COURTLAND BROOKS INTERNET DATING AGENCY-CONSULTANCY

LTR SUMMIT NYC - Deep Sharing, New Connections

COURTLAND BROOKS - See event website and speakers at ltrnyc.splashthat.com.

Well, I'd say this was certainly my favorite SUMMIT so far. We tried something a bit different this time. No powerpoints. No one complained about not having powerpoints, but I think next time we'll make them optional, with most presentations being non-powerpoint.

A couple of presentations had us in tears. Really, this was a chance to get to know other dating and online social community leaders. The LTR SUMMITs are distinct from the online LTR Mini-Conferences because we don't record and share them afterward. The role of the LTR SUMMITs is to help us connect, learn & share, and find and form some non-competitive alliances.

The next LTR SUMMIT will be in Singapore on Tue 19th July. If you are part of IDEA or OSCA, please email me to apply to attend at mark@courtlandbrooks.com. Attendance is limited to senior leaders in the online dating and online social community space, and everyone is a speaker.

COURTLAND BROOKS - See event website and speakers at ltrnyc.splashthat.com.

Well, I'd say this was certainly my favorite SUMMIT so far. We tried something a bit different this time. No powerpoints. No one complained about not having powerpoints, but I think next time we'll make them optional, with most presentations being non-powerpoint.

A couple of presentations had us in tears. Really, this was a chance to get to know other dating and online social community leaders. The LTR SUMMITs are distinct from the online LTR Mini-Conferences because we don't record and share them afterward. The role of the LTR SUMMITs is to help us connect, learn & share, and find and form some non-competitive alliances.

The next LTR SUMMIT will be in Singapore on Tue 19th July. If you are part of IDEA or OSCA, please email me to apply to attend at mark@courtlandbrooks.com. Attendance is limited to senior leaders in the online dating and online social community space, and everyone is a speaker.

Matchmaker.com Launches at The Global Love Conference

The Global Love Conference happened Thursday 12th May, with over 100 of the top matchmakers from around the world. Matchmaker.com launched at the event as a platform for people to find a matchmaker.

Elon Musk Wants to 'Authenticate All Real Humans' on Twitter

CNN - Elon Musk's Twitter feed states that he will "authenticate all real humans." Musk could seek to require real names on accounts or require photo id, or integration with 3rd-party services where users are already known. His pet peeve is spam accounts.

Facebook made changes to its names policy in 2015 after critics pointed out that abuse victims and other vulnerable groups had good reasons to use pseudonyms. Users can provide reasons to the company why they avoid using their real names.

by Brian Fung
See full article at CNN

Mark Brooks: Behavior changes considerably when people are anonymous. Dating platforms really need to know and assure that real humans are behind each profile, and are 'good actors.' No small task, but at least the ability to check liveness and verify someone is the same person as in their photo is easy with FaceTec. We also have the purpose-built RealMe which provides the ability to verify someone is real, and the state of their reputation and priors. (Full Disclosure: FaceTec and RealMe are clients of Courtland Brooks)

Match Wins Trademark Case Against Muzmatch

NEW YORK TIMES - A London court ruled that Muzmatch infringed on Match trademarks, on Wednesday. Match Group ($3b revenue, 16m paying users) sued Muzmatch for infringing on its trademarked logo, using "match" in its name, and "unfairly benefiting" from the company’s reputation and investment in its brand. The ruling, from London's Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, could mean Muzmatch (6m users, $9m financing) must change its name and pay damages. Founder/CEO, Shahzad Younas, said Muzmatch would appeal. Match objected to the trademark registration for "Muzmatch" in Europe and the United States in 2016. Match also objected to the use of a heart and the font in Muzmatch's logo at the time, which were eventually removed. Match made approaches to buy the company, eventually offering up to $35m in 2019. Mr. Younas turned the offer down. Later that year, Match acquired Harmonica, a Muslim dating start-up in Egypt. "This is just their tactic," he said. "They'll court you, they'll get your data, they'll try and buy you, and when that doesn't work, they'll either go after a competitor or they'll just kill you," Mr. Younas said. "A million dollars for them in legal fees is small change. For us, it's everything."

by Aina J Khan
See full article at New York Times

Mark Brooks: I sympathize with Shahzad and Muzmatch. However, Match has to defend its name and trademark, along with its IP.  It's simply not an option for them to not. Therefore, if you have a niche+match or match+niche type name, and anything in the way of scale and an official trademark application, then Match may well come simultaneously knocking, with guns cocked. This of course impairs your M&A valuation. Best to steer well clear of Match in your name in the context of Internet dating. The precedent is set. Match will sound and then fire its cannons at you if you encroach on their apparent domain. This may be unfair, but at least it is predictable. 

