|
 Undercover Review |
Hi Rob,
I must admit, I've never seen a more informative site on the
new-millennium dating scene. (And, as is my nature, I have do have
comments and suggestions, but since it's not the subject du jour, I'll
save 'em for later!)
Let me first start by saying that I've been a subscriber to match.com for
just over two months -- this time around. I've had a few brief forays into
the digital dating scene, the first as a co-creator/guinea pig for love@aol
(now, of course., Match.com). Way back when, it was such a novelty, and my
cohorts at AOL thought me mad to do it, I got to "test the waters" as it
were, and although I didn't meet my match, I made some great friends that
last to this day. In the past few years I've come back to what is now
match.com, and participated in beta versions of e.g. love.com (AOL's new
service), so although I don't consider myself an expert online datester,
I'm hardly a neophyte.
Now, some interesting things have happened, not just with competition
becoming fierce, but with the genre of people who use these services, and
in particular, match.com. In just over a year, when I last joined, albeit
for a brief time, I've seen it turn from vestiges of the digital age (and
the usual amount of fruits and nuts), to a veritable mainstream of middle
to upper-middle class folks from all walks of life. I noticed that the
demographics have changed considerably; this isn't for the "kids" anymore!
I've perused some of the sites meant specifically for the twentysomething
crowd, the "friend" sites, and a few competitive services to match.com,
but to date, no other service can touch them for their sheer number of
subscribers. Without having conducted full-on research, I think it's safe
to say that the demos are skewing somewhere in the mid-thirties, but I'd
love to see the bell-curve (I may have to do this yet) where an age-range
drops considerably on the higher end of the scale.
I'm aware that I've not written anything that would have psychologists
rushing off to... whereever they rush to, but I do have a point in stating
the obvious. First, although the demos are growing chronologically, the
match.com approach can only be described as being obtuse to the needs of
people who care a heck of a lot less about a person's hair or eye color,
their "perfect date" (from a pull-down menu, no less), and too many other
things that speak to a veneer or are just plain silly.
In short, they take the categorical approach, and I am not the only one to
see this as an immense obstacle to actually getting a take on the person
behind the persona. Seemingly, to balance the questions most of us don't
bother with in more than a facile manner, they allow two 2000 character
blocks which, by my estimation, scare most people silly, save for a few
who earn their wage by the written word (a category in which I fit, ergo
why my innumerable profile revisions have undoubtedly put a few match.com
editor/censors into overtime. But writers, and other ego-maniacs aren't
the norm (thank God), which leave the majority of men and women in a true
quandary when faced with those large blank white spaces. Spend an hour or
so reading though them, and it's obvious.
So, on the one hand, we are given nothing but a few (insipid) radio
buttons or pull downs to categorize what most of us would like to think,
can't be categorized so, well... superficially. On the other hand, as if
the match.com content staff ran out of ideas to help us best describe
ourselves, our desires, our hopes, and what we seriously hope to gain from
using their service. Granted, they did give us a few more "write-in"
sections for our personal "Hot Spots", etc, still the approach is beyond
superficial, it's undignified. This may well suit their marketing
department , given all the add-on services, but it doesn't serve as any
more insightful than a contrived conversation with a stranger in a
meet-market. And I think I speak for the over-thirty -- and up --
subscribers when I say that we came (in droves!) to Match.com to get away
from that sort of thing.
To sum up part one of my criticisms of Match.com, the categorical approach
just isn't doing it for most of us (and I've spoken to quite a few), the
personality test (let's be honest, the abridged MG/Kiersy), and the new
tests that are so banal as to not even be worth the mention, only serve to
make us all throw up our hands (if not our lunch), feeling even less of
*anyone's* catch than before we started. Of course, there are exceptions
-- I met my former husband in a bar, too. So much for success stories.
My final (major) critique is the lack of any interactive online forum
(bulletin boards or even moderated chatrooms). Having had some background
in digital media, I can only assume that the match.com brass would
consider such a concept as *community* as a detriment to their bottom
line. I have a news-flash for them: The competition grows, not just in
numbers, but with a good deal of savvy (and heavy start-up capital for
what has proven to be the highest growth mainstream form of
"entertainment" in digital format). Match.com may be at the head of the
pack today, but for how long when they intentionally keep their members
from anything more than the tedious one-on-one correspondences (we didn't
sign up to be Pen Pals, after all), and for those who can't abide more
than one or two written exchanges, the nervous parties are then only armed
with facile overviews of each other when they take the "next step", be it
a phone conversation or the big "meet". And I speak of two people who
might very well, if given the chance with some much needed assistance by
Match.com, have a deeper understanding of the other, and to this end, a
better chance at a "match". (I use the term loosely, as all relationships
are matches in their way.)
A relationship is a process, not an end-goal, but this is just how
Match.com prefers to treat it. I hope they take a closer look at their
subscriber base (and their bottom line) and understand that people can't
be categorized by their veneer, nor can they be cut-off from each other
without a community of open communication.
To end on a personal note, as much as I try to paint a portrait of who I
am within the Match.com framework, invariably, I've only managed a
silhouette -- or worse -- a caricature, which I find, particularly given
the bit of wisdom attributed to my age-group, undignified and at worst,
demeaning. I just believe that people of all age groups deserve a bit more
for their $20/month.
Thanks for listening to this Match.com subscriber's frustrating POV. (One
of a growing number who share it, though.) Still, as frustrated as I am
with the service at present, I'd like nothing better than to go "under
cover" and find out what's in store. Hey, I might be pleasantly surprised!
Certainly my critique couldn't be any more negative than this! :)
Regards,
KE
|
500+ Dating Service Reviews 
