9 ms·

The culture change has already started. Where did the fantastic "Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating" article from OkTrends go? A great exit, however.

The culture change has already started. Where did the fantastic "Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating" article from OkTrends go? A great exit, however. Congratulations to the team.

adamkittelson 16y ago
In their dating persona test (http://www.okcupid.com/the-dating-persona-test http://www.okcupid.com/the-dating-persona-test) there is the line "If you have any STDs please go HERE." wherein HERE was a link to match.com. It now goes to mingle2.com.
- callahad 16y ago
  That link actually rotates randomly between their major competitors. In a few reloads, I got Plenty of Fish, True, eHarmony, and Mingle2. It's likely that they've pulled Match from that rotation, though. To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing that line disappear altogether, as it always struck me as being in somewhat poor taste.
  - adamkittelson 16y ago
    Thanks, prior to today I had only been to that page once so I hadn't noticed the randomization.
  - kadavy 16y ago
    Upvote for "poor taste."
  - ItsBilly 16y ago
    OkCupid was always one big inside joke. That line is just part of it And it may rotate now, but it didn't used to, years ago. I distinctly remember it saying Match.com and nothing else.
callahad 16y ago
Holy cow, you're right. The original link now redirects to the front page of the blog: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-f... Here's a Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9OtAvuobLwgJ:www.okcupid.com/z/yf2 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9OtAvuo...
- Balsamic 16y ago
  I'd like to garner your opinions: what else could IAC have done in this situation? Or perhaps a better question is what you would have done in their shoes. One property is threatening the business model of another in a visible way (at least in search engine rankings). I propose that the readership of OkTrends is minimal compared to the wider online dating market, so was this the prudent course of action?
  - stevenbedrick 16y ago
    Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the post was pulled as a result of pressure from IAC, Match.com, etc. I don't know that this is the case, but it certainly seems plausible. So, what should IAC/Match.com/whoever have done in this situation? Leave it the heck alone! First of all, by owning two of the biggest players in online dating, customer acquisition is basically a zero-sum game as far as IAC is concerned- presumably, any customers lost to Match.com from OKCupid's blog post would end up going with OKCupid instead, and therefore either way IAC wins, so what does it matter? Of course, this assumes that an OKCupid customer is of equal value as a Match.com customer, which may or may not be true. Secondly, it's important for IAC/Match.com to keep in mind larger question of why they felt like it was worthwhile to own OKCupid in the first place. Presumably, they wanted to own it because it targeted a different customer population than their other properties; part of the reason that it does so is because of its quirky, "edgy", and open image. It's 2011; people notice when companies take down influential and well-known blog posts, and their opinions of these companies change accordingly. Ergo, by pulling these sorts of shenanigans, IAC or Match.com is potentially undermining the very thing that made OKCupid attractive to them. I suppose one could try and do some sort of calculation: X = # customers lost to Match.com as a result of OKCupid's "don't pay for online dating" post; Y = # customers alienated, amount of bad publicity, internal drama at OKCupid, bad karma, etc. resulting from taking down a well-known (and accurate) blog post Is X > Y? Mazel tov, take down the post. Is Y > X? Leave it alone; monkeying with it will do more harm than good. Note that this sort of calculation is essentially impossible to do in a principled way; as such, it seems to me that the sensible course would have been to just leave it alone and focus on making better products. But what do I know? I'm just a informatics nerd, not a business expert, so maybe there's more to the situation than I'm seeing.
zerd 16y ago
Wow, they actually removed it? That really sucks.
dkarl 16y ago
A brief guide to a customer acquisition, i.e., your business was bought for its customers. 1. Even though they didn't buy you for your technology or your human capital, they will tell you they did. 2. They'll tell you that they bought you because they never could have accomplished what you did, because of your talented personnel and unique culture, which they plan to carefully preserve and benefit from. 3. Then they will deprecate your technology, drive away your best people, and force you to work just like they do. 4. When the shit hits the fan, the product declines, and you can't even get small releases out the door, you'll think, "Aha, now at least we will get our 'told you so' moment, when they finally realize what they've done." But they knew all along what they were doing. They wanted your customers, they got them, and they don't feel any sense of loss at what they destroyed.

