Just eleven months ago I proudly posted that WhiteLabelDating.com was the sixth biggest dating company in the UK:

http://www.rosswilliams.com/2008/07/whitelabeldatingcom-is-6th-biggest-dating-site-in-uk/

This week a report by NMA (http://www.whitelabeldating.com/blog/2009/04/2nd-largest-dating-site-in-the-uk.php), with data supplied by Comscore, showed we were in a very healthy second place as a paid online dating company. Match  and Meetic have effectively merged (Meetic has taken over Match’s UK operations) and Plenty of Fish is a traffic-heavy free dating site - so as a paid dating company, we’re second.

The interesting part of this not our growth (by the end of this year we’ll be number one in the UK without doubt) but rather the way internet statistics are generated.

The Comscore ratings wildly underestimate our actual traffic and I suspect the quantitive values for traffic aren’t necessarily accurate - however, the trends indicated by these measurements tools are what counts:

• How much traffic has a particular business gained?
• How much traffic does company A have compared to company B?

Traffic comparison is relevant and it’s good to see that we’re now larger than players like Friends Reunited Dating, Easydate and the old Allegran sites.

Our growth is simply due to the great time we now have at WhiteLabelDating.com - both our in-house staff as well as the hundreds of partners who use our platform to power their sites.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844546861/

I was interviewed for this book a few months ago - it’s just been published and is definitely worth a read by anyone who wants to make a success of their business.

This book is a collection of accounts by the entrepreneurs themselves describing how they made it and what they believe are the important qualities that helped them achieve success. Straight from the horse’s mouth, it’s left to the reader to look for patterns amongst the success stories and decide for themselves whether they can make it too.

Although focussed around those who have achieved a significant financial reward, the book is also appropriate for anyone getting started in business or social ventures - it’s about what has made people successful and how they’ve made their money. But the lessons are equally valid for non-financial success. The vulgarities of money shouldn’t distract from the success that these people have had.

In the book I talk about how I went from running a small website design company to founding and becoming the CEO of the the largest private online dating in europe. There’s also a bunch of other successful British businesspeople featured including Brad Rosser and Ben Way - a total of sixteen profiles, all from different backgrounds and with different stories to tell. Definitely worth a read!

I live in Bray - a rather lovely village on the Thames between Windsor and Maidenhead. We moved here in December 2008 and are still getting to know the area. I find that the best way to get a feel for a place is to travel around it on foot, rather than in a car - and when I travel I usually go for a run to acclimatize myself to the new environment.

Bray is on the south bank of the Thames, but on that stretch of the river the towpath (which is a footpath alongside the river) is on the north bank - which means crossing the river if I want to run along it.

So this afternoon, I went exploring and - wow - what a great commute it’s going to be. Running alongside the north bank of the river was beautiful, there’s some amazing properties along this stretch of the river including the Oakley Court Hotel:

Here’s the route I took to get from Bray to Windsor:

http://www.mapmyrun.com/run/united-kingdom/bray,-berkshire/448123852093495728

I’m really pleased to have found this route - it’s going to be a bit hard to run to work and run back, but I reckon I should be able to alternate between running and cycling, although what I really need is one of these:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/30/jon-miller-whos-taking-over-myspace-doesnt-have-a-myspace-profile/

There’s not really any excuse for this - how can you understand your users if you don’t use the product they use?

There are many reasons Global Personals Ltd has been as successful as it has - a great time, fantastic product and generally we’re much cleverer than the competition - but in the early days I really do believe part of our success was due to the fact the Directors of the very small business at the time used the site themselves. Although it’s been a couple of years since I used one of our sites (now very lucky to be in an awesome relationshIp) I still remember the priorities, concerns and requirements I had as an online dater and we try to maintain those in our product today.

It’s very simple - if you don’t use your product yourself, you’re not in a position to make the most of your product for your customers. I know the guys at Date.com use the site as their little black book and good luck to them

Our revenues have continued to increase by 5-10% per month over the last 6 months whilst most other companies have struggled.

There’s some nice footage of the match.com offices as well - we’re considering an office move at the moment so it’s always good to see other offices for inspiration!!

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/24/no-never-surrender-to-your-users-facebook/

This is something I’m all too familiar with - in the most basic terms, users don’t like change even if it’s for the better. That’s not a surprise as throughout human evolution the more risk-adverse people are those that have prospered and bred, whereas the risk-tolerant individuals would tend to, well, die.

