Bad ads -- applied social psychology
You've all seen the television ads for Chemistry.com that feature singles that eHarmony has rejected.
I've long thought that Chemistry.com is shooting itself in the foot with its ads, by conveying that eHarmony is selective (and probably for normal or cool people), whereas Chemistry.com is taking all the rejects. This is straight social psychology -- you want to convey exclusivity here, unless you're only targeting the small market of people who were actually rejected by eHarmony's profiling system.
Seth Stevenson agrees, in an old article on Slate:
This strategy might woo people who have actually attempted to sign up for eHarmony and been rejected. But those who are entirely new to the online dating scene might be put off. If I were single and choosing which dating site to try, I don't think an open-floodgates admissions policy would be a key selling point. I'd demand a little screening and selectivity. The ad campaign conveys just the opposite.
What's more, the people in the ads come off as insecure, damaged goods. Frankly, I wouldn't want them in my dating pool. Especially not that woman wearing a mini-vest over a scoop-neck top. Lady, your first step to getting a date is ditching that unfortunate ensemble.
eHarmony has its own issues: Evangelical Christian roots, a secret and unreviewed personality/romance matching methodology, the lack of an Atheist option in the Religion choices (I think they have None or Not Religious instead), and allegedly they never feature interracial couples in their commercials (perhaps they don't have any among those who have stepped forward with their success stories).
I've long thought that Chemistry.com is shooting itself in the foot with its ads, by conveying that eHarmony is selective (and probably for normal or cool people), whereas Chemistry.com is taking all the rejects. This is straight social psychology -- you want to convey exclusivity here, unless you're only targeting the small market of people who were actually rejected by eHarmony's profiling system.
Seth Stevenson agrees, in an old article on Slate:
This strategy might woo people who have actually attempted to sign up for eHarmony and been rejected. But those who are entirely new to the online dating scene might be put off. If I were single and choosing which dating site to try, I don't think an open-floodgates admissions policy would be a key selling point. I'd demand a little screening and selectivity. The ad campaign conveys just the opposite.
What's more, the people in the ads come off as insecure, damaged goods. Frankly, I wouldn't want them in my dating pool. Especially not that woman wearing a mini-vest over a scoop-neck top. Lady, your first step to getting a date is ditching that unfortunate ensemble.
eHarmony has its own issues: Evangelical Christian roots, a secret and unreviewed personality/romance matching methodology, the lack of an Atheist option in the Religion choices (I think they have None or Not Religious instead), and allegedly they never feature interracial couples in their commercials (perhaps they don't have any among those who have stepped forward with their success stories).