Month: July 2005
Online Personals Watch Exclusive Interview #9 – Friendster’s New CEO, Taek Kwon
OPW INTERVIEW — July 18, 2005 — Taek Kwon joined Friendster last month as President and CEO. He was formerly the EVP Product Management at Citysearch and VP Engineering and Operations at Hotwire. Mark Brooks, Editor of Online Personals Watch, interviewed Taek to get his take on the future of Friendster.
Friendster invented online social networking, as we know it. How did they lose ground to Myspace, and how do you intend to regain it?
Social networking is very different from when it was invented. I wouldn’t say Friendster invented social networking; Friendster popularized social networking. When we first launched, we were the only game in town. Friendster was, and is, a great way for people to connect with new friends and reengage with old friends. Friendster didn’t have a strong secondary call to action for its users beyond finding and connecting with people. Many people used it as a dating tool. Now, many of the initial uses of Friendster have become commoditized. Myspace, Hi5 and the Facebook are all growing. The idea of ‘connecting’ is no longer a differentiator. It never really was. We have the ‘platform’ for adding value to users. But we haven't determined the applications that will sit on top of this platform to make it valuable, sticky, and we no longer have the cachet we did earlier. Myspace is focused heavily on music. They have a different approach to networking; I think of a lot of their interactions more as incidental social collisions than what we have on our platform. They provided users the ability to express themselves with a high degree of customizability and their ability to upload and integrate media is unparalleled. It’s a freeform experience and a vehicle for self-expression. It’s proven successful. Friendster needs to also add context to the site’s friendships. We don't really have a theme or context to drive activity. That’s the challenge, which we hope to meet soon.
What are incidental social collisions?
People are usually invited into Friendster. They join through invitations. A lot of people join to meet new people and socialize. The types of activity and the conversations people have on Friendster are usually based on people you knew before they joined; our networks are generally a little more closed, whereas Myspace is more open. On Friendster, a higher percentage knows their ‘friends’ offline than on Myspace. There’s value in both approaches. Myspace has proven their approach is wildly popular and they have figure out a way to monetize this. Friendster is focused more on maintaining the networks’ integrity and I feel we will also figure out a compelling approach to monetization.
What is Friendster's target clientele?
Our demographic skews young. I’d say the average age of our most frequent users is between 21 to 29 predominantly. But we have younger and a lot older too. Looking out further ahead our clientele is really anyone who has friends.
You commented in a prior interview your intention to combine business networking and social networking on Friendster. Could you expand on that comment?
I believe people, especially young people, are looking for four things. One, finding a date/mate. Two, finding a job. Three, finding a home to live in or a house to buy. And four, social interaction. i.e. they want to know what people are doing. Those four things are what life revolves around for those in their 20's to 30's. I could imagine a world where Friendster acts as a catalyst but doesn't focus on any one.
Are you interested in events?
We have a very qualified network. The majority of relationships on Friendster are real live offline friendships. We are exploring opportunities to facilitate offline interactions.
How will Friendster be making money in one year from now?
We currently make money, a fair amount, from traditional sponsored CPM advertising. We have a relationship with Google for contextual, text link advertising. There are other sources that we will experiment with. Two that may have a role are premium services and lead generation. We have a relationship with sixapart for blogs where we share revenue on upgrades. Users can sign up for a blog and pay for more storage and more UI flexibility. We might introduce more premium services like that. As you think about possibilities, you’ll not that a fair amount of commerce occurs from social interaction in our daily lives. Friendster could become a clearinghouse for some of this commerce online through its platform. One example might be birthday’s alerts. We could implement a birthday alert and offer users a coupon on hot birthday presents. I tend to think those types of leads will be more qualified than even sponsored link clicks.
What lessons learned from your time at Citysearch do you intend to apply at Friendster?
