WO2001037113A2 - Permission-based marketing of events - Google Patents

Abstract

An interactive method of efficiently arranging a diversity of social events and selecting attendees for same by inviting highly like-minded persons without knowing any particular invitee. Persons desire to participate as prospects submit data about their personal attributes and preferences for various types and terms of events. Prospects or third parties may become a coordinator of an event by specifying the kind and terms of the event they propose and their preferences for attributes of attendees. A choice of other prospects' who are, by analysis, likely to match the coordinator's preferences and to accept the invitation are displayed to the coordinator, who selects invitees. Thereafter, the invitation is sent and/or displayed to invitees and, at any time the coordinator desires to do so, distributed to additional desired invitees. Means are provided to converge a group of persons with a complementary group of persons so as to maximize the chances of matches of members of one group with members of another. This applies particularly to date matching events and requires that prospects submit data about their fellow attendees' preferences. Attendee and coordinator post-event feedback information may be recorded and utilized for selecting and inviting prospects to subsequently arranged events. Additionally, means of automated wait list processing and of recording information about personal relationships among prospects, and using this information for the selection of invitees are provided.

Description

PERMISSION-BASED MARKETING OF EVENTS

SPECIFICATION

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The following invention relates to interactive methods involving permission-based marketing and social event organization. The present invention enables a method of facilitating the efficient and effective arrangement of a variety of events involving more than one attendee, and accomplishes this by providing the means for inviting highly like-minded persons with no prior knowledge of them and by utilizing its proprietary post-event feedback information. This invention also addresses date matching methodology, automated wait list processing, group formation, community building, and the coordination of social activities among acquainted persons.

PRIOR ART: EVENT MARKETING AND PLANNING

As a social activity, the success of events not only depends upon the activity, but on the kind of persons whom attendees meet at the event. As an economic good, events have special properties, as (1) they require a minimum number of attendees to be highly interactive and entertaining, (2) the consumers must attend simultaneously, (3) the maximum number of attendees is limited, and (4) the event takes place at one planned, future point in time. While these factors make the marketing and coordination difficult, they are critical to an event's success. However, there is no marketing and planning system for events that allows the coordinators to control the desired qualities of the attendees on an individual but anonymous basis.

Public advertising, which might be targeted at particular social groups, is one means of marketing that coordinators can utilize to recruit attendees. However, traditional advertising reaches a high number of people who are either not interested m that event or whom are not a good match with other attendees. The same applies for searchable event directoπes on the Internet such as CitySearch (www citvsearch com), DigitalCity (www digitalcity com), and CitiQuest (www citiquest.com): Here, users are browsing through a high volume of events that often do not match their preferences or where they do not match with the event's other attendees.

Traditional direct marketing methods allow advertisers to send messages directly to prospects, wherein the audience is normally targeted according to certain cnteπa. However, either the advertisers possess their own lists of known contacts (that they normally don't share with other advertisers) or they buy targeted but unknown contacts from direct marketers or vendors of mailing lists. In the latter case, there is no control on the individual charactenstics of prospects, whom are not listed m a sequence that reflects the advertisers' preferences hierarchically or m detail. Thus, even if an advertiser would be technically enabled to deselect individuals from the mailing list, it would not be feasable the advertiser has no information with which to do so

Electronic mailing lists serve as good examples of traditional direct marketing methods. Often, coordinators inform the mailing list administrator about an event and the administrator includes the event information in a newsletter that is sent out to list members or subscπbers. Consumers can enter the list either by member recommendation, by application through the administrator, or by opting in via on-line forms. Mailing list services such as www.topica.com and www.egroups.com offer an overview on the available variety of lists, and good examples for such services are the ACE-Club (www.ace-club.com) or Club- Planet (www clubplanet.com). America On-lme's (AOL) DigitalCity (www.digitalcity.com) also offers an opt-m system to receive announcements of events m which users express interest. However, there are some noticeable drawbacks: the lists offer only limited information about their subscπbers, coordinators can not arrange their own mailing list according to their preferences for attendees, and coordinators cannot invite or exclude members on an individual basis.

Mailing list data only contains information the members provide about themselves. Though feedback information could be used to significantly increase the value of mailing lists to coordinators, there is currently no service that does so. Thus, without the means of screening and inviting individuals and of collecting information about their mtegnty, the only way to exclude particular persons, for example notorious trouble makers, is to complain to the list administrator, create individual black lists, or rely on the judgment of the doormen/bouncers.

