"The Russian Bride Business Is Dead" ? Really?

[Admin]

For me, "the obvious conclusion is that there are significantly fewer NUMBERS of agencies today" listed in GoodWife.com "than there were a decade ago."

In fact, as today, you have agency listed who don't exist anymore ( by example, "1000 of Single Russian Women", "Pretty Russian Women" or "Tver Angels" from Richard )... at the other end, there is plenty of other site not listed there...

For have a valid directory, you need somebody for maintain and check your database... a minimum is a monthly check for see if a site is always actif and continuous check for new one...

By example, the site http://www.russianbridesagency.com/ is not listed... to my actual knowledge, they have the biggest database of FSU women :

On this marriage dating site you can meet 177869 single women seeking men: 111702 Russian brides, 41628 Ukrainian girls, 11320 Belarus women, 13219 other Eastern European ladies.

These quote from their site is interesting too... a lot of paper related to MOB business are based on 1995 data, saying that 100000 to 150000 women are seeking foreign men... recent article cite the decline of the amount of ladies... but here, a single site, list over 177k FSU women...

A last thing, the site cited for example is similar to the one for who you have ask info via PM... in this case, it is a russian group "D&M Inc" with office in Moscow and US ( list of site owned : http://www.datingandmatchmakinginc.com/dmsite_30Our-sites.html )... if you are curious, download the pdf at http://www.datingandmatchmakinginc.com/brochure_en.pdf ... page 5, left side... the graph with the title "USA internet Dating market 2001 to 2008" is very interesting... seem that the business is not dead...

What really happen is that MOB is becoming a real industry... that the street corner shop die slowly and are replaced by huge group who are like supermarket...

About your Goodwife listing, if you wish, i can use some of my time for check the already listed site and make a list of the dead one... later, i can seek new sites ( and maybe you will need a section "corporation" for the big beast )... this will make your listing more accurate... of course, i can start the job but you will need somebody to maintain the listing after...

And please, never use the term "obvious conclusion" when something is based on old and incorrect data... it is the same flawed logic who have lead to thing like the IMBRA...

Bruno,

The listings at GoodWife are *reasonably* accurate and complete - AND - the same approach/policies that were taken to develop the list of 304 agencies in 2000 is intact today with the list of 203. I have no doubt that you are correct that many *websites* are not listed, and there may even be a few agencies that are missed - but the 2000 listing to 2010 listings are directly comparable. Since 1997 and during the entire period from 2000 to present, GoodWife has enjoyed a SERP of 1 for the search phrase "Mail Order Bride" (and related searches). That means that nearly all the agency owners WANT to be listed at GoodWife, and I receive nearly daily requests for addition. Those requests are all reviewed and dispositioned within a week or so, and the biggest problem I encounter is a single agency who has created multiple websites submits multiple listings - when I am only interested in 'the mother ship' agency - not all the related websites.

Anyway - my point being: Yes, you will find some errors in the listings at GoodWife due to the inevitable 'churn' in the agency businesses. That being said, the comparison from 2000 to 2010 remains a comparable and valid comparison for the reasons cited. You will note, however, that I only drew a conclusion as to the *number* of agencies, and not to the overall agency/IMB business volume. I agree with your thought that the small "street corner" agencies are diminishing and are being replaced by the larger mega-agencies and *some* of those are FAR more professionally run than a decade ago.

- Dan

[Faux Pas]

SJ, you edited incorrectly; some of the quote you created above features words that I didn't write. In any event, I think your query was answered satisfactorily on RUA.

Are you referring to the answer from andrewfi?

[Admin]

Are you referring to the answer from andrewfi?

I was (and am) debating on whether to split this issue out of the current topic as it seems clearly unrelated to the original topic.

Just a heads-up. (don't want to feed the conspiracy theorists  )

- Dan

[Faux Pas]

I was (and am) debating on whether to split this issue out of the current topic as it seems clearly unrelated to the original topic.

Just a heads-up. (don't want to fee the conspiracy theorists  )

- Dan

Whatever works best Dan. It is in my mind certainly connected but veering off.

[dbneeley]

To say the industry is changing--which is, after all, a fact of life--is quite different than claiming it is "dead". However, the facts are far less sensationalistic.

To bemoan the loss of the "ma and pa" type agency is similar to those who bemoan the decline of the family farm, or the use of horse and buggy for that matter.

Things change. Get over it.

Since much has now been posted about the HRB "new concept" including links, it is not giving away anything to observe that this all fits into Andrew's paid-for visit to HRB in Florida--since which his tune regarding their business has certainly changed from critic to consistent defender.

Promoting this report to attract the attention of agencies which are sources of women to list on the "Planet Love" site--with a commission to Andrew if he recruits them--would seem the obvious method to his particular madness. If it's a success, he stands to make a great deal of money.