Citysearch was a struggling business. It was not making money when I joined and had a lot of problems. Some of their brand equity had been damaged. They were in a fairly new category. Others had an interest in local search. Yahoo and Google were entering the market. Friendster is in some ways a similar situation. Yahoo 360, MSN, Google and Orkut and even international companies such as Nate.com in Korea have identified social networking as an interesting category they want a piece of and have invested. The explosion in interest parallels what was happening in local search. For me, one key lesson learned is how to think strategically in that sort of environment of rapid change, a heated competitive landscape, and investment and M&A activity. When I left Citysearch they were profitable and growing profits at the fastest rate in our 9-year history. Unlike local search when it first started, the social networking category already has two of its leading properties in the black and it’s such a new category. Thefacebook has said it was cash flow positive since Q1. Also Myspace has said they are profitable. It’s a very new category. So, to have two of the top properties in the black is very exciting.
Who do you regard as the most noteworthy online dating competitors right now? Are online dating companies really direct competitors?
I don't consider Friendster a dating site although online dating is one utility provided for many users. Friendster is a platform that hasn’t committed to any vertical yet, and perhaps never will. The fact is, users use it for dating bu
t there’s a lot more we can and will do in the future. We don't consider any of the online dating companies direct competitors. I find eharmony fascinating. They have a model for building an emotional tie with users during their interview/signup process, taking them through a highly committed screening process and then pushing qualified content to them. That strategy is something that is not only applicable to dating. In many ways users are open to pushed content as long as it’s from trusted sources. Friends are trusted sources. I could see similar functionality on Friendster. The idea of pushing content to the user in a qualified way is very interesting.
What are your thoughts on a mobile Friendster service?
We recently met with some of the folks from Nate.com and Cyworld.com. Cyworld is a social networking site for Nate, a Korean portal. SK Telecom owns them. Mobile internet is fascinating to me. They offer a tight integration between their IM client, social network, blogging, and profile page submission. They’ve enabled content access, submission, and editing on any device. The billing process revolves around the monthly phone bill. It’s an interesting phenomenon, which we’re not going to be able to duplicate here because the telecom industry is more fragmented here, but the idea of monetizing social networks through micropayments on a phone bill is interesting. The Koreans have more adoption of mobile internet usage. There are some interesting lessons to be learned.
What might Friendster look like in 3 years from now?
We will have more tools built on top of the Friendster platform. Blogging has had great adoption. I can imagine a heavy media component to Friendster. I can also imagine there might be tools and applications that help in organizing friendships offline. In any event we definitely will move in the direction of adding value beyond being the personal face-book we are today.
Mark Brooks: Taek is just the medicine for Friendster. MySpace has stolen some of Friendster's thunder but I think Friendster will find it's way under Taek Kwon (and Jonathan Abrams).
Summary of First Episode of Hook Up
REALITY NEWS ONLINE — July 15 — Is anybody truthful in online dating? The answer seems up in the air given that on the first episode of Hooking Up we see not only the men providing slightly untruthful information, but at least one of the women as well! How can Lisa (right) lie so much in her online profile and expect a man to be okay with it? The show opens with several clips of the woman either on their dates or discussing their dates. One dater says to the camera, “She committed the crime of dating deception.” Amy says that Chris is a very good kisser, which means she will forgive him for anything. She also tells us that he is going on a date with someone else and she is OK with it.
The full article was originally published at Reality News Online, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: I propose that online daters on first dates follow the following etiquette for blatant instances of dating deception…politely inform your date they have lied unnecessarily, thank them for their interest in you, and leave.
Summary of First Episode of Hook Up
REALITY NEWS ONLINE — July 15 — Is anybody truthful in online dating? The answer seems up in the air given that on the first episode of Hooking Up we see not only the men providing slightly untruthful information, but at least one of the women as well! How can Lisa (right) lie so much in her online profile and expect a man to be okay with it? The show opens with several clips of the woman either on their dates or discussing their dates. One dater says to the camera, “She committed the crime of dating deception.” Amy says that Chris is a very good kisser, which means she will forgive him for anything. She also tells us that he is going on a date with someone else and she is OK with it.
The full article was originally published at Reality News Online, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: I propose that online daters on first dates follow the following etiquette for blatant instances of dating deception…politely inform your date they have lied unnecessarily, thank them for their interest in you, and leave.
