|
FOR Jim Safka, CE of Match.com, the busy season begins the day after Christmas. That is when some fraction of America’s 89-million singles — perhaps nagged by overbearing mothers — vow never again to spend the holidays alone. When they do, Safka is hoping they’ll turn to Match.com, the world’s largest internet dating site.
“When it comes to relationships, for many people, it is a New Year’s resolution,” he said. “The holiday season really kicks off for us on December 26, and runs right through Valentine’s Day.”
Yet Match is not the only site vying for singles’ hearts — and wallets — this season. Over the past decade, more than 1000 internet dating sites have emerged, catering to such niches as Jewish, African-American and even obese singles. One of Match’s fiercest competitors is eHarmony.com, which specialises in serious relationships that lead to marriage.
The two companies are competing harder than ever as the online dating market matures. After surging 77% in 2003, the industry’s revenues grew only 7% last year to $516m, according to Jupiter Media. The customer base is also greying, with the fastest growth coming from singles over 50, who are often divorced and looking for the committed relationships that eHarmony pioneered, and on which Match is increasingly focused. “We are definitely fighting for the same consumer,” said Greg Waldorf, CE of eHarmony. They are the sort of singles, as Safka put it, for whom “this ain’t their first rodeo”.
That is a dramatic switch from 1995, when Match was born. At the time, the service was based on a “photo-dating” model, in which users browsed the pictures and profiles of potential mates. The audience was largely young and interested in arranging casual hook-ups.
Although eHarmony did not arrive until five years later, it developed its own niche. The company was founded by Dr Neil Clark Warren, a clinical psychologist at the University of Chicago, who spent decades studying marriage. Rather than letting people browse, eHarmony decided to take control of the matching process, and only send people potential mates it believed were compatible. “That was really revolutionary at the time, and seemed pretty risky,” Waldorf recalled.
The company’s secret weapon was a computer algorithm — the patented Compatibility Matching System — that Dr Warren and his researchers developed, based on a study of 5000 married couples. To participate, customers must first fill out a personality survey that typically takes an hour or more to complete. They also pay $60 a month — twice the fee charged by Match and many others.
While it took a while to catch on, eHarmony blossomed after the folksy
Dr Warren took to the airwaves in a barrage of television and radio advertisements.
Match, though, has fought back. In January, it signed up its own avuncular love doctor, Dr Phil McGraw, the Texas self-help specialist who rose to fame on the Oprah Winfrey show. “Match has been moving into eHarmony’s territory,” said Nate Elliott, an analyst at Jupiter Media. While Elliott questions Dr Phil’s scientific credentials, he believes Match’s heritage
as a more casual dating site may give it an edge — particularly when it comes to attracting men. “There’s something about the branding, about saying ‘this is a site where people go to get married’, that tends to scare men away,” Elliott said.
As they fight for advantage, both companies are working feverishly to refine their sites. Warren’s researchers are promising ever-more sophisticated love algorithms.
There is one area where Match enjoys a clear advantage over eHarmony: the international market. Its browsing model has translated into 18 different languages. Safka has even met Japanese government officials who are worried about the country’s low birthrate.
eHarmony has not travelled as well, in part because its research is so geared to the American marriage experience. But that may change. eHarmony is planning to team up with researchers at a Chinese university to unlock the secrets of compatibility. If they succeed, then the world’s most populous nation could soon get a little more crowded.
| 
