Here is an interesting article posted back in April of 2010 by OkTrends (the OkCupid dating site blog) about the dating site business model and why it works against the end user who is trying to find a date.
Basically they run some numbers and conclude that pay dating sites like eHarmony and Match.com have a "ghost" user rate of approximately 95%. A ghost user is a user profile that essentially has nobody behind it since they have not paid for the service and cannot respond to attempts at communication (emails, winks, etc.)
The effect of this, according to the article, is two-fold - men end up getting far too few replies (since 95% of people they are trying to contact aren't even there, and, of the women who *are* there, only 30% on average will reply), and women get far too many messages, causing them to stop checking their email.
On top of this, the article goes on to argue, the pay sites themselves have a strong incentive to try and get their users to send emails to ghosts (as opposed to real users) since this is a primary method they use to get the ghosts to become paying members.
You may notice that the article is a Google cache and no longer on the OkTrends blog. This is because OkCupid was recently purchased by Match.com who promptly took down the post (surprise). What they should have done instead, if they were at all able to, was provide a counterpoint to the article. However, the fact that they didn't leads me to believe that the article was right on target.
Now, having been on various free and paid dating sites for the past few months, I can give you my personal perspective.
OkCupid (free - for now) - female response rate was low, but not non-existent. Selection of women was diverse and high-quality in terms of attractiveness.
PlentyofFish (free) - decent sized selection of users, but poor response rate;
Match.com (paid) - female response rate was nearly non-existent; selection of attractive users seemed small for a site which claimed to have such a large pool.
Chemistry (paid) - gave me the best experience so far; fair number of attractive users, decent response rate.
And, like I always say when I write a post about online dating sites, I'm in no way paid by any of them - this is just my own personal experience.
I can tell you this - the OkTrends article definitely makes me feel better about my experience. The miserable response rate from women, although a common experience based upon the conversations I've had with other men, is still extremely discouraging and rough on the ego.
Basically they run some numbers and conclude that pay dating sites like eHarmony and Match.com have a "ghost" user rate of approximately 95%. A ghost user is a user profile that essentially has nobody behind it since they have not paid for the service and cannot respond to attempts at communication (emails, winks, etc.)
The effect of this, according to the article, is two-fold - men end up getting far too few replies (since 95% of people they are trying to contact aren't even there, and, of the women who *are* there, only 30% on average will reply), and women get far too many messages, causing them to stop checking their email.
On top of this, the article goes on to argue, the pay sites themselves have a strong incentive to try and get their users to send emails to ghosts (as opposed to real users) since this is a primary method they use to get the ghosts to become paying members.
You may notice that the article is a Google cache and no longer on the OkTrends blog. This is because OkCupid was recently purchased by Match.com who promptly took down the post (surprise). What they should have done instead, if they were at all able to, was provide a counterpoint to the article. However, the fact that they didn't leads me to believe that the article was right on target.
Now, having been on various free and paid dating sites for the past few months, I can give you my personal perspective.
OkCupid (free - for now) - female response rate was low, but not non-existent. Selection of women was diverse and high-quality in terms of attractiveness.
PlentyofFish (free) - decent sized selection of users, but poor response rate;
Match.com (paid) - female response rate was nearly non-existent; selection of attractive users seemed small for a site which claimed to have such a large pool.
Chemistry (paid) - gave me the best experience so far; fair number of attractive users, decent response rate.
And, like I always say when I write a post about online dating sites, I'm in no way paid by any of them - this is just my own personal experience.
I can tell you this - the OkTrends article definitely makes me feel better about my experience. The miserable response rate from women, although a common experience based upon the conversations I've had with other men, is still extremely discouraging and rough on the ego.
After much frustration with online dating (sending out 100 emails and maybe getting 5 responses, all from ugs or fatties (same thing really)), I created a profile, but as an experiment I made myself a 25 year old woman. I used a free stock photo of a woman who is a 6 or 7 on a dime scale. Within 5 minutes I received 4 instant messages & 5 e-mails from guys. I've since received tons more IM's and over 30 e-mails, and it's only been 4 hours later.
ReplyDeleteNo I know what it’s like. Guys outnumber girls on these sites by tones. I used to be a copy and past monkey trying to get women online but I never got a response. And I’ma good-looking guy. Now I know wh
Yeah, it's pretty crazy. You can see how women probably just get overwhelmed - they can't possibly respond to all the missives they get. It has to push them into hyper-selectivity. Also, like a friend of mine likes to say, a 6 or 7 in the "real world" becomes a 9 or 10 online. There has to be an element of "wow, I can get any guy I want, so why would I settle for {insert your name here}." My favorites are the profiles that say "I won't respond to just any old email - you need to dazzle me." Yeah, good luck with that. It might as well say "DANCE, MONKEY! DANCE FOR MY AMUSEMENT!"
ReplyDeleteI've continued with online dating, and I've still only had any real luck with Chemistry.
Hi Single L.A. Dad:
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if your assessment of Chemistry is still as positive as it was. I am a member of Match, but, like many others, have been unimpressed with it. I am shopping around,but due to my experience with Match, I am a little hesitant to pay more money only to send e-mails to woman that appear to be fictional. What is your current take on Chemistry?
Hmm...I would have to say that my opinion of Chemistry is probably not as positive as it once was. I have to imagine that the response/interest rate from women comes and goes in waves, as new users come in and out of the system, and interest in me has apparently hit a lull on Chemistry. I've actually had a lot more luck with OkCupid (a free dating site) lately. I now only occasionally check my Chemistry account.
ReplyDeleteI personally have become a bit disillusioned with dating in general. Going out on first date after first date, with women I'm only partially interested in gets old after awhile, so I'm taking a break from it, and resigning myself to dying alone. Happy days!