It’s strange, you work on it for so long, then you wait eagerly that it arrives, and — coming home yesterday and not seeing it in front of my apartment door I didn’t think I would have it until I come home today, but no, this morning I almost fell over it. Apparently it arrived while I was in the shower … and — while very pricey — it was well worth the wait

You can find some images below or more information on the “A Book of Life” page.

which I think concludes my last postings about dating.

(His comics are incredible — they are drawn with “simple” figures but they contain a breathtaking humor.)

There is an old saying that if you do not play, you cannot win, which is true. But on the other hand, it does make a huge difference at which table you sit down to play and who your fellow players are. I would not go into a monastery to find a woman, nor would I visit a retirement home. And no matter how many good tips I get from a swimming teacher, I would not try to learn swimming from one who keeps the water temperature at 4°C.

If I ever wanted to make money this way, here are some rules I would adhere to:

Guiding Principle: You want to make money

Axiom: Only paying members can bring money.
Consequence: Encourage as many users of the site to become paying members. Non-paying members must think it is worthwhile to become paying members, e.g., by receiving a lot of messages from potentially interesting possible partners but being unable to read/answer unless they become paying members.

Axiom: Your resources are limited because staff costs money and you want to make it, not spend it.
Consequence: Delegate as much of the task to recruit new members to become paying members on the users of your site. Control only a few key structure (e.g., moderate a forum if you offer it) and structure your site/service so that the affordances of the site/services do the rest.

Design

Invest in a beautifully designed, professional looking website

Public reason: You are good, you have many high potential singles, and you owe it to your users.

Private reason: Users take the quality of the page as heuristic cue for the quality of the singles on your site and your service in general. Compare it with dating: nobody wants to look at an ugly face, so use makeup … or a mask.

Use Models for the Website Design

Public reason: You can hardly show images of the singles who have registered — that would violate their privacy.

Private reason: Models — who still look like they could have registered — will draw members, because potential members think that they can find similarly looking people on your site. As a beneficial (for you) side-effect, this will raise expectations, making it impossible for normal looking people to find a partner. Consequently, members will stay members longer, searching in vain for someone who likes them, despite their physical appearance. It will also give them a reason why they cannot find a partner — in their heart they will know that they do not look as good as the “singles” on the start page. This will make them search the fault in themselves — instead of on the site itself.

Unsharpen profile Images

Public reason: Users want anonymity. Never mind, that they could simple not upload an image or send it per mail to the selected few that interest them.

Private reason: Nobody writes an ugly person. Given that most users will not recognize their own ugliness, you have to help them here. Like at Homer Simpson’s photo session, Vaseline on the lens or a strong unsharpen effect is often needed to make images attractive. The model shots on your site will lead users to imagine someone beautiful or handsome form the distorted shape they see, even if the person is a cousin(e) of Igor in real life.

Assist in flirting

Use a matching service

Public reason: You have so many members, users need assistance in finding the right partner. There is scientific research on love, why not use them practically.

Private reason: If member can pick for themselves, e.g., via a well-designed search function, they might find what they are searching — or find out that you do not have what they offer — and consequently have no further use for your service. Once they leave, you will not get any more money and they will not help you in growing your membership numbers. So ‘help’ them and give them only a part of the available singles to choose from. BTW, be vague about the success chances of your scientific method — if it were a really good questionnaire and people could be matched so easily, you could be hold responsible for a lack of success, if people with high matching scores do not “match” in real life. Luckily, psychology is a probabilistic science and there is no guarantee for success.

Feature new, not-yet-paying members in your matching results

Public reason: New members are not yet engaged in flirting with other members. It is only fair to point these out to other members, so that they might write them, make them feel welcome.

Private reason: New members often test the service and they are not paying — yet. By showing them first in the list of matching results, they get a lot of messages and are forced to become paying members if they want to read them. Do not let it bother you that you could equally well feature the paying members based on the amount of message they have received, thereby featuring long-term paying members who have paid you a lot of money but have not gotten anything from it. Honoring the paying members would be nice of you, but it would not be sensible for your profits (which are nicer).

Communication

Everyone must pay to read a message

Public reason: You offer a service, and only those who are truly interested in finding a partner should be able to communicate with each other. How can one be sure that someone is truly interested? Simple, this person invests in the service by paying money for it.
Attention: Avoid the counterargument that there are other ways to assess investment, e.g., by a filled out profile.
Attention: Avoid the counterargument that you ‘missed’ to inform the sender of the messages, whether the recipient is or is not ‘truly interested in finding a partner’, by indicating whether this person might answer the message or not (see ‘Do not tell your users who are non-paying members (cannot read/reply to messages) and who are paying members (can read and reply)’).