Where others may fit into this scenario remains to be seen. If successful, this new venture simply brings multi-level marketing to the introduction business, with the major money made by those "in on the ground floor" who are primarily recruiters.

Thus, Andrew, please spare me the crocodile tears about the "retail" introduction business and its demise. That is what you are counting on, after all.

David

[Ade]

SJ, you edited incorrectly; some of the quote you created above features words that I didn't write.

Fixed that.

In any event, I think your query was answered satisfactorily on RUA.

Perhaps for you.

[Admin]

To say the industry is changing--which is, after all, a fact of life--is quite different than claiming it is "dead". However, the facts are far less sensationalistic.

To bemoan the loss of the "ma and pa" type agency is similar to those who bemoan the decline of the family farm, or the use of horse and buggy for that matter.

Things change. Get over it.

Since much has now been posted about the HRB "new concept" including links, it is not giving away anything to observe that this all fits into Andrew's paid-for visit to HRB in Florida--since which his tune regarding their business has certainly changed from critic to consistent defender.

Promoting this report to attract the attention of agencies which are sources of women to list on the "Planet Love" site--with a commission to Andrew if he recruits them--would seem the obvious method to his particular madness. If it's a success, he stands to make a great deal of money.

Where others may fit into this scenario remains to be seen. If successful, this new venture simply brings multi-level marketing to the introduction business, with the major money made by those "in on the ground floor" who are primarily recruiters.

Thus, Andrew, please spare me the crocodile tears about the "retail" introduction business and its demise. That is what you are counting on, after all.

David

David,

Just my take - but I think there is no doubt things are changing. The shape is being formed by numerous pressures - a couple I outlined above, and there is more. Some of this is merely observation - and some of it I can cite evidence - and some of it is related to our own little network of businesses and what we have seen over the years. Anyway - adding to my previous posts in this topic, the following:

* Agency owners, as mentioned in the poll upthread, suffer one of the worst reputations for dishonesty of any business. Since there is no empirical scale to measure such things, the poll we ran employed a relative measure, and in relative terms, there is NO BUSINESS ranking lower in the minds of its customers relative to integrity and honesty than agency/IMB owners. Candidly, this surprised me at the time and continues to surprise me. If the members of RWD who make up the customer base of these organizations thinks so low of them - imagine what John Q Public must think when their only exposure is what they read in the press or in the internet (more on this in a moment).

* As a business, the International Relations sites have been collecting revenues since 2006 - almost 5 years. In that time, the revenue stream year-to-year has been relatively stable. Far more stable than my primary vocation. During that time, the traffic levels at RWD and our other sites has increased - in some cases quite dramatically. The increase in traffic coupled with stable/level revenues suggests a lower revenue per traffic ratio. I have not done a lot of comparisons to see where the traffic emanates (to see if non-US is now a larger share of the traffic - which I am guessing is true), nor to examine revenue contribution per geography - mostly because we have moved hosts twice and those stats I might use for comparative purposes were lost. Point being - looking at the data from one dimension, it might be concluded there is a decline in business, on the other hand, without any increase in expenses, the revenues are reasonably stable suggesting no REAL change in the overall business levels. My sense is that our experience is quite similar to that of most agencies.

* I have spoken personally to nearly all the major agency owners - including the owners of Cherry Blossoms, AFA, HRB, Anastasia, European Connections, CupidMedia, CuteOnly, Dating-and-Matchmaking and numerous others. They know me, and for the most part we have a congenial productive relationship. They are, as one might imagine, quite tight-lipped about particulars, but all of them have hinted (or stated) that they see major changes on the horizon. At least several of them are actively seeking to diversify their offerings, and I daresay that none of them are 'standing still.' To some extent, my sense is they are all quite keen to see the direction IMBRA enforcement may take (and at the same time, hoping they are not the target of any actions). Without feeding any 'hype' or scare-mongering, I think it is safe to say they all feel some level of anxiety, with some being more proactive than others.

* On the topic of these major IMBs - I noted in Andrew's report that the claims the agencies themselves are largely to blame for the demise of the 'industry' ( I *hate* calling it that - 'industry' - as it has none of the attributes I attach to my connotation of an 'industry'). I agree with Andrew - though perhaps not for the reasons he cited. To the best of my knowledge the ONLY time the owners/leaders of the agency businesses made ANY effort to work collaboratively on anything, was when Preston Steckel decided to take on IMBRA in Georgia, and then a loose coalition of agencies worked together on an anti-IMBRA action filed in the Midwest. Both were unsuccessful and the coalition quickly disintegrated. When there are business interests under attack from the press and from the politicos, there must be a concerted effort to defend - and there was not - and there is not - and I do not believe there can ever be. The nature of the leaders of these businesses will not allow it - reference my earlier post on my comments to the GAO as to how these businesses are often formed.