The use of Internet event planning tools streamlines the event organization process. However, all such tools either involve a public promotion strategy, the use of targeted marketing through mailing lists and word of mouth, and/or the marketing to known prospects. Thus, these services merely assist in the invitation dispersal to known contacts, registration, and payment processing and offer no help in selecting and inviting unknown persons. Some popular examples of these services are eVite (www.evite.com). Mambo (www.mambo.com). SeeUthere (www.seeuthere.com), and Acteva (www.acteva.com).

PRIOR ART: GROUP FORMATION AND COMPLEMENTATION

Clubs are one way known to the prior art of converging homogeneous groups of people with desired and shared interests and demographics. Here, interested persons apply for membership, are admitted if they meet certain criteria, and are expelled if they violate certain rules. However, these clubs only avail themselves for events with attendees drawn from their selective and somewhat "closed-system" membership base. Special interest events with changing foci can hardly be organized by clubs, and the benefits of the membership system for both the club and the members themselves is limited to activities of the club or to which each member of the club is invited. Contrarily, this invention facilitates the formation of highly- targeted and customized groups for individual events, wherein coordinators draw these invitees from a non-selective and open base of already registered prospects.

Another method of group formation, more suitable for special interest events, are personal ads placed in newspapers or on the Internet. However, it can be costly if done over a longer period of time and, because of targeting problems, it is difficult to reach those who are interested in the event. Moreover, it is difficult to discriminate against those interested persons whom are not a good match with other attendees. Therefore, the meetings of people who have found each other this way have a greater tendency to disappoint.

The referral system applied by SixDegrees (www.sixdegrees.com) overcomes the informational problems between unacquainted persons. Members of this service declare each other as somehow related (friends, family member, etc.), thus building a network of relationships which could connect members with any other members over various degrees. In addition, SixDegrees offers event planning features where members may post invitations to members of special interest groups. However, invitees cannot be selected on an individual basis, and the only attribute that qualifies them for invitation is their membership in a Six- Degrees discussion group. Another way members can organize an event is to post an invitation on a personal bulletin board, making the event information visible to other members who are related in the first, second, and/or third degree. However, SixDegrees does not offer an integration of the two methods, neither of which allows the selection of invitees on a customized basis.

PRIOR ART: DATE MATCHING METHODS

Matchmaking services, both off- and on-line, normally collect information about participating persons' attributes such as interests, physical stature, educational background, profession, etc., and about the persons' preferences for such attributes of whomever they are looking to meet. The clients of these services are then either provided with contact information of individuals who are likely to be a good match, a face- to-face meeting is arranged, or they browse through a list of persons who are likely to be a good match and can contact via phone, Internet chat, mail, or e-mail Just as personal ads in newspapers or on the Internet, these services are regularly limited to providing matches on an individual basis resulting in blind dates, where potentially compatible persons meet in a tense atmosphere unsuitable for casually acquainting themselves In addition, these meetings are often fame consuming because (1) it takes considerable time and effort to arrange a meeting with just one person in real life, and (2) though it is often quickly clear that persons are not compatible, as a kind gesture they are obliged to stay.

Other off-line services aim at bπnging a number of compatible people together at one date matching event, which is often centered around dining In addition, individuals must be a member of a club, and the club administration forms groups of compatible attendees of one event. While these events may be ideal for group blind dates and/or for the opportunity to become acquainted with a high number of potentially compatible persons, group formation methods fail m reflecting the attendees' preferences in large groups and offering a vaπety of activities In general, club administration will have access to only a limited and relatively static number of potential event attendees smce only members are invited. If there is a high number of interested persons, the administration increases the mutual compatibility between attendees by manually comparing the persons' attπbutes and preferences for partners. This can be a sufficient technique in the case of a a small pool of potential guests. However, the persons' preferences for attπbutes of potential partners are likely to be overlooked with higher numbers of persons Therefore, such clubs normally maintain a small, highly targeted number of members or form groups upon shared cπteπa, where the persons' preferences for desired partners are only considered m cases of apparent incompatibility

U.S Pat No. 5,920,845 to Risemberg provides a method of efficiently determining mutual matches of persons attending the same date matching event Risemberg's invention reduces the need of pre-selectmg event attendees and exposing attendees to a high number of other persons. Attendees are provided with time to interact at an event, while perhaps meanwhile publicly introducing themselves to other attendees Then they inform a central agent about those persons they would like to date. If mutual matches can be inferred from this data, a meeting will be arranged between the persons so that they can further interact and discuss the arrangements of their date Also, modes of contacting mutual matches can be provided alternatively or additionally While eliminatmg the need for directly contacting unknown individuals who may reject desirous inquisitive person, Risemberg's invention still suffers from groups of rather heterogeneous attendees.

