Match.com Launching Communication for Non-Paying Members…what?
According to the Online Dating Insider, Match.com is rolling out some updates, one of which will include a “Platinum Package” that would allow non-paying members to communicate with you.
I’m torn about this one…
On the Plus Side…
If you have the money, you are now free to communicate with all the girls on match.com, even the non-paying ones. (And they can write back to you!)
If you’re too poor for a real subscription, you can at least mooch a little more effectively? (Gosh, that was painful to type.)
On the Down Side…
I can see the amount of non-paying members growing once this program is launched, which is going to cause more headaches for the paying, yet non-Platinum members.
Another possible problem? Gold diggers going after the platinum members because they assume these are guys with money.
My Suggestion
I can admit, while the new updates are frustrating from the standpoint of a paying member, business-wise it’s a pretty bright move. What’s the one thing guys wish they could do? Communicate with all the girls – even the non-paying ones. Will they pay to do it? Yep, some of them certainly will.
I’m with you here, guys. It’s frustrating to have a ton of people on the service who look like every other member, but are in essence unable to communicate with you. Match.com should not allow full profiles for non-paying members or establish some way of identifying their profiles.
Don’t hold your breath, though.
E. Foley is a geek girl extraordinaire. She writes great online dating profiles for geeks and non-geeks, helping clients all over the world find love. She is the National Online Dating Examiner, columnist at Dating Sites Reviews, and a ghostwriter for several other dating & relationships sites. She lives in Maryland with DaveTheGame and her two adorable cats, Mr. Peanut and Don Juan. (Email e, or follow @geeksdreamgirl on Twitter.)
Another classic bullsh*t move by Match.com. I can predict already how this one is going to go down…guys will pay the Premium rate and women won’t spend a dime for the service. Let me tell you why…for every 10 messages a guy sends he’ll get 1 response, and I would say for every 10 messages a woman receives she responds to 1. There is no economic incentive for women to pay for the service. This move is clearly going to screw over guys and subscriptions are going to drop like a rock for 2 reasons.
1. I guarantee that you’ll see an increase in fake girls spamming their porn site through Match.com because they have to pay nothing to advertise their “profiles”. When Match first started, this was a growing problem and I personally left because it was getting out of hand. I came back 2 years ago and was pleasantly surprised to see it was finally under control because everyone paid – no free profiles. You can forget that now.
2. With the increase in cost it provides an economic incentive for guys to start sending messages to any woman that breathes. I know if I was paying more I would be sending more messages and with more messages being sent there is less likely a response getting back. Frustration = Dropping Subscription.
Match.com has the technology to fix the 2 biggest problems with online dating, guys not getting responses and women getting too many. Both of these problems really cause most of the frustrations today and a “Premium” service is not going to help.
Here is what I propose:
1. You cannot send more than 3 initial messages in a 24 hour period. Further additional communication once the person has responded back interested is unlimited.
2. Upon receiving initial messages you must respond to them. You can do this through a simple “Yes, I’m interested” / “No, I’m not interested” option with the “Yes,I’m interested” with an additional message box for a response. Once the number of unresponded messages in your inbox reaches 5 your box is locked and you will not receive any new initial messages until they are responded to….and you can’t just delete them. People can still read your profile…they just won’t have the option of sending…and it will be very obvious. You are still allowed to communicate through already established lines.
3. “Pokes”…get rid of them. What are we in middle school? F’ing grow up and force people to send a real message.
Here is what I think has been going on in the online dating world and how the suggestions will fix it. It’s men doing most of the initial contacts leaving women overwhelmed with the number of responses. This creates a lurker mentality in women to sit back and wait for Prince Charming to show up. Meanwhile guys are trying to figure out why they aren’t getting any response back forcing them to increase the number of messages in the hopes of getting something.
The steps above should force people to stop lurking and start making some honest decisions about who they want to have a relationship with. It should also cut down on the number of initial messages women get and force guys to make some hard decisions on who they are really interested in if you only have 3 messages to use in a day…crap, maybe make it 2 messages a day.
….but ultimately this won’t happen…Match.com has an economic incentive for you to get below average dates. Just enough to keep you coming back but not finding that true love that will kill their revenue stream. Love can be found on Match.com … just don’t expect Match.com to be in your best interests as they look at their quarterly results and come up with new schemes to make $$.
@ Matt – But hey, at least it worked for us!
It did work for us…I just wish Match.com would seriously tackle these problems to make dating easier for their customers as opposed to finding better ways to extract cash from them.
I don’t think unlimited messaging should be possible (can only imagine the spam), but as you pointed out in a different article, there’s no point to even try the free account, as you can’t read or send messages on the site, if I remember correctly. And if you can’t communicate, then free accounts now are only eye candy or there for eye candy.
Great, I’ll be getting messages… from supposed Russian women writing in faux broken English trying to lure me to some scam site.
Oz´s last blog post..GCAG foiled, GenCon Ch 11 reorg plan approved
FriendFinder uses a similar thing doesn’t it? With three levels of membership?
I presume they must make a profit off that model, but then I suspect that some of that might be down to the chat functions, video chat and so on building more community spirit.
At least Match doesn’t charge you for viewing profiles :-/
Semi-related though: I wonder if the economy problems will have a positive or negative effect on online dating?
Hammer´s last blog post..R.I.P Patrick McGoohan (1928-2009)
Been a while since I commented! This is the poster previously known as Forte, unifying my usernames for simplicity.
Seems to me, as others have noticed, that this is going to result in any woman that understands how this thing works cancelling her pay subscription. What’s more intriguing is whether any women at all would pay for platinum. Let’s face it, the pay aspect filters out a bit of the noise women usually get from these sites, so what’s their motivation in opening that floodgate to all the free members? I don’t see it.
But Match.com is a business, so I guess we’ll find out how successful it is by how long it stays.
SuperSooga´s last blog post..Five Star Chef
@ SuperForte – Sheesh, y’all can’t just change names and expect me to notice!
I think the platinum move will cause a lot of women to join and not pay in hopes that a knight who can afford the shining armor comes to pick her up. What’s sad is that she could be just as happy (if not happier) with a regular knight, but she won’t be able to communicate with them.
Not to dissent because I entirely agree with all the comments concerning lurking and the limiting factors of match.com, but it seems like you’ve forgotten those women who pay just as much as the men… Your examples make perfectly logical sense, but they lean toward the stereotype… Either way, I agree that match.com has pulled a disagreeable tactic in making unlimited messaging a possibility. However, I do like what Matt suggested as a hypothetical solution… I’d have to see the demographics first.
@JR – We tend to focus on dating problems for geek guys here at Geek’s Dream Girl. That’s usually why articles are skewed toward assuming the reader is male.