* I will attach a couple of articles that serve to illustrate my point about cross-cultural marriage being under attack in the US. For example, one article (attached) makes this claim: "the mail-order bride industry is permeated by a necrophilic fantasy" (emphasis added) -- and another article from Harvard (attached) closes with this paragraph:

the fundamental problem of the mail-order bride industry. It is a form of sexual exploitation that is no different from prostitution. In fact, it may even be worse than prostitution because the marriage contract and immigration laws give it a more permanent nature. Impoverished women surrender their lives and sexuality because they hope to obtain economic security-but their dreams for a better life often turn into the cruelest nightmares.

* And now we have the GAO report I referenced upthread giving sanction to the notion that IMBs have some nexus to sex trafficking - and the latest attempt at molding thought by redefining IMB to be IMB-T (IMB-Trafficker) in this article I posted here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=12913.0.

Still building the case - more yet to come (for those intrepid enough to still be reading).

- Dan

[Admin]

Fixed that.

Perhaps for you.

SJ,

Please consider starting a separate topic if you think it will be productive. To the extent possible, I would like to extend the courtesy of focusing only on the substantive issues of the report - and leave the peripheral/tangential issues aside. If you recall, when we launched the Agency Code of Ethics and the Certified Marriage Agencies site, the *only* issues raised were by those with self-interest attacking peripheral issues that had nothing to do with the substance and content of the CMA/ACoE materials. Interestingly, it is those same people who attacked the CMA/ACoE who are now subject to similar challenges here - but I'd like to think we can model a more professional and reasoned approach to the challenges and outcomes. I am convinced that if folks would have examined CMA/ACoE with a critical but open mind, it would have been a success. Let's see how that works out here with Andrew's report.

Make sense?

- Dan

[Bruno]

The listings at GoodWife are *reasonably* accurate

Can you explain what is "*reasonably* accurate" ?

By example for the listing of russian marriage agency... 23 premium sites where 3 are dead ... 62 regular where 8 are dead... total is 11 dead on 85... it is a 13% error !!!

That means that nearly all the agency owners WANT to be listed at GoodWife, and I receive nearly daily requests for addition. Those requests are all reviewed and dispositioned within a week or so

Well, from the 168 agency listed, 105 was added in 2006, 42 in 2007, 9 in 2008, 12 in 2009, 0 in 2010 ( data come from Goodwife itself, date agency site was added )...

Since the listing is for agency who WANT to be listed, it seem to me that fewer agency wish to be listed... on the other side, GoodWife is listed to have a estimate of more that 100k visitor by month... meaning that it have a great impact on the general public...

For good statistical data, we need the agency who want to register on GoodWife, these who don't want, the who don't know GoodWife, etc ...

You will note, however, that I only drew a conclusion as to the *number* of agencies, and not to the overall agency/IMB business volume.

Well, there is plenty of new agency now... by example, http://www.contactunion.fr/ ... website located in France, will start end January 2011... created by a old local marriage agency from Samara... these example simply show one of the actual change... local agency create their own portal on the internet, they don't need anymore US/western business man for sell their product ( russian bride )...

At the global level, russian bride business is not dead... what happen is that some huge multinational group buy piece of the market, that little local partner from previous US/western owned site take their own destiny in hand...

What is really dying is the US MOB business... slowly, US loose his main position in the market... Andrew report is not about the "Russian bride business" but about "US MOB business" !!!

I agree with your thought that the small "street corner" agencies are diminishing and are being replaced by the larger mega-agencies and *some* of those are FAR more professionally run than a decade ago.

Personally, i like more the personal contact with little business... only reason why big business seem somehow interesting is mainly due too lower price... and i think that quality service is the main weapons from the little one... only my own opinion, have no factual value...

PS: Dan, i hope that you will not regret to have push me to come back... i am the same pain in the a$$ that a few year ago :p

[Admin]

Can you explain what is "*reasonably* accurate" ?

By example for the listing of russian marriage agency... 23 premium sites where 3 are dead ... 62 regular where 8 are dead... total is 11 dead on 85... it is a 13% error !!!

Well, from the 168 agency listed, 105 was added in 2006, 42 in 2007, 9 in 2008, 12 in 2009, 0 in 2010 ( data come from Goodwife itself, date agency site was added )...

Since the listing is for agency who WANT to be listed, it seem to me that fewer agency wish to be listed... on the other side, GoodWife is listed to have a estimate of more that 100k visitor by month... meaning that it have a great impact on the general public...

For good statistical data, we need the agency who want to register on GoodWife, these who don't want, the who don't know GoodWife, etc ...

Well, there is plenty of new agency now... by example, http://www.contactunion.fr/ ... website located in France, will start end January 2011... created by a old local marriage agency from Samara... these example simply show one of the actual change... local agency create their own portal on the internet, they don't need anymore US/western business man for sell their product ( russian bride )...

At the global level, russian bride business is not dead... what happen is that some huge multinational group buy piece of the market, that little local partner from previous US/western owned site take their own destiny in hand...

