Chemistry.com Says 'Come As You Are'

PR NEWSWIRE -- Apr 30 -- Chemistry.com today announced the launch of a provocative marketing campaign that highlights differences between it and eHarmony and includes network television, print advertising, and online elements depicting men and women who wonder aloud why they have been "rejected" by eHarmony. Chemistry.com is also launching "The Great Mate Debate" blog with five world-class writers, thinkers and influencers discussing issues each week. The dialogue will address gay unions, divorce, marriage in the 21st century, and how relationships are being redefined.

The full article was originally published at PR Newswire, but is no longer available.

Mark Brooks: Patrick Perrine runs MyPartnerPerfect.com and is a proponent of gay long term relationship dating and matchmaking. He covers similar ground at patrickperrine.com. It's generally considered very bad practice to mention competition in your advertising and be derogatory towards competition, but hey, that's old school. I guess it's  good to see Match.com thinking more freely and losing the chains of old school marketing and PR. Is it cool to hack away at eHarmony though? Does eHarmony deserve this treatment? Your comments please...

Comments

[Jim]

I didn't realize that eHarmony was so discriminatory. I had an eHarmony subscription, but have since cancelled it. I do not want to be a part of an organization that is so deceitful. Kudos to Chemistry!

[tjones]

I didn't either - loved the new ads. Did you see the "Still Gay" one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgxOhG2nDOA
Love it!

[Kathryn Lord]

Thanks for the link to youtube and that gay ad -- very witty and funny. I'm glad to see Chemistry taking this angle and showing a bit of life. I've been worried that it was going down the tubes. And eHarmony needs some poking. I've been doing it on my blog (http://www.find-a-sweetheart.com/blog/C38/ -- scroll down, the best entries are the earlier ones) for some time. I regularly need to explain eHarmony's descriminatory practices to my clients. While eHarmony does not publicize its gender ratios, this sort of site appeals to women more than men. I suspect that like PerfectMatch, the stats are very skewed and heavily female (at PerfectMatch, as much as 2 women to every man). I really only recommend eHarmony to heterosexual Christian men who can put up with the pretests and the structured communications. While I have had some clients who have found good matches with eHaromony, many have been dissatisfied.

Kathryn Lord

[Mo]

Yeah eHarmony is a niche that works best for people who look like the founder. It doesn't matter how many dimensions of compatibility you have with a troll -- you're still not gonna date one. I hope Chemistry does well.

[Fernando Ardenghi]

"Chemistry.com is also launching 'The Great Mate' Debate blog"

When I read "The Great Mate Debate" the first time, I misunderstood "The Great MEAT Debate"

Did you notice the TWO stages?

1> Stage: Dr. Helen Fisher was the only expert and they were promoting the "1 -2 - 3 - Meet in Person"
http://www.whatischemistry.com/media/images/123MeetHR_013006_jp.pdf
"During a process known as 1 - 2 - 3 - Meet, a member first reads specific written responses of five potential matches presented to them by the company; next the member interacts via the Internet with one or more of these individuals whom they find interesting; then, if two members express interest in one another, they meet in person, generally in a coffee house for twenty minutes of verbal exchange. After this first meeting, each member is then requested to return to the Internet site and report on the degree of romantic attraction he/she feels for the individual he/she just met."

Unfortunately that process only reported early stage attraction between prospective mates and it seems after the first meeting; in some persons attraction reduces its level OR worse even morphs / metamorphoses to rejection!!!!

2> Stage: There are more experts and they rename the "1 - 2 - 3 - Meet in Person" to promote:

* The You Part
Our Personality Profile captures your essential truths and goals, so we can find someone to spark a magical combination.

* The Matching Part
We'll send you up to five free matches with the potential to trigger chemistry every day. They're based on the latest science of what creates powerful attraction, thanks to our expert Dr. Helen Fisher.
"up to five free matches .... every day" ---> HERE IS THE FIRST MISTAKE
They are probably using a simple/multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation; the whole precision is less than you could had achieved searching by your own!

* The Email Part
Our Guided Communications Process (more fun than it sounds) lets you fly past that awkward get to know you stage so you can see if there's a basis to move forward, or move on.

* The Date Part
It's time for the chemistry check. If there is, we pop the champagne at Chemistry HQ. If not, tell us what fizzled and the system actually learns.
"the system actually learns." ---> HERE IS THE OTHER MISTAKE, because common sense indicates persons do not want to be part of an experiment involving feelings!

"And that's how we're not just different. But better. "---> When Chemistry is going to publish serious scientific evidence (papers) proving that its matching method works as it is expected: fall in love and stay in love: long term romantic relationship ? --->…development and validation of online compatibility testing and disclosing those findings for public and academic scrutiny without divulging proprietary information…

Same as WeAttract!!!!
Have you noticed that WeAttract.com's tests (launched during 2003 by Match.com with bells, whistles, horns and drums; and discretely buried during 2004, now used in YahooPersonals) have:
great precision to measure what a person is looking for (a point in a scale in different personality factors of the desired partner)
but
low precision to measure that person's own variables (a shadowed bar in a scale in different personality factors)?
WeAttract.com also tried to tune/synthesize its matching algorithm asking tests takers "what they are looking for" and after some preliminary matches were delivered to them, use the feedback provided by them to adjust its matching equation. They failed because they used the Big 7 traits in a multiple_regression relationship_satisfaction_equation and prospective mates noticed that the whole precision is less than they could had achieved searching by their own!!!

Kindest Regards,

Fernando Ardenghi.
Buenos Aires.
Argentina.
[email protected]

[Jeff]

I think the ads are hilarious-and some nice free advertising for eHarmony.