The ReactionMatch.com 5-year financial projections are summarized below (a work-in-progress). In short, within the next 10-year, online matching will be a billion dollar a year industry in a relatively untapped market; in this market, people are increasingly turning to the science-based matching sites; a successful “match” is defined as a stable paring in which two people fall in love and stay happily attached for twenty or more years; sixty-six percent of people agree that love is a chemical reaction; the only science that can predict reactions is chemical thermodynamics; the major costs involved are advertising; subsequently, a well-balanced advertising campaign, combined with an intelligent 20+ person team of chemical-based academia, will very well produce sizable profits, beyond that of nearly any other industry.
Overview
In 2002, consumers spent nearly $74 billion dollars online. [1] In online traffic, dating sites attract about $20% of the Internet population. In terms of growth in revenue, over the last few years, according to Jupiter Research, a steady increase is evident, as shown by the following online dating industry revenues: [2]
2001: USD 72 million
2002: USD 313 million
2003: USD 396 million
2004: USD 473 million
2007: USD 642 million
Within the next decade, as shown in the adjacent diagram, the Dating-Matching Industry is expected to become a billion-dollar industry.
As of January 2005, there was an estimated 836 dating sites, a 37% increase over the previous year (Hitwise.com). The leader in this group, currently, is Match.com, started in 1995, which in 2001 accounted for 68% of total online dating revenue ($49.3 million). [2] In terms of registered users, the top-four matching sites (based on number of users) are:
● Match.com (members: 20-million), using the logic of Phillip McGraw, the psychologist from the Oprah Winfrey Show.
● PerfectMatch.com (members: 4-million), using the logic of Pepper Schwartz, a sociologist at the University of Washington.
● Chemistry.com (members: 3.7-million), using the logic of Helen Fisher, an anthropologist at Rutgers University.
● eHarmony.com (members: 2-million), using the logic of Neil Warren, a theological psychologist.
In short, the algorithm theories of two psychologists, a sociologist, and an anthropologist are pulling in near to $500 million dollars per year of revenue in a relatively untapped market. A large part of the costs involved go towards advertising. In 2007, Match.com spent $196 million, whereas eHarmony.com, the number two advertiser, spent $116 million. [3]
The long and the short of the financial prospectus, for ReactionMatch.com, is that a team of chemists, physical chemists, and chemical engineers would be more capable and successful at matching people (human molecules), in the long run, than would a team of psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists. Subsequently, a well organized, theoretically-sound, highly-fueled team of chemists and chemical engineers would be able to surpass the forerunners.
Nutshell projections
The sales pitch for the feasibility of the company ReactionMatch.com, in a nutshell, is that within the next ten-years, online pair matching is going to be over a billion dollar per year industry; online matching algorithms are become more efficient, as sites and users turn to the sciences, academia, and the results of recent studies to better guide their choices in mate selection; the most rigorous and accurate of these sciences is the spontaneity reaction criterion of chemical thermodynamics, as theoretically outlined in terms of affinities for human relationships in 1809 by Goethe in his Elective Affinities, which he considered his greatest work; this spontaneity reaction criterion, outlined by Goethe, of chemical thermodynamics are a direct result of the implications of the laws of the universe, which, according to Einstein, constitute “the only physical theory of universal content which … will never be overthrown, within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts”; subsequently, on this premise, ReactionMatch.com is situated, within the next ten-years, to become the leading science-based pair matching site and a multi-billion dollar organization.
See also
● ReactionMatch.com (operations)
● ReactionMatch.com (history)
● ReactionMatch.com (theory)
References
1. Fresta, Paul. (2002).”Report: Online Spending Busts Records”, CNET, News.com, 30 Dec.
2. (a) Rosen, Larry D., Cheever, Nancy A., Cummings, Cheyenne, and Felt, Julie. (2007). “The impact of emotionality and self-disclosure on online dating verses traditional dating” (PDF), Computers in Human Behavior.
(b) Brooks, Mark. (2004). “Online Dating Business Growth”, Dating-Weblog.com, 30 March.
3. Moskalyuk, Alex. (2008). “Spending by Dating Sites in Q1-Q3 2007”, ZDNet, OnlineDatingPosts.com