What is really dying is the US MOB business... slowly, US loose his main position in the market... Andrew report is not about the "Russian bride business" but about "US MOB business" !!!

Personally, i like more the personal contact with little business... only reason why big business seem somehow interesting is mainly due too lower price... and i think that quality service is the main weapons from the little one... only my own opinion, have no factual value...

PS: Dan, i hope that you will not regret to have push me to come back... i am the same pain in the a$$ that a few year ago :p

>>PS: Dan, i hope that you will not regret to have push me to come back... i am the same pain in the a$$ that a few year ago<<

Bruno - you may recall that I explicitly invited you to RWD when I saw a few of your posts at the old PL. Yes, you can be a PITA at times, but on balance you contribute far more than you detract.

As for the %'s of error at GW and the dates of the listings, yep, you are correct. The dates are misleading since we also migrated from a previous script and this only picks up the date of the migration (note that a great many of them are the same date in 2006) - AND - I have never felt confident of that date, as I see many that I know to not be accurate. The script does many other things VERY well, hence, the date glitch never bothered me - AND - we use a highly customized version of the script to do a LOT of things in the backend for stats and management of the listings.

My point being (again) - that I believe the comparison of 340 agencies listed in 2000 versus 203 agencies in 2010 is a valid comparison.

Your other point is that the decline is related to US only. Maybe - and maybe not. Many of the pressures leading to increased regulation in the US are also affecting Europe (at least), as evidenced by the attached reports from the Council of Europe (circa 2004).

Interestingly, Sweden is a founding member of the Council of Europe and yet In 1989, the Swedish Government appointed an Ombudsman Against Ethnic Discrimination to conduct a 9-month investigation into mail-order bride businesses. The Ombudsman concluded that the business was neither unethical nor unlawful:

Even if a woman who comes to Sweden is treated like a slave and the man uses, abuses and violates her rights, it is not easy to cast the blame on the marriage broker.... Some people simply prefer meeting their partners through an agency. Just because the agencies make money is not enough cause for condemnation. Neither is the fact that some may choose partners on the basis of nationality. It would be too difficult to decide on where to draw the line in a free society.

So it seems from 1989 when the Ombudsman filed his report, to 2004 and the Council of Europe filed theirs - a significant shift in perspective had occurred.

My sense is that new legislation is often more difficult to gain passage in most Europe countries - particularly if it smacks of intrusion into personal rights and liberties. In any case, to the best of my knowledge there is no European equivalent of IMBRA - though the foundation is laid.

- Dan

[Bruno]

Interestingly, Sweden is a founding member of the Council of Europe and yet In 1989, the Swedish Government appointed an Ombudsman Against Ethnic Discrimination to conduct a 9-month investigation into mail-order bride businesses.

Seem that we have not the same history teacher... Sweden have join the EU on 1 january 1995... EU in his actual form was created on 1 november 1993...

Founding member are France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany... The 1951 treaty of Paris have create the European Coal and Steel Community who gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament).

Your other point is that the decline is related to US only. Maybe - and maybe not. Many of the pressures leading to increased regulation in the US are also affecting Europe (at least), as evidenced by the attached reports from the Council of Europe (circa 2004).

Yes, it have lead to some change in the past... by example, before, foreign women need to stay married 5 years before receive the nationality... due to similar report that your 2004 report, delay was reduced to 2 year... so foreign women will not be to much long in control by the husband...

Unfortunaly, it have fail... false marriage have increase or more women have marry for having paper in short time ( increase of divorce rate )... due to these failure, several country speak to increase the delay before a foreign women receive the nationality... for my country, it is planned to raise it from 2 year to 5 year ( like it was previously )...

In any case, to the best of my knowledge there is no European equivalent of IMBRA - though the foundation is laid.

There is not and will not be... simply because public database with criminal report is illegal... but there is something who exist from a very very long time ( so long as i remember )... it is called "certificat de bonne vie et moeurs" ... This document is needed for the marriage procedure with a foreign bride... These document is made by the city administration and is based on police record... in fact, similar document is needed for work in administration or some profession...

Problem with IMBRA is that privacy is not respected... i think that i was more easy if US have adopted a system like our "certificat de bonne vie et moeurs"... go to the police or city administration, check the record, if clean, issue the certificat who is valid 6 month...

My sense is that new legislation is often more difficult to gain passage in most Europe countries - particularly if it smacks of intrusion into personal rights and liberties.

Well, it can be one of the reason... a other one is that Europe need a lot of time for agree about something... to much country and some of these country have a "veto" right... as now, only laws that everybody agree about are voted...

