The Better Business Bureau suggests investigating several services and reading their contracts carefully before spending any money.  In most of the complaints received about dating services, the consumer is at fault because he or she did not thoroughly read the contract.

Proposed Industry Code of Ethics

In 1998, there was only one trade association representing this industry, The International Society of Introduction Services (ISIS), West Hills, CA.  This small organization only represented about 60 dating services and was one of the few organizations that attempted to collect any kind of statistics and to survey the industry.  ISIS was basically a one- person operation that had limited success recruiting members at $350 apiece.  Nevertheless, its Director, Patricia Moore, was a very good source for information and for referrals to other key people in the industry.

Ms. Moore in past years operated a dating service herself, The Patricia Moore Group, based in San Francisco.  A 1992 American Demographics article claimed that her company had a wealthier, older client base.  Fees started at a hefty $5,000 and the average income of clients was $84,000 for women and $134,000 for men.  The majority of 70% of members were in their 30s and 40s, but a relatively large share of 28% was age 50 and older.

ISIS developed guidelines of conduct for dating services.  For example, each ISIS member had to:

1. Comply with the spirit as well as the letter of all local, state and national laws.

2. Maintain the highest standards of truth and fair dealing in all business practices, advertising, public relations and promotional activities

3. Provide clients requesting a contract with a complete, straightforward and understandable written agreement prior to commencement of services.

4. Provide services that always fully meet or exceed any pre-sales representations made to clients.

5. Refrain from making any statements about competitive services except those that are accurate and verifiable.

6. Attempt to resolve promptly all disputes with fairness and sincerity and to honor a client’s request for arbitration.

7. Maintain strict confidentiality of all client records and information unless otherwise specifically authorized by the client.

8. Maintain a pricing structure that is always reasonable and appropriate to the level, quality, duration and respective value of the provided service.

9. Recognize a client’s right to a personal, supportive and professional service. 

10. Refrain from placing prospective clients under pressure and respect their desire to make an unhurried decision to join the service.

In addition, the following list of questions was recommended for consumers who request information about introduction services:

Questions to ask when shopping for an introduction service:

1. Are you a member of the Better Business Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce?

2. How many years have you been in business?

3. How many clients do you have in my desired age range and gender?

4. What statistical information do you have about your client base?

5. What is your rate of success?  How do you define success?

6. What geographical areas do you serve?

7. What is the background of the principal of the service?

8. What is the membership fee?

9. Is the first consultation/interview complimentary?

10. May I have references from someone with my demographic characteristics?

11. Is there a contract available?  May I have a sample contract?

12. How many matches are promised and over what period of time?

Questions for matchmaking services:

1. Does the person who interviews me also do my matchmaking for me?

2. Is the matchmaking service proactive or must I call to ask for an introduction?

3. Do I have the right to decline an introduction?

Questions for video dating services:

Questions for computer dating services:

Possible reasons why ISIS was NOT successful in recruiting many members include not only resistance to paying the fee, but that many services simply can’t meet the stringent guidelines above.  Many don’t want to be fair to the public, and prefer to use underhanded tactics to get as much money as possible from clients.

Problems with Formal “Marriage Market Intermediaries” (MMIs)

While the number, variety, and size of MMI’s has increased dramatically in the past 15 years, their success has been limited.  The only independently confirmed data on the success rate of an MMI come from Adelman and Ahuvia (1995) where 10% of the respondents reported developing a long-term romantic relationship with someone they met through the service, and less than half of these relationships are expected to end in marriage.

A more moderate, but still perhaps optimistic assertion comes from Gentlepeople, a large matchmaking firm that claims a 30% marriage rate (Butterfield, 1984).  Significantly more modest figures come from Great Expectations, the nation’s largest video dating franchise, which claims over 10,000 marriages and lists around 45,000 current members (Larson 1987).  This allows us to compute a maximum marriage rate of 15%, but this is necessarily an overestimation because it does not figure in all ex-members, who are excluded from the current roster.

It seems reasonable to conclude that a well run formal MMI can have a marriage rate of between 10% and 20%.  This leaves us asking the question, what happened to the other 80% to 90%?

According to PR Newswire (August 1997), Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher sued an Erie, New York dating service on behalf of consumers.  The suit charged that Together Dating Service…

• Used deceptive and misleading verbal and written statements concerning the company’s ability to screen and match each consumer with a compatible customer of the dating service.

• Provided consumers with referrals who did not meet the qualifications and physical traits identified by the customers.

• Falsely represented to consumers that discounts were “one time only” in order to induce them to purchase memberships.

• Told consumers that a referral did not count unless the referral resulted in a date, when in fact the written contract stated that the receipt of a referral entitled Together Dating Service to keep the entire membership fee regardless of whether a date resulted; and 

• Used a liquidation clause in its contract which required members to pay one half the total membership price even if the member canceled the agreement prior to receiving his or her first referral.

The attorney general said the membership fee typically ranged from $1,495 for six referrals to $2,995 for 30 referrals.

According to The Buffalo News (February 1998) a dating service accused of failing to match clients with similar types of people and refusing to give refunds was ordered to pay nearly $40,000 in restitution.  The order against Together of Upstate New York was made by state Attorney General Dennis Vacco.  Together and its owner, Jeffrey Pappas, had to pay $38,754 to 46 customers.

According to a Newsday article, a former employee of a dating provided a look into the questionable tactics frequently found in this business:  “I used to work for one as a “relationship counselor….First of all, some of these services don’t screen potential clients, even though they claim to.  They accept anyone who spends the money (usually hundreds of dollars) to join.  Such services don’t check backgrounds; they just accept what they are told.  Most people misrepresent themselves, so the clients don’t meet “compatible” people.”

“…As for the counselors, some weren’t even interested in serving the customers.  They were really salespeople who were supposed to get as much money as they could from potential clients.  The service I worked for matched people with anyone, counselors didn’t care who was set up with whom, and neither did management.”

According to the Wall Street Journal (January 1997) Great Expectations in Houston Texas solicits members through direct mail, telemarketing and infomercials.  Houston’s Better Business Bureau accepts and investigates complaints about any business, but it denies membership to dating services, credit repair operations, pay-in-advance modeling agencies and other types of businesses that it considers to have too many suspect companies.

Many of the complaints, says Don Parsons, a government and public affairs vice president at the BBB, come from people who say they were told by salespeople that a quoted price would be good only if they signed up that day, and who incorrectly believed or hoped they could get a refund within a day or two if they changed their minds.  Some were confused about whether the law would allow them to back out; others simply hoped Great Expectations would cut them a break, if only to maintain goodwill.

The prices paid by consumers who complained to the BBB ranged from about $1,800 to $3,500 for a three year contract.

Today, the more consumer-oriented services conduct themselves differently than other services in order to reduce consumer complaints, while increasing long-term financial success.