Is eHarmony in a PR crisis?

Over the course of the week, last Saturday’s Newsweek article from Lisa Miller brought out several critical commentary from other fronts:

Queerty.com: eHarmony’s Unholy Spin writes,

Consider this confounding statement: “eHarmony does not reject gays—it simply doesn’t accept them: the only choices on the site are ‘man seeking woman’ or ‘woman seeking man.’” First of all, there’s no difference between “rejection” and “non-acceptance.” They both boil down to discrimination. … She seems more than willing to regurgitate eHarmony’s incomprehensible, dangerous, discriminatory justifications. (30 April 2008)

It’s perfectly logical to Miller that “rejection” and “non-acceptance” are two totally different things!

Sean Kosofsky of the Bilerico Project writes,

How can you possibly say that discrimination is not occurring when you admit you don’t accept certain people? By using language the excludes people from the outset, you are overtly discriminating.

This is like advocates for marriage bans saying that are not discriminating against gays because all they are doing is defining marriage a particular way. Ok. Just like when this nation defined blacks as being three-fifths of a person wasn’t discrimination, or defining certain Native American tribes as extinct, when they aren’t. Give me a break. (30 April 2008)

Mark Shea of Catholic and Enjoying It! writes,

Dating Service Founded by Christian Fails to Treat Homosexuality as Source and Summit of all that is Noble, Good, Glorious and Beautiful

Today this is newsworthy. Soon it will be punishable by law. Soon after that, even thinking that is questionable will be punishable too. (1 May 2008)

Mollie of GetReligion.org writes,

A “dating service your mother would approve of,” “as comforting as mashed potatoes.” The truth is that eHarmony is a very profitable powerhouse. Are they really facing a public relations crisis? Maybe they are. Or maybe the Chemistry.com ads are driving people to their internet doorstep. …

The nightclub with a doorman and rope line that doesn’t let everybody in can be frustrating, but it’s usually not portrayed as having a PR problem. …

[Miller's] marketing point is demeaning. In what way are Christians not a “mainstream clientele”? Even if you accept the contention (made without substantiation) that young blue staters are wary of eHarmony, what makes them more mainstream than Christians? And if eHarmony is having trouble marketing to the “wider world,” than why does it have 17 million registered users? (2 May 2008)

Michael comments,

Can a service that was once geared only towards “Christians”—and that specific subset of religious people generally who identify as “Christian”—go mainstream? It’s a problem that Terry has identified with entertainment. Once a movie gets labeled “Christian,” it is usually the kiss of death for Mainstream audiences.

I actually think Chemistry.com’s marketing is brilliant. It identifies a vulnerability in a competitor and taps into it. I especially like the ads with the woman who says she’s sad every once in awhile, but also a good person. Yet she’s rejected. Who can’t relate to that kind of approach?

Mike Bode of “Broken Cupid: A dating blog for gay singles” writes a reflection on the eHarmony lawsuit.

My commentary

Miller, Society and Religion Editor for Newsweek, is no newcomer to criticism on her writing. However, when it seems strange that she writes about the issues of eHarmony’s discrimination lawsuit and the Chemistry.com ads twelve months after the fact, what her article shows is how little eHarmony did during the twelve months to respond to the controversy.

Are they in a PR crisis? Is eHarmony believing, “If I ignore it it will go away?” What do you think?