Private reason: Reading one of the standard online-dating-pick-up-lines or one full of neurotic insecurities will not convince a non-paying member to become a paying member. Consequently you have to get the money before they read the same uninspired or sexually explicit messages. Don’t let it faze you that no postal service works this way. After all, didn’t Julia have to rub her nurse’s back to get the message from Romeo?

Unsharpen messages

Public reason: You help non-paying members to decide whether they should become paying members by showing them the length of the message and let them for an impression of it. Insist that you have faith in your users that they can form an impression, no matter that they can only see the general form but not read the words.

Private reason: By not only telling them that they got a message, but displaying the message, albeit not readable, the recipient will imagine that the message might contain the best flirtation letter in the history of online dating, perhaps even dating in general. Your user’s imagination is your strongest ally — and you can hardly be blamed for their imagination that is not covered by your terms of usage.

Make sending messages free (within limits)

Public reason: You offer new users to try out your service and let them see whether they get a response.

Private reason: If you offer 10 free messages this means that 10 people get a message they cannot read unless they pay for the service, i.e. you have a good chance of getting a handful of paying members.

Offer pseudo-communication that can never be used to arrange a meeting

Public reason: You have to give anyone, no matter whether they are paying members or not, a way to signal interest. That is only fair — so you offer “Smiles”, “Flashes”, “Questionnaires” or similar message that cannot be used to send personal information (e.g., like an eMail address or time/place for a meeting). They have to pay to do this.

Private reason: Pseudo-communication gives the illusion of communication, prevents members with poor social skills showing off their lack of skill, increases commitment in the service and in the recipients, and in the long run, senders and receivers have to become paying members to reach anything meaningful.

Offer a forum (but moderate it)

Public reason: You want to make users feel at home and show them that you care for them. Of course, this forum cannot be used to bypass membership fees, so you have to moderate it, not only to prevent non-paying members to give out their contact addresses, but also to prevent spam and other smut in the forum.

Private reason: It is a low cost offer that has positive public benefits. People who want to discuss your service will do it on your ground (where else could they go?) and by moderating it, you can prevent “smut” like negative critique of your services.

Offer a “special member” or VIP-club like badge

Public reason: Members who are very active and really use the service a lot should be rewarded. They should have it easier to find someone, given that they are obviously searching very hard.

Private reason: You want your members to do your work in encouraging other non-paying members to become paying members — and you can cheaply pay them with a small 10 x 15 pixel image. Make sure the members know what they should do to get it: write a lot of messages to new members (highest likelihood that the recipients are still non-paying members and might be convinced to become paying members when they get a lot of message in the beginning), log in often (needed to send the messages), and become a paying member (it is not enough that they convince others, they themselves should also lead by example — and pay).

Make your members responsible that they get only a few replies

Public reason: Well, it is true (enough) and you do everything you can to help them with flirting tips on your site and professional (but expensive) coaches. But, additionally, people are not as friendly as they are in real life when they are searching for a partner online — and many do not send even a simple personal reply if they are not interested no matter how nicely written the message was.

Private reason: Your system is build in a way that you earn much money even if it hurts the members’ chances of getting a reply. For example, you encourage them to write to new members which get too many messages to reply to each and every one. You do not give them any information whether the recipient can answer or not. Your member database consists of many ‘rarely active’ members. It also takes time, even if a non-paying member decides to become a paying member, so even in this case an answer will not come quick. The system is stacked against the paying user, so make them feel responsible. Claim that people are often more unfriendly online (true … enough … you, for example), insinuate that users lack flirting skills by offering ‘flirting tips’. But whatever you do, never tell them that many recipients are non paying members and cannot even read the message (much less reply), i.e. that many of those carefully crafted and personal flirt messages could as well been put into the trash bin.

Membership

Men and Women have to pay the same amount

Public reason: Insist that you take a stand for equality between men and women this way, because both have to pay the same amount.

Private reason: You do not get anything from non-paying members. Your users might, if the non-paying members could answer. But you are not in the business to make them happy, you want to earn money. So no matter that only 10-30% of the paying members are women, do not offer women a discount to attract women — this might be nice for the male paying members, but bad for your income.

Never let anyone know your real membership numbers, nor their distribution

Public reason: These are private internal numbers — the business is hard and not everyone plays it as fair as we do.

Private reason: You have it made when you reach a large number, e.g., 1 to 5 Million. You can advertise with this number. However, when someone would brake down this large number, it would drop down sharply: gender (approx. -30-70%), age (approx. -50%), geographical region (approx. -95%), children (approx. -20%) — using these to filter the number of matches would make it clear that only a tiny amount of those people would actually be of practical interest for the user. And most would not be interested in the user. They must never ever find this out.

