The
Internet has changed so much since its creation, from the way people consume
news, shop for a new home, or find a good roasted chicken recipe.
But perhaps more significant than the way the Internet has changed the way
people find and interact with information has been the way it has changed how
people interact with each other. The Internet has redefined the word
relationship, with regards to both what it means to be in a relationship and
what it takes to begin the relationship. The online dating industry has
experienced tremendous growth in the past decade and has revolutionized the
dating industry as a whole.
What was once thought of as taboo,
or even sketchy (i.e. Craigslist Casual Encounters), has evolved into the norm
for meeting new people. In fact, roughly one in five relationships globally now
begin online (Thomas, 2012). In regions
where Internet access is more ubiquitous, the numbers are even higher. In a
recent study conducted in the UK, for example, nearly 50% of people polled knew
at least one person whose relationship began online (McClellan, 2013).
The online dating market is
continuously growing. According to a 2006 report by Pew
Internet, one in ten Internet users have used an online dating site, which
equated to roughly 16 million users worldwide (Pew Internet, 2006). If the
percentage of Internet users that also use online dating sites remained at
roughly 10%, based on statistics discussed in this class that state that as of
June 2012, there were 2.4 billion
Internet users worldwide, that would equate to 240 million online dating
customers worldwide (Internet World Stats, 2012). In the UK alone, usage in
September 2012 jumped a staggering 22% from the same month the year prior, with
more than 5.7 million people in UK visiting online dating sites during the
month (comScore,
2012).
Users of online dating sites
represent individuals of all ages, with varying intentions. Some users are
looking for a soul mate, while others are not looking for anything more than
online companionship. Millennials, who are so often associated with instant
gratification needs, tend to carry this stereotype with them to online dating sites. In
fact, nearly half of users in this age group admitted to using online dating
sites with sexual intent, compared to 38% of 35-54 year olds and 20% in the 55+
group (McClellan, 2013). Millennials
are also more likely to be in online-only relationships, with almost 20%
believing that an online relationship is just as meaningful as an in-person
relationship (Digital Dating,
2012).
Millennials represent a demographic
with tremendous growth potential, as they have grown up with technology and
beyond being comfortable using it; it is integrated into their lives (Anatole, 2013). This audience
believes it is socially acceptable to ask someone on a date via text message,
and relationships are never official until they are “Facebook Official.”
One recent negative effect of dating
sites aimed at the instant gratification demographic has been a shift in
expectations of what a date actually is. Users just a few older than this
audience can have very different expectations and may be left disappointed when
a date that was thought to be one-on-one dinner turns out to be a group date
with several of the millennials friends (Williams, 2013). Conversations
are replaced with text messages and where one user may be seeking a
relationship, the other may only be interested in one date before moving on to
the next user.
The market has grown so much that a
need for niche dating sites has emerged. While major players in the industry
like eHarmony boast a user base of 20 million, their catch-all approach may not
appeal to individuals with specific lifestyle choices (Kurtzleben,
2013). Today, there are online dating sites targeted specifically towards
varying religious backgrounds, diets, ethnicity, and occupation, among others.
As the target audience becomes more specific, the demographics can change. For
example, users of the niche Geek 2 Geek tend to be far
younger than users of ChristianMingle.com (Alexa.com,
2013).
As previously discussed, the large
sites like eHarmony, OkCupid, and Match.com, all have much larger user bases
than the niche players. However, from a website usability perspective,
they all share the same immediate turnoff: in order to view profiles of other
users, you must become a registered user. While making some level of content
accessible only for registered users is an essential marketing tool for building
a customer list and attracting repeat visitors, prospective users researching
dating sites might be turned off by the amount of data needed simply to browse
(Steiner,
2010). For eHarmony, that also means going through the site’s rather
rigorous personality profile first to see if you even qualify to meet their
user standards. While each site benefits from a strong brand, clever name, and
attractive layout, the commitment required of the user simply to browse can be a
deterrent.
The niche players, likely trying to
grow their user base, do not typically share these requirements. Two such niche
sites are the previously mentioned Geek 2 Geek, the “best
place on the net to meet geeks,” and Veggie Romance, a dating site
for vegetarians and vegans. Geek 2 Geek claims a user base of 350,000, while
Veggie Romance has just 5,000 members (Kurtzleben,
2013); (Thomas, 2012). The audience
for Geek 2 Geek is predominantly males between the ages of 18-34. Most have at
least some college education and no children (Alexa, 2013). Veggie Romance,
meanwhile, is used primarily by women who make up 70% of the active users,
though the U.S. user demographics are more evenly split (Thomas, 2012); (Quantcast, 2013).
From a content perspective, Geek 2
Geek is inconsistent at best. For a site that targets people who presumably
spend an above average amount of time online, its layout and design is lacking.
The site's purpose is clear and mission is clearly stated and easy to locate,
but the site’s appearance is behind its competitors. First and foremost, the
company’s contact information is not readily available, which goes against most
design rules (Steiner,
2010). Rather than listing the actual company contact information, the page
simply has a contact form, so the user must then wait for a reply. The About Us page is little
more than running text, more closely resembling a mediocre blog than an
effective website. The presence of annoying banner ads on its homepage gives
users the impression that the company lacks professionalism. Also, the
advertisements do not align with the site’s mission. The presence of ads for
oil changes and automotive dealers seems very out of place on a dating site.