There’s always the exception - modern day entrepreneurs may take risks with their capital, rather than their lives - but generally 99% of people prefer what they know to what they don’t know, they prefer the maintenance of the present rather than the risk of change. There’s a huge fear of the unknown.

This is true in relationships - sooooo many people stay in a relationship not because it’s the most perfect relationship and they are happier than they have ever been - but because they fear being alone, they fear what life would be like if they risked being by themselves (<plug>although thanks to sites like JustSingles.com they won’t be alone for long</plug>).

It is true in jobs - in my experience, far too many people stay in a job because it is safe and known rather than change for a better job in a more exciting and prosperous company (like WhiteLabelDating.com for example!)

If the new Facebook redesign is better then it should remain despite user’s protestations. What is better though? Well, I didn’t define the objectives but I suspect that Facebook implemented this change to:

1. Encourage repeat visits by members (therefore increasing usage and advertising impressions)
2. Encourage users to update their status more often
3. Generally use the site more
4. Mitigate the risk of micro-blogging services like Twitter

And I’m pretty sure that the redesign will result in achievement of all those goals - which, ultimately, results in people using the site more.

Now, why would people use the site more if they don’t like it?

I encounter similar situations to this every day and most people in a position of decision-making will - do you do what your customers/staff are asking for? Do you inhibit change and encourage a status quo?

I’m looking for new offices at the moment - we’re growing rapidly, with a headcount of 55 staff at present which will probably double this time next year. What should I base my criteria on? The major request from my staff is to have parking - but in a town center location, there’s just not enough room for everyone to have parking on-site. And if we moved to an out-of-town location then the novelty of parking would soon wear off and pretty soon they would miss the benefits of a town centre location (bars, restaurants, shops and easy access by train for staff and customers).

At the end of the day one needs to make a decision based on what one believes is the right thing for their customers, staff or other stakeholders. The reason anyone in this position is making such a decision is because they’ve tended to make the right decisions in the past which is why they now have such decisions to make

To quote the great Mini designer Sir Alec Issigonis, “A Camel is a Horse designed by Committee”

http://onlinedatingpost.com/archives/2009/03/is-advertising-killing-free-online-dating/

I applaud David for offering opinion and being slightly controversial - so many people in this industry are very straight and corporate, when the very industry we work in is all about the emotion of love and relationships.

Like many people in online dating, we looked at the free dating model in 2008 but the numbers simply don’t add up for us or for our partners. In terms of profitable revenues, you need such an enormous mass of members to make any reasonable profit from free dating that there isn’t room for more than one or two main players - anyone else entering this space would need a multi-million pound warchest to make it work and quite frankly that money would make a far greater short and long-term return on a paid dating site.

IAC launched their free site http://www.downtoearth.com to strategically take on the main player http://www.plentyoffish.com - possibly to encourage Markus to sell out at a reasonable price, or simply for Match.com (owned by IAC) to acquire new members at a lower cost than acquiring via PoF.

Now PlentyofFish.com has to fight DownToEarth.com in the free dating market, which leaves the paid dating market clear to grow unhindered. I don’t believe the drop in online advertising will mean the death of free dating, but I do believe it will signal the end of new free dating sites and many of the smaller free dating sites will simply give up leaving PoF and DTE to fight it out.

I always have mixed feelings about sponsoring an event - as the iDate photos show, we were certainly difficult to miss and with 20 staff in attendance, we dominated the event. However, the flip side of such sponsorship is that you’re always seen as a commercial sponsor and not necessarily respected in your own right. This is something I’ll be considering for future events.

Nevertheless it’s worth taking a look at the photos and videos - one thing I’ve learnt is that he better things you say at these events, the more likely the event organiser is to use your testimonial and broadcast your brand to the viewer as you’ll see in the video below

I commented on OPW, perhaps rather provocatively that:

As someone generally terrified of US litigiousness, I’m surprised that Plenty of Fish is suggesting that any user deleted from their site is socially, biologically, economically or otherwise “unfit to date”.

If I had been deleted, I might be offended that I was classed as unfit to date. Especially it I had a particular disability, religious belief, skin colour, age, etc through which I may be inferred to be “unfit to date” as I had been deleted.

However, I’ve got to say, I admire Markus Frind for doing this - it takes guts to go for this kind of messaging. Whether it’s effective or not remains to be seen.

I had a good chat with Markus on the last day of  iDate 2009 beside the pool - it’s difficult balancing a public and private persona and I’d welcome the chance to understand him better.