It’s old news that the on-line dating site True.com has greatly irritated their competitors, primarily Match.com with their blatant rent-mongering attempts to get legislation enacted which would require every online dating site but themselves to post warning labels over all their profiles:

Vest [CEO of true] has managed to convince legislators in states including California, Texas, Virginia, and Michigan to sponsor bills that would target rival dating sites like Match.com, Yahoo Personals, Spring Street Networks, craigslist and eHarmony.

Those sites would be required to stamp this stark warning atop every e-mail and personal ad, in no less than 12-point type: “WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL.”

Today, though, I found an On-line personals blog which has gotten into the mix with “James Houran, Ph.D., Chief Psychologist, TRUE.com” (whom I’ll trust to be legit based on his postings) and representatives of numerous other sites all mixing it up for our voyeuristic pleasure. It really starts to get good about half-way down the page when Houran starts to run out of prepared talking points.

What it all comes down to is that True went for a high-cost variation of the on-line dating business model (real cost to conduct a background check of every member) and it’s not panning out.

I was Match.com’s Information Security Manager in a former life, so I know a little more about this than the Guy On The Street. True should have asked some of those Product Development people they hired from Match what the Lifetime Value of a Registration was. I don’t feel I’m at liberty to say, but I will say that in the current pricing environment, it’s not enough to turn a profit if you run a criminal background check on all of them, even if you get some sort of volume discount.

So True took an existing business model (meet people on-line), tacked on what they hoped would be a perceived added value (criminal background checks of members), and discovered that the numbers didn’t actually work. The pages of Red Herring, Fast Company, and Business 2.0 are littered with the corpses of companies that meet this description, some more famously than others.

Really, Pets.com could be described the same way: Take an existing business model (sell stuff for pets) and add a twist (put it on-line), then discover that numbers don’t work (you can’t make a profit UPS’ing a 50lb bag of dog food).

What True.com is doing, however, is not only ineffective–they use ChoicePoint, after all–but actually quite stupid from a Risk perspective. By selling a Sense of Security, they are creating a population of people who will be more complacent because they feel secure.

Thus, True.com has a business model which is based on on encouraging people to assume risk they might otherwise not. Sounds like an invitation to a lawsuit if ever there was one to me.

BACKGROUND CHECKS AND DISCLOSURE = TRUE LIES

Vest once again is trying to get lawmakers to pass his background check disclosure act, since it failed every where, even in Texas True’s home base. True is now trying in Illinois HB5299 . Vest exploits women, doesn’t disclose his own deceptive business practices and is hiding his personal background of abuse and womanizing. I believe Vest should be exposed because he is using our lawmakers to manipulate the industry and continues to exploit women while he lies to the public of his motivates in order to line his own pockets

An online dating site called True.com which touts it’s self as the safer dating service and the owner Herb Vest is behind litigation to require all dating services to disclose if they conduct background checks should be investigated for date bait along with several other questionable business practices.

Vest is being sued in Dallas, Texas by his former fiancee. The details of the woman’s case is very disturbing. Vest who is fighting to require background checks is now fighting to keep the detail affidavit by this woman seal. Vest sited it would damage his business and personal life.
Some of the details includes Vest with prostitutes, Threesomes with lesbians. Several sexual harassment claims against Vest while at HD Vest, Inc. Cheating on his second wife with a prostitute. And, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Vest stated: “In addition to screening our own members for criminal backgrounds, TRUE is doing everything it can to make the online dating community at-large a more wholesome environment for courtship – one that is free and clear of predators and criminals”. In another statement “The idea for True.com came from wanting to provide a “safe and wholesome environment for courtship,”" Vest said.

True is now turning it’s business to the sex trade. www.askmen.com has a contest to pick the hottest True girl. True.com’s exploitation of women in sleazy ads:

http://www.onlinedatingmagazine.com/columns/2005editorials/april2005.html

http://www.calacanis.com/2006/01/13/should-we-run-these-ampd-ads-or-not/3#comments

http://www.corante.com/dating/images/trueuglymodel.png

In addition you may want to ask Vest about the following business practices.

bloggers have posted claims they have seen documentation of fraud on the part of True. That is, ex-employees who claim that part of their job description was to pose as real people and keep people as members to motivate them to become paid subscribers.

I think that this issue becomes even more pertinent in light of similar allegations currently against Match.com and Yahoo Personals. It is no secret that some “customer service” people that used to work at True are no longer there — and having left under curious circumstances. Vest/ HDVE could be compelled to release names of such ex-employees so they can be questioned about these allegations of fraud. Vest should also be questioned as to whether they have any knowledge of fake/bait profiles being used by True employees at the direction of Vest and/or any of the executive management to essentially deceive or defraud customers or potential customers.

Secrets True.com doesn’t want made public!

1. “Is the endorsement from Psychology Today an academic endorsement or a paid endorsement?”

2. “You state on your site that you have a team of experts behind your testing/psychology services… who are they exactly and how do I get in touch with them in order to ask them what they specifically do for True and examples of recent work.” “Or, perhaps you (True.com) is overstating their roles as a marketing gimmick.”

3. “It seems True has been busy altering the authorship of certain online articles in its online magazine from Dr. James Houran to “Psychology Department” — implying Houran is still a part of the psychology dept. and that True has an active psychology dept.” Why is it making these changes in authorship? Does the online magazine editor (Leah Gentry, formerly a journalist with the LA Times) endorse this practice?”

4. Why has True.com not revealed to its customers that they no longer have the benefit of Dr. James Houran? He was arguably a huge value ad to the business and the welfare of the customers, yet customers are not told he is no longer with the company. True pushes for legislation requiring disclosure and yet they curiously are not disclosing that certain features/ benefits of the site are no longer part of the price of membership.”

FYI: Dr. Jim Houran was fired in October and True sued him. True hasn’t disclosure that there are no experts on staff. Even the security expert is gone. The gimmicks True promotes it’s self with aren’t True!

Also, Vest and his wife has broken their own rule : NO MARRIED PEOPLE ALLOWED. Screen names (undermoose) and (fite) both go into chat rooms. So True.com no married people can contact members isn’t True either.

VEST OFTEN GOES TO THE CHAT ROOM TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON. VEST DOESN’T DISCLOSE THAT MARK BROOKS IS ON THE PAYROLL FOR TRUE.COM. VEST USES MARKS BLOG TO PROMOTE HIS COMPANY AND USES A DIFFERENT NAME.

True’s Herb Vest should be behind bars. True doesn’t disclose that they DO NOT due background checks on everyone, nor do they disclose they are using the compatiblity test to race profile users.

Vest hasn’t disclosed that the compatibility test is flawed and has major problems with the calulations and results are not reliable.

Vest hasn’t disclosed that there has been hundreds of users that are felons or married and Vest isn’t suing them. Vest only filed against Dr. Wells for media attention.

Vest won’t tell the public and industry that the background check disclosure bills are to get branding for True to be the safer dating site and he is using the lawmakers to get press for his lies.

For the online dating to be safer we all must expose Herb Vest deceptions, manipulations, and flat out lies. To have Vest market his company with the very deception and lies Vest claims to protect us gives every dating site a black eye.

DO NOT DO ANY OF THEIR TESTS NOR GIVE THEM CREDIT CARD INFO. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS TO CONTACT THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) AND REPORT THE FRAUD AND DECEPTION. THEY WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!

Well, if we look at the statistics from Google Trends, “online dating” key-phrase is declining in searches since 2006. The best year was 2006. Look at this stats:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=online+dating
It seems that now it’s half the volum of the searches from 2006.
Thanks for the nice post :)