The Top Internet Dating Reporters in 2021, According to Online Personals Watch

COURTLAND BROOKS - Each year we take a look at which reporters have received the most coverage on Online Personals Watch. Here's our rankings for 2021.

1. Sarah Perez, Tech Crunch
   Another year, another 1st place for Sarah Perez, 4th time in a row. Last year, we used 13 of her articles on OPW. She is a tech writer for Tech Crunch for over 10 years now, and previously wrote for Read Write Web. Last year, she covered a number of Match and Tinder news, introduced some new dating apps like Snack or SwoonMe, and covered AppStore stats.
   
2. Laura Forman, Wall Street Journal
   A new name on our list, but definitely one to watch. We used as many as 9 of Laura's articles on OPW last year. All of them covered big companies, Match Group and Bumble. Laura is a tech columnist for Wall Street Journal.
   
3. Rachel Thompson, Mashable
   Rachel is a senior culture reporter for Mashable, and she has been writing about internet dating regularly for years. Last year, we used 4 of her articles, and she also covered big companies' news, Bumble, OkCupid, Tinder.
   
4. Mark Travers, Forbes
   Mark is a psychologist and contributor to Forbes. We used 5 of his articles last year. His articles introduced smaller dating apps like Birdy or Jigsaw, also wrote about dating apps and security.
5. Anna Iovine, Mashable
   Nr 3 on this list in 2020, Anna is a culture reporter for Mashable. Last year we used 4 of her articles, most of them covered Tinder news.
6. Ashley Carman - The Verge
   Ashley is another reporter who regularly writes about online dating and dating apps. She is a reporter for The Verge, who covers podcasting, dating apps, social networks, and independent hardware startups. We used 3 of her articles in 2021, also covering big companies, Tinder, Hinge, and Facebook Dating.
7. Natasha Lomas - Tech Crunch
   Another regular on this list, Natasha, is a long-term reporter for Tech Crunch. Last year, we used 3 of her articles. She mostly covered investments made in dating apps.
8. Leo Sun - The Motley Fool
   Leo Sun is a technology specialist at The Motley Fool. We used 3 of his articles last year, all analyzing the value and predicting the future of Bumble.
9. Aisha Malik - Tech Crunch
   Aisha Malik is another Tech Crunch reporter on our list. Last year, we used 3 of her articles, and she covered Tinder and Hinge news in them.
10. Melody Hahm - Yahoo Finance
    Melody was a West Coast Correspondent for Yahoo Finance. We used 3 of her articles last year, and she interviewed CEOs of Match.com and Bumble. She left Yahoo Finance last year and is not a reporter right now.

Which Dating Apps Got the Most Press Coverage Last Year?

COURTLAND BROOKS - Last year, we mentioned 281 internet dating industry brands in 1,066 posts. Although Match Group and its brands are clearly dominating this list, Bumble takes first place this time, even though only by one post. Here is the full list of companies with the most press coverage for last year.

1. Bumble (131 posts in 2021)
Bumble going public last year was by far the company's most important news which got extensive press coverage in the first two months of 2021 and the financial results of the company and stock price development were often covered and commented on by the press. Bumble BFF will be relaunched as a metaverse platform. Bumble partnered with Snapchat in May, introduced Night In virtual dating feature, and gave its exhausted employees an extra week off in June. It opened a NY restaurant and an online shop offering its own product line in December. Bumble also unveiled a new profile design and revamped its matchmaking algorithm at the end of last year.