Count all created profiles as valid members

Public reason: You offer a service, they registered, they are members of your exclusive service. If they have not used it in the past month, they might use it in the next. After all, you cannot kick out a person who has filled out a questionnaire (or not), and asked you to be a member of your service, only because this person is absent. He or she might have an accident or is on vacation.

Private reason: You need a high membership count to attract other members. Counting all profiles unless they were explicitly deleted help this goal.

All members are equal, but some are more equal than others

Public reason: They have registered, they are members, whether they pay or not. Payment or not merely affects what they can do, not their status as members.

Private reason: You can give a high ‘membership number’ for advertisement purposes, no matter that a large part of these members cannot communicate with others (to arrange a meeting, see ‘Offer pseudo-communication that can never be used to arrange a meeting’). This will attract other people to become users … errrr members. Use some fancy name (e.g., “premium member”, “gold member”) for those who pay and actually can communicate freely.

Do not tell your users who are non-paying members (cannot read/reply to messages) and who are paying members (can read and reply)

Public reason: This would be unfair to non-paying members. They would not get as many messages as paying members and would be unfairly excluded. After all, if they receive a convincing message, they will become members.
Note: The sentence is true, because a “convincing message” is meant as a “convincing message to become a member”. And it might as well be this way, if the recipient could read the message in the first place (see ‘Everyone must pay to read a message’).

Private reason: Who would write a message to a person who cannot read or answer it (yet? ever?)? If users could distinguish between those two kinds of membership, only paying members would get messages. If only paying members get messages, then the non-paying members have no reason to become paying members. It is better that a paying member sends 9 out of 10 messages down the drain because the recipient cannot answer them, than if these nine message are not sent and there is not at least the chance that one of the nine becomes a paying member in consequence.
Attention: Avoid the argument that paying members deserve to be highlighted as paying members because of their payment, which makes them non-equal to non-paying members. Sure, they deserve to be ‘better’ but for your income, they are actually worse — they already have paid (often many months in advance).

Do not allow your users to exchange their membership status information (e.g., on their profile page)

Public reason: see above

Private reason: see above. Besides preventing spam/smut this is the main reasons for checking every profile information that is entered or changed.

Offer Cheap Guarantees (“x contacts guaranteed or free membership extension”)

Public reason: You want satisfied customers who get messages and responses from other singles.

Private reason: You define contact as “getting a message” and/or “getting a response”. Given that the whole service is structured to increase the chances that newbies get messages (new customers are featured, those who are new and non-paying cannot be distinguished from those who are paying members) it is very likely that new customers get more than 5-10 messages within a few weeks. And given that a “response” does not mean positive response, every “sorry, no interest” message counts as “contact”. Even in the worst case, you do not give them the money back, but keep them in a service that has proven useless for them. Consequence: this guarantee guarantees that you appear in a positive light while costing you nothing.

Use technical issues or ideals to deflect critical questions about the fairness of your service

Public reason: Sure, new, non-paying members are featured and they are not even marked as non-paying. You would like to do things differently, but you cannot please everyone. And there are technical limitations of what you can do.

Private reasons: Most users cannot program and do not know how hard (or rather: easy) it is to change database queries or sorting orders. If this fails and you have a technical competent users, use ideals like equality. That always throws them off. Do not let it irritate you that non-paying and paying members are not equal, given that the one group has not given you money (yet) while the other one did. The ideal is enough — you want them all to give you money.

This concludes this short overview of how you can earn money with online dating services.

Note: No, I would not try to earn my money this way, but some people do. No matter how sincere they try to be to others, I think they know the kind of deal they are offering. It’s strange — and sad — the Internet could offer a really good dating service. It could lead to people finding love, start a family, or even a partner for a little while. No matter what you search, you could probably find it, even if you ‘just’ look for some company or sex. But in the end, the only person who gets screwed is the paying customer — and not in the way he or she intended. Pity.

(Ad is in German, Translation: 100% money back guarantee, up to 16 Kg in 4 weeks, Order Now — and it pretty much looks like a weight loss ad)

If you want to see the book lecture, it is on Fora.tv or a highlight selection embedded here:

• Google Video (with introduction)
• YouTube (without introduction)

After watching the twelve episodes and another presentation to the same topic I found the following attributes to be very interesting:

Well-Timed speech
He speaks slowly and makes pauses in the right moments. This gives students time to think about the sentences. He also repeats what students have said in his own words, which gives him and others time to think about it.

Suiting movements
Similar to his low-key speech he walks around slowly when he is not behind the lectern. This gives him some dynamic but is in accordance to the topic of the course.