Dating Software Evolution
PR WEB — July 16 — aeDating offers blogging, 5 new design templates, video and audio file upload. AEwebworks is a professional software development team specializing solely on dating software. AEwebworks has provided dating software solutions for over 3 years and installs 4 dating sites per day on average, powering over 1700 online dating sites. FULL RELEASE @ PR WEB
Mark Brooks: Alas, the broken English in the press release doesn't inspire much confidence. Entrepreneurs can start their own dating site for under $1,000. Then all they need is $3 million+ to get the site to a critical mass of users.
Dating Software Evolution
PR WEB — July 16 — aeDating offers blogging, 5 new design templates, video and audio file upload. AEwebworks is a professional software development team specializing solely on dating software. AEwebworks has provided dating software solutions for over 3 years and installs 4 dating sites per day on average, powering over 1700 online dating sites. FULL RELEASE @ PR WEB
Mark Brooks: Alas, the broken English in the press release doesn't inspire much confidence. Entrepreneurs can start their own dating site for under $1,000. Then all they need is $3 million+ to get the site to a critical mass of users.
Dating Goes Digital
NORTHWEST HERALD — July 14 — Young singles today are technologically savvy and many times prefer typing a few consequence-free lines as opposed to calling up a crush. Kali, 16, said she used her cell phone to text message her boyfriend five or six times a day to find out what he was up to and to plan their dates. According to a Pew Internet and American Life Project survey, 84% of internet users are between 18 and 29, and sending e-mail is the most popular online activity. Michael, 22, is not a big fan of e-mailing people he dates. "It comes across colder in e-mail," he said. "There's no inflection in the text."
The full article was originally published at Northwest Herald, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: Yes, email and IM are quick n easy. You can maintain communication and stay up to date. But, you can't build a real relationship without personal contact. We're going to be stuck in the stone ages on that one for a while courtesy of a little thing called…chemistry.
Dating Goes Digital
NORTHWEST HERALD — July 14 — Young singles today are technologically savvy and many times prefer typing a few consequence-free lines as opposed to calling up a crush. Kali, 16, said she used her cell phone to text message her boyfriend five or six times a day to find out what he was up to and to plan their dates. According to a Pew Internet and American Life Project survey, 84% of internet users are between 18 and 29, and sending e-mail is the most popular online activity. Michael, 22, is not a big fan of e-mailing people he dates. "It comes across colder in e-mail," he said. "There's no inflection in the text."
The full article was originally published at Northwest Herald, but is no longer available.
Mark Brooks: Yes, email and IM are quick n easy. You can maintain communication and stay up to date. But, you can't build a real relationship without personal contact. We're going to be stuck in the stone ages on that one for a while courtesy of a little thing called…chemistry.
Online Personals Watch Exclusive Interview #8 – True.com’s Chief Psychologist
OPW INTERVIEW — July 13, 2005 — Eric Straus of Cupid.com thinks matching based on personality profiling is B.S. Online dating upstart, True.com, would beg to differ. Mark Brooks interviewed True.com's Chief Psychologist, Dr James Houran, to get a second opinion on personality profiling for online dating.
Tell me about your background Jim?
I’m first and foremost a researcher, but I worked as a mental health counselor with both adults and children in a hospital setting for 6 years. That experience motivated me to complete my masters in clinical psychology. My focus was how attitudes influenced behaviors, as well as the interplay among imagination, cognition, and personality. After my M,A., I was hired as faculty at the SIU School of Medicine’s Department of Psychiatry There, my principal clinical and research interests involved advanced psychological testing, gender differences, mental health and wellness, as well as relationship quality. I worked with couples as well as families in both platonic and romantic contexts. I completed my Ph.D. became known for my work on the validity of psychological testing. Unfortunately, many test methodologies used today are outdated. As a result, much of what we think we know in the social sciences is probably skewed or downright wrong.
Why did you join True?
