A month ago Jeff, Kamran, and I went on our first Grouper. The site sets up group dates between three guys and three girls. It’s more comfortable because you go with friends. It’s more efficient because everyone meets three people instead of one.
When we arrived at the bar downtown it was almost empty. Our dates were seated at a table near the front window. They turned out to be nice, accomplished, and attractive. Two were from North Dakota. We (predictably) teased them about North Dakotan accents. We talked about Mutuality. This was their umpteenth Grouper. They already loved them. Our charisma won us the nightly picture contest (aka the “Groupergram”). The party hats and props our waitress found also helped. This win earned us a free round of drinks. For an “online date” it was surprisingly fun and relaxed. A couple days ago, we went on our second Grouper. As a customer, I’m sold. But as a Mutuality co-founder, I’m shaken.
I was convinced that meetup sites failed because they showed complete strangers. It was like trying to meet someone at a bar. But we would be different. Our mission was underwritten by a faith in the role of mutual friends. Having mutual friends established trust and enabled verification between two people who didn’t know each other, but who should. Trying to meet people on Mutuality, I argued, would be like trying to meet friends-of-friends at a house party, rather than a stranger at a bar.
Our Groupers, however, successfully introduced us to complete strangers. This moderated my view. Having a mutual friend still seems ideal, but the other way isn’t implausible. Maybe this isn’t really why meetup sites sucked. Maybe having mutual friends doesn’t make two people more likely to like each other. Maybe it just makes people comfortable enough to risk an honest and extended conversation. Maybe that’s what makes all the difference.
The lesson I learned from Grouper is the value of making offline experiences the focal point of one’s site. This is how Meetup.com became successful. If the goal is to get people to meet in person, online experiences can get in the way – they can actually make meeting offline more awkward. Grouper, for instance, didn’t let us meet or chat with our dates beforehand. This somehow made me more comfortable. I could learn about the girls naturally and organically. I was surprise-able. I had no half-baked impressions about them that could be proven wrong. I didn’t feel pressured to live up to their half-baked impressions of me, either. There were no expectations. I couldn’t be disappointed. It was easy.
Quite simply, this experience was the exact opposite of traditional online dating. It’s also why I’m excited about our “Beacons” concept and why the first version has been so successful. Beacons make meeting people offline the focal point of the online experience. But, like Meetup.com, we see the problem as way bigger than dating. Most people aren’t looking for dates. Or they aren’t looking for just dates. They might be new to city and looking to make friends. Or they are looking to do things they love when too often their social circle doesn’t span the full breadth or depth of their interests. Beacons solve this problem better than “meet-ups” because we are still more likely to meet someone at a house party brimming with friends-of-friends, than at a bar swarming with complete strangers.
Grouper gave me a glimpse of how the internet can (finally) connect us to new people in fun and comfortable ways. It was a glimpse that was challenging, instructive, and inspiring. And that’s why I’ve become a Grouper Groupie.