True.com started.  A Great Expectations, or ItsJustLunch or Tableforsix could make this idea fly.

Comments

[Robert Fisher]

Thats odd, most owners at Great Expectations have been doing background checks for over two years I didn't realize that we did it because of True though, thanks for informing us. I like what Paul is doing with ELove. Hope it takes wing.

[Terry Fitzpatrick]

Mark,
The "safety bandwagon" wasn't started by true.com but by The Right One in 1997.

It's silly to use the word "safety" and true.com in the same sentence. You can't compare the background checks that true.com does with the backgorund checks conducted by The Right One, Together Dating and eLove.com.

Robert thanks for the support!!!

[Robert Fisher]

Actually, Terry is right. The Right One was the first to do background checks. And, I believe 1997 was before there was much at all in the way of online dating. I think it is great that online followed their lead. I think Herb could learn a lot from Paul Falzone.

[James Houran]

Mark is correct when he says that True.com started the safety bandwagon. True has been the consistent and loud voice on this issue since the company's inception. Before True.com was on the scene, the safety and security differentiator never received as much media interest and coverage -- let alone public interest. True virtually brought this topic to the forefront single-handedly.

To be sure, being the first at something is not synonymous with starting the bandwagon for a trend. For example, look at online dating and even personality testing for singles. Companies like True, eHarmony, and Match did not pioneer computerized matchmaking. The concept was idealized as early as 1956, and then of course, came the computer dating craze of the 1970s and 80s. Yet, Match is perceived as being the "inventor" of online dating and eHarmony as being the "inventor" of personality tests for singles. Nothing could be further from the truth, but it can be said that such companies started the bandwagon for online dating and testing.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

[Markus]

I agree with James, the company that brings a product to the masses and makes noise about it will get the credit.

[Bill Broadbent]

Calling what The Right One, Together Dating, and some other brands not discussed did with background checks from as early as 1993 "jumping on True.com's bandwagon is comical." While True.com has tried to use lobbying efforts to convert their background checks into an unfair competitive advantage, The Right One and others have quietly used the tool as a membership enhancement and competitive differentiator so there's a huge difference.

Since the crew at True is for consumer safety, surely they would be strongly for prominently disclosing on their homepage in big bold letters that "While we do conduct background checks, we don't meet any of our members in person and cannot guarantee that anyone you meet is actually who they say they are. We also cannot guarantee that any photos are accurate and currently depicts what a person actually looks like."

It's great that True is for protecting consumers, but clearly the language they have tried to get passed was for competitive advantage, not consumer protection.

[Robert Fisher]

While Dr. Houran makes some interesting points, only he and Mark believe there is a "safety bandwagon." Last time I checked no other large online sites were doing background checks. Not much of a bandwagon.

Bill Broadbent makes the best point in that if SAFETY is the issue one would do everything possible to prove the person is who they say they are. If True is all about serving their customer, surely requiring real, current, verified photos would be in the best interest of their customers. They could even try to have that legislated as well.

[Bill Broadbent]

Very good points Robert. I wonder if Dr. Houran could be so kind to educate us all on each major site that has jumped on what he calls the True.com bandwagon. I would actually say that many people I have talked to have considered True.com's self proclamation of being the "safe dating alternative" to be highly illusional and very misleading. I personally believe that the background checks they do “might” indeed make a site "safer", but nothing can make a site completely safe. With identity theft becoming a rapidly growing problem, verifying someone’s identity in person by visually examining their ID clearly would improve safety far more than the True system of letting someone reply to basic questions online. With that said, the illusion of “absolute safety” that True.com continuously insinuates they provide may indeed reduce the actual safety by giving people a false sense of security.

[James Houran]

Yes, Virginia, there really is a safety bandwagon ;)

I'm happy to clarify this bandwagon effect, though I'm surprised I even need to. Where to begin…

First, it’s important not to confuse “safety bandwagon” with companies actually “offering background checks.” The bandwagon has more to do with the messaging trends that online dating sites are following (of course, there are also a myriad of new companies offering background screening services and pushing their services to online dating/ relationships sites). In particular, major and minor dating sites are now strongly positioning and selling themselves as being “safe.” For example, eHarmony is going out of its way to tell people in its advertising that their screening makes for a “safe” online experience. In fact, a quote they’ve recently started using on their site is:

"No Company Screens Its Members More Rigorously"
-Newsweek

I’ve heard similar messaging from Match.com (which now has finally posted some level of disclosure about its lack of background checks in its FAQs), and now Yahoo! Personals requires members to agree to a Code of Conduct – strongly resembling the one TRUE originally implemented and publicized. Finally, it’s common knowledge that several major dating sites have looked into (if not prepared for) background check alternatives to Rapsheets.com. Herb Vest has really raised the tide in that industry.