[Shadow]

The legislation of IMBRA in the US and similar design in the EU can be compared to that of airline security. Due to a very small group that wishes to do damage, an incredible amount of people are expriencing an even increasing hassle.
Similar the provisions IMBRA is raising, and which are likely to be followed in the EU in the (distant?) future are causing a headache for many, due to a very small percentage of intolerable behaviour.
The business will have to answer to it, as when the restrictions are going to be properly enforced, working offshore will no longer guarantee being exempt. It does not matter if I fly a Dutch, American or Malaysian carrier, the airport will oblige me the same procedures.

[GQBlues]

This (IMBRA) really is not that complex, guys...it's actually pretty simple.

You would like to meet a FSUW and decided to go through an IMB to do so, make your records readily available. If your slate is clear and squeeky clean, then what's to rub?

I'm from the old school where one need not worry about things he has nothing to worry about. Why complicate that simple process?

[Admin]

Seem that we have not the same history teacher... Sweden have join the EU on 1 january 1995... EU in his actual form was created on 1 november 1993...

Founding member are France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany... The 1951 treaty of Paris have create the European Coal and Steel Community who gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament).

Yes, it have lead to some change in the past... by example, before, foreign women need to stay married 5 years before receive the nationality... due to similar report that your 2004 report, delay was reduced to 2 year... so foreign women will not be to much long in control by the husband...

Unfortunaly, it have fail... false marriage have increase or more women have marry for having paper in short time ( increase of divorce rate )... due to these failure, several country speak to increase the delay before a foreign women receive the nationality... for my country, it is planned to raise it from 2 year to 5 year ( like it was previously )...

There is not and will not be... simply because public database with criminal report is illegal... but there is something who exist from a very very long time ( so long as i remember )... it is called "certificat de bonne vie et moeurs" ... This document is needed for the marriage procedure with a foreign bride... These document is made by the city administration and is based on police record... in fact, similar document is needed for work in administration or some profession...

Problem with IMBRA is that privacy is not respected... i think that i was more easy if US have adopted a system like our "certificat de bonne vie et moeurs"... go to the police or city administration, check the record, if clean, issue the certificat who is valid 6 month...

Well, it can be one of the reason... a other one is that Europe need a lot of time for agree about something... to much country and some of these country have a "veto" right... as now, only laws that everybody agree about are voted...

>>Seem that we have not the same history teacher... Sweden have join the EU on 1 january 1995... EU in his actual form was created on 1 november 1993...

Founding member are France, Italy, the Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg) together with West Germany... The 1951 treaty of Paris have create the European Coal and Steel Community who gave birth to the first institutions, such as the High Authority (now the European Commission) and the Common Assembly (now the European Parliament).<<

Ahhh Bruno, you *must* pay close attention. The reports I provided were from the "Council of Europe" (www.coe.int). They must have some others who get confused, because they put a page together called "Do Not Get Confused" - found here -- http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=nepasconfondre&l=en, and Sweden is, indeed, one of their founding members, as seen here -- http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe&l=en.

>>Problem with IMBRA is that privacy is not respected... i think that i was more easy if US have adopted a system like our "certificat de bonne vie et moeurs"... go to the police or city administration, check the record, if clean, issue the certificat who is valid 6 month...<<

There are a number of problems with IMBRA - not the least of which is that it interferes with the fundamental right of association. However, until the law is successfully challenged, it remains the law and there are serious potential consequences for failure to abide by the law.

- Dan

[Admin]

This (IMBRA) really is not that complex, guys...it's actually pretty simple.

You would like to meet a FSUW and decided to go through an IMB to do so, make your records readily available. If your slate is clear and squeeky clean, then what's to rub?

I'm from the old school where one need not worry about things he has nothing to worry about. Why complicate that simple process?

GQ,

Yes, I recognize (and to some extent, accept) the argument that if you have nothing to hide, then don't worry about it. So here is my parallel:

* In the US, you have the right to privacy. The authorities are prohibited from unreasonable search and/or intrusion tactics. Mind you, they have a Supreme Court upheld right to lie through their teeth to you - but that is tangential.
* Home ownership is something that many aspire to in the US (and the numbers of ASPIRING seem to be growing daily - another tangent).
* If you own a home - what is your reaction if someone knocks on your door at midnight and announces themselves as the police (and you believe them) and asks if they can search your home for . . . (whatever)? Do you let them in?
* If you *do* let them into your home (having no real concern because you KNOW you do not have any of the 'whatever' it is they are searching for) - do you let them into your bedroom? How about your kid's bedroom? While they are sleeping?
* And if you allow them to do all that - what would be your reaction in 7 days time when another man (or woman) comes knocking on your door at midnight, announces themselves as law enforcement (and you believe them) and asks if they can enter and search your home for . . . this time it is 'something' (since they did not find 'whatever')?
* What if they ask to enter and search, but will not tell you what they are searching to find - will you let them in?

At what point do you draw the line and say; "This is too much!"

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights essentially drew that line in the sand and said it is NEVER to be allowed absent a damn good reason. Is the mere fact that a person is interested in a cross-cultural relationship reason enough for a person's fundamental right of privacy to be violated?!? I submit not - but recognize others will respond differently.