Shows everyday relevance of the issues
He continuously makes connections to every day life and makes clear what is at stake in philosophy. This is necessary to allow participation because students can imagine themselves in these situations and makes the philosophical positions relevant and concrete instead of purely abstract. He continuously links concrete examples to abstract positions and vice versa, allowing students to see it in abstract, general and concrete, special cases.

Encourages participation
There are several strategies used to encourage participation:

• He makes it clear that the topics can be discussed by the students. For example, in the first lecture when he dismisses skepticism and throughout the course when he lets the students challenge their positions. He also mentions when philosophers give strange reasons and shows them that they can be criticized.

• He asks for the names of the contributors and mentions them when he refers to the same arguments. This brings the names of the students in the same line as the philosophers they are analyzing and shows them that the philosophers can be criticized by them.

• He asks them what they think personally, “how you would rule”, without having to resort to laws. When they say what others might think he returns them to their own opinion by asking: “But what do you think?” or by finding out via a quick vote.

• He reinforces the students speaking by paraverbal signals (e.g., nods) and verbally (“right”, “yes”). He continuously gives the feedback that he understands what they say, but not necessarily that he agrees with their opinion. If a student has problems stating his opinion, he supports them.

• He reinforces students for each contribution by thanking them and — in some cases — recognizing that their contribution was not easy because it dealt with difficult moral positions (like agreeing to eat a crew mate). For example, he uses sentences like “You did well. It’s a hard question.” or “Brave answer. Thank you.”. He also thanks them for questions (e.g., “interesting you should ask …”, “interesting suggestion”).

• He also tells them when they divert from philosophers but tells them they might be right and the philosophers might be wrong. For example, in the presentation at Duke Sanford School: “That makes sense [pause] but it’s not Aristoteles reason.” “Argh” “That’s all right. You might be right and he might be wrong. We’ll see.” He also says when something is partially right (“reason is deserving but …”).

• If there is a vote, he raises his hand every time which could be interpreted as voting for it and might encourage others to stand by their opinion and raise their hands. He also makes it clear that the vote is not just for fun (or so that we have done something “interactive”) but summarizes the results, often interprets what this means, and refers to it later in the lecture. Consequently, it actually makes sense for students to participate in the vote. He also notices who raised his hand in an issue and sometimes asks the person later.

• He also refers the answers students give to other students who have brought a conflicting or similar point earlier (hence he is asking for the name of the person who speaks). While he is still monitoring the discussion and highly structures it, it leaves the students engaged in the discussion because it’s not “lecture – one question – one answer – lecture” but actually a kind of discussion among the students. It has the further beneficial effect that he does not criticize them himself (which would probably reduce further participation) but lets the students being criticized by their peers.

• Even if a student completely smashes what he was aiming for, he takes it with humor, concedes the point and moves on (“interesting idea except that it wrecked the philosophical point”). It shows pretty clearly that students can participate even if they say something the lecturer does not like.

Minding the overall course of the discussion, lecture, course
The whole discussion serves the goal of the course (as it should) and is structured by him to achieve this goal.

• While the students are encouraged to participate it is neither participation without consequence nor without direction. If a student mentions something he was aiming for he reinforces the direction (a “Good point. Who has another reason …” compared to an “Good. Who has an answer for …”). He also stops students immediately when they brought the point he was aiming at. If the discussion is not moving in the right direction, he asks specific questions to further sharpen the issue and lead to the points he was aiming at.

• Students bring the philosophical points and he uses their positions to illustrate these points more formally. It looks like he has a roadmap in mind, but instead of driving on a superhighway from A to B he lets students explore the territory and gives (gentle) nudges to make sure they find the landmarks. This is especially noticeable when he moves the discussion on a meta level and describes how the discussion evolved and what it means in the context of the philosopher discussed.

• He also connects the different lectures and gives a short recap what was doe the last time, including mentioning the results of votes or the positions of students he names. It is clear for the students that the course is going somewhere.

• I think the main point he makes regarding his course is that philosophical questions can and should be discussed and not left to non-state organizations like churches. And he achieves this point well — he summarizes his opinion in the last presentation and shows the students that they have done so during the whole semester showing that it can be done, and should be done.

Keeps the discussion personally relevant but in a personal distance
Given that he makes the philosophical positions personally relevant he also has to make sure that students keep a certain emotional distance in the discussion (e.g., to avoid ad hominem arguments). This was very obvious when one student asked another whether he had ever engaged in masturbation. He intervened and asked her to make the point in the third person. But also in earlier discussions, e.g., when one student argued against Affirmative Action programs for Blacks but for Legacy Admissions to Harvard, he did not ask the student whether he himself was only accepted to Harvard due to Legacy Admission.

I think the only criticism regarding the lectures is that it becomes harder to follow when he is reading at the lectern. Standing freely in front of the students and arguing for certain points he does extremely well, but I have yet to see and hear a lecturer who can hold my attention while reading a text behind a lectern.