The culture change has already started. Where did the fantastic "Why You Should Never Pay For Online Dating" article from OkTrends go? A great exit, however. Congratulations to the team.

adamkittelson 16y ago

In their dating persona test (http://www.okcupid.com/the-dating-persona-test http://www.okcupid.com/the-dating-persona-test) there is the line "If you have any STDs please go HERE." wherein HERE was a link to match.com. It now goes to mingle2.com.

callahad 16y ago
That link actually rotates randomly between their major competitors. In a few reloads, I got Plenty of Fish, True, eHarmony, and Mingle2. It's likely that they've pulled Match from that rotation, though. To be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing that line disappear altogether, as it always struck me as being in somewhat poor taste.
- adamkittelson 16y ago
  Thanks, prior to today I had only been to that page once so I hadn't noticed the randomization.
- kadavy 16y ago
  Upvote for "poor taste."
- ItsBilly 16y ago
  OkCupid was always one big inside joke. That line is just part of it And it may rotate now, but it didn't used to, years ago. I distinctly remember it saying Match.com and nothing else.

callahad 16y ago

Holy cow, you're right. The original link now redirects to the front page of the blog: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-f... Here's a Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9OtAvuobLwgJ:www.okcupid.com/z/yf2 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9OtAvuo...

Balsamic 16y ago
I'd like to garner your opinions: what else could IAC have done in this situation? Or perhaps a better question is what you would have done in their shoes. One property is threatening the business model of another in a visible way (at least in search engine rankings). I propose that the readership of OkTrends is minimal compared to the wider online dating market, so was this the prudent course of action?
- stevenbedrick 16y ago
  Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that the post was pulled as a result of pressure from IAC, Match.com, etc. I don't know that this is the case, but it certainly seems plausible. So, what should IAC/Match.com/whoever have done in this situation? Leave it the heck alone! First of all, by owning two of the biggest players in online dating, customer acquisition is basically a zero-sum game as far as IAC is concerned- presumably, any customers lost to Match.com from OKCupid's blog post would end up going with OKCupid instead, and therefore either way IAC wins, so what does it matter? Of course, this assumes that an OKCupid customer is of equal value as a Match.com customer, which may or may not be true. Secondly, it's important for IAC/Match.com to keep in mind larger question of why they felt like it was worthwhile to own OKCupid in the first place. Presumably, they wanted to own it because it targeted a different customer population than their other properties; part of the reason that it does so is because of its quirky, "edgy", and open image. It's 2011; people notice when companies take down influential and well-known blog posts, and their opinions of these companies change accordingly. Ergo, by pulling these sorts of shenanigans, IAC or Match.com is potentially undermining the very thing that made OKCupid attractive to them. I suppose one could try and do some sort of calculation: X = # customers lost to Match.com as a result of OKCupid's "don't pay for online dating" post; Y = # customers alienated, amount of bad publicity, internal drama at OKCupid, bad karma, etc. resulting from taking down a well-known (and accurate) blog post Is X > Y? Mazel tov, take down the post. Is Y > X? Leave it alone; monkeying with it will do more harm than good. Note that this sort of calculation is essentially impossible to do in a principled way; as such, it seems to me that the sensible course would have been to just leave it alone and focus on making better products. But what do I know? I'm just a informatics nerd, not a business expert, so maybe there's more to the situation than I'm seeing.

zerd 16y ago

Wow, they actually removed it? That really sucks.

dkarl 16y ago

A brief guide to a customer acquisition, i.e., your business was bought for its customers. 1. Even though they didn't buy you for your technology or your human capital, they will tell you they did. 2. They'll tell you that they bought you because they never could have accomplished what you did, because of your talented personnel and unique culture, which they plan to carefully preserve and benefit from. 3. Then they will deprecate your technology, drive away your best people, and force you to work just like they do. 4. When the shit hits the fan, the product declines, and you can't even get small releases out the door, you'll think, "Aha, now at least we will get our 'told you so' moment, when they finally realize what they've done." But they knew all along what they were doing. They wanted your customers, they got them, and they don't feel any sense of loss at what they destroyed.