FAST COMPANY – Dec 21 - Earlier this month, Barry Diller announced that he would be stepping down from the CEO position at IAC. Taking his place is Greg Blatt, who helmed Match.com for the last two years. Blatt succeeded in growing Match.com. Its Q3 revenue is up 25% YOY, and Match subscriptions are up 30%. Q: How did you manage to grow Match.com, particularly in a climate as miserable as this one?
A: We’ve been really improving the product. We’ve invested tons in growth. We spend money on marketing to make sure people are coming in, and we spend an incredible amount on product development.
A: We’ve been really improving the product. We’ve invested tons in growth. We spend money on marketing to make sure people are coming in, and we spend an incredible amount on product development.
Q: You’re a former mergers and acquisitions lawyer. At Match, you added 28 brands. What’s the secret to identifying a good acquisition?
A: I’m a big fan of acquisitions in areas where you already have a competence. You need to make sure those companies have a market.
A: I’m a big fan of acquisitions in areas where you already have a competence. You need to make sure those companies have a market.
Q: What would you tell students who were trying to decide what industry to go into? What would you tell them about online dating?
A: First, it is a dramatically underpenetrated area. Second, you really change people’s lives with Match.com and other services. The success stories and feedback we get from our customers when they meet somebody special is a benefit that doesn’t exist in 98% of the other opportunities out there. And finally, technology is fundamentally changing this whole experience.
A: First, it is a dramatically underpenetrated area. Second, you really change people’s lives with Match.com and other services. The success stories and feedback we get from our customers when they meet somebody special is a benefit that doesn’t exist in 98% of the other opportunities out there. And finally, technology is fundamentally changing this whole experience.
Q: You worked under both Martha Stewart and Barry Diller. What did you learn about leadership from them?
A: I learned that passion and conviction are two of the most important tools of success, and yet they both need to be tempered by listening.
A: I learned that passion and conviction are two of the most important tools of success, and yet they both need to be tempered by listening.
Q: You’re single. Do you use Match?
A: I have used Match. It was hard to do while I was the CEO of Match because it led to a very bizarre interchange, once on the date. They’d ask, “What do you do?” And I’d say, “I’m the CEO of Match.”
FULL ARTICLE @ FAST COMPANY
People Media was one of the best target acquisitions for Match.com. An instant punch into the world of niche dating. The acquisition of Singlesnet was a fire sale for Match, and not a strategic acquisition for them. They effectively took out a rogue dating site. They have a competitor to eHarmony in Chemistry. Who could they acquire next? Meetic, for Europe?
Mark Brooks
OnlinePersonalsWatch
usa 212-444-1636 / uk 020-8133-1835
People Media was one of the best target acquisitions for Match.com. An instant punch into the world of niche dating. The acquisition of Singlesnet was a fire sale for Match, and not a strategic acquisition for them. They effectively took out a rogue dating site. They have a competitor to eHarmony in Chemistry. Who could they acquire next? Meetic, for Europe?
Mark Brooks
OnlinePersonalsWatch
usa 212-444-1636 / uk 020-8133-1835
So the CEO of Match admits that he doesn’t even *use* his own service. ’nuff said.
So the CEO of Match admits that he doesn’t even *use* his own service. ’nuff said.
That’s not what he said.He said he did use it and I think that is ridiculous and unfair in and of itself.Most women ask a guy “what he does” within the first 2 emails so they can get a read on his income and “status/value”.If he’s to be honest with them and says he’s the CEO of Match I’m sure most women wouldn’t believe him anyway.Now add to the fact that AS the CEO of Match I’m sure he had access to everyone’s mailbox etc….so he could see and read everything they’ve said/sent and who they said it to as well as every email they get.Kind of unfair to both men and women on the site.A conflict of interest,no?He couldn’t succeed with all that “ammunition”?….lol
That’s not what he said.He said he did use it and I think that is ridiculous and unfair in and of itself.Most women ask a guy “what he does” within the first 2 emails so they can get a read on his income and “status/value”.If he’s to be honest with them and says he’s the CEO of Match I’m sure most women wouldn’t believe him anyway.Now add to the fact that AS the CEO of Match I’m sure he had access to everyone’s mailbox etc….so he could see and read everything they’ve said/sent and who they said it to as well as every email they get.Kind of unfair to both men and women on the site.A conflict of interest,no?He couldn’t succeed with all that “ammunition”?….lol
He could easily have told these women, “I’m a manager at match.com” – or “I’m the CEO of a website”. Let her find out the pleasant financial surprise _after_ the first date!