True.com gave me opportunity to do what I was already doing – a combination of research, clinical work, and public education – but on a scale that psychologists can only dream of. Usually in the academic community we worry about funding and finding large samples of research participants. Now I can conduct state-of-the-art online testing where funding is not a problem and which can make a difference in people’s lives on a topic that touches us all. So, I could not imagine a better job. Also, I’m able to help lead and pioneer the next era of online testing technology. Very exciting!
How can you be sure True.com’s tests are true and correct?
Luckily we don’t have to rely on opinion. There are professional standards for testing, which are outlined in a manual authored by the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, along with the National Council on Measurement and Education. One key element in test creation is in providing the test rationale. It’s also important to create and validate tests in the context they are to be used, that is, online tests can’t be created and tested offline as a pencil and paper measure and then transferred online. True.com uses Item Response Theory based measures. This is the same approach used by the GRE, MCAT and LSAT. We’ve known since 1960 that it’s superior to Classical Test Theory methods. All good tests have a test manual to show their basis, construction and validation… and preferably the research should be published in a peer-reviewed journal or at least independently audited by an expert in modern psychometrics. To my knowledge True.com is the only company that has done this. And, that angers me, because I hear people on TV saying, “Trust me, I have a test based in science, trust me.” Ask to see that science and you don’t get a response back.
Eric Straus, the CEO of Cupid, says personality profiling for online dating context is B.S. What do you think?
I would agree to some extent. The public should be skeptical! Public exposure to professional testing is limited. The public is more familiar with fun little quizzes in Cosmo or on entertainment websites. These tests are fun diversions but they are not the real thing. But, can we identify the variables that are associated with long-term compatibility? Yes, we can. Can we measure these variables in a reliable and valid way? Yes, we can. Can we use and apply these variables? Yes, we can. Published research has already shown this. However, what we’ve learned from advanced statistics is that things we thought we knew often turn out to be skewed or wrong. For example, eHarmony’s test says ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ The more similar a couple is the happier they will be in the relationship. That’s incorrect. “Similarity” is a relationship principle that academics have long known from research to be oversimplified.
I can’t make sense of eHarmony. They claim their test is based on an impressive study of 5,000 married couples. I can’t find that study anywhere. Last February, eHarmony published a general description of their services in a psychology magazine. Several ‘Letters to the Editor’ came in from professionals criticizing the company for unsubstantiated claims of scientific testing. eHarmony has yet to show the public anything of substance. The only attempt I’ve ever seen is a paper presented a year ago at a psychology conference. This paper reported research on two sets of married couples. One sample of marrieds met on eHarmony, while the other sample met in the real world. The conclusion was the eHarmony couples had higher levels of relationship satisfaction. As we reviewed their research it was apparent that the study and its conclusions were wrong. A rebuttal was published in the North American Journal of Psychology. This rebuttal showed that eHarmony’s own data contradicted the idea that similarity is the best predictor of relationship satisfaction. The media is also now starting to question the legitimacy of eHarmony’s testing. Test manuals or any proof of testing research are also absent from Perfectmatch, Tickle, and Yahoo Personals. Personality profiling tests can indeed be harmful if they are not based in legitimate research. Many people take these test results to heart and they influence life-changing decisions. If a company says they use tests based in science they have a legal and moral responsibility to consumers need to back that claim up.
How can a company give out enough information on these tests to win confidence, without giving away their secrets?
Independent auditors who are established experts in modern test construction and validation can review the tests and certify that they meet professional testing standards. Data can be reported to the public without divulging the specifics of matching algorithms. Take drug companies, for example, you don’t see the specific recipe for the chemical makeup of drugs or detailed explanations of how those drugs work exactly. Yet, drug companies routinely sponsor and publish research on their efficacy of their products.
So what can you tell me about True.com’s matching algorithm?
True matches people based on research concerning similar as well as complementary relationship variables. We take into account factors well beyond mere personality. Some of those variables include lifestyle preferences, world-views, sense of humor, social life, money management, and readiness to commit. Companies are free to use their preferred methods to pair individuals. Perfect Match uses a test derived from the popular Myers Briggs Type Indicator. We use what’s known as the ‘big five model.’
eHarmony and Perfectmatch make all their users take their profiling tests. Why doesn’t True.com?
