The "best things in life" are said to be "free,"
but sometimes there’s reason to wonder,
especially if single and looking…

 

RELUCTANT = Not wanting to be in a particular situation but not really having a choice, so having to get on with it, however possible…

Singles Who Are "Reluctant" Are Easily Identifiable:

1. They don’t want to be single at all, short or long-term—know singlehood to be a lonely/inadequate state, no matter the positive spin put on it for others’ benefit.
2. They are concerned about being different to all their coupled friends—left out, as well as left behind.
3.  They regret and are preoccupied with missing "developmental stages"—marriage and children.
4.  They recognize that some are more equal than others—a wedding band is still seen as a "ring of success" by most.
5. They are tired of singles’ gimmicks/an exploitative "singles market"—merchandise and media that don’t respect who singles are and can be as people, just profit from and/or make fun of their vulnerabilities.
6. They’re familiar with getting excluded by couples (and family members)—those who used to be single (and singles-friendly) when they were trying to move on from that status, themselves.

"Reluctant Singles" Realize:

1. Complaining doesn’t help—just makes them appear bitter/whiney—seen to be deserving to be single.
2. Non-singles might not care about their single friends’ single status as much as others who are single.  Being in a relationship can often make it harder to empathize—there are other more pressing problems (which is, usually, true).
3. Society doesn’t properly accommodate its singles majority—it’s still a "couples’ world," for the most part.
4. Singles need to make a lot of fuss in order to be heard when their (true) messages and issues aren’t upbeat—funny, inspirational, or entertaining.
5. What’s hard to acknowledge (about singles’ struggles) is more readily ignored.
6. Only "reluctant singles" really know what’s challenging about their circumstances—what needs to change to help those looking, or how singlehood might be made more agreeable.  However, their ideas aren’t always good for business.  ("Singles’ businesses" are, for the most part, profit- not people-oriented, or charities.)

When The Price is Wrong:

For singles not sure about which singles’ businesses to trust—who’s not simply looking to make a quick buck from them—it’s important to be aware of these common occurences:

1.  Event/trip planners who don’t let clients know exactly who might be attending (ratio of men to women, ages, intellects/interests)?  They’ll have a participant along, even if they know the mix isn’t suitable.  An unsuspecting client starts out by trying to enjoy the activity, but that can’t suffice.  The activity was only a mechanism, not the purpose for attendance or outlay.
2.  Matchmakers who offer unsuitable matches repeatedly, or who misrepresent personal profile information (like age, interests, empoyment, appearance, etc.).  Then, clients are told they’re too picky for declining them.  Those who don’t have the inventory and take clients’ money, anyway, "in the hope that…" can have even the smartest fooled.
3.  Websites and singles’ groups where clients have to sign on for a specific number of dates or events, paying a lump sum up front.  Then, after one, two, or three not-as-advertised experiences, it’s clear things aren’t going to change for the better and nothing can be done about the loss.  Plus, the organizers, who were super reassuring in the beginning, aren’t nearly as nice later on…
4.  For dating sites, especially, are there small-print roll over possibilities, that if you don’t cancel, formally, for next month you’ll be paying out indefinitely?  Then, signing off doesn’t mean signing out.  Previous members may still be bombarded with mailings and their canceled profiles for ever visible.
5.  "Special helpers" and "teachers’ pets" seem to be given first dibs on the "hottest" suitors.  When a singles’ group has a volunteer workforce, rules may be meant to be broken. 
6.  Singles’ operators who are "single operators" can build their business around their own search.  This means, they too often, can put their own, rather than their clients’, needs first.
7.  Groups/websites that don’t have a "manners protocol"—that those written to should respond, even to say "no"—don’t always display the customer-friendly behaviors themselves.
8.  Groups that favor numbers over quality may be more concerned with their own profit margin, than pleasing the customer.  Helping someone to meet their "basherte" is a blend of skill, patience, luck and expertise—requires humanity and humility.  Often, the more flash and anonymous the website, the more cause to be suspicious. 

When the Price is Fair:

Recommendations/A few "singles’ connectors" that stand out from the rest:

• For Travel:  Backroads’ agents, generally, will give potential clients an idea of the make up of their solo travelers’ groups—also, they’re not for singles per se, which is why singles probably gravitate to/enjoy them.

• For Matchmaking/Event Organizing:  Elsa, Malinsky, founder and operator of Besherte, puts  heart and soul into her vocation.  Her "success stories" and obvious interest in clients’ wellbeing make this clear.

• For On-Line Dating: RightStuff has a "manners protocol" in place, and Dawne (its founder) encourages reporting non-responders.  There’s also a pay-per-profile-view billing system.

