This article originally appeared on EDGE Boston.In spite of its somewhat dubious and unpredictable nature, users seem more than willing to pour money into the Internet dating market. Since its inception in the late ’90’s, online dating has grown from a series of glorified personal ads-once seen as the last-ditch effort of the meek and the desperate-to highly detailed profile lists and highly organized, calculated compatibility and matching systems. U.S. residents have spent some $460 million in 2004 alone, according to a study conducted by the Online Publishers Association. But according to at least one free upstart, the paid subscription model may be on its way out.
"Nearly all of the content you can consume online is free," says Sam Yagan, founder of OKCupid.com, "and all of the top the top dating sites are pay sites. And we thought, why? It doesn’t make any sense! Online dating should be free!"
And Yagan did just that with OKCupid, through a grassroots-style campaign of eschewing marketing and customer service (their national office employs eight people as opposed to Match.com’s three-hundred) and relying on word of mouth for nearly all of their promotion. Yagan says they are able to turn a profit on advertising revenue alone.
"Not only do people accept the ads, they expect the ads, because they want us to stay in business," he says.
OKCupid has drawn mostly rave reviews from the public and has reported record-breaking usage statistics in December; the site currently averages 2,260 concurrent users a day. Yagan also attributes their success to a simple mathematical matching system that works very much like a search engine, allowing users to discover who is right for them; something he sees as a happy medium between veritable free-for-alls like Match.com and highly systemized sites like eHarmony, through which subscribers are force-fed potential matches.
"It sounds simple enough, but no one’s thought of it," he says. "Now, are you going to fall in love with this person? I don’t know. But when you go out on a date, you’ll have something to talk about."
Whereas most of the online dating market has actively sought out gay subscribers, there have been some surprising holdouts, particularly eHarmony.com, the leading dating subscription site geared towards serious, long-lasting relationships. Citing a conservative, pro-family agenda, the site not only refuses to allow gay subscribers but also actively rejects straight users who fail to show strong marriage potential. (eHarmony representatives did not respond to repeated phone calls as of press time.)
"It’s really offensive for them not to allow (same-gender matching)," Yagan says. "What we’ve found is that the gay community tends to be early adopters to new ideas and new technologies."
Perhaps surprisingly, Outpersonals.com (and Edge columnist) writer Jack Mauro isn’t as impassioned.
"I don’t see segregation as necessarily an evil," he says. "For every site that excludes gay traffic there’s six other gay sites. It’s tough enough searching for a relationship with all the other variables involved, so I have no problem if a site wants to restrict along those lines."
Mauro is the author of the upcoming "M4M: The Gay Man’s Guide to Finding Love Online," to be published by Simon Spotlight Entertainment in April. The book began as something of elaborate joke, he says, a reaction to the stultifying similarities of profiles on numerous gay dating sites, but it quickly evolved into a guide helping the average gay man navigate through the rocky terrain of sex and dating in the online world.
"The Internet was born for gay life," he says, alluding to the numerous anonymous sex sites that have sprung up on the Web. "But if you’re talking about finding that perfect partner online, that’s a different scene. It’s certainly no easier for a gay man and now I think we’re getting to where it’s harder."
So does he think the stereotype holds true-that today’s young urban gay man is more interesting in hooking up than developing a stable, monogamous relationship?
