PARADIGM SHIFT — June 21 – Match.com has released their 2009 success rates http://www.
– 56m first emails sent per year
– 132m winks sent per year
– 12 couples got married or engaged today thanks to Match.com
– users go on 6m dates each year
– 1 in 1369 dates leads to marriage on Match.com
– Match.com makes $1m dollars a day from subscription revenues
eHarmony also has public stats
– 118 couples a day get married or engaged.
– 12-15K new users every day
– full audience turnover every 6.5 months
The full article was originally published at Paradigm Shift, but is no longer available.
See all posts on Match.com
See all posts on eHarmony
look as thoough the eharmony stats go alot more than match.com. Not surprising as many say match is more of a site for serial daters.
look as thoough the eharmony stats go alot more than match.com. Not surprising as many say match is more of a site for serial daters.
These statistics are incomplete at best. It is more useful to know how many of those relationships turned out to be stable.
For instance, the number of marriages or engagements is meaningless unless one also knows the divorce/break up rates for the matching services. One-sided stats like these are like saying, “I’m the best physician in town; I operated on 100 people each day!” with the undisclosed kicker being that 98 of those people died each day on the table.
A recent article in Skeptic magazine highlights these points and should be taken seriously by sites that use “marriage rates” to sell their services. The media and consumers are becoming more critical of these factoids.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
These statistics are incomplete at best. It is more useful to know how many of those relationships turned out to be stable.
For instance, the number of marriages or engagements is meaningless unless one also knows the divorce/break up rates for the matching services. One-sided stats like these are like saying, “I’m the best physician in town; I operated on 100 people each day!” with the undisclosed kicker being that 98 of those people died each day on the table.
A recent article in Skeptic magazine highlights these points and should be taken seriously by sites that use “marriage rates” to sell their services. The media and consumers are becoming more critical of these factoids.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
If the site didn’t actually produce marriages does it matter how stable they are?
If the site didn’t actually produce marriages does it matter how stable they are?
Hi Markus,
My view is that “marriage” is a questionable metric for gauging matching success. I even wrote about this at OnlineDatingMagazine.com a while back:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2007editorials/05-onlinedatingsitemarriages.html
The point is… if companies are going to sell their dating sites by emphasizing “marriage rates” then it’s only fair to consumers also to report the divorce rates for those matches. There’s probably a very good reason why this isn’t already done; the stats tell a different story than the “happily ever after” one being pushed in TV ads and the like.
Relationship success is defined definitely for everyone, so I don’t encourage sites to push marriage rates as the ultimate testament to a site’s value. I think longitudinal relationship satisfaction survey data would be more informative and accurate.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Markus,
My view is that “marriage” is a questionable metric for gauging matching success. I even wrote about this at OnlineDatingMagazine.com a while back:
http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2007editorials/05-onlinedatingsitemarriages.html
The point is… if companies are going to sell their dating sites by emphasizing “marriage rates” then it’s only fair to consumers also to report the divorce rates for those matches. There’s probably a very good reason why this isn’t already done; the stats tell a different story than the “happily ever after” one being pushed in TV ads and the like.
Relationship success is defined definitely for everyone, so I don’t encourage sites to push marriage rates as the ultimate testament to a site’s value. I think longitudinal relationship satisfaction survey data would be more informative and accurate.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
That would be meaningless to. People who have been divorced once are far more likly to be divorced again.
That would be meaningless to. People who have been divorced once are far more likly to be divorced again.
Hi Markus,
…Your point is well taken, and I should add that people who have been divorced more than once show even higher rates than one-time divorcees. Then too, one could turn around the argument and say that divorces happen due to “incompatibility” (many times related to sex and money), so any compatibility-oriented service should overcome the basic pitfalls that cause divorces in the first place, and consequently divorces should decrease (regardless of an online dater’s previous marital status). Further, many online daters are not divorcees, so the prior divorce confound only applies to a segment of the consumer base.