By the way, the technical quality of the videos is also remarkable, given that they were made for TV. The video is crystal clear (in HQ), the sound quality excellent, and the camera work professional and well framed/cut (although I would be very angry if a camera man would be filming my lecture notes). I think the only criticism I have regarding this point is that it looks too flashy (especially the teasers) — like a report you would see on TV (for which it was for). It might suggest that the lecture is “only” entertainment, something videos are likely to suggest (cf. Salomon, 1984). It actually helped me not to look on the screen too much.

All in all, very interesting, very stimulating and a good example that even formal education in philosophy does not have to be boring. You can find the lectures here:

• Presentation at Duke Sanford Inaugural Series (iTunes U) (seems to be broken at the end, but gives a good first impression)
• YouTube Playlist of all Harvard lectures (12 videos à two lectures each)

Remark: This text is in German because it deals with a German online partnership service. It shows my personal opinion regarding ElitePartner, one of these services.

Ich sehe mir gerade Partnerschaftsbörsen und -vermittlungen an, und nach einer Empfehlung von einer Freundin habe ich mit ElitePartner begonnen. Vom ersten Eindruck her war ich begeistert — ElitePartner verfügt über einen sehr schönen Fragebogen, bei dem man u.a. Handlungsmotive (wie Unabhängigkeit, Ehre, Beziehungen, Ruhe, Entspannung, etc.) angeben kann. Man sieht schnell, was der Person wichtig im Leben ist. Auch die Profilangaben und die Website selbst sind ganz hübsch.

Drum prüfe, wer sich kostsam bindet

Gemäß dem Motto “Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig (oder hier besser: kostsam) bindet” habe ich einen genaueren Blick auf ElitePartner geworfen. Bisher kannte ich nur friendscout24 als zahlendes Mitglied, und vor diesem Hintergrund war ich von ElitePartner negativ überrascht.

Mitglieder sind nicht Mitglieder

Nach eigenen Angaben (Startseite) hat ElitePartner “> 1 Mio. Mitglieder”. Das klingt erst einmal viel und verspricht ca. 500.000 Singles im richtigen Geschlecht als potenzielle Kontakte, auch wenn nicht alle unbedingt in der Nähe leben oder an sonstigen k.o.-Kriterien vorbei kommen (z.B. Kinder, Bildung, Gewicht, etc.). Aber auch sonst ist die Zahl fehlleitend — nur weil jemand Mitglied bei ElitePartner ist, heißt dies nicht, dass diese Person auch mit persönlichen Nachrichten zu erreichen ist. Unklar ist, wie viele dieser “Mitglieder” die Site nur testen und wie viele zahlende Mitglieder sind. Und das macht bei ElitePartner einen gewaltigen Unterschied.

Nur zahlende Mitglieder können Nachrichten lesen und beantworten

Im Gegensatz zu friendscout24 ist bei ElitePartner eine Kommunikation nur dann möglich, wenn sowohl der Sender als auch der Empfänger einer Nachricht zahlende Mitglieder (= “Premium-Mitglieder”) sind. Für normale Mitglieder (= nicht “Premium-Mitglieder”) sieht eine Nachricht beim Empfang komplett verschwommen und unleserlich aus. Falls jemand kurzsichtig ist — mit ungefähr 7 Dioptrin auf 30 cm gesehen. [Ich würde hier ein Bildschirmphoto zeigen, aber die ElitePartner-Site ist Copyright-geschützt.]

Laut Antwort auf eine Anfrage bei ElitePartner “nehmen sich viele Leute erstmal die Zeit, sich mit unserer Website vertraut zu machen und zu schauen, was für Menschen bei uns Mitglied sind. Meist fällt die Entscheidung Premium-Mitglied zu werden innerhalb des ersten Monats nach Anmeldung, wenn jemand anfragt, dem man gern schreiben möchte.”.

Für mich sind diese Personen dann aber keine Mitglieder, sondern “Tester”.

ElitePartner scheint dies meines Erachtens ähnlich zu sehen: “Wir gehen davon aus, dass jeder der sich auf unserer Seite anmeldet ernsthaft daran interessiert ist, einen Partner für eine langfristige Beziehung zu finden. Dies kann natürlich erst geschehen, wenn man Premium-Mitglied ist.”

Mit anderen Worten: man muss Premium-Mitglied sein, um einen Partner für eine langfristige Beziehung zu finden (okay, warum gibt es dann “nicht-Premium-Mitgliedschaften”, wenn man damit nichts anfangen kann?).

