While I enjoyed Seth Stevenson's treatment of the Chemistry "Still Gay" spot, "The Online Dating Site for Rejects" article as a whole misses the broader point of the ad campaign, as evidenced by many of the responses here in the Fray.

If Chemistry wanted to be REALLY cynical about eHarmony's business practices, they could simply build an ad campaign around the idea that Dr. Warren isn't interested in the success of his clients - but in his own success as a matchmaker. Since his goal is to create as many married couples as possible, anyone who isn't a good candiate for that is turned away. Therefore, he keeps his numbers high by picking the low-hanging fruit.

You could make the point that eHarmony is similar to sites that promise attractive and/or wealthy partners - and screen aggressively to ensure that the meat they're offering fits the description. But people who attempt to join these sites know exactly what they're getting into - these sites aren't pretending to be open and inclusive. (And for the most part, they aren't pretending to offer love - it's all about kept call girls and sugar daddies.) Most people's objections to these sites is that they directly attack one of our cherished romantic falsehoods about relationships - that people love who you ARE, not how you look on their arm or how much of your money they can spend on themselves.

The Chemistry adds would be more effective, and more unversally appealing, if they made more forcefully the point that eHarmony also attacked that romantic notion, through quietly weeding out all but the chosen few. What good does it do you to look to a site that professes to help you to find someone who loves you for who you are, if the site's algorithm is going to be the one who determines if who you are is worthy of love? A good focus would be on couples that are happy together that eHarmony would have weeded out from the get-go. It would take a little work on Chemistry's part, but it could be done. (In fact, if eHarmony is half as selective as they're portrayed, you could make that point with random couples.) Happy couples actually rejected (one or both) by eHarmony would be better, but could be trickier to set up.