In any event, my point still stands – so-called “success rates” are only put into proper perspective when a ratio is given to “failure rates”; otherwise there is no such thing as a success rate. “Success rate” assumes something is compared to a benchmark, etc.
And to push things a little further, my research with online daters suggests that consumers would find sites more credible if a legitimate success rate was given. After all, no service/process/matchmaker is 100% successful, so showing both sides of the story may well be a wise marketing move.
This is consistent with research findings on reference letters in HR contexts. In particular, rather than reflect poorly on a job candidate, obtaining balanced references from other sources can actually help candidates. For example, researchers at Cleveland State University made a startling discovery about perceived credibility during the recruiting process. The researchers created two fictitious job candidates, Dave and John, with two identical resumes and two nearly identical letters of reference. The only difference: John’s reference letter included the sentence: “Sometimes, John can be difficult to get along with.” They sent the letters and resumes out to two different groups of personnel directors. Guess which candidate personnel directors most wanted to interview? It was “difficult-to-get-along-with” John. The researchers concluded that the open and voluntary criticism of John made the praise in the reference letter more believable. As a result, the personnel directors perceived John to be a much stronger candidate. In other words, revealing a less-flattering side to John actually helped sell John.
I submit that a similar approach is long overdue in online dating.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Hi Markus,
…Your point is well taken, and I should add that people who have been divorced more than once show even higher rates than one-time divorcees. Then too, one could turn around the argument and say that divorces happen due to “incompatibility” (many times related to sex and money), so any compatibility-oriented service should overcome the basic pitfalls that cause divorces in the first place, and consequently divorces should decrease (regardless of an online dater’s previous marital status). Further, many online daters are not divorcees, so the prior divorce confound only applies to a segment of the consumer base.
In any event, my point still stands – so-called “success rates” are only put into proper perspective when a ratio is given to “failure rates”; otherwise there is no such thing as a success rate. “Success rate” assumes something is compared to a benchmark, etc.
And to push things a little further, my research with online daters suggests that consumers would find sites more credible if a legitimate success rate was given. After all, no service/process/matchmaker is 100% successful, so showing both sides of the story may well be a wise marketing move.
This is consistent with research findings on reference letters in HR contexts. In particular, rather than reflect poorly on a job candidate, obtaining balanced references from other sources can actually help candidates. For example, researchers at Cleveland State University made a startling discovery about perceived credibility during the recruiting process. The researchers created two fictitious job candidates, Dave and John, with two identical resumes and two nearly identical letters of reference. The only difference: John’s reference letter included the sentence: “Sometimes, John can be difficult to get along with.” They sent the letters and resumes out to two different groups of personnel directors. Guess which candidate personnel directors most wanted to interview? It was “difficult-to-get-along-with” John. The researchers concluded that the open and voluntary criticism of John made the praise in the reference letter more believable. As a result, the personnel directors perceived John to be a much stronger candidate. In other words, revealing a less-flattering side to John actually helped sell John.
I submit that a similar approach is long overdue in online dating.
Thanks,
James Houran, Ph.D.
OnlineDatingMagazine.com
Dear Markus, have you considered that a certain number of those who do not divorce, are simply people willing to accept considerably less out of their relationships? If a person being abused within a marriage, “decides” to stay, is that a success? Perhaps those who resort to online dating sites are “at the end of their rope”, and willing to endure dissatisfaction in exchange for “security”. We know that divorce rates today are great than the 1950’s, but we KNOW this doesn’t mean quality and loving partnerships.
Dear Markus, have you considered that a certain number of those who do not divorce, are simply people willing to accept considerably less out of their relationships? If a person being abused within a marriage, “decides” to stay, is that a success? Perhaps those who resort to online dating sites are “at the end of their rope”, and willing to endure dissatisfaction in exchange for “security”. We know that divorce rates today are great than the 1950’s, but we KNOW this doesn’t mean quality and loving partnerships.