| URL | MyLife.com |
|---|---|
| Commercial? | Yes |
| Type of site | Social network |
| Registration | Required |
| Owner | Privately held |
| Created by | Jeffrey Tinsley |
MyLife (formerly Reunion.com) is a social network service founded in 2002 by Jeffrey Tinsley after meeting his wife at their high school reunion. The company began with the acquisition of highschoolalumni.com and PlanetAlumni.com.[1] The website claims to help members find and keep in touch with friends, relatives and lost loves.
In August 2007, Reunion.com claimed to be the 6th top social networking site with 28 million users, growing by nearly 1 million new members each month,[2] mostly in the United States and Canada. Quantcast estimates MyLife has 4.2 million monthly unique U.S. visits.[3] The site ranks as the 7th largest social network in the U.S. with 10.8 million weekly visits.[4]
On April 30, 2007 Reunion.com announced that it had signed an agreement with Wink to provide Wink's people profiles (from on-line social networks and other sources on the web) to Reunion's members. Then on August 20, 2007 Reunion.com announced an agreement with ZoomInfo to provide ZoomInfo's business related people profiles to Reunion.com members.
Contents |
Although member privacy is protected through a blind relay e-mail system preventing that e-mail addresses and contact information is revealed, it is possible to allow Reunion to access email addresses stored on a computer upon registration. These e-mail addresses are then used to solicit more members.[5]
People who subscribe to MyLife.com may allow Reunion to access all email addresses stored in their free e-mail accounts. These are then used to solicit more members under their name by altering the sender address and other parts of the email header to appear as though the email originated from the person who subscribed.[5] This practice has resulted in lawsuits against the company.[6]
MyLife, Inc. is privately owned. The original investors, making a total investment of $1.4 Million in angel financing, included Jeffrey Tinsley, former founder and CEO of GreatDomains.com and current CEO of Reunion.com; Richard Rosenblatt, co-founder, chairman and CEO of Demand Media and the former Chairman of MySpace; and Andy Mazzarella, CEO of eForce Media and former CFO of iMall.
On April 16, 2007, the company announced that it received $25 Million in venture funding from Oak Investment Partners[2] in the largest series A venture financing in a social networking company to date. The percent ownership stake that Oak received for their investment has not been reported.
The company’s business model is based on user-generated content and revenue from paid subscriptions and advertising sales. 90% of the firm's revenue is from paid subscriptions.[7]
This company practices what the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau (BBB) calls "negative option cancellation". In this sales strategy, customers agree to pay for services unless they cancel within a specified period of time. Members are required to cancel prior to the initial anniversary date to avoid continuing annual charges to their credit cards.[8]
Complaints from customers not resolved in a satisfactory manner caused the Los Angeles Better Business Bureau to rate Reunion.com 'F' in late 2008.[9] The BBB was concerned that the company used misleading advertising practices by e-mailing customers advising them that people 'may' be searching for them, and offers them to become paid members to find the identity of any people that may search for them in the future. In its FAQ section, the Reunion.com site describes this feature as follows: "'Who's Searching For You' will reveal the listed names of the specific users who have performed a search using your first and last (current or maiden) names and your age range within 5 years of your listed date of birth and is still saved in their Search History'.[10]
By late 2010, the rating had gone to 'A+', and the following summary and analysis of customer complaints and company responses was given:
| “ | Complainants generally allege that the company automatically renews memberships and debits accounts. Some customers report signing up for the service based on a low monthly rate but are charged for a non-refundable yearly or a lesser term subscription up-front. In some cases, complainants are dissatisfied that their information is posted on the company’s website and request its removal. The company generally responds by providing refunds and states that accounts are set to auto-renew at the end of the subscription term, unless the customer disables the auto-renew feature before the renewal is processed. In response to the amount of the charges, they state that customers signed up for a term account with a monthly subscription rate billed up-front for the entire term and is listed in several places on the order page. The company promptly removes profiles when requested and also states that the information was gathered from public sources.[11] | ” |
Less than a year later, the rating again went to 'F' and the company's accreditation was revoked, with the following factors cited as reasons:[12]
The advertising issue was explained by the BBB as follows:
| “ | On June 20, 2011, we wrote to this company asking them to modify their website disclosures to more clearly advertise the cost of their services. Customers generally complain that they are charged for the annual membership fee rather than the monthly amount displayed on the webpage. The current offer does not display an asterisk to alert the member of additional conditions associated with the price offer. The asterisk that is on the webpage is not in close proximity to the price offer, and is in microscopic print on a gray background using gray font. We believe that the information referenced by asterisks should be clearly and prominently disclosed. The explanation of the asterisks is below the pricing information and is obviously confusing to consumers as delineated by the complaints we receive. The company submitted a response on July 13, 2011. The company generally disagrees with the BBB that their pricing methods are deceptive, and feels that the disclosures the BBB felt were questionable adequately convey the terms and conditions of the offer.[12] | ” |