The color scheme is another weak
point. The bulk of the website is white, often with too much empty white space,
with one orange banner across the top. If used correctly, whitespace can strengthen
a site’s appearance, but Geek 2 Geek’s issues are a combination of too much
whitespace along with poor content alignment (Henry,
2012); (Boudreaux,
2012). It is fine to have colors bleed off the page, but it is not good
when the same happens with text and advertisements. The bright orange banner is enough
to catch one’s attention, but the minimal contrast may not be able to keep it.
The site also lacks graphics, which is an interesting choice for an interactive
site. Geek 2 Geek relies on its user profiles to make up the bulk of the site’s
images, making administrative pages where no profiles exist rather bland.
However, for all of Geek 2 Geek’s
problems with aesthetics, it has some redeeming qualities. Most importantly,
visitors to the site and prospective members can easily browse active user
profiles without have to register for an account. The site is easily navigable and
within seconds, a prospective geek can be searching for a new mate after
entering his or her own basic personal information. The site also encourages users to be honest and unique
in their own profiles. For example, on eHarmony you can probably find thousands
of users who claim to enjoy long walks on the beach, but on Geek 2 Geek, you
can find a “teacher who likes trivia and slaying dragons” or an “arch-villain
in search of nemesis.” In other words, the site allows users to be honest about
themselves to their prospective geek-mate.
While Veggie Romance may only have a
fraction of the users that Geek 2 Geek has, it does have a better website,
though far from perfect. For a site that targets vegetarians and vegans, it may
seem fair to expect the color scheme to consist of earth tones, perhaps
featuring colors associated with vegetables such as greens and reds. Instead,
the site’s primary color is gray, with red highlights mixed in. Like Geek 2
Geek, Veggie Romance does not put any contact information front and center on
the site (Steiner,
2010). Instead, users must find the creators’ profiles buried within the
About Us page, which contain emails for each creator.
Veggie Romance contains advertisements,
but here they are consistent with the site’s mission, with ads for natural
foods stores and vegan blogs, among others. The site also lacks a clear mission
that sets it apart from other traditional dating sites. The mission itself focuses
more on providing people a place to meet online, rather than the sites
association with its target audience of vegetarians and vegans. In fact, other
than the site’s name and advertisements, there is very little on the site that
associates with its audience. As previously stated, if a site wants to attract
repeat visitors, it must provide some form of content that appeal to their interests
(Steiner,
2010). Similar to Geek 2 Geek, the majority of the graphics and images on
Veggie Romance come from user’s profile pages.
Structurally, the site looks and
functions as a visitor would hope. The minimalistic approach yields fast load
times and the site requires very little scrolling to view all of the content on
a given page. The alignment and spacing yields a healthy balance of whitespace
and content, while still keeping the site simple (Boudreaux,
2012). This approach is a plus for desktop and mobile browsing (Boudreaux,
2012). Visitors to the site can browse potential mates, but must register
in order to contact any of them.
While Veggie Romance has the superior
site, Geek 2 Geek does a better job attracting its target audience because it
has succeeded in creating a community of geeks, by geeks and for geeks. Content
is certainly critical to a site’s success, but so is staying true to its
purpose and that is what Geek 2 Geek has done. Browsing the user profiles on
Veggie Romance, it is clear that the site has attracted its own target
audience, but with such a lack of engaging content about the vegetarian or
vegan lifestyles, the site itself appears to be little more than a medium for
which the creators can sell ads. By encouraging geeks to be themselves, Geek 2
Geek has built a stronger following, despite an inferior website.
References
Anatole, E.
(2013, February 8). Want 2 Meet Up? How Millennials Are Redefining Dating In
The Digital Age. MediaPost: Engage: GenY.
Retrieved from: http://www.mediapost.com
Boudreaux, R.
(2012, August 23). Effective design principles for web designers: Alignment. TechRepublic. Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com
Digital Dating
And The Catfish Phenomenon. (2013, February 6). Youth Pulse. Retrieved from: http://www.ypulse.com
Henry, J. (2012,
November 13). 7 Principles of Effective Web Design for People Who Can't Code. Inbound Marketing Blog. Retrieved from: http://www.inboundmarketingagents.com
Internet Users
in the World. (2012, June 30). Internet
World Stats. Retrieved from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
Kurtzleben, D.
(2013, February 11). In Online Dating, Size Doesn't Matter. US News & World Report. Retrieved
from: http://www.usnews.com
Lenhart, A.
& Madden, M. (2006, March 5). Online Dating. Pew Internet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org
McClellan, S.
(2013, March 1). Your Tweetin' Heart. MediaPost:
The Social Graf. Retrieved from: http://www.mediapost.com
Online Dating
Sites Grow By 22 Percent in the UK. (2012, November 9). comScore Data Mine. Retrieved from: http://www.comscoredatamine.com
Steiner, C. (2010,
March 24). The 10 Essentials Of Any Effective Web Site. Forbes. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.com
Thomas, C.
(2012, February 27). The £2bn Relationship - The Business Of Online Dating. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk
US Demographics:
veggieromance.com (2013, March 30). Quantcast.
Retrieved from: http://www.quantcast.com
Williams, A.
(2013, January 11). The End of Courtship? New
York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment