Mark Brooks: eHarmony is facing more competition from Chemistry.com and need to squeeze more revenue out of their existing userbase. Add-on sales are more important to the industry these days. Just take a look at Match.com’s sign up process now. You can buy Dr Phil’s MindFindBind guidance service ($7.99/mo, $22.32 for 3 months), MatchTalk ($5.99/mo, $17.18 for 3 months), Email Read Notifications ($3.99/mo, $11.44 for 3 months), and a Highlighted Portrait ($2.84/mo, $8.15 for 3 months). On top of that Match has a few coregistration partners that they are earning a buck or two per registrant from.
Before eHarmony’s “lab” starts offering new “testing” products, it should fix what it currently offers in its standard questionnaire, because that “test” and its matching rationale and analytics do not even approach meeting professional testing standards. Interested readers and reporters should see:
Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.
In fact, eHarmony should finally heed the pressure from the academic community, which has repeatedly called for them to publish research in support of its public claims. Chemistry.com should do this as well. I agree with Kathryn Lord that Chemistry has exploited an edge over eHarmony that people have talked about for years now, but to me there is an even more fundamental question: Are the “tests” being advertised as “scientific” by online dating sites even valid to begin with, or are they simply smoke and mirrors?!
Sites like Chemistry and eHarmony that cater to long-term relationships should be very careful in claims, because so far there has been no credible evidence offered to substanitate the validity of the products that form the core of their business and membership.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine
Before eHarmony’s “lab” starts offering new “testing” products, it should fix what it currently offers in its standard questionnaire, because that “test” and its matching rationale and analytics do not even approach meeting professional testing standards. Interested readers and reporters should see:
Houran, J., Lange, R., Rentfrow, P. J., & Bruckner, K. H. (2004). Do online matchmaking tests work? An assessment of preliminary evidence for a publicized ‘predictive model of marital success.’ North American Journal of Psychology, 6, 507-526.
In fact, eHarmony should finally heed the pressure from the academic community, which has repeatedly called for them to publish research in support of its public claims. Chemistry.com should do this as well. I agree with Kathryn Lord that Chemistry has exploited an edge over eHarmony that people have talked about for years now, but to me there is an even more fundamental question: Are the “tests” being advertised as “scientific” by online dating sites even valid to begin with, or are they simply smoke and mirrors?!
Sites like Chemistry and eHarmony that cater to long-term relationships should be very careful in claims, because so far there has been no credible evidence offered to substanitate the validity of the products that form the core of their business and membership.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
Online Dating Magazine