[laurenkay]

We have 5 full-time matchmakers with varied backgrounds, mostly in psychology, theater, and working at other matchmaking agencies. We often get questioned more on what makes our matchmakers good, than another company would get questioned on what makes their engineers, or other employees good. This is both because matchmaking isn't a common profession, and because matchmaking is a majority female profession that tends to get undervalued and not viewed as a 'real' profession.

Our matchmakers stay up to date on trends, have exceptionally high EQs, have experience matching thousands of people, and we accept under 1% of people who apply for the job.

[QuotedForTruth]

You get that question more because you're selling a service and thus the matchmakers are your product. A company that sells physical goods like a smart phone dont get asked about their engineers because there is a product to look at. If I was buying a consultant's time for any other business I would also want to know their qualificaitons.

[UrMomReadsHN]

Do you have any data or evidence that says matchmakers outperform random chance (random chance within certain parameters, basically age and sexual orientation)?

I'd be interested in the odds of two people selected at random forming a relationship vs the odds of two people selected by a matchmaker forming a relationship. As well as two people selected by a computer algorithm vs two people selected by a matchmaker. And two people selected by some random asshole off the street vs two people selected by a matchmaker.

I'm guessing not.

You need to demonstrate with data your "service" is useful to convince people to use it.

[TeMPOraL]

> You need to demonstrate with data your "service" is useful to convince people to use it.

The thing is, you don't.

All you need to do is to market the living shit out of this idea, and since no one can reliably answer whether it beats random chance people will use it. You get to earn the benefits for as long as it takes for someone else to actually do the studies that debunk you and then one-up you at marketing.

[UrMomReadsHN]

You're right! I was more talking about the people here asking questions that weren't being answered with a straight answer. Surely people do use unproven (or even disproven) products all the time. I was just frustrated with the non answer marketing talk.

I've been doing a little googling (and I do mean a little) and it seems as these matchmakers will offer dubious value for predicting long term relationship satisfaction.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/opinion/sunday/online-d...

>Because they gather data from singles who have never met, the sites have no way of knowing how two people will interact once they have been matched. Yet our review of the literature reveals that aspects of relationships that emerge only after two people meet and get to know each other — things like communication patterns, problem-solving tendencies and sexual compatibility — are crucial for predicting the success or failure of relationships. For example, study after study has shown that the way that couples discuss and attempt to resolve disagreements predicts their future satisfaction and whether or not the relationship is likely to dissolve.

>the information that they do collect — about individual characteristics — accounts for only a tiny slice of what makes two people suited for a long-term relationship.

>According to a 2008 meta-analysis of 313 studies, similarity on personality traits and attitudes had no effect on relationship well-being in established relationships. In addition, a 2010 study of more than 23,000 married couples showed that similarity on the major dimensions of personality (e.g., neuroticism, impulsivity, extroversion) accounted for a mere 0.5 percent of how satisfied spouses were with their marriages — leaving the other 99.5 percent to other factors.

Sure it will get you to meet singles, but there probably isn't anything special about it other than that. Adding someone who majored in theater arts is unlikely to add value for the cost involved.

[TeMPOraL]

I feel your frustration about the non-answer marketing talk.

To be honest, were I not in a relationship at the moment (and if I lived in SF/NYC), I'd probably sign up for this. For me, the primary value is not however their Premium Matchmakers beat random chance; it's taking away the work required to find a date.

After you finish high school, or graduate from university, finding a potential date gets incredibly more difficult. You no longer spend majority of your day with hundreds of people, many of whom could be your potential partners - you have to work to expand your social circle and meet people (most of whom are already in stable relationships anyway). I'd gladly pay Dating Ring for the sole reason of helping me meet people who are also looking for a date.

[UrMomReadsHN]

Oh, I agree it has value for just that reason. Just I didn't like the supposed magic sauce that got throw around to justify the value without proof. I dont believe the value is in the matchmakers (who might as well be a computer algorithm) but access to singles also looking for a date or relationship with little work. It is overpriced for what it is though. If I were single I might be interested in a service that did similar at a lower price point that didn't emphasize on "how great our matchmakers are. Trust us."

I know how hard it is to meet new people to date. Especially when you get older and all your friends all are busy with families and what not.

[imaginenore]

And you still didn't answer the question - WHY are they better? Just because they read on psychology, and "have exceptionally high EQs" (what is that?), doesn't make them good.

This PR has been a trainwreck. You're the conductor.

[boyaka]

As IQ is to Intelligence Quotient, I assumed that EQ is to Emotional Quotient. So kind of like emotional intelligence. I'm sure I could find much more info about these terms and proper usage with a google search.