I'm working on some feature comparison's for clients and this morning I slurped down a few dozen personal ads from the top ten dating sites.
Initially I was looking for ways to increase the value of ads by giving members the ability to add metatdata to each other's profiles but the exercise reaffirmed my general impression that all dating sites share 99.5% of their DNA.
I hear about sites adding tons of features all the time. Sites with no money, no marketing plan and no clear path to profitability. Go ahead, add Skype and a blog, you're treading water already, these features aren't going to bring you to dry land unless you have an integration plan that makes sense.
The only difference that matters is the members. 90% of the dating sites out there have databases full crap and they do nothing to fix this, thinking more is better. Wrong.
Dating sites clearly have a long way to go when it comes to promoting the demographic differences of their sites and the dating site reviews aren't doing much to help the situation. What's the difference between Yahoo and Match members? Zero.
Are eHarmony members really more “serious” than on Match? Go ask 5 members from each service. I did. No difference.
Niche sites have it a lot easier, that's for sure.
I bet I could take eHarmony's marketing budget and make any other dating site in the top 20 just as much money. It's not the questions, it's the advertising. And I'm not talking about Mate1 and True on Myspace, that's short lived revenue.
This is why Yahoo is losing ground so quickly. Their marketing seems to be mostly internal to the Yahoo network, which is enormous, but their brand footprint around the net is tiny. They may spend a lot on banner ads but I don't see them.
Social networks don't have to advertise, the media does it for them. A nice place to be.
A quick gut check of the demographics of the major social networks shows they're all pretty much the same, the only major differentiator is age, some cater to teens, others twentysomethings and a few think they are going to make it based on the needs of us thirtysomethings.
The big money is in the mass market for dating and social networking. There are a few niche sites doing well, clearly the exception to the rule and I hope they keep growing. My problem is that I'm not really a niche guy unless you count ENFP,Mac,snowboarding,consultant as a niche. I haven't see that site yet.
The biggest underserved niche is clearly geography. Some sites get it right, others not so much. I live in New England, that's generally considered three states. Why can I only sign up for one state at a time on most sites or have a radius of 200 miles? I don't want to drive to CT and I probably wouldn't date someone from NH, but MA, VT and ME are fine. So let me define my home base and area according to my needs. Typing in a zip code is so crude.
Looking for some final post-coffee inspiration for comparing social nets and dating, I revisited the new Facebook privacy features and Bebo's new personalize home page. Look at the incredible amount of personalization and customization these sites offer. I went back to the dating site profiles and immediately felt sad. Look at these poor static pages. Nobody to link to, no private information to share with people after a few dates, same generic color schemes.
I don't need my profile to look like a Myspace acid trip, but surely you can give me a few color scheme options, additional layout options and maybe a video player. Anything to differentiate myself from the other dudes in my zip code. Please?
This article is the first in an ongoing comparison between social networking and dating sites.
Technorati Tags: datingvssocial