He doesn’t need access to the communication of other members (which he should not be allowed to use, legally).
I figure the real reason he quit is that he discovered the _real_ ratio of active females / active males….
He could easily have told these women, “I’m a manager at match.com” – or “I’m the CEO of a website”. Let her find out the pleasant financial surprise _after_ the first date!
He doesn’t need access to the communication of other members (which he should not be allowed to use, legally).
I figure the real reason he quit is that he discovered the _real_ ratio of active females / active males….
He was honest. He should be honest. Anything less would have been completely unacceptable, as the CEO of Match.com.
All CEOs of dating sites should use their own sites as users.
He was honest. He should be honest. Anything less would have been completely unacceptable, as the CEO of Match.com.
All CEOs of dating sites should use their own sites as users.
Ahhh yes the “real ratio” of “active subscribing” females….lol You would think that as the CEO he has that information everyday right in front of him(I know I would) as well as knowing who’s a subscriber BEFORE he even emails them.Then he could be figuring out ways to turn every women into a subscriber.Even if it’s something as simple as giving the cutest ones free months or lower rates just like what goes on in the bar scene.Who knows what goes on behind the scenes with the back office of ANY of these sites and how can anyone prove what’s done illegally or legally.
And yes,hecould of told these women a myriad of answers to the question “What do you do?” but his answer in the interview was “They’d ask, “What do you do?” And I’d say, “I’m the CEO of Match.”” The funny thing is you’d hate to think the real CEO of Match would be stupid enough to say that….lol unless he’s pulling our leg?
Ahhh yes the “real ratio” of “active subscribing” females….lol You would think that as the CEO he has that information everyday right in front of him(I know I would) as well as knowing who’s a subscriber BEFORE he even emails them.Then he could be figuring out ways to turn every women into a subscriber.Even if it’s something as simple as giving the cutest ones free months or lower rates just like what goes on in the bar scene.Who knows what goes on behind the scenes with the back office of ANY of these sites and how can anyone prove what’s done illegally or legally.
And yes,hecould of told these women a myriad of answers to the question “What do you do?” but his answer in the interview was “They’d ask, “What do you do?” And I’d say, “I’m the CEO of Match.”” The funny thing is you’d hate to think the real CEO of Match would be stupid enough to say that….lol unless he’s pulling our leg?
How can you tell if he was honest?
If he had said – “I never used the site” it would have shown lack of faith in his service.
If he had said – “I use the site”, people would have asked him to back it up by showing his profile.
So wat he said boiled down to: “I used it, but quit due to my unique circumstances – it is great for everybody EXCEPT me”.
Sounds like he was well prepared for the interview by his PR department!
How can you tell if he was honest?
If he had said – “I never used the site” it would have shown lack of faith in his service.
If he had said – “I use the site”, people would have asked him to back it up by showing his profile.
So wat he said boiled down to: “I used it, but quit due to my unique circumstances – it is great for everybody EXCEPT me”.
Sounds like he was well prepared for the interview by his PR department!
For pity’s sake, give the guy a break!
I disagree that “CEOs of dating sites should use their own sites as users” – when I was single, I didn’t (beyond an admin account) for reasons of professional etiquette.
That’s the Solomonic answer any CEO can give:-)
For pity’s sake, give the guy a break!
I disagree that “CEOs of dating sites should use their own sites as users” – when I was single, I didn’t (beyond an admin account) for reasons of professional etiquette.
That’s the Solomonic answer any CEO can give:-)
Yes, I hear that. But still, I think your perspective changes when you use your own site. From an integrity point of view, you could say its not right to use your own site. But from a competitive point of view, its important the CEO knows how his/her own site works, and spends some time in the shoes of users.
I found it refreshing that Greg admitted using the site. Good for him.
PR should never gloss over the truth. The truth is the truth. PR’s job is to help make sure the CEO is not misunderstood and guide him to a better turn of phrase in some circumstances.
Yes, I hear that. But still, I think your perspective changes when you use your own site. From an integrity point of view, you could say its not right to use your own site. But from a competitive point of view, its important the CEO knows how his/her own site works, and spends some time in the shoes of users.
I found it refreshing that Greg admitted using the site. Good for him.
PR should never gloss over the truth. The truth is the truth. PR’s job is to help make sure the CEO is not misunderstood and guide him to a better turn of phrase in some circumstances.
First of all, Merry Christmas!