Viele Testen die Site erst einmal

Also sind viele der angemeldeten Mitglieder erst einmal “Tester” und entscheiden sich dann, ob sie zahlendes Mitglied werden möchten — oder nicht? Die Frage, ob die Entscheidung immer für eine Premium-Mitgliedschaft ausfällt, wurde nicht beantwortet. Gibt es nicht auch Personen, die sich die Website von ElitePartner ansehen, und sich dann einfach nicht mehr anmelden, ohne Premium-Mitglied zu werden? Und wie viele der “> 1 Mio. Mitglieder” sind das?

Warum werden die “Tester” nicht gesondert gekennzeichnet?

Zurück zu den > 1 Mio., die anscheinend aus “Testern” und zahlenden Mitgliedern zusammengesetzt sind. Wieso werden die “Tester” nicht gesondert gekennzeichnet? Schließlich können sie nicht wirklich an einer Kommunikation teilnehmen. Sicherlich können sie ein “Lächeln” schicken oder “Nachrichten” aus Bauteilen zusammensetzen, aber ist das Kommunikation im Sinne einer Partnervermittlung? Kommunikation im Kontext von Partnersuche muss auch zum Partner finden taugen, und über ein “Anlächeln” kann man wohl kaum persönliche Informationen austauschen oder gar ein Treffen vereinbaren.
Partnervermittlungen sind ein lukratives Geschäft — und da spricht auch nichts gegen, schließlich erfüllen sie einen wichtigen und notwendigen Zweck. Wenn die Arbeit, der Freundeskreis, oder die Freizeit nichts hergibt und man nicht gerne ausgeht, sind Online Partnerbörsen und -vermittlungen eine gute Alternative. ElitePartner wirbt mit höherer Qualität bei den potenziellen Partnern — höhere Bildung, größeres Interesse an einer langfristigen Beziehung statt einem One Night Stand, entsprechendes Einkommen. Dafür muss ElitePartner aber auch eine entsprechende Menge an männlichen und weiblichen Partnersuchenden an Land ziehen.

Vorteile für ElitePartner den Mitgliedsstatus zu verschweigen

Die Mitgliederzahl ist dabei ein Aushängeschild — je mehr desto besser. Würde ElitePartner jetzt aber klar kennzeichnen, wer wirklich eine Nachricht lesen und beantworten kann (und zwar zum gegebenen Zeitpunkt und nicht im best-case, dass die Person unmittelbar nach Erhalt Mitglied wird), würde diese Zahl sinken. Gegeben, dass mindestens ein ElitePartner Mitglied nicht-Premium-Mitglied ist, sinkt die Zahl um mindestens 1 — und das ist zum Zeitpunkt des Schreibens dieses Eintrags durch mich gegeben — und vermutlich durch viele weitere Nicht-Premium-Mitglieder. Ob die Zahl dann unter die “1 Millionen” Grenze fallen würde, wäre interessant herauszufinden, leider gibt ElitePartner darüber keine Auskünfte.

Neben einer höheren Gesamt-Mitgliederzahl sorgt die fehlende Kennzeichnung von “Testern” auch dafür, dass zahlende Mitglieder nicht zwischen “Testern”, die evt. Mitglied werden könnten und dann lesen/antworten könnten, und anderen zahlenden Mitgliedern, die in jedem Fall lesen und antworten können, unterscheiden, wenn sie jemanden anschreiben. ElitePartner geht nach eigenen Angaben davon aus, dass die angschriebenen “Tester” nach Erhalt einer Nachricht zahlende Mitglieder werden (“wenn jemand anfragt, dem man gern schreiben möchte”) — die dann ebenfalls Nachrichten schreiben und damit vielleicht andere “Tester” zur Mitgliedschaft bewegen.

In einer eMail-Anfrage gab ElitePartner auch noch die Auskunft, dass der Status der Mitgliedschaft nicht angezeigt wird, weil er sich in jeder gegebenen Minute ändern kann. Huh? Wirklich — Zitat: “Da sich der Status eines Mitgliedes in jeder gegebenen Minute ändern kann, wird dieser nicht angezeigt.” Hmmm, Skype, ICQ, & und sonstige Chatprogramme zeigen jegliche Statusänderungen sofort an, und das bei > 521 Millionen User Accounts (Skype) — das geht auch im Web ohne Probleme. Ich wäre auch bereit zu wetten, dass Skype-Nutzer ihren Status (z.B. online/offline/skype-me/Away) häufiger ändern, als ElitePartner, die dafür erst mal ihre Bankverbindung raussuchen müssen. Andere Anbieter (wie z.B. Friendscout24) schreiben den Status ganz natürlich in jedes Profil. Und selbst für ElitePartner scheint diese Entscheidung (widersprüchlicherweise in der selben Antwort) nicht so holter-die-polter zu gehen: (“Wie Sie selbst sicher auch nehmen sich viele Leute erstmal die Zeit, sich mit unserer Website vertraut zu machen und zu schauen, was für Menschen bei uns Mitglied sind. Meist fällt die Entscheidung Premium-Mitglied zu werden innerhalb des ersten Monats nach Anmeldung, wenn jemand anfragt, dem man gern schreiben möchte.”). Der Status kann sich jede gegebene Minute ändern, aber zahlendes Mitglied wird man (wenn überhaupt?) innerhalb eines Monats? Klingt wenig überzeugend …