Not all users want to take a compatibility test for many reasons. Users may be skeptical or just not want to spend the time. If people are antagonistic about being forced to take a test they won’t give accurate responses. Compatibility testing implies long-term relationships, and True.com realizes that not everyone is looking for that exclusively. Our research indicates that the bulk of the online daters do not want exclusively short-term or long-term relationships. We’re offer tools to help them find the relationship that is right for them. Our vision is to reduce the divorce rate by pairing people up for good relationships and marriages, as well as by preventing bad marriages in the first place by not prematurely pushing people down a path they’re not comfortable with.
How is True.com planning to help move the industry forward over the next 6 months?
You’ll see more of a push towards educating people on the power and value of good science-based products. True.com is committed to the safety and security of all our members and to give them the right tools so they can find the right person. We’re also working towards answering the second half of the problem. Once we pair people up… then what? We’re developing even more tools like supplemental tests and relationship guides to help people maintain and nurture relationships. Basically you’ll see more of a hand-holding approach. We’re uniquely positioned to help people with other aspects of their life. We haven’t painted ourselves into a corner to be simply an online dating site. Our tagline is “Live, Love, Learn”’ for a reason. Love is one element of a person’s life. We’ll also branch out to help people with self-growth and platonic relationships. So, you’re going to see us increase in scope.
Online Personals Watch Exclusive Interview #8 – True.com’s Chief Psychologist
OPW INTERVIEW — July 13, 2005 — Eric Straus of Cupid.com thinks matching based on personality profiling is B.S. Online dating upstart, True.com, would beg to differ. Mark Brooks interviewed True.com's Chief Psychologist, Dr James Houran, to get a second opinion on personality profiling for online dating.
Tell me about your background Jim?
I’m first and foremost a researcher, but I worked as a mental health counselor with both adults and children in a hospital setting for 6 years. That experience motivated me to complete my masters in clinical psychology. My focus was how attitudes influenced behaviors, as well as the interplay among imagination, cognition, and personality. After my M,A., I was hired as faculty at the SIU School of Medicine’s Department of Psychiatry There, my principal clinical and research interests involved advanced psychological testing, gender differences, mental health and wellness, as well as relationship quality. I worked with couples as well as families in both platonic and romantic contexts. I completed my Ph.D. became known for my work on the validity of psychological testing. Unfortunately, many test methodologies used today are outdated. As a result, much of what we think we know in the social sciences is probably skewed or downright wrong.
Why did you join True?
True.com gave me opportunity to do what I was already doing – a combination of research, clinical work, and public education – but on a scale that psychologists can only dream of. Usually in the academic community we worry about funding and finding large samples of research participants. Now I can conduct state-of-the-art online testing where funding is not a problem and which can make a difference in people’s lives on a topic that touches us all. So, I could not imagine a better job. Also, I’m able to help lead and pioneer the next era of online testing technology. Very exciting!
How can you be sure True.com’s tests are true and correct?
Luckily we don’t have to rely on opinion. There are professional standards for testing, which are outlined in a manual authored by the American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, along with the National Council on Measurement and Education. One key element in test creation is in providing the test rationale. It’s also important to create and validate tests in the context they are to be used, that is, online tests can’t be created and tested offline as a pencil and paper measure and then transferred online. True.com uses Item Response Theory based measures. This is the same approach used by the GRE, MCAT and LSAT. We’ve known since 1960 that it’s superior to Classical Test Theory methods. All good tests have a test manual to show their basis, construction and validation… and preferably the research should be published in a peer-reviewed journal or at least independently audited by an expert in modern psychometrics. To my knowledge True.com is the only company that has done this. And, that angers me, because I hear people on TV saying, “Trust me, I have a test based in science, trust me.” Ask to see that science and you don’t get a response back.
Eric Straus, the CEO of Cupid, says personality profiling for online dating context is B.S. What do you think?