Mark, by your reasoning, a married CEO can’t know how his own site works, as he isn’t spending “time in the shoes of users.”
Just because you are married and/or don’t use your own site doesn’t mean you don’t understand singles. You’re married. Yet, you know the dating market, still, right?
First of all, Merry Christmas!
Mark, by your reasoning, a married CEO can’t know how his own site works, as he isn’t spending “time in the shoes of users.”
Just because you are married and/or don’t use your own site doesn’t mean you don’t understand singles. You’re married. Yet, you know the dating market, still, right?
I understand what Mark is saying ie: by actually using the site as any guy would Greg could and probably did see the exact user experience as I or any guy would see it(as long as he’s not “cheating” by using the back office “admin” golden key.Hopefully he would see the good,the bad,the ridiculous and then offer suggestions to make the site better.
It’s got nothing to do with understanding singles and a lot to do with exactly understanding the intricate workings of the site you’re the CEO of.The question is,does a CEO really have to do that or can underlings do that and report to him etc ??? The flipside to that is as a single guy what if he does see a woman on his site that interests him,what’s he supposed to do? Should he be on another site??Of course not,he’s the CEO of the best site in the world for better or worse…lol I think Mark changed my mind on this one or least made me think.
I understand what Mark is saying ie: by actually using the site as any guy would Greg could and probably did see the exact user experience as I or any guy would see it(as long as he’s not “cheating” by using the back office “admin” golden key.Hopefully he would see the good,the bad,the ridiculous and then offer suggestions to make the site better.
It’s got nothing to do with understanding singles and a lot to do with exactly understanding the intricate workings of the site you’re the CEO of.The question is,does a CEO really have to do that or can underlings do that and report to him etc ??? The flipside to that is as a single guy what if he does see a woman on his site that interests him,what’s he supposed to do? Should he be on another site??Of course not,he’s the CEO of the best site in the world for better or worse…lol I think Mark changed my mind on this one or least made me think.
Actually, most people that I know who are in long-term relationships, don’t know the dating market at all….
Actually, most people that I know who are in long-term relationships, don’t know the dating market at all….
Peter, we’re not talking about most people here; we are talking about CEO’s of dating sites. You would hope they would know their market extremely well, otherwise, I doubt their businesses would last long 🙂
Peter, we’re not talking about most people here; we are talking about CEO’s of dating sites. You would hope they would know their market extremely well, otherwise, I doubt their businesses would last long 🙂
Actually, the best way for a dating site to go out of business is: to work as well as advertised!
Suppose a dating site could match you to your ideal lover in just a few months.
That dating site would loose members quicker than you can say “file for bankrupcy”….
So call me cynical, but I do indeed believe that the CEO’s of the major dating sites know their market extremely well… the market of false hope.
Actually, the best way for a dating site to go out of business is: to work as well as advertised!
Suppose a dating site could match you to your ideal lover in just a few months.
That dating site would loose members quicker than you can say “file for bankrupcy”….
So call me cynical, but I do indeed believe that the CEO’s of the major dating sites know their market extremely well… the market of false hope.
I’m not sure whether it’s ethical for site operators to use their own dating services.
I do believe that using the site was (and apparently still is) considered an employee benefit at match.com. So match.com does not seem to consider this unethical.
Fact remains that the CEO of match.com admits to not using his own service. And offers a reason that doesn’t make sense, at least to me.
I’m not sure whether it’s ethical for site operators to use their own dating services.
I do believe that using the site was (and apparently still is) considered an employee benefit at match.com. So match.com does not seem to consider this unethical.
Fact remains that the CEO of match.com admits to not using his own service. And offers a reason that doesn’t make sense, at least to me.
Drat, you found us all out – we have the secret to successfully match people in under 3 months, but that would be bad for business, so we don’t do it;-)
It has nothing to do with singles’ own decision-making about who they want, right?
Methinks Peter has drunk too many sour grapes and this has nothing to do with dating CEO’s or matching algorithms of dating sites.
Drat, you found us all out – we have the secret to successfully match people in under 3 months, but that would be bad for business, so we don’t do it;-)
It has nothing to do with singles’ own decision-making about who they want, right?
Methinks Peter has drunk too many sour grapes and this has nothing to do with dating CEO’s or matching algorithms of dating sites.
I notice you use an ad-hominem, but are unable to deny my point.
I notice you use an ad-hominem, but are unable to deny my point.
The bitterness?
The bitterness?
