FINALLY—The Truth Comes Out
In a powerful article aobutabout Online dating in the 1/30/2007 Scientific American (how much more legitimate can you get???), finally, validation of what I have been preaching about for years:
According to Trish McDermott, a longtime spokesperson for Match and now an executive at Engage.com, the confusion over membership figures results from the fact that while a large company such as Match might advertise that it has 15 million members, less than a million are actually paying customers. The others have full profiles online—an important marketing draw—but cannot respond to e-mails. This is one of several reasons, according to McDermott, why many paying members get frustrated by a lack of response to their e-mails; the vast majority of people in the profiles simply cannot respond.
Trish McDermott was the “Vice President of Love” (or some such title) at Match.com for years. In fact, before we met, both my now-husband and I heard Trish on NPR’s “Technation” and were inspired to sign up on Match.com, where we met a few months later. So, thank you Trish! On many levels.
See my earlier blog postings (rants?) on this topic: 1/31/07, 3/06/05
This paid/unpaid secret that almost all dating sites have exploited is the worst and most discouraging aspect of online dating. EVERY SINGLE ONE of my clients asks “Why don’t they answer my emails?” And NONE have understood the odds of paid/unpaid until I explained it. On Match.com, the odds are great than 11 to 1 that the person behind the profile has NOT paid.
Non-responses to first emails are very ego-bruising. Dating sites need to keep in mind that it is extremely easy for people who gather up courage to email a stranger to feel rejected and even crushed. These folks very often drop off the dating site—and convert to being non-paying! These are your best customers, dating sites!!! They PAY!
The reasons that dating sites are set up this way—they allow people to post for free, and the profiles look just like those who have paid—is that then the dating site has more profiles listed and looks busier. And then, if the unpaid people are contacted by the folks who have paid, then maybe the unpaid people will convert to paying clients.
However, that means that the paying clients are supporting all the rest, and do not know the full story. I tell my clients that you know three things about someone who does not respond to you initial email: They are either rude (because is the polite thing to do to at least send a “Thanks, but no thanks” email to those who put themselves out to contact you) or they are cheap (because they haven’t paid up and are freeloading), or they are both rude and cheap.
Come on, dating sites. Come up with come kind of system that indicates to everyone who has paid and who hasn’t.
From Your Romance Coach, Kathryn Lord
“They are either rude (because is the polite thing to do to at least send a “Thanks, but no thanks” email to those who put themselves out to contact you) or they are cheap (because they haven’t paid up and are freeloading), or they are both rude and cheap.”
A bit off base in my opinion and pretty much undercut by the main point of your post. Bad idea to tell your client base that people not currently paying for a subscription are simply cheap. There are any number of reasons that individuals don’t keep up their subscriptions. The business model is the problem. To wit, nerve.com has gotten plenty of money from myself and my clients simply because their membership system is vastly superior.
Posted by Jason on 10/10 at 01:33 PM