Funny thing…… As an “Ancient One” (as anyone over 45 apparently is, nowadays) these scenes are exactly how I see most Internet Companies run: just all children enjoying their “lottery win”. The new, new thing on the Net, that grabbed the pre-teens attention, whatever it is, the modern equivalent of the Hula-hoop, or Pet Rock.
On the other hand, MOST big “real” companies today (businesses that actually make things like cars and computers), seem to be run by people with E.O.A. (Early Onset Alzheimer’s).
It took me quite while to realise that the ONLY thing I saw in POF’s success was the genius programming of a kid with natural talent for it AND then much later, the natural marketing chutzpah of a Steve Jobs.
Neither of which can be taught.
He must feel lonely…..
UNLES YOU CALL ME – I LEFT YOU MY PHONE NUMBER ON YOUR WEBSITE’S ? PAGE – I WILL BE CONTACTING THE NYS ATTORNEY GENERAL OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DID NOT SIGN UP FOR THIS AND IF I CONTINUE TO RECEIVE EMAILS I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO PRESS CHARGES!!!!!
Markus given that you supposedly have a mathematical background, you should know better than to quote statistics the way you do. What your 42% non-return rate means is that 42% of the people you identified leaving the site as couples, did not return to the site or you didn’t identify their return to the site. Whether they are still (or ever were) the couple you identified as leaving in a relationship, is anyone’s guess. However, that makes your focus on retention a little weird, since ideally, if you really could match people, your retention would be awful bcause lots of people would leave happy and in a relationship and never return. So, no, you can’t match people with an algorithm when your input to the algorithm is so poorly known and the results are so poorly known. That wouldn’r fly in a sloppy social sciences journal and trying to make that sort of claim in a real science journal would probably kill any reputation someone had for doing credible research.
I did get into a relationship that lasted several years from pof, but it wasn’t with anyone that was ever in my matches. In fact, had she not contacted me by searching through interests, I’d have never known she existed. When I returned to pof, the site had gone to hell.
I see nothing innovative about your filters. If anything filtering out people prevents dating. The reason I know this is because I’ve met and in many cases gone out with women on another site who were also on pof, but were outside of their age restrictions on pof. The other site in question allows one to specify a preference, but not exclude people from making contact. Given that men generally make first contact, the filtering did nothing but prevent me from contacting women who would date me (which is why I’m not on pof at all any more, but happily forked over the money for the upgrade on the other site).
All those filters do is encourage people to not talk to other people. People on pof are generally rude. On the other site, even those who are not interested, often reply and say so, nicely. However, my incox on that site is generally full, so it really doesn’t matter like it did on pof where getting replies is like pulling teeth. That brings up the restrictions on photos. Your bias against males with shirtless pics is ridiculous. I don’t care what the women, say, my reply rate on the other site using a shirtless photo is like 90%. If you want people to actually pay for upgrades, the first thing you have to do is stop handicapping their access to people and the means by which they attract others. How many members you have is irrelevant. What matters is how many I can contact and whether or not I can usewhat I have at my disposal to attract them. As it stands, pof doesn’t do this.
Then again, I don’t think that business goals necessarily coincide with member’s goals. If anything, you’re probably only baffled by low sales on upgraded accounts. It’s easy to give something away. It’s a little harder to figure out how to charge people for something that doesn’t give them any _noticeable_ advantage over not paying, especially when there is better “free” available these days.