Just my take. FWIW

- Dan

[Jooky]

So is the Bride Business dead or is it flourishing? Now I'm so confused.  

Seriously, it could be both. As I noted in another thread the 'bride business' could well be dying in Russia, but growing and flourishing in other countries.

Dan, since you run goodwife and several other sites (I think), have you seen a decline or growth in overall traffic or a shift towards interest in different countries?

On another subject:

* Agency owners, as mentioned in the poll upthread, suffer one of the worst reputations for dishonesty of any business.

* On the topic of these major IMBs - I noted in Andrew's report that the claims the agencies themselves are largely to blame for the demise of the 'industry'

It really confounds me the way this 'report' is being presented and criticism is being handled by Andrew and Manny.

Come on, we're no fools here. Obviously agencies are involved in this project. So what? Why not present the real expected changes in the industry and who is involved in a direct and honest manner?

Instead, we get an amateur 'Get Rich Quick' style presentation, avoidance of questions, typical belittling and insulting responses, heavy moderation (on RUA), disappearing articles (on the real deal blog) and the obvious future lead in to an MLM dating scheme.

If this stuff is supposed to rally men to find new trust in agencies, it's failing miserably.

[Admin]

So is the Bride Business dead or is it flourishing? Now I'm so confused. 

Seriously, it could be both. As I noted in another thread the 'bride business' could well be dying in Russia, but growing and flourishing in other countries.

Dan, since you run goodwife and several other sites (I think), have you seen a decline or growth in overall traffic or a shift towards interest in different countries?

On another subject:

It really confounds me the way this 'report' is being presented and criticism is being handled by Andrew and Manny.

Come on, we're no fools here. Obviously agencies are involved in this project. So what? Why not present the real expected changes in the industry and who is involved in a direct and honest manner?

Instead, we get an amateur 'Get Rich Quick' style presentation, avoidance of questions, typical belittling and insulting responses, heavy moderation (on RUA), disappearing articles (on the real deal blog) and the obvious future lead in to an MLM dating scheme.

If this stuff is supposed to rally men to find new trust in agencies, it's failing miserably.

Jooky,

>>Dan, since you run goodwife and several other sites (I think), have you seen a decline or growth in overall traffic or a shift towards interest in different countries?<<

Upthread I wrote this:

* As a business, the International Relations sites have been collecting revenues since 2006 - almost 5 years. In that time, the revenue stream year-to-year has been relatively stable. Far more stable than my primary vocation. During that time, the traffic levels at RWD and our other sites has increased - in some cases quite dramatically. The increase in traffic coupled with stable/level revenues suggests a lower revenue per traffic ratio. I have not done a lot of comparisons to see where the traffic emanates (to see if non-US is now a larger share of the traffic - which I am guessing is true), nor to examine revenue contribution per geography - mostly because we have moved hosts twice and those stats I might use for comparative purposes were lost. Point being - looking at the data from one dimension, it might be concluded there is a decline in business, on the other hand, without any increase in expenses, the revenues are reasonably stable suggesting no REAL change in the overall business levels. My sense is that our experience is quite similar to that of most agencies.

I guess what I left unclear (apologies) is that "International Relations" includes GoodWife.com, RussianWomenDiscussion.com, Planet-Love.com, and CertifiedMarriageAgencies.org (though it is only the first three in the list that earn any revenues).

>>If this stuff is supposed to rally men to find new trust in agencies, it's failing miserably.<<

Well, your cites of my comments are just that - MY comments. I *think* they are consistent - and that is that the agencies, as a business, are considered pretty lowly by most people as evident in our poll (among other indicators). The fact of the agency owners being unable to effectively collaborate - even when they openly stated they saw their very existence threatened - speaks volumes.

There is not a lot to inspire "new trust in agencies" - in my opinion.

- Dan

[GQBlues]

I don't know Dan, the argument below hardly even run parrallel from my perspective. International marriage is a choice people make. Because of the nature of the beast that we find ourselves these days in, there are new sets of rules everyone must adhere to if they choose further participation.

If I own a home too big for myself alone and choose to rent a room out, I can tell you that before I entertain having someone pay rent and live with me I would like to find out about that person's character and credibility. It doesn't mean I am violating their rights for doing so, nor am I depriving their right to privacy in exchange of the offerring. It's their choice whether or not they would like to provide such information. If they turn out to be of dubious character, then by gawd I'm thankful there's a system I can rely on.

That midnight knock by the police department is not exactly one classifies as a choice. I didn't chose to be waken up at midnght and have the police search my home, however, pursuing a potential wife from abroad is a choice.