2. Tinder (130 posts)
Tinder also announced its plan to bet on metaverse technologies and launched the virtual currency in October. The app patented Swipe Night in February and the series eventually returned in November. Tinder partnered with Lyft in March, with VisithHealth to offer therapy sessions in June, and with Spotify in December. Tinder announced it would offer background checks on would-to-be dates in March and the launch of Safety Center in India in August. The app launched Vibes, a compatibility check feature and "Are You Sure" to stop harmful messages in May, video profiles to European users in September, and a "Plus One" feature to help users find a wedding date in October. Tinder got a new CEO in September and a new CMO in April.

3. Match Group (96 posts)
Match Group news often overlaps with those covering its brands. But here are a few from their category: Match bought South Korean company Hyperconnect in February. This huge deal got significant press coverage. So did the much-discussed lawsuit launched by former Tinder execs, which was finally settled in December. It was the biggest, but not the only one against Match last year. On the other hand, Match Group accused smaller rival Muzmatch of copying Tinder in February (this one was filed in the US). Match also unveiled their plans for a dating metaverse last year. It made the list of top 100 companies to work for. The company took a stand against the recently approved Texas abortion law. And of course, each quarter, Match Group's financial results are highly anticipated and commented on in the press.

4. OkCupid (43 posts)
OkCupid got a lot of mentions in the press, often quoting its data center surveys. It got new language versions - German and Turkish. Its ad campaigns got solid coverage in the press. In February, OkCupid partnered with TuneIn to launch exclusive dating-themed music stations.

5. Hinge (42 posts)
Hinge launched a Video Prompts feature in April and added Voice Prompts in October. Especially the latter one got extensive press coverage. In June, Hinge partnered with Uber to help single dog owners and in March with Uncommon Goods to create a virtual date night kit. In April, Hinge users were offered £100 towards their second date. In August, Hinge donated $50k to help save lesbian bars.

6.-7. Match.com (35 posts)
Match announced a rebrand to fit its millennial users better in February. In August, Match introduced features addressing user complaints such as how much time it takes to find a relevant match and ghosting. In November, human matchmaking was added as a new service. In December, Match partnered with Candace Bushnell who will oversee the Expert Picks feature in 2022.

6.-7. Grindr (35 posts)
Grindr was another company with solid press coverage last year, but in their case, it was quite often negative and the main topic was security issues, like the $7.16M fine Grindr received over a privacy breach in Norway in February. The app announced new privacy features for its users in September. The company expanded LGBTQ health care access for its employees last year. And it also produced its first original content series called Bridesman.

8. The Meet Group (31 posts)
TMG partnered with RAINN to enhance dating safety in February and with Spectrum Labs to improve live streaming moderation in July. Spark Networks, MocoSpace and Hornet were added to the growing list of live streaming video partners. TMG's parent company ParshipMeet Group got new co-CEOs last year and the plan for an IPO was announced.

9. Blued (23 posts)
Blued launched the Voice Chat Room function in February. HeHealth, a health service by BlueCity, the parent company of Blued, obtained an internet hospital license in April. Ma Baoli, the founder and CEO of Blued was often interviewed by the press last year. In August, Blued introduced a series of new features including prohibiting screenshots and screen recordings, to protect user identity and privacy. In July, BlueCity was hit by a lawsuit over share price drops.

10. Spark Networks (22 posts)
Things were looking good financially for Spark at the beginning of the last year. In March, they partnered with The Meet Group to deliver live streaming video to their users. That allowed Zoosk to launch Zoosk Live! in July.

Match Introduces Human Matchmaking

 

WALL STREET JOURNAL - For $4.99 a week Match dating experts will go through a user's answers to four questions and pair them. A 50-member team, trained as dating coaches, will select two profiles for participating members each week, drawing from the same algorithm-generated pool Match provides. Questions include, what a person would change about their dating life, and what sort of person a user gravitates toward. "The company created the feature because, for some singles, the pandemic has added a degree of urgency to finding a long-term relationship," said Amarnath Thombre, CEO of Match Group Americas. "People have had enough time to reflect," "Traditional matchmaking services are costly, starting in the thousands of dollars for just a few months. But these services are worth it to customers who don't have the time to sort through candidates on apps," said Tammy Shaklee, founder/matchmaker of H4M, an LGBTQ matchmaking service.

by Ann-Marie Alcántara
See full article at Wall Street Journal

Mark Brooks (owner of matchmaker.com): Fascinating stuff, but I think calling this matchmaking is an offense to the matchmaking industry. $5 a week may well be a scalable price-point, but I don't think this service does justice to the humanity of the service matchmakers provide. The whole point of (quality) matchmaking is to get deep into the person, council and coach them, and provide custom advice to the individuals, with occasional appropriately sugar-coated but tough feedback. Match's service appears to be a commitment vehicle. I don't quite see how this service quite passes muster as matchmaking, even as a minimum effective dose. Let's see. Looks like the opposite end of the spectrum to the matchmaking service eHarmony introduced and experimented with years ago.

