ONLINE DATING SOUND BARRIER – Sep 13 – eHarmony has launched Jazzed, a free online dating site designed to compete with PlentyOfFish and OKCupid, and now PlentyOfFish is launching eVow, a Search Engine intended to be a paid online dating site. Free/freemium dating sites are good to send prospective customers to paid dating sites like Chemistry and eHarmony. When users get tired of free sites, they migrate to a paid one; or they use free sites for flirting and paid sites for serious relationships. PlentyOfFish is strong in Canada, US, Australia and the UK, the same markets where eHarmony is also strong. eHarmony has been showing ads on PlentyOfFish. The 2010 revenue of PlentyOfFish isUSD ~30 million, Match/Chemistry is over USD 340 million and eHarmony revenue is estimated at over USD 250 million. FULL ARTICLE @ ONLINE DATING SOUND BARRIER Mark Brooks: eHarmony has been advertising on POF for a while now. The question is, will they continue? These bedfellows probably just fell out of bed. (Full Disclosure: Plentyoffish is a prior client of Courtland Brooks).
See all posts on eHarmony See all posts on Jazzed
See all posts on Plentyoffish See all posts on eVow
Not necessarily directly related to the post, but how does Courland Brooks avoid conflict of interest claims since all of their clients are in the dating industry?
Not necessarily directly related to the post, but how does Courland Brooks avoid conflict of interest claims since all of their clients are in the dating industry?
We operate under full disclosure so:
1. The right bar of OPW lists companies we’re currently working with.
2. If I comment on a post, and I have ever worked for any of the companies mentioned, I mention in the form (full disclosure: xyz is a current/prior client of Courtland Brooks).
3. I’m somewhat out of the initial news selection loop these days. Petra, in Prague decides what to run. Irena, in Malta, then does the editing. I do final review to add comments, mainly.
At the end of the day, we’re biased. We work for a handful of idating related companies at any one time. We’re industry insiders. I don’t believe its possible to work for companies and remain entirely unbiased. We try not to be, but you can be sure we cover our clients more, because they are under our noses the most, and they know to send us links to their news. One must always view blogs or any media with a pinch of salt.
For example, GE once got NBC to run programs promoting the good side of nuclear power. GE owns NBC. They also run nuclear power plants. They got NBC the nickname Nuclear Broadcasting Corporation.
We’re at least sensitive of our biases, and well aware of them. The best thing any blog or media can point out is, hey, we work for these companies. Take this media as you will.
What greatly concerns me is when media DON’T point out their potential biases, and the companies they work for. Now THAT’s scary.
We operate under full disclosure so:
1. The right bar of OPW lists companies we’re currently working with.
2. If I comment on a post, and I have ever worked for any of the companies mentioned, I mention in the form (full disclosure: xyz is a current/prior client of Courtland Brooks).
3. I’m somewhat out of the initial news selection loop these days. Petra, in Prague decides what to run. Irena, in Malta, then does the editing. I do final review to add comments, mainly.
At the end of the day, we’re biased. We work for a handful of idating related companies at any one time. We’re industry insiders. I don’t believe its possible to work for companies and remain entirely unbiased. We try not to be, but you can be sure we cover our clients more, because they are under our noses the most, and they know to send us links to their news. One must always view blogs or any media with a pinch of salt.
For example, GE once got NBC to run programs promoting the good side of nuclear power. GE owns NBC. They also run nuclear power plants. They got NBC the nickname Nuclear Broadcasting Corporation.
We’re at least sensitive of our biases, and well aware of them. The best thing any blog or media can point out is, hey, we work for these companies. Take this media as you will.
What greatly concerns me is when media DON’T point out their potential biases, and the companies they work for. Now THAT’s scary.
How does Fernando know how much POF makes? He says, “The 2010 revenue of PlentyOfFish is USD ~30 million”
Did Markus tell him that? ‘Cause if he didn’t then that figure is totally made up. It seems to creep up every time Fernando makes a claim.
So, Fernando – wassup?
How does Fernando know how much POF makes? He says, “The 2010 revenue of PlentyOfFish is USD ~30 million”
Did Markus tell him that? ‘Cause if he didn’t then that figure is totally made up. It seems to creep up every time Fernando makes a claim.