I would agree to some extent. The public should be skeptical! Public exposure to professional testing is limited. The public is more familiar with fun little quizzes in Cosmo or on entertainment websites. These tests are fun diversions but they are not the real thing. But, can we identify the variables that are associated with long-term compatibility? Yes, we can. Can we measure these variables in a reliable and valid way? Yes, we can. Can we use and apply these variables? Yes, we can. Published research has already shown this. However, what we’ve learned from advanced statistics is that things we thought we knew often turn out to be skewed or wrong. For example, eHarmony’s test says ‘birds of a feather flock together.’ The more similar a couple is the happier they will be in the relationship. That’s incorrect. “Similarity” is a relationship principle that academics have long known from research to be oversimplified.
I can’t make sense of eHarmony. They claim their test is based on an impressive study of 5,000 married couples. I can’t find that study anywhere. Last February, eHarmony published a general description of their services in a psychology magazine. Several ‘Letters to the Editor’ came in from professionals criticizing the company for unsubstantiated claims of scientific testing. eHarmony has yet to show the public anything of substance. The only attempt I’ve ever seen is a paper presented a year ago at a psychology conference. This paper reported research on two sets of married couples. One sample of marrieds met on eHarmony, while the other sample met in the real world. The conclusion was the eHarmony couples had higher levels of relationship satisfaction. As we reviewed their research it was apparent that the study and its conclusions were wrong. A rebuttal was published in the North American Journal of Psychology. This rebuttal showed that eHarmony’s own data contradicted the idea that similarity is the best predictor of relationship satisfaction. The media is also now starting to question the legitimacy of eHarmony’s testing. Test manuals or any proof of testing research are also absent from Perfectmatch, Tickle, and Yahoo Personals. Personality profiling tests can indeed be harmful if they are not based in legitimate research. Many people take these test results to heart and they influence life-changing decisions. If a company says they use tests based in science they have a legal and moral responsibility to consumers need to back that claim up.
How can a company give out enough information on these tests to win confidence, without giving away their secrets?
Independent auditors who are established experts in modern test construction and validation can review the tests and certify that they meet professional testing standards. Data can be reported to the public without divulging the specifics of matching algorithms. Take drug companies, for example, you don’t see the specific recipe for the chemical makeup of drugs or detailed explanations of how those drugs work exactly. Yet, drug companies routinely sponsor and publish research on their efficacy of their products.
So what can you tell me about True.com’s matching algorithm?
True matches people based on research concerning similar as well as complementary relationship variables. We take into account factors well beyond mere personality. Some of those variables include lifestyle preferences, world-views, sense of humor, social life, money management, and readiness to commit. Companies are free to use their preferred methods to pair individuals. Perfect Match uses a test derived from the popular Myers Briggs Type Indicator. We use what’s known as the ‘big five model.’
eHarmony and Perfectmatch make all their users take their profiling tests. Why doesn’t True.com?
Not all users want to take a compatibility test for many reasons. Users may be skeptical or just not want to spend the time. If people are antagonistic about being forced to take a test they won’t give accurate responses. Compatibility testing implies long-term relationships, and True.com realizes that not everyone is looking for that exclusively. Our research indicates that the bulk of the online daters do not want exclusively short-term or long-term relationships. We’re offer tools to help them find the relationship that is right for them. Our vision is to reduce the divorce rate by pairing people up for good relationships and marriages, as well as by preventing bad marriages in the first place by not prematurely pushing people down a path they’re not comfortable with.
How is True.com planning to help move the industry forward over the next 6 months?
You’ll see more of a push towards educating people on the power and value of good science-based products. True.com is committed to the safety and security of all our members and to give them the right tools so they can find the right person. We’re also working towards answering the second half of the problem. Once we pair people up… then what? We’re developing even more tools like supplemental tests and relationship guides to help people maintain and nurture relationships. Basically you’ll see more of a hand-holding approach. We’re uniquely positioned to help people with other aspects of their life. We haven’t painted ourselves into a corner to be simply an online dating site. Our tagline is “Live, Love, Learn”’ for a reason. Love is one element of a person’s life. We’ll also branch out to help people with self-growth and platonic relationships. So, you’re going to see us increase in scope.