Selbst wenn es für ElitePartner technisch problematisch zu realisieren wäre, ElitePartner selbst verbietet Nutzern, den Status ihrer Mitgliedschaft im Profil anzugeben. Als ich die erste Anfrage erhalten habe und diese weder lesen noch beantworten konnte, wollte ich meinen Status im Freitext des Profils angeben. Der Versuch dies in einer der drei Freitextfragen anzugeben, wurde mit der folgenden eMail abgelehnt

“Sie haben in Ihrem Profil Fragen formuliert, die Sie gern anderen Mitgliedern stellen würden.

Leider konnten wir folgende Ihrer Fragen nicht freischalten:

- Macht es dir etwas aus noch zu warten? Derzeit bin ich kein Mitglied und kann weder Nachrichten lesen noch antworten.

Folgende Gründe können hierfür verantwortlich sein:
- Sie haben Ihre E-Mailadresse / Telefonnummer/Webadresse / Kontaktdaten eingestellt.
- Sie haben anstößige Inhalte formuliert. Damit verstoßen Sie aktiv gegen den § 7e Verhaltensverpflichtungen unserer Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen.
- Sie haben Angaben zum Status Ihrer Mitgliedschaft gemacht.”

Statt technischer Gründe scheint es für ElitePartner aus meiner Sicht viele finanzielle Vorteile zu haben, die genaue Anzahl der zahlenden Mitglieder versus der “Tester” zu verschweigen.

Nachteile für die zahlenden Nutzer, wenn der Mitgliedsstatus verschwiegen wird

Problematisch dabei: auch als zahlender Nutzer hat dieses Verhalten durchweg Nachteile.
Zunächst einmal würde ich es als fraglich sehen, dass ein “Tester”, der angeschrieben wird, auch prompt zahlendes Mitglied wird, nur um die Nachricht lesen zu können. Auch wenn ElitePartner es geschickt gemacht hat:

• Die Nachricht wird verschwommen dargestellt und so die Neugier geweckt (viel besser als nur zu sagen, dass man eine Nachricht erhalten hat, aber auch viel “gemeiner”).
• Das Profil des Absenders kann angesehen werden, die Photos aber werden unscharf dargestellt (wie die Person wirklich aussieht im “harsh light of the day” sieht man erst bei einer zahlenden Mitgliedschaft — und schon bei den Simpsons wurde eindrücklich gezeigt, dass das Bild ebenso (un)scharf wie das Motiv sein muss, um gut auszusehen). Die Vorstellung, wie gut die Person nun wirklich aussieht, dürfte v.a. durch die Modell-Photos auf der Eingangseite eher ins positive verzerrt sein.
• Es gibt den “Preferred Member” Status schneller (rotes Icon, was es genau macht ist mir noch unklar), wenn man “Neulinge begrüßt” (die zahlende Mitglieder werden müssen, um die Nachricht lesen zu können).
• Es gibt den “Preferred Member” Status auch dann schneller, wenn man selbst zahlendes Mitglied wird.

Auch wenn es sehr clever von ElitePartner ist, dass die zahlenden Mitglieder durch ihr Verhalten andere “Nutzer” (“Tester”) dazu bewegen, selbst zahlende Mitglieder zu werden, kann eine angeschriebene “Testperson” natürlich auch zu dem Urteil kommen, dass sie nicht bereit ist, für das Lesen einer Nachricht und die Ansicht eines Photos mindestens 69,90 Euro zu bezahlen (14-Tage Mitgliedschaft). Und das liegt nicht daran, wie viel Mühe man sich mit der Nachricht gegeben hat (sie wird ja nur verschwommen angezeigt). Dann wundert man sich als zahlendes Mitglied, warum die anderen Partnersuchenden so unhöflich sind und nicht antworten, obwohl das allein daran liegen kann, dass sie nicht antworten können — und noch nicht einmal sagen können, dass sie nicht antworten können. Die Nutzer werden entsprechend frustriert und wundern sich über die unhöflichen Partnersuchenden bei Online-Partnerbörsen und -vermittlungen, was letztendlich diesen Vermittlungen schadet.