Drats, Sam, YOU figured US all out! Those people complaining about dating sites are all simply bitter misogynists! 🙂
I found online dating a very frustrating experience. There’s the dead profiles. There’s people who can’t reply because they aren’t paying members.
On top of that, you have to somehow make your carefully crafted, personal message stand out in the deluge of messages that women receive.
This would be a point in favor of Mr. Blatt using his own site. He would personally experience how frustrating it can be; I somehow doubt his marketing people will tell him that!
Sadly, even if they did, the _financially_ correct answer would still be – “Who cares? As long as they keep subscribing!”
Drats, Sam, YOU figured US all out! Those people complaining about dating sites are all simply bitter misogynists! 🙂
I found online dating a very frustrating experience. There’s the dead profiles. There’s people who can’t reply because they aren’t paying members.
On top of that, you have to somehow make your carefully crafted, personal message stand out in the deluge of messages that women receive.
This would be a point in favor of Mr. Blatt using his own site. He would personally experience how frustrating it can be; I somehow doubt his marketing people will tell him that!
Sadly, even if they did, the _financially_ correct answer would still be – “Who cares? As long as they keep subscribing!”
Peter, if “we” figured you out, would you subscribe, or just use the introductory free trial and find some other excuse to not pay the 30 cents/day (based on our one-year membership) to potentially find your soul mate (but continue to spend $2.50 on a daily latte)? You get an awful lot for your 30 cents/day, when you put it that way.
In all seriousness, we on this side of the fence find it just as frustrating. No matter what we do to make the experience better, a lot of people simply can’t get it “together” enough to form a healthy relationship. We can advise and suggest and prod, but we cannot force you to become healthy emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually – and capable of having a relationship (I’m not implying that you, Peter, aren’t healthy; I’m speaking generically).
Also, consumer buying behaviour is an inexact science at best and people simply do not act “logically” (as economic theory would indicate) a lot of the time – *especially* when it comes to romance.
And, let’s face it, people don’t put down their hard-earned money consistently if they aren’t getting some form of satisfaction (which doesn’t necessarily translate into a soul mate for some, btw; something to keep in mind). So, ‘the _financially_ correct answer”‘ *isn’t* ‘Who cares? As long as they keep subscribing!”‘. It is in our financial interests to deliver a satisfying experience for you *at least to justify the fee you are paying*. That’s because consumers *won’t pay* if their needs aren’t being met; it’s as simple as that.
In closing, something else to keep in mind: you can only get so much for that 30 cents/day. We aren’t in the counselling business. We are in the online dating business. There’s a (huge) difference.
Peter, if “we” figured you out, would you subscribe, or just use the introductory free trial and find some other excuse to not pay the 30 cents/day (based on our one-year membership) to potentially find your soul mate (but continue to spend $2.50 on a daily latte)? You get an awful lot for your 30 cents/day, when you put it that way.
In all seriousness, we on this side of the fence find it just as frustrating. No matter what we do to make the experience better, a lot of people simply can’t get it “together” enough to form a healthy relationship. We can advise and suggest and prod, but we cannot force you to become healthy emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually – and capable of having a relationship (I’m not implying that you, Peter, aren’t healthy; I’m speaking generically).
Also, consumer buying behaviour is an inexact science at best and people simply do not act “logically” (as economic theory would indicate) a lot of the time – *especially* when it comes to romance.
And, let’s face it, people don’t put down their hard-earned money consistently if they aren’t getting some form of satisfaction (which doesn’t necessarily translate into a soul mate for some, btw; something to keep in mind). So, ‘the _financially_ correct answer”‘ *isn’t* ‘Who cares? As long as they keep subscribing!”‘. It is in our financial interests to deliver a satisfying experience for you *at least to justify the fee you are paying*. That’s because consumers *won’t pay* if their needs aren’t being met; it’s as simple as that.
In closing, something else to keep in mind: you can only get so much for that 30 cents/day. We aren’t in the counselling business. We are in the online dating business. There’s a (huge) difference.
The price tag itself was not the problem… or I would never have been on match.com in the first place.
But it’s true that many people would probably try to dodge paying if they could.
I agree with your point about user satisfaction – the reason I quit match, and online dating in general, is that the user experience was bad.
Off-topic: happy new year, everybody!
The price tag itself was not the problem… or I would never have been on match.com in the first place.
But it’s true that many people would probably try to dodge paying if they could.
I agree with your point about user satisfaction – the reason I quit match, and online dating in general, is that the user experience was bad.
Off-topic: happy new year, everybody!