I don’t see how any reasonable person can disagree with the conclusion that this new positioning and the intrusion of several background check companies into the online dating spotlight is in direct response to TRUE’s brand equity and publicity. In particular, an in-depth study conducted by Keynote Systems, a worldwide leader in e-business performance management services, found that TRUE was also chosen by 69% of study participants as the “safe” site. Keynote Systems’ study is the first competitive benchmarking of leading online dating Web sites based on behavioral data. The resulting rankings are based on research with 2,000 customers and 2,000 prospective customers as they interacted with 10 leading online dating Web sites, including TRUE, American Singles, Black Planet, eHarmony, Friend Finder, Friendster, Lavalife, Match.com, PerfectMatch, Tickle (LoveHappens) and Yahoo! Personals.

According to the findings, 61% of study participants are concerned that other members are misrepresenting themselves on online dating sites and 45 percent expressed a desire to have access to background checks on other members. Moreover, a shocking 30 percent of those who participated in the study were actually married or living with a significant other.

I typically hear that safety is not even a concern for our consumers. Credible research says different. Social commentator and industry blogger, Judith Meskill recently presented anecdotal evidence at iDate in France suggesting that women’s most crucial concern with online matchmaking and dating services was concern over safety and security. Specifically, she referenced the fear that customers of online social introduction services are vulnerable to potentially unsafe (e.g., convicted felons) or dishonest individuals (e.g., married posing as single). Additionally, Meskill asserted that women’s concerns may be significantly and negatively affecting the growth of the online dating industry. Wyatt (2004) echoed these basic concerns in a report on a recent telephone survey of 1,500 Canadians conducted by the Leger Marketing Survey. And then there are several surveys commissioned and not commissioned by TRUE that clearly show the majority of consumers are concerned about safety and think the proposed legislation is a good idea.

It’s too bad that reporters and industry insiders consistently misreport the facts concerning the proposed legislation on disclosure. I strongly recommend that interested parties read the proposed legislation before commenting on it. Furthermore, the proposed legislation is supported by many organizations in addition to True. The Safer Online Dating Alliance (SODA) has over 130 organizations - ranging from Law Enforcement, Sexual Assault and Rape Crisis Centers, and independent businesses - that support disclosure legislation focused on raising the level of awareness to online daters for the purposes of their personal safety when using this service.
I’m also amazed at how people carelessly misrepresent what TRUE says about itself. For TRUE’s part, we advertise that we the “safer” site -- not the “safest” site. We openly disclose the limitations of our security barriers and are the first to tell the press and the public that no security system is 100% foolproof. If you read the legislation carefully, you will see that the legislative language requires disclosure of the limitations of the background checks as well (something TRUE already does on its site right now). We deny 5% of convicted felons per month the opportunity to communicate with our members. Then there’s another 5% being denied because they fail a marriage background check. These folks can move on to competing firms’ sites with no check and communicate at will with the members. Curious how TRUE can’t do enough for consumer safety to please critics in the industry, yet other companies receive no level of criticism for taking no steps for consumer safety.

Requiring real, current, verified photos is a wonderful ideal, but I disagree that this step is initially more crucial than screening for felonies and marrieds. To be sure, a significant portion of online daters simply don’t want to post a photo of any kind for various reasons – personal security included. For the features we offer, the consistently high ranking we hold, and at the price point we offer our services, I feel the evidence is clear that TRUE is a practical and effective “safer” relationship site, and that the safety bandwagon is a credit of TRUE.

P.S. The Right One and Great Expectations did not invent in-person matchmaking or the use of background screening in this context. I know matchmakers who’ve done both since the late 1960s and 1970s. That significantly predates 1993 or 1994 dates for these former companies. Thus, such companies should not claim redit for either.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

[Bill Broadbent]

Touche Doc,

But since you are for safety and want sites to disclose the level of safety they provide, is True willing to set a glowing example and post in BIG BOLD letters, (prominently on the home page of your website of course) that True.com does not visually verify a person's identity?

While your team has set what they believe is the right standard for a background check and tried to lobby your method as the best method (let's not mention some defensible partnerships you've established), I would gather that the people at The Right One, Together Dating, eLove and Great Expectations could strongly argue that their methods of visually verifying ID before beginning a background check is a far safer approach. Since a visual verification would seem far safer then simply asking people questions an identity thief could possibly answer, clearly True's interest in disclosing safety should entail posting prominently in big bold letters on your website that there are safer alternatives. Please Doc, show us what you say is not lip service. Post prominently that you don't meet your members and don't visually verify identity.

Is it just me or do others agree?

