Barriers to Entry

Back in the day the dude in charge of writing posts on the OKCupid (OKC) blog, known as OKTrends, wrote a brilliant takedown of the pay dating website model.  The argument basically amounted to the simple fact that your basic pay for play site games their statistics.  They claim membership rolls for people who never actually sent in credit card numbers or have stopped paying and, as such, could not communicate with anyone.  The upshot is those 15 million single people Match claims on its rolls aren’t going to be able to talk to you, assuming they’re even willing.  The takeaway, then, was to use the free sites, as you’re going to get your money’s worth that way.

The article was brilliant and insightful.  It’s also gone now, as it mysteriously disappeared a few months ago when Match bought out OKC.[1]  That seemed like the sort of thing that indicated Match’s embarrassed admission that OKC was right about that particular issue and Match was simply wasting everyone’s money.

It’s really too bad that the blog post was wrong.[2]

It completely and totally focused on perceived value as a cost/benefit analysis.  If I recall, it used a lot of statistics that went well beyond the simple idea that only, say, 10% of the advertised site population actually exist.  I think it even went in to response rate to indicate that you didn’t stand a significantly worse chance of getting a response to an email on OKC than Match.  The OKC sabermetricians are huge on that sort of number crunching statistical analysis.

Such numbers, however, are basically leading indicators and aren’t actually particular useful for understanding anything beyond a rather basic and uninteresting question.  The cost/benefit analysis completely ignores one of the biggest questions of actual value: barriers to entry.  Those barriers are a value in and of themselves.

In my last post on this subject I made a reference to Plenty of Fish (PoF) as a “ghetto.”  To extend that metaphor, Match operates as more of a gated community.  OKC operates, then, as a middle-class neighborhood.[3]  The difference between them can basically be explained by the barriers to entry.

I’ve had three different tours of duty on PoF.  My most recent started a few days ago when I slapped a new profile up for the purposes of research and to see if I could figure out how to explain my distaste for the site.

The most notable issue is that it’s an ugly site.  Shit is just scattered haphazardly up on the page, the navigation sucks, and it’s overloaded with random widgets and tools that don’t actually help anything.  Also, most of the pictures are at least a little distorted, which indicates that the picture uploader sucks ass.

This is the sort of thing I could live with.  I mean, it’s annoying, but if the value of the site is greater than the problems associated with it, then the site is good.  But in the case of online dating the value comes from the clientele.  And that’s where PoF’s problem shines through.

There are no barriers to entry to speak of.  Slap up your profile, answer a few basic questions, add a picture or eight, slap up a minimum-100-character self-summary, and go to town.  This means you get a shitload of profiles with, “lol I dunno just ask me omg is this stupid thing up to 100 characters yet lol.”  And, holy fuck, do I wish I was joking about that.

Odds are good, too, that this expression of brilliant human ingenuity will then be accompanied by a half-dozen Myspace and bathroom mirror pictures.  If it’s a guy’s profile, said pictures will probably be shirtless, too.  Or, at least, that’s what I’ve gathered.  A disturbingly large number of women’s profiles also include something like, “I have a JOB.  And a CAR.  If you don’t have those things, don’t even try talking to me.”  So, y’know, wow.

This isn’t to say that there’s absolutely no one of value on PoF.  I’ve run across a few profiles by women who seem intelligent and possessing of at least a modicum of class.  But the amount of shit that’s necessary to throw out of the way to reach that potential diamond is almost completely overwhelming.  It goes double when you’re also receiving emails that say, “hi how are today”[5] from that person who couldn’t be arsed to tell a potential romantic partner anything about herself.  It’s enough to cause true despair for the future of humanity.

The barriers for entry on Match, meanwhile, are fairly obvious.  You can’t play if you’re not willing to pay.  Money has a wonderful ability to focus the mind toward an end, after all.  And there’s a definite point where saying, “Is this really worth $X to me?” brings your desire to engage in an activity in to focus.[6]  Now, I don’t know that the monthly/six month/yearly subscription thing is necessarily the best model,[7] but it is a useful thing to consider.

OKC, meanwhile, is just as free as PoF, but isn’t nearly as low-rent.  That’s because they operate on a different barrier to entry: effort.  You have to jump through a lot of hoops to set up an OKC account and it’s pretty goddamn obvious to anyone else if you haven’t.  There are nine different sections that you need to fill out and a whole shitload of match questions they want you to answer and tests that you can take.

