Match Introduces Human Matchmaking

WALL STREET JOURNAL - For $4.99 a week Match dating experts will go through a user's answers to four questions and pair them. A 50-member team, trained as dating coaches, will select two profiles for participating members each week, drawing from the same algorithm-generated pool Match provides. Questions include, what a person would change about their dating life, and what sort of person a user gravitates toward. "The company created the feature because, for some singles, the pandemic has added a degree of urgency to finding a long-term relationship," said Amarnath Thombre, CEO of Match Group Americas. "People have had enough time to reflect," "Traditional matchmaking services are costly, starting in the thousands of dollars for just a few months. But these services are worth it to customers who don't have the time to sort through candidates on apps," said Tammy Shaklee, founder/matchmaker of H4M, an LGBTQ matchmaking service.

by Ann-Marie Alcántara
See full article at Wall Street Journal

Mark Brooks (owner of matchmaker.com): Fascinating stuff, but I think calling this matchmaking is an offense to the matchmaking industry. $5 a week may well be a scalable price-point, but I don't think this service does justice to the humanity of the service matchmakers provide. The whole point of (quality) matchmaking is to get deep into the person, council and coach them, and provide custom advice to the individuals, with occasional appropriately sugar-coated but tough feedback. Match's service appears to be a commitment vehicle. I don't quite see how this service quite passes muster as matchmaking, even as a minimum effective dose. Let's see. Looks like the opposite end of the spectrum to the matchmaking service eHarmony introduced and experimented with years ago.

See the top news on Match.com
See the top news on H4M

Comments

[Mark Brooks]

I get what Match are doing here. They're cherrypicking a couple of matches from the Match subset of matches. By attaching a real human as a pseudo matchmaker they are creating 'halo effect' to increase the chances that people will follow up and attach to the matches.

But, there's just so much more to matchmaking. This doesn't really pay homage to the matchmaking industry IMHO.

[Charlee Brotherton]

This isn’t the first-time online dating have tried to replicate matchmaking. People will always get what they are paying for. Five dollars a week is matching someone at a very low level, with no vetting, which is no different then using algorithms. We have spent over 20 years matching thousands of couples around the country and there is no quick and easy magic button to press to match two people for a long- term committed relationship. Good luck to Match, but realistically this is just an additional upsell to Match's smorgasbord of membership plans and not close to personalized, professional matchmaking.

[Mark Brooks]

Perhaps Match can form an expert system for compatibility profiling by modeling the best of the current thinking in compatibility profiling in the context of paired relationships. It would be a good idea for matchmakers to use such a system. I think the magic happens when such a system is paired with a matchmaker who has put some time into getting to know a client, heard their feedback, coached them through date experiences. That knowledge is impossible to model. I think the ultimate system is AI + a matchmaker delivering the matches, giving advice and post-date feedback. That's worth spending serious money on if the outcome is an improved chance of not getting divorced (and having a separated family). Also, I think there's an opportunity to keep providing services post-match. Matrimony.com is proving this out wonderfully in India with wedding photography services. I think it takes this kind of thinking to expand on what Internet dating + matchmaking + ongoing coaching could be. A marriage made in heaven. :-)