3 ms·

Just today OkCupid got bought by IAC which also owns match.com which they are critical of in that post.

by smokinn 16y ago

presidentender 16y ago
Time to enter the online dating space, I guess.
- Herald_MJ 16y ago
  Considering OKCupid's slogan for a while was "always free", I highly doubt that they will switch to a pay-to-use model.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    But match.com might still ruin the site by trying too hard with the upsell.
  - rhizome 16y ago
    Correct. They will likely use the Nerve/SpringStreet/AdultFriendFinder model of ruining the free options so that the pay ones look attractive.
- smokinn 16y ago
  I doubt it. IAC, the parent company of match.com owns lots of web properties. It's not like match.com now owns okcupid and will use them as they please. Most likely, okcupid ads may become exclusively for IAC sites (match.com, blackpeoplemeet, asianpeoplemeet, [niche]peoplemeet, other dating properties) and they may make the subscription offers a little more prominent (right now they're pretty hidden on okcupid) but I doubt it'll go much further than that. Free and paid are complementary. A big chunk of upgrades on paid sites come from people who were driven there from free sites.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    > A big chunk of upgrades on paid sites come from people who were driven there from free sites. If this post is correct that the free sites provide a better user experience, why would people move from them to the pay sites? Just out of a lack of information?
    - smokinn 16y ago
      For many reasons but the one that seems to come back most often is that people value their time on paid sites more. It seems more "serious" if you know the other person paid to talk to you.
    - Alishaw 16y ago
      http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/37737/Secrets-Of-Freemium-Pricing-Make-The-Cheapskates-Pay.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+onstartups+(OnStartups) http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/37737/Secrets-Of-Freemi...
- patio11 16y ago
  Can I counter recommend this? If you're good enough at SEO or online marketing to have a chance in hell at a broad online dating opportunity, there is more money available for less work and less competition elsewhere. The space is competitive, the incumbents are some of the savviest firms online, they have gigantic warchests, the fight will be dirty, and there is easier money elsewhere. Plus you're competing with OKCupid, which is to linkbait as AirBnb is to PR.
  - theoj 16y ago
    Can you provide some examples of more lucrative segments?
  - biot 16y ago
    Dating sites are #8 on "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund": http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html
    - kalpeshjoshi 16y ago
      definitely, why not? Completely people oriented, and for the most part, people who are on one site, are on another site (match, eharmony, craigslist?, etc.). Nothing wrong with multiple avenues of meeting people - so there's still room in this space. Don't we all just want to be loved?! ;)
    - nostrademons 16y ago
      Dating sites have very strong network effects. The entry on that page acknowledges that: if you want to start a dating site, the question you answer is not "What should we do better about online dating?", it's "How will we get our initial users and keep them?" Patrick's point is that if you have the skills to get users in a business with network effects that strong, there are many more lucrative markets you could crack. EBay, for example. Online auctions is hugely lucrative, orders of magnitude more than dating, and EBay sucks in many ways. But their network effect is so strong that it's virtually impossible to break in. (Online auctions is #10 on the list, BTW.)
rhizome 16y ago
Ah, I get it now: this is just a repost of a comment from the actual OKC story (where there exists plenty of context, pace Mr. Aldridge): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2169974 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2169974
- JacobAldridge 16y ago
  While it wasn't specifically a re-post from a comment (it was mentioned in another article on the subject which I read), you're right about the previous discussion providing more context than this headline. I didn't expect this link to overtake that article and discussion on the front page, though I should have given I discussed the same thing in regards to the Flickr Delete thing 6 hours ago!

Just today OkCupid got bought by IAC which also owns match.com which they are critical of in that post.

by smokinn 16y ago

Just today OkCupid got bought by IAC which also owns match.com which they are critical of in that post.

presidentender 16y ago

Time to enter the online dating space, I guess.

Herald_MJ 16y ago
Considering OKCupid's slogan for a while was "always free", I highly doubt that they will switch to a pay-to-use model.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  But match.com might still ruin the site by trying too hard with the upsell.
- rhizome 16y ago
  Correct. They will likely use the Nerve/SpringStreet/AdultFriendFinder model of ruining the free options so that the pay ones look attractive.
smokinn 16y ago
I doubt it. IAC, the parent company of match.com owns lots of web properties. It's not like match.com now owns okcupid and will use them as they please. Most likely, okcupid ads may become exclusively for IAC sites (match.com, blackpeoplemeet, asianpeoplemeet, [niche]peoplemeet, other dating properties) and they may make the subscription offers a little more prominent (right now they're pretty hidden on okcupid) but I doubt it'll go much further than that. Free and paid are complementary. A big chunk of upgrades on paid sites come from people who were driven there from free sites.
- _delirium 16y ago
  > A big chunk of upgrades on paid sites come from people who were driven there from free sites. If this post is correct that the free sites provide a better user experience, why would people move from them to the pay sites? Just out of a lack of information?
  - smokinn 16y ago
    For many reasons but the one that seems to come back most often is that people value their time on paid sites more. It seems more "serious" if you know the other person paid to talk to you.
  - Alishaw 16y ago
    http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/37737/Secrets-Of-Freemium-Pricing-Make-The-Cheapskates-Pay.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+onstartups+(OnStartups) http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/37737/Secrets-Of-Freemi...
patio11 16y ago
Can I counter recommend this? If you're good enough at SEO or online marketing to have a chance in hell at a broad online dating opportunity, there is more money available for less work and less competition elsewhere. The space is competitive, the incumbents are some of the savviest firms online, they have gigantic warchests, the fight will be dirty, and there is easier money elsewhere. Plus you're competing with OKCupid, which is to linkbait as AirBnb is to PR.
- theoj 16y ago
  Can you provide some examples of more lucrative segments?
- biot 16y ago
  Dating sites are #8 on "Startup Ideas We'd Like to Fund": http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html http://ycombinator.com/ideas.html
  - kalpeshjoshi 16y ago
    definitely, why not? Completely people oriented, and for the most part, people who are on one site, are on another site (match, eharmony, craigslist?, etc.). Nothing wrong with multiple avenues of meeting people - so there's still room in this space. Don't we all just want to be loved?! ;)
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Dating sites have very strong network effects. The entry on that page acknowledges that: if you want to start a dating site, the question you answer is not "What should we do better about online dating?", it's "How will we get our initial users and keep them?" Patrick's point is that if you have the skills to get users in a business with network effects that strong, there are many more lucrative markets you could crack. EBay, for example. Online auctions is hugely lucrative, orders of magnitude more than dating, and EBay sucks in many ways. But their network effect is so strong that it's virtually impossible to break in. (Online auctions is #10 on the list, BTW.)

rhizome 16y ago

Ah, I get it now: this is just a repost of a comment from the actual OKC story (where there exists plenty of context, pace Mr. Aldridge): http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2169974 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2169974

JacobAldridge 16y ago
While it wasn't specifically a re-post from a comment (it was mentioned in another article on the subject which I read), you're right about the previous discussion providing more context than this headline. I didn't expect this link to overtake that article and discussion on the front page, though I should have given I discussed the same thing in regards to the Flickr Delete thing 6 hours ago!