I recently set up a new OKC account as an experiment (I literally wanted to see how the set up is now.  I took it down the next day after doing nothing but poke around for a bit).  Back when I set up my actual account it was more of a carrot approach.  There was a stupid little bar and a bunch of tasks and if you did whatever silly task they wanted you to do you’d get 5% more completion on the bar.  It was kinda fun and also kinda useless all at once.  When I set up the experimental profile I discovered that they basically lock some functionality unless you’ve jumped through their seemingly arbitrary hoops.  There’s enough going on to keep it interesting, but it gets better the more work you put in to it.

I’d be willing to bet that’s annoying to the uninitiated.  But, at least in my humble opinion, it’s a good way to create a barrier for entry that doesn’t involve money.  The people who actually have filled out profiles and have answered a bunch of questions seem to be actually invested.  And you know that if you message someone and they don’t respond, it’s because they don’t like you.

So that’s nice.

Of course, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t jackasses on OKC.  For that matter, Match isn’t terrible person free, either.[8]  But both are certainly better than PoF.  Not that it takes much.

Anyway, I feel like I’ve gotten the logistics of internet dating out of the way.  Now I can move on to the other bit of fun and games: how people interact.  After all, that’s kinda the reason for being for all of these things…

-------------------------

[1]Sadly, I the Wayback Machine also seems to have missed the post.  It originally showed up on April 7th, 2010, but was not the front page article by the next date the WBM has for OKTrends.

[2]And I say this as someone who completely and totally agreed with it at the time.

[3]eHarmony is a walled compound.  And Fling and Adult Friend Finder are brothels.  That should pretty much exhaust the extended metaphor.  Oh, wait, ChristianMingle and its ilk are church picnics.  Desolate, somewhat depressing church picnics (I may have to slap up a post on that one, too.  Damn).

[4]There is, however, a pretty easy four-step process to using PoF to feel like a goddamn ladies’ man.  Step 1: be decent looking.  Step 2: set up a profile.  Step 3: indicate you have a job.  Step 4: post a picture taken by another human being in which you are wearing a shirt.  It’s pretty much that simple.  For reasons I don’t fully understand the women on PoF are far more aggressive than the ones on the other sites I’ve used.

[5]I discovered, quite by accident, that one of the things you can do on PoF is set a minimum length for messages.  The options are 50+, 100+, 200+, and 300+.  I chose 50+, figuring that it would only act as a deterrent to, y’know, people who can’t write more than three words.  A couple days later I got a message that said (and I paraphrase), “ha ha, this thing says I have to send you more than 50 characters.  I didn’t even know it did that.  Is this enough yet?”

I did not respond.  I don’t understand why so many people would put so much effort in to not actually saying anything.

I suppose that’s the female equivalent of the, “Hey, UR hot.  Wanna see my penis?”

[6]This is actually a fascinating conversation that storytellers have amongst themselves on a fairly regular basis.  It basically comes to a question of, “Do we tell for free, ask for donations after, or charge in advance?  And if we charge in advance do we ask for $5, $10, or even more?”

It’s an interesting question and the answer always boils down to, “People value things that they pay for more than they value things they don’t.”  Psychologically speaking, “I had to pay for this,” is another way of saying, “I am invested in this and, as such, I want to enjoy it.”

[7]In fact, I think this is the sort of thing that pay dating sites could potentially borrow from the smartphone markets: micropayments.  How many times have you looked at a 99 cent iPhone game and thought, “Sure, I’ll buy that?” then looked at a similarly interesting game prices at $2.99 and thought, “Nah, I’m good?”  I do it on a fairly regular basis and I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone.

Similarly, the idea of paying $40/month or $15/month for six months (paid up front) or whatever Match’s current structure is probably costs them in the long run.  That’s a pretty high hurdle for entry.  If you’re just poking around and happen to see someone interesting (which is almost a certainty, really), chances are you still won’t want to pay $40 just for the privilege of maybe getting to exchange a couple emails with them.

However, say that you have the option of sending an email for free and the other person has the option of responding once for free.  After that you can then have the option of paying a buck to continue the conversation.

This then allows a second tier of people who want to pay for unlimited membership.  If I then want to pay that standard monthly charge I can communicate with anyone I want and they can reply to me for free.

Chances are that the site will lose some income from people who no longer find it necessary to pay the hefty up-front fee.  But they’ll probably make it back and then some from people who are accustomed to making micropayments on iTunes and think nothing of seeing those 99 cent charges all over their statements.

Also, if you need me, I’ll be starting a dating site.  Check back in a few years when I’m filthy goddamn rich.

[8]For one thing, I’m on both.  And I’m a jackass half the time.  For the lulz.