So, Fernando – wassup?
PlentyOfFish has 2.5 billion pageviews per month. wrote:
2.5 billion == 2.5 * 10E9
at USD1.00 CPM the sum for all the ads showed in each pageview
USD 2.5 million per month
USD 30 million per year
—————
2 sources to estimate the revenue
1)
http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2010/02/at-okcupid-openness-is-the-key-to-success
“Markus February 18, 2010 at 3:29 am
…… Also whose is to say we aren’t already at 30M ? I’m not saying we are or aren’t but 30M in revenue is only a $1.00/CPM with our traffic.
…..”
2)
From: Markus Frind
Date: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: eHarmony needs to deliver the correct ads to its members
To: FERNANDO ARDENGHI
Cc: mfrind@plentyoffish.com
Plentyoffish has 2.5 billion pageviews, Eharmony has 500 million pageviews a month.
For eharmony to make 25M a year they would need to sell ads at $5/CPM to make 2 million a month.
Eharmony is lucky if its making $5 million a year off ads.
SenseArray explicity said they were part of eharmonys matching engine,
and are not doing ads for eharmony.
Markus.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM, FERNANDO ARDENGHI
> eHarmony has 2 main revenue lines:
> By subscriptions.
> By ads.
> The Worldwide 2009 annual revenue for eHarmony was estimated in USD 250
> millions.
> My personal estimation is: 90% by subscriptions and 10% by ads.
> eHarmony is intended for serious daters, so if any registered member does
> not pay, he/she cannot communicate with others, unless he/she uses the (low
> performance) Free Communication Weekends.
> I do not think eHarmony could *easily* increase its conversion rate to
> increase its revenue by subscriptions, it will be easier to improve its
> revenue by ads. eHarmony could be testing its own
> ads platform and contrasting that platform with other proposals, like the
> one offered by VisualDNA or the one offered by SenseArray.
………
………
> The 2010 annual revenue for PlentyOfFish is expected to be USD30 millions,
> more or less the same amount eHarmony could earn by ……… ads.
PlentyOfFish has 2.5 billion pageviews per month. wrote:
2.5 billion == 2.5 * 10E9
at USD1.00 CPM the sum for all the ads showed in each pageview
USD 2.5 million per month
USD 30 million per year
—————
2 sources to estimate the revenue
1)
http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2010/02/at-okcupid-openness-is-the-key-to-success
“Markus February 18, 2010 at 3:29 am
…… Also whose is to say we aren’t already at 30M ? I’m not saying we are or aren’t but 30M in revenue is only a $1.00/CPM with our traffic.
…..”
2)
From: Markus Frind
Date: Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: eHarmony needs to deliver the correct ads to its members
To: FERNANDO ARDENGHI
Cc: mfrind@plentyoffish.com
Plentyoffish has 2.5 billion pageviews, Eharmony has 500 million pageviews a month.
For eharmony to make 25M a year they would need to sell ads at $5/CPM to make 2 million a month.
Eharmony is lucky if its making $5 million a year off ads.
SenseArray explicity said they were part of eharmonys matching engine,
and are not doing ads for eharmony.
Markus.
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:26 PM, FERNANDO ARDENGHI
> eHarmony has 2 main revenue lines:
> By subscriptions.
> By ads.
> The Worldwide 2009 annual revenue for eHarmony was estimated in USD 250
> millions.
> My personal estimation is: 90% by subscriptions and 10% by ads.
> eHarmony is intended for serious daters, so if any registered member does
> not pay, he/she cannot communicate with others, unless he/she uses the (low
> performance) Free Communication Weekends.
> I do not think eHarmony could *easily* increase its conversion rate to
> increase its revenue by subscriptions, it will be easier to improve its
> revenue by ads. eHarmony could be testing its own
> ads platform and contrasting that platform with other proposals, like the
> one offered by VisualDNA or the one offered by SenseArray.
………
………
> The 2010 annual revenue for PlentyOfFish is expected to be USD30 millions,
> more or less the same amount eHarmony could earn by ……… ads.
Fernando, I can see your reasoning. Sounds like I stand corrected:-)
So, Markus, is he right?
Fernando, I can see your reasoning. Sounds like I stand corrected:-)
So, Markus, is he right?