P.S. The Right One did not invent the background check in the dating business, but I can confidently say they were the first "major" chain with a chain wide policy and they've discussed it for years in their many press conversations, PR that happened long before True was likely even a thought.

Thanks,

Bill Broadbent
CEO
Instinct Marketing

[James Houran]

Bill,

Your comments prove my point about how True can't do enough for consumer safety despite the detailed steps we've taken, yet services which do nothing seem are never criticized.

True is an online dating firm -- not an in-person service. In-person assessments, while they have undeniably great benefits, are not an assumption with online service --hence the term online dating. However, a recent study not supported by True showed that 20% of online daters assume right now that major dating sites already conduct background checks -- when they do not. Now, that is a proven false sense of security which necessitates disclosure.

Disclosing whether or not True or any site does not to in-person assessments is like asking why Great Expectations or The Right One do not disclose on their sites that they do not conduct any DNA testing for identity verification, or any testing for illicit substance use or STIs. And why don't they, if they are so concerned and set the original benchmark for safety?!

I also notice that the two companies, like True, do not claim to be safest. They use the term "safer." This implies that even they acknowlege there is no 100% guarantee of safety any service can provide to consumers -- in person or exclusively online. So, why do they not disclose this prominantly in BIG BOLD letters on their home pages?!!

What is really concerning, though, about these other services is that they seem to use questionnaires and specialists to match people up -- but no where on their site have I seen ANY disclosure as to the scientific efficacy for their personal characteristic measures or credentials (educational background, why consumers should trust these people, etc.), as well as NO disclosure as to the limitations of their background checks or security barriers. This is hardly consistent with a policy of safety, security, and disclosure -- and it far below the standards established and used by True in the here and now.

These arguments and challenges against True are emotional and illogical. They are in response to the enormous splash True has made and the brand equity it is earned with consumers in an extremely competitive and saturated industry.

Other matchmaking services long before True, Great Expectations, and The Right One used background checks, but as far as safety disclosure and education True is the leader in the public eye and in the press. True is undeniably the initiator of the safety bandwagon we see today. That may be a hard pill to swallow for some, but it's reality.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

[James Houran]

Thanks to all for a fun and stimulating debate (especially you, Bill ;))

It makes me think that Mark should work on a white paper of sorts that looks at this industry from a sociological point of view.

I think many would find it very interesting to read about the history of the marketing and the features/differentiators that matchmakers have began using to attract customers.

Thanks,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

[Bill Broadbent]

Dr. Houran,

I don't think any of the forementioned services are trying to set a benchmark for safety, that seems to surely be True's quest. But what makes True's definition of sufficient safety and disclosure correct? What is the proper amount of background needed? Where does it stop? Are we going to all have to pass a background check to go into our local pub? What about people that deserve love, but really want to stay annonymous on a dating site? Seriously, why shouldn't you disclose prominently on your home page that you don't meet people and visually verify ID when that option is available? Why does True.com find it necessary to have the background check done posted on the home page instead of in the terms and conditions? Why is not your product differntiator enough to stand on it's own?

While compatibility is essential to a great relationship, everyone seems to think they have the best answer due to their scientific hypothisis. Does the education of someone really reflect their capabilities to match singles for relationships based on emotions? I had a Harvard MBA work for me that would have been better qualified as a cashier at McDonald's then to manage a business. His book smarts may have been quite adept, but his ability in business were not up to speed with a local 12 year old girl I have observed operating the best lemonade stand I have ever seen. Her lemonade was awesome too.

You illude that matchmaking should rely on science, I would say from 20 plus years in the industry that for many matchmakers it is more of an art. Scientific research may some day prove that science can indeed successfully facilitate quality introductions that lead to lasting love. But let me say that would be some kick ass cutting edge science for anything that could predict the mood swings of people like one of my ex-girlfriends. (Some of the people in the sector that know me, know exactly who I am talking about. And let me say that having science predict her mood swings would make everyone a believer. But let me also say - we are not near to being into the millenium where that science exists)

From my experience, it is quite clear that the success rates accomplished by great personal matchmakers completely dwarfs the success rates of the most proficient online site, including all the sites run by people with stellar academic credentials like yours. Granted, many matchmakers have no clue how to introduce compatible singles, but others have a unique personal skill that science does not care to equate for. Relying purely on science in something as emotional and personal as a relationship does not seem sensible. I've seen computers match people, they unfortunately lack the reason and subjectivity of a skilled matchmaker. Wouldn't you agree that if personal insight didn't matter, people wouldn't need to meet with MD's or Psychologists. The Psychologist would simply give people a test, (online of course), plug in the results and give them results. Hey here is what you are like, here's your cure.