Please help add to this list of "Recommended Singles’ Connectors."  Of course, there may be more that are not recommended.  If you have a tale to tell, others who are "newer to the ‘game’" will appreciate being alerted.  A list can also be made of those to avoid… 

"Reluctant Singles’" Allies (Friends, Acquaintances, and Community/Faith-Based Groups) Might:

1. Risk creating opportunities for singles to share their feelings, unedited—in ways that don’t have to be funny or fantastical (just true).
2. Help change the rules (written and not)—make provisions for greater singles’ inclusion, privately as well as in public.  For instance, "two for the price of one" hasn’t been the best deal in town for a long time.
3. Try to bring about "matches" for singles in their lives, wherever appropriate and practical—put in the extra effort even when they’re not asked to do so.
4. Take initiatives to include and/or match-make—especially if/since they’ve been there too and should still understand.
5. See the whole picture—be aware of social change and how successful relationships aren’t always a given, healthful alternatives/good friends and supporters being all the more necessary.
6. Not do what others do—do what needs to be done.  Be welcoming, helpful, resourceful, and creative, even if few can be seen to be setting that example.

Reminder:  Singles’/Dating Businesses are Businesses—and News-Makers:

Generally, no matter how altruistically "singles’ operators" present themselves or their services, they’re chief goal is, usually, to make money.  As much of it as possible—quickly.  If, along the way, singles hook up, or find happiness in their single status, it’s a bonus/good pr!

Some singles’ businesses are known to be more of a rip off than others—what you pay out can’t  guarantee what you’ll get back.  Sometimes, when you pay more you get less.  Though many think the more the better—the greater their chance of meeting the perfect upscale "Mr. or Miss Right."

A "Singles’ Business," Dinnerworks, was featured in the Toronto Star’s 2007 Build a Business Challenge.  Susan Kates, Dinnerworks’ owner, wrote about her business issue in January: "Dinnerworks is in a very hot and very sexy market, the singles market…It’s a billion dollar industry. Dinnerworks should be exploding like wildfire. But it’s not."

Kates realized, as the Star noted, that Dinnerworks was "more complicated to run than she’d thought—and a lot more labour intensive."  She’d bought Dinnerworks in 2004 from its original owner, when its focus was "four men," "four women," and "dinner." According to a quick Google search, that’s similar to what the Toronto Dinner Club’s website advertises now. (Confusing!) Kates is trying to develop other foci. "Good Taste, Good Times, Good Company" and "Eat, Drink, and Meet Mary" are Dinnerworks’ new bylines, and dinners for six to twelve just one of three types of offerings. She’d also welcome US franchises.

In February, only one month into the "Challenge," Kates was reported as "glowing with a new-found sense of growth."  She’d met with a variety of advisors. Lifecapture Interactive, who helped her with the the redesign of her website, thought she’d be able to build up her database, from 12,000 to 20,000 people, within a few months…

Curious about Dinnerworks, and how it appears to be doing since its makeover?  Check out the revamped website, and go to the In the News Page.  Interestingly, there’s no reference to the Toronto Star’s Build a Business Challenge involvement (or thanks)—just old news clippings and links from 2002 and 2003.

Dinnerworks is just one example of a business poising itself to pounce on a lucrative market of those ever-hoping to be convinced that somebody else can (be paid to) provide them safe passage from "reluctant singlehood."

While the Toronto Star exposed Dinnerworks’ business struggles this winter (07), the National Post, displays other Canadian singles’/introductory services’ successes this summer (07).  Its weekend financial section had a front-page header, "Why Canada is Capital of the Online Dating Business."  This showed how lucky and lucrative the singles’/dating market can prove business-wise, with the right tools, timing, and market sensibility. 

Grant Surridge’s feature article, "Kingdom of the Online Cupids," describes Canadian dating site, Plentyoffish.com, as the third most popular in North America (according to Hitwise, the traffic tracker).  Plentyoffish’s founder/sole operator, Markus Frind, works out of his apartment.  While his site is completely free for users, the text ads appearing alongside profiles bring in US$5-million per annum. Very clever!  With the cost of looking being on someone else’s tab, profile posters don’t feel taken advantage of financially.

Noel Biderman (chief operating officer of AshleyMadison.com), on the other hand, gives justification for charging consumers as much as possible.  He is quoted as saying, "The more you actually make your site cater to people of like mind, the more you can charge.  So, from a business perspective, there’s a lot of value there."  Apparently, AshleyMadison (a service for "wandering partners and spouses") has earned "around $20-million" since its start, five years ago.

Former Lavalife employee, Mitchell Solway also believes that "niche-development" is the way to go, noting that "25% of North American singles are parents, and 40% of online daters are single parents."  However, Solway’s charges do try to be consumer-sensitive.  His new site, SingleParentLoveLife.com’s "low subscription fee" is "to weed out people who just want to look."  Advertisers are targeted to "bring in the lion’s share of revenue."