* In the US, you have the right to privacy. The authorities are prohibited from unreasonable search and/or intrusion tactics. Mind you, they have a Supreme Court upheld right to lie through their teeth to you - but that is tangential.
* Home ownership is something that many aspire to in the US (and the numbers of ASPIRING seem to be growing daily - another tangent).
* If you own a home - what is your reaction if someone knocks on your door at midnight and announces themselves as the police (and you believe them) and asks if they can search your home for . . . (whatever)? Do you let them in?
* If you *do* let them into your home (having no real concern because you KNOW you do not have any of the 'whatever' it is they are searching for) - do you let them into your bedroom? How about your kid's bedroom? While they are sleeping?
* And if you allow them to do all that - what would be your reaction in 7 days time when another man (or woman) comes knocking on your door at midnight, announces themselves as law enforcement (and you believe them) and asks if they can enter and search your home for . . . this time it is 'something' (since they did not find 'whatever')?
* What if they ask to enter and search, but will not tell you what they are searching to find - will you let them in?

If there's probable cause for the authorities to demand to enter my home - they must first have a search warrant I would suppose. If they don't, then I have the right not to let them in. Having the right court documentation authorizing them to enter my home, again if I have nothing to worry about; feel free and take all the time they need. I may even offer them a cup of coffee. If there's something going on in my home I didn't know about and I should, I'll be damned well pleased to know the proper authorities are here and now.

But like I said above Dan...this situation isn't about a choice I am making so I'm not too sure this falls in line with IMBRA. I choose to fly as my mode of transportation. Thus, I subscribed myself to go through the security systems set-up at airports. Despite knowing they'll be scanning through a) my identity, b) my possessions, and c) feel me up, d) etc...;  I submit to give up my right to those privacies because it was choice I made.

[Admin]

I don't know Dan, the argument below hardly even run parrallel from my perspective. International marriage is a choice people make. Because of the nature of the beast that we find ourselves these days in, there are new sets of rules everyone must adhere to if they choose further participation.

If I own a home too big for myself alone and choose to rent a room out, I can tell you that before I entertain having someone pay rent and live with me I would like to find out about that person's character and credibility. It doesn't mean I am violating their rights for doing so, nor am I depriving their right to privacy in exchange of the offerring. It's their choice whether or not they would like to provide such information. If they turn out to be of dubious character, then by gawd I'm thankful there's a system I can rely on.

That midnight knock by the police department is not exactly one classifies as a choice. I didn't chose to be waken up at midnght and have the police search my home, however, pursuing a potential wife from abroad is a choice.

If there's probable cause for the authorities to demand to enter my home - they must first have a search warrant I would suppose. If they don't, then I have the right not to let them in. Having the right court documentation authorizing them to enter my home, again if I have nothing to worry about; feel free and take all the time they need. I may even offer them a cup of coffee. If there's something going on in my home I didn't know about and I should, I'll be damned well pleased to know the proper authorities are here and now.

But like I said above Dan...this situation isn't about a choice I am making so I'm not too sure this falls in line with IMBRA. I choose to fly as my mode of transportation. Thus, I subscribed myself to go through the security systems set-up at airports. Despite knowing they'll be scanning through a) my identity, b) my possessions, and c) feel me up, d) etc...;  I submit to give up my right to those privacies because it was choice I made.

The choice is whether to allow LE into your home at midnight for a dubious search. I might have used a more innocuous example (as was presented as part of jury selection recently) which went:

* You are shopping at the local mall and are carrying a personal bag with you, but did not purchase anything in the store.
* As you exit the store, the alarm that many stores have at the exit sounds, and you are asked to step back into the store.
* Once back in the store, you are asked if the store manager can have a look through your personal bag.
* Do you allow it?

Most of the prospective jurors were quite OK with allowing the search. It was only a few who would refuse - and fewer yet who refused on the grounds of Constitutional protections.

In most instances such as these, my view (speaking only for myself) is the question should be turned around - and it should be posed as; What *right* do the authorities have to make an intrusive demand - ANY intrusive demand? In the case of air travel, the claim is it is in the interest of public safety. In the case of cross-cultural relationships, I submit that the authorities have no legitimate claim of public safety (unless we accept what some of the zealots are writing about us - necrophiliacs, criminals, traffickers, etc.), hence, are grossly over-stepping their bounds of authority.

Gotta admit - when it comes to government, I am from the school of 'less is better' and it influences my perspectives (clearly).

- Dan

[Shadow]

In most instances such as these, my view (speaking only for myself) is the question should be turned around - and it should be posed as; What *right* do the authorities have to make an intrusive demand - ANY intrusive demand? In the case of air travel, the claim is it is in the interest of public safety. In the case of cross-cultural relationships, I submit that the authorities have no legitimate claim of public safety (unless we accept what some of the zealots are writing about us - necrophiliacs, criminals, traffickers, etc.), hence, are grossly over-stepping their bounds of authority.

Gotta admit - when it comes to government, I am from the school of 'less is better' and it influences my perspectives (clearly).