Es kann auch dazu führen, dass sich die Partnersuchenden trotz bester Absichten verpassen. Wenn die Entscheidung über die zahlende Mitgliedschaft wirklich länger dauert, dann könnte es sein, dass eine Person zuerst mehrere Anfragen rausschickt, keine Antworten bekommt, und dann, wenn die Angeschriebenen (vielleicht!) zahlende Mitglieder sind und lesen/antworten können, die Person dem Dienst schon den Rücken gekehrt hat. Ohne ElitePartner jetzt zu nahe treten zu wollen, aber falls dem so ist, erinnert mich das Ganze was an ein Schneeball-System, allerdings eines, bei denen auch die ersten Leute zahlen und dann leer ausgehen.

Die Frage bleibt: Wie viele der > 1 Mio. Mitglieder können Nachrichten lesen und beantworten?

Aber es gibt ja auch zahlende Mitglieder unter den Anzuschreibenden — die Frage ist nur wieder, wie viele? Dies wurde auch auf mehrfache Nachfrage nicht genannt (“Bitte haben Sie dafür Verständnis, dass wir genaue betriebsinterne Zahlen zu unseren Mitglieder grundsätzlich nicht nach außen kommunizieren. Wir bitten das zu verstehen und um Verständnis.”). Das “betriebsinterne Zahlen” nicht nach außen kommuniziert werden, ist trivial (was anderes heißt denn “betriebsintern”?) — die Frage ist allerdings: Warum sind die Zahlen betriebsintern? Warum werden keine Zahlen über den Anteil von “Testern” zu zahlenden (= erreichbaren) Mitgliedern genannt? Von meinen Erfahrungen mit anderen Social Web Anwendungen ausgehend liegt der Schluss nahe, dass der Anteil der “Tester” relativ hoch sein könnte, zumindest zu hoch, als das ElitePartner dies angeben wollen würde.

Das heißt, dass ich selbst, wenn ich zahlendes Mitglied werden würde, meines Erachtens …

• vor allem dazu da bin, durch mein Verhalten noch(?) nicht zahlende Mitglieder zu einer bezahlten Mitgliedschaft zu bewegen
• ein unbekannter aber vermutlich hoher Anteil der Nachrichten auch direkt in den Papierkorb wandern könnte, weil die Nachricht unabhängig vom Inhalt und von meiner zahlenden Mitgliedschaft vom Empfänger nicht gelesen werden kann
• mir dieser Status nicht mitgeteilt wird, weil die Vorteile dieses Versteck”spiels” für Elitepartner überwiegen.

Fazit: Nein, Danke.

Wenn jemand etwas nicht gut findet, kann er darüber klagen, oder er kann es einfach nicht nutzen. Man kann aber auch beides tun. Kurz gesagt, das Verhalten von ElitePartner wirkt auf mich unfair. Der Wunsch nach einer Partnerschaft, nicht alleine durch’s Leben zu gehen, jemanden zu haben, zu dem man kommen kann — das ist ein ziemlich starkes und motivierendes Bedürfnis. Dafür ist man gerne bereit, viel zu investieren: Zeit, Energie, Geld, Nerven. Was ich nach der Betrachtung von ElitePartner verstehe ist, dass die Vorteile für ElitePartner auf Kosten der zahlenden Kunden in Kauf genommen werden und dass ich unter diesen Umständen lieber kein Mitglied, zahlend oder nicht, bei ElitePartner sein möchte. Ich habe mir ElitePartner ursprünglich angesehen, weil es mir von einer guten Freundin empfohlen wurde. Was ich nach genauerem Hinsehen und (versuchten) Nachfragen gesehen und gehört habe, ist allerdings für mich weniger überzeugend. Und um einen Einwand noch zu entkräften: Es geht mir hierbei nicht um die mindestens 69,90 Euro, die ich für eine 14-tägige Mitgliedschaft zahlen müsste (ich hätte übrigens 12 Monate für 360 Euro gewählt, weil ich Partnersuche für ein langfristiges Unternehmen halte). Ich habe mir für 2010 ein Budget von 500 Euro für Partnerbörsen/-vermittlungen gesetzt, dies hätte für eine zahlende Mitgliedschaft locker gereicht. Aber ich werfe mein Geld nicht gerne zum Fenster raus, und unter diesen Bedingungen — eine vom Anbieter absichtlich verschwiegene Zahl von “Mitgliedern” kann Nachrichten weder lesen noch sie beantworten — sehe ich es als Geldverschwendung.

Denn was nützt mir eine Plattform, bei der ich mit viel Herzblut eine Nachricht aufsetze, die dann bei der Empfängerin absichtlich unleserlich gemacht ankommt, nur um sie ebenfalls zu einer zahlenden Mitgliedschaft zu bewegen?