WALL STREET JOURNAL - For $4.99 a week Match dating experts will go through a user's answers to four questions and pair them. A 50-member team, trained as dating coaches, will select two profiles for participating members each week, drawing from the same algorithm-generated pool Match provides. Questions include, what a person would change about their dating life, and what sort of person a user gravitates toward. "The company created the feature because, for some singles, the pandemic has added a degree of urgency to finding a long-term relationship," said Amarnath Thombre, CEO of Match Group Americas. "People have had enough time to reflect," "Traditional matchmaking services are costly, starting in the thousands of dollars for just a few months. But these services are worth it to customers who don't have the time to sort through candidates on apps," said Tammy Shaklee, founder/matchmaker of H4M, an LGBTQ matchmaking service.

by Ann-Marie Alcántara
See full article at Wall Street Journal

Mark Brooks (owner of matchmaker.com): Fascinating stuff, but I think calling this matchmaking is an offense to the matchmaking industry. $5 a week may well be a scalable price-point, but I don't think this service does justice to the humanity of the service matchmakers provide. The whole point of (quality) matchmaking is to get deep into the person, council and coach them, and provide custom advice to the individuals, with occasional appropriately sugar-coated but tough feedback. Match's service appears to be a commitment vehicle. I don't quite see how this service quite passes muster as matchmaking, even as a minimum effective dose. Let's see. Looks like the opposite end of the spectrum to the matchmaking service eHarmony introduced and experimented with years ago.

Making the Business Case for Your Marketing Budget

COURTLAND BROOKS - "59% of marketing leaders reporting increased pressure from CEOs and 45% experiencing pressure from CFOs."

A Harvard Business Review article lays out some keen advice for CMOs to help lower stress. Here's their advice, in a nutshell...

Build your case based on business priorities
New member acquisition is almost always a priority for dating and social apps. But how about brand awareness and stature. How about your market leadership and ranking. Make sure you have metrics to help make your case.

Get closer to your CFO
"Only 35% of marketers report that they use 'an integrated marketing team in which marketing and finance experts work together.'" You'll be more successful if the CFO is informed, and aligned with your marketing efforts. Plus, can help inform your decision making and quantification efforts.

Crack the lock on your magical hypotheses
As a marketing leader, you have informed ideas, hypotheses. Share them, along with the logic behind them, with your CFO and team members. It will make life easier later on, if you get them on board with your logic at the outset.

Measure brand and customer metrics
"Only 3% of marketers reported measuring brand equity "consistently". This is something that should measured more consistently. I will help lift your marketing budget if you can show effect here. Great brands get great conversions.

Get closer to your C-suite peers
"Only 17% [of C-suite executives] said they collaborated with the CMO in the last 12 months." Take time to meet your CXOs one at a time to offer evidence and logic for your spending and address their questions. Marketing is an investment, not just a cost!

Run experiments
Use a control group that does not get marketing spending. The goal is to build a strong understanding of the counterfactual — what if marketing spending had not occurred? Design and run experiments right and it will really help inform your marketing strategy choices.

Managing AI Decision-Making Tools

COURTLAND BROOKS - In social and dating we generally use AI for reviewing profiles and comms for abuse, and for pairing people up. Here's an article on Harvard Business Review which defines key terms referring to key modes of AI which are useful to know. - Mark Brooks
__

Your use of AI is only going to increase. How to think about AI decisions and determine the optimal management model? These 4 management models vary based on the level and nature of the human intervention.

Human in the loop (HITL): A human is assisted by a machine. The human is doing the decision making and the machine is providing support. a.k.a. intelligence amplification (IA).