- Dan

Even the interest of public safety in air travel is questionable. There is no available data that attempts have decreased as a result of the sometimes draconian safety chacks, or that new attempts will be discouraged by them.

As one commentary in Holland regarding body scanners was : Lets create the rule that everyone has to fly naked so nothing can be hidden. Probably we would have to be x-rayed as someone might want to swallow an explosive...

[SFandEE]

John was on NBC's The Today Show with Matt Lauer.  He was there with his wife and a happily married couple.  He states that business is really good, especially during the economic downturn.  There is a video on the Today Show website and also an attached article.

The impression given is that business is on the rise.  Thousands of engagements in 2010.  Thousands seems like a lot to me.

[GQBlues]

* You are shopping at the local mall and are carrying a personal bag with you, but did not purchase anything in the store.
* As you exit the store, the alarm that many stores have at the exit sounds, and you are asked to step back into the store.
* Once back in the store, you are asked if the store manager can have a look through your personal bag.
* Do you allow it?

I would tell you I'm on your side of 'less government' but the situation cited above, again IMO, happened inside a privately owned business (likely). So as far as I'm concerned, I will be one of those folks who see nothing wrong with the inquisition especially knowing I haven't done anything wrong. So the answer to the 'Q' is 'yes'.

[Ade]

SJ,

Please consider starting a separate topic if you think it will be productive. To the extent possible, I would like to extend the courtesy of focusing only on the substantive issues of the report - and leave the peripheral/tangential issues aside. If you recall, when we launched the Agency Code of Ethics and the Certified Marriage Agencies site, the *only* issues raised were by those with self-interest attacking peripheral issues that had nothing to do with the substance and content of the CMA/ACoE materials. Interestingly, it is those same people who attacked the CMA/ACoE who are now subject to similar challenges here - but I'd like to think we can model a more professional and reasoned approach to the challenges and outcomes. I am convinced that if folks would have examined CMA/ACoE with a critical but open mind, it would have been a success. Let's see how that works out here with Andrew's report.

Make sense?

- Dan

Dan, I understand your concerns about derailing a thread like this but, honestly, isn't the whole topic, at least the original one, based on smoke and mirrors and a "report" with extremely little substance? It's fairly obvious that the MOB business is not dead in the FSU. It's evolving for sure and has been for ages, but that has little to do with IMBRA and more to do with FSUW with options, access and information.

Now, if you are discussing the real issues of IMBRA and MOB legislation in the US and possibly future EU legislation and how these will play out for Joe Average, then fine, but IMO those have little to do with Andrew's "report" and the death of anything.

[Bruno]

Ahhh Bruno, you *must* pay close attention. The reports I provided were from the "Council of Europe" (www.coe.int). They must have some others who get confused, because they put a page together called "Do Not Get Confused" - found here -- http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=nepasconfondre&l=en, and Sweden is, indeed, one of their founding members, as seen here -- http://www.coe.int/aboutCoe/index.asp?page=47pays1europe&l=en.

My mistake, i have mix your "Council of Europe" with the "European Council"... well, your "Council of Europe" is more a organization for promote Democracy and Human right... these organization have no power for vote any laws ( like the UN General Assembly with resolutions/recommendations who are not binding on the members )... On the other side, the European Council is the administration who prepare law to be voted at the European Parlement, enforced by the European commission in the European Union...

The only thing that the "Council of Europe" can enforce is the application of the European Convention on Human Rights ( for country who have sign it ) who is not the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ( United Nation ) who was sign by a lot more country... and as 2010, the European Court of Human Rights ( part of the Council of Europe ) have a backlog who will take 46 years to clear... not really a good working organisation !!!

And yes, some are confused... the "Council of Europe" is about the European continent... the "European Coucil" is about the "European Union"...

IMBRA was voted by the United States of America and not the UN... if something similar to IMBRA can be voted in the European Union, it will not be writed by the "Council of Europe" but by the "European Council"...

[Admin]

I would tell you I'm on your side of 'less government' but the situation cited above, again IMO, happened inside a privately owned business (likely). So as far as I'm concerned, I will be one of those folks who see nothing wrong with the inquisition especially knowing I haven't done anything wrong. So the answer to the 'Q' is 'yes'.

GQ,

I understand your POV. In fact, there is a large part of me that agrees with it. I further suspect that if I'd done a better job of finding a more direct metaphoric parallel to the IMBRA intrusions, we might find that we agree more than we disagree - but maybe not, and that is OK too.

I am well aware that I have become rather dogmatic in my position on Constitutional protections. Those tenets of law in America were enacted for very good reasons - and it frightens me to learn of the numbers of people who are willing to allow violation of those fundamental rights. It frightens me because it is suggestive of the frailty of those laws and how easily we could lose them if the people do not feel they are necessary.

In any case, I *know* you are a thinking person and one willing to 'fight' for your rights and against spurious intrusion. I am probably making more of this than is warranted.

- Dan