By your analogy, I clearly would not have the academic credentials to be considered competent in the dating sector. However, over the last 22 years, I can reasonably estimate that the offices I have been involved with in either a management and/or ownership position have been responsible for in the neighborhood of 10,000 marriages, probably more. Not a ton of science there, but a whole lot of care in helping people find someone special.

True is doing some great and interesting things that may indeed turn out to be highly successful in introducing quality singles, but to trivialize the systems and love being created by other dating services seems nothing more than competitive positioning.

Cheers,

Bill Broadbent
CEO
Instinct Marketing

[Bill Broadbent]

By the way Doc, while we may not all agree with your positions, I for one enjoy reading the eloquence of your replies. I imagine you were the ace-in-the-whole on your debate team.

Even though you're wrong ;-)

Bill

[James Houran]

I like you, Bill! We certainly "agree to disagree," but it's refreshing to talk to someone that has a discernible point of view. And, I'm not a stuffy old college professor... people can call me "Jim." :)

However, one point I simply must make as a clinician who has worked with many couples and families.... I would not gauge success rates of any service by the number of marriages they make. With the tremendous 50% + divorce rate, the litmus test of "how many marriages have you made?" is not representative of how many happy and successful relationships a service is responsible for. In fact, one could argue that services that push people down a rigid marriage path are actually contributing to, not alleving, the divorce rate.

Thx,

James Houran, Ph.D.
Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com

[Bill Broadbent]

Jim,

I'm glad you're not a stuffy old college professor or surely you would have been correcting all my typos, spelling and grammatical errors.

Just for the record, I know of no dating service with ties to any of the following:

http://www.chapelsoflasvegas.com/drivethruweddings.htm
(When you're in a real hurry)

or even:

http://www.theelvisweddingchapel.com/
(When you're in a hurry - but want to add some class)

In fact, to the best of my knowledge there are no services that have a Mr. T type person "pushing" marriage. While relationships with real wedding planners, photographers, flower arrangers and other wedding related services seems a natural business extension, I know of no service pushing those services or calling people up and saying "when are you getting married - give us a deadline."

While it might make sense to you to tell people, "you probably shouldn't get married, you have a 50%+ chance of divorce." I tend to lean towards letting people trust their hearts. I'm sure not all the marriages have been successful out there, but I'm also sure there are some happy grandmothers too.

P.S. Can you give us a reason that True.com feels the need for disclosure on the home page. I'm assuming by your lack of addressing the forementioned suggestion for disclosing that True.com does not visually verify ID that there is no plan soon to post that on your home page.

Cheers,

Bill Broadbent
CEO
Instinct Marketing

[Jason Ascher]

It's certainly not that True isn't doing some great work for a certain group of the population that feels comfort with True's efforts... They are! Its just that it seems so, right-wing-arrogant. Rather than conceptually saying, "Here is what we believe will be good for OUR members." It seems like everyone needs to do and believe the way that they do. If we don't, we must be un-American and going against the laws that they hope to implement. (yikes)

Great PR spin... Changing laws with this type of scare tactic attitude is dangerous for the country. Unfortunately, this is certainly what has been going on in this country lately.

There are many things to believe in... Just don't forget to let others think and believe for themselves. Life is art and science and oh so much more. I think the saying is, "Don't believe everything that you think."

[Bill Broadbent]

Jim,

No reply? From You? I expect more. C'mon Jim, can you give us a reason that True.com feels the need for disclosure on the home page. Please help us understand.

Your pal,

Bill Broadbent
CEO
Instinct Marketing

[Markus]

James you say the divorce rate is 50%, what is the probability of a person getting divorced if they marry tomorrow? I assume it is not 50%, as many of the people getting married have already had a divorce or 2.

Lets say we track 100 people, 99 of them get married but 1 person gets married and divorced 100 times. In that scenario the divorce rate of the group is 50%, but that figure is totally misleading.

As for doing background checks on your members, I would say that is false advertising. You only do background checks of PAYING customers. But a paying customer can still talk to a member that has not paid correct? I'm not sure if thats true, but i've heard poeple complaining about it.

[jay]

elove.com claims to provide a wide variety of like minded potential partners that meet your search criteria.

Since the day of the subscription which was about a month ago the company has not been able to provide me any members from their database that match my search criteria (which ie broad search). They hardly have any members in their database and I was mislead during the initial meeting that I will not have any problem running out of the selection choices.
After being patient for several weeks since I could not find any member, I was forced to widen my choices to literally having no preferences even that did not result into more than 30-35 members. I have reached out to them several times for refund since thier database do not have any members available that match my criteria. But the compnay refuses to return my $1995.00 fee that they charged me.
The company is cheating people by making claims that they have a wide list of members but in fact they have very few members or no members available for a wide search criteris.
Please assist me on this front so that I get my refund and the vendor does not use the same ploy to cheat other people in future