Human in the loop for exceptions (HITLFE): Most decisions are automated, and the human handles exceptions. For the exceptions, the system requires some judgment or input from the human before it can make the decision. Humans control the logic to determine which exceptions are flagged for review.

Human on the loop (HOTL): The machine is assisted by a human. The machine makes the micro-decisions, but the human reviews the decision outcomes and can adjust rules and parameters for future decisions.

Human Out of the Loop (HOOTL): The machine is monitored by the human. The machine makes every decision, and the human intervenes only by setting new constraints and objectives.
__

Mark Brooks: Seems like we use HITFLE for profile and comms review, and HOOTL for paring. What do you think?

COURTLAND BROOKS - In social and dating we generally use AI for reviewing profiles and comms for abuse, and for pairing people up. Here's an article on Harvard Business Review which defines key terms referring to key modes of AI which are useful to know. - Mark Brooks
__

Your use of AI is only going to increase. How to think about AI decisions and determine the optimal management model? These 4 management models vary based on the level and nature of the human intervention.

Human in the loop (HITL): A human is assisted by a machine. The human is doing the decision making and the machine is providing support. a.k.a. intelligence amplification (IA).

Human in the loop for exceptions (HITLFE): Most decisions are automated, and the human handles exceptions. For the exceptions, the system requires some judgment or input from the human before it can make the decision. Humans control the logic to determine which exceptions are flagged for review.

Human on the loop (HOTL): The machine is assisted by a human. The machine makes the micro-decisions, but the human reviews the decision outcomes and can adjust rules and parameters for future decisions.

Human Out of the Loop (HOOTL): The machine is monitored by the human. The machine makes every decision, and the human intervenes only by setting new constraints and objectives.
__

Mark Brooks: Seems like we use HITFLE for profile and comms review, and HOOTL for paring. What do you think?

Network-Based Platforms Must Be Regulated. But How?

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW - Much of the dominance of today's tech firms, from Amazon to Google to Facebook, arises from network effects. These platforms facilitate connections: they connect people to products, to friends, to apps...More connections, more value to each person.

The question of how much competition tech giants face is now at the center of worldwide policy debate. Traditional antitrust policy is ill-equipped to regulate network-based platforms. Some platforms are offered free to users, charging in data or attention.

Antitrust authorities err on the side of not intervening; Google and Facebook have gone on a shopping spree to acquire early-stage competitors that could have become a threat if left independent. But the tide may be turning.

A better understanding of these networks can help societies fully reap the benefits of digital innovation, while mitigating emerging harms.

by by Daniel Björkegren & Chiara Farronato
See full article at Harvard Business Review

Mark Brooks: Scale and complexity will continue to increase. The job of overseeing the scale and complexity of platforms at the Governmental level is not easy. Mistakes will be made. It is essential companies, leaders, take the macro-perspective more seriously, right now, or potentially face overzealous oversteps from Government interventions. Leaders should provide more transparency and education to users and Government stakeholders alike.ons. Leaders should provide more transparency and education to users and Government stakeholders alike.

HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW - Much of the dominance of today's tech firms, from Amazon to Google to Facebook, arises from network effects. These platforms facilitate connections: they connect people to products, to friends, to apps...More connections, more value to each person.

The question of how much competition tech giants face is now at the center of worldwide policy debate. Traditional antitrust policy is ill-equipped to regulate network-based platforms. Some platforms are offered free to users, charging in data or attention.

Antitrust authorities err on the side of not intervening; Google and Facebook have gone on a shopping spree to acquire early-stage competitors that could have become a threat if left independent. But the tide may be turning.

A better understanding of these networks can help societies fully reap the benefits of digital innovation, while mitigating emerging harms.

by by Daniel Björkegren & Chiara Farronato
See full article at Harvard Business Review

Mark Brooks: Scale and complexity will continue to increase. The job of overseeing the scale and complexity of platforms at the Governmental level is not easy. Mistakes will be made. It is essential companies, leaders, take the macro-perspective more seriously, right now, or potentially face overzealous oversteps from Government interventions. Leaders should provide more transparency and education to users and Government stakeholders alike.ons. Leaders should provide more transparency and education to users and Government stakeholders alike.