On diversity in dating sites

(Via Clarisse Thorn's Love Bites)

It appears that bastion of free/ad-supported dating sites, OkCupid, has been bought up by the leviathan of paid dating sites, Match.com.

The article linked above, which is on The Atlantic magazine's website, explains that Match.com appear to be censoring the output of the OkTrends section of OkCupid, by removing an article in which OkTrends' blogger analysed data from the subscription sites to prove that paying for them is a waste of your money. The conclusion of the OkTrends post was that you've got a 1 in 14 chance (being generous with the rounding - it's actually closer to 2 in 29) that the person you're emailing is in fact a subscription user. Commenter Sam at Clarisse Thorn's post, links to the waybackmachine archive of the post (it makes interesting reading).

I have, briefly, used the Match.com subscription service. It has fewer features, the search function is less helpful, and it doesn't meet my needs the way that OkCupid does (though how long OkCupid will be allowed to continue putting out a better service for free, I don't know). I still have a profile up at Match.com, but I never check it any more. I discovered early on that it is a waste of time emailing non-subscribers because non-subscribers can't even read the emails they have received. That means a message sent to me on Match.com won't get read because it isn't worth paying £30+ just to find out if a person who likes me is a person I might be interested in seeing. In short, my personal experience bears out what the OkTrends post reported, particularly with respect to the messaging/marketing flowchart.

One of the big advantages that OkCupid has for me over other dating sites is that it is much better at sex-positivity than the subscription sites have tended to be. It is the only non-kink site that acknowledges kink as a real dimension to dating preference, which of course makes it easier to be open about my orientation in my profile and answers there! On my Match.com and mysinglefriend.com profiles I have been somewhat more circumspect. This is partly because I hope that there might be someone who hasn't yet acknowledged her D/s desires who sees my subtle hints and be intrigued enough to explore. Except, of course, that I can't respond on Match.com (and on MSF I currently have only 5 days left on my subscription, after which I can't afford it any more...) I hope that people who see my match.com profile will simply google Snowdrop Explodes and find me another way (although if they have turned safesearch off, then they'll find some stuff that maybe is better to save for after a few dates...!)

The title of this post is "on diversity in dating sites", and the above paragraph talks about dating sites being more diverse internally, and how that's a benefit (OkCupid being the clear winner in this regard). But what I really wanted to focus on is diversity between dating sites.

I think that having many different models is better. Not everyone looks for dates in the same way or with the same needs in terms of how they go about it. The OkCupid system seems more helpful to me (although it has its problems) but that's probably because of how my brain works and others are likely to find other systems better. MSF seemed like a good idea to me because I have exes who think I'll make someone a great partner so they get to big me up to potential future partners. The more different ways there are, the more chance of finding what works for you. The problem is that once dating sites start being bought up by other dating sites, it narrows the field in terms of creativity and business approaches behind the scenes. It doesn't look as though Match.com want to import their search system onto OkCupid, for example, but in terms of deciding what routes to follow in developing the sites it seems to me that decisions will be narrower.

A couple of years back, Alt.com bought Bondage.com - one kink dating site buying up another kink dating/social site. Alt.com have a bad reputation for being moneygrubbers (there's so little you can do there with a non-subscription membership that it's impossible to work out whether it's worthwhile paying or not - my guess is it's not!) Thankfully, they didn't import that business model, and many of the attractive features of the Bondage.com subscription model remained (chief of these being that you can actually put an external email address in your profile so it's possible for non-subscribers to contact you off-site - but to be sure someone receives your message to them you still have to pay). However, I did feel like Bondage.com never really managed to keep its quality since then. My favourite kink-based personal ads/resources/community site is still Informed Consent (Fetlife is very good, but that is more specifically social networking and doesn't really have a dating/personal ads function in the same way).

Anyway, point being that I believe it is better for the consumer in this particular field to have lots of different business ideas competing rather than having the businesses owned by the same people, because that better reflects the diversity of the people who use the sites.

And of course, Match.com's apparent move to censor the OkTrends blog doesn't offer much hope that there will be much room for innovation any more.

Incidentally, I have my own idea for a dating site, but I lack the programming skills yet to put the idea into action (I need to find someone who does and make them enthusiastic about my idea too, then we can go into business together!) It's a different approach again (although loosely based in part on "Would I Date You?", a site that seems to be moribund, and that was only available in the US anyway). The business model would also be different again from what I've seen in most places. Obviously, I'm not going to discuss my idea in great detail here in case someone wants to steal my idea...