U.S Pat No 4,173,016 to Dickson offers a system of locating compatible individuals by means of small short-range transmitter/receiver devices that individuals carry with themselves. Transmitted signals identify the user and a limited set of data about his traits and interests. Once this signal is received by the device of a person who is a potential mutual match, additional signals are interchanged and the correspond- ing individuals are alerted of a nearby acclaimed match. (The louder the alarm signal, the closer the person one is attempting to contact.) However, several problems arise: the signals may be jammed once many people use the system in one location; the set of stored and exchanged data is limited; not best matches, but orύy first matches may find each other; and a high minimum number of people need to own and simultaneously use the transmitter/receiver device for this method to be useful.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,086,394 to Shapira addresses some of the problems of the Dickson patent. When entering a location, users enter their date matching preferences and personal characteristics data into a local control unit using a personal memory device. The local control unit then searches for mutual matches who are at the same location and have also entered their data. Once such matches are determined, the corresponding users are informed to meet at a location (e.g., the local control unit) via remote paging of another's personal device. While in fact Shapira's patent allows for more detailed data on personal preferences and characteristics, avoids signal jamming, determines best possible matches, and facilitates the immediate location of prospective partners. However, as previously mentioned, this is contingent upon a significantly high number of active attendees owning the memory and paging devices, and using both simultaneously at one location. An additional setback is the fact that to be effective, a significant number of locations need to be equipped with a local control unit. Persons may also find the system awkward: When entering a location, one first needs to interact with the local control unit, and once paged for a meeting with a potential match, other activities are interrupted (e.g., talking with friends, playing billiards, etc.) and one must also approach a meeting point (e.g., the local control unit).

The currently existing patented methods do not avoid the intimidating and tense atmosphere of the first date, and in the case of the Shapira patent, heightens it. Even in Risemberg's method, the step from the first introduction/interaction period to the person-to-person meetings of mutual matches seems too abrupt to allow for the participants' informal and casual behavioral exchange. The other methods known to the prior art suffer from similar problems and fail in building homogenous groups. Also, neither one of the described systems and match finding methods systematically use potential feedback to further increase the likelihood of mutual matches, not to mention sharing such information with other coordinators of future events or to invite a more compatible group of people to a future event.

PRIOR ART: WATT LIST MANAGEMENT

Where there is a limited quantity of a good available in the future and interested parties can reserve single units or parts of this quantity before the good becomes accessible, there might occur the problem of overbooking the available capacity. If it is not possible to adjust the price so as to reduce demand, interested parties might get positions on a wait list. This is advantageous to the seller of the offering because other parties might cancel their reservation and unused parts or units of the offering would decay or become void if no other party would use it at the point in time the offering becomes available. Wait lists are often used to manage the demand for popular classes at universities and adult education institutes, and to manage many other social events with a demand exceeding its capacity. Since positions on a wait list do not guarantee admission, parties are likely to change their plans so that they might not be able to attend the event for which they initially signed a wait list. Thus, a wait list rarely forces parties to accept the offered good in which they were interested once it becomes available. In the past, this has meant that wait list management comprised personally and directly contacting parties of the wait list in the case where a desired offering becomes available. Only this way revealed whether their interest in the offering is still valid and whether they are willing to pay for it at an indefinite and later point in time.

There is no automated method known to the prior art that dynamically addresses the incalculable changes of the demand of persons whom have signed a wait list. Roseville, California-based Nicheware, Inc. (www.nichewareinc.com) offers training automation software, including automated wait list management, where students waiting for admission to an overbooked class are automatically informed about class openings by e-mail. If they don't respond within a specified deadline, they are moved from the top to the end of the wait list and another applicant is informed. However, this offering is unable to react dynamically on the changing demand for an offering and the increasing urgency to fill available spaces the less time is left to the beginning of the class.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,420 to Maeda et al. of November 16, 1999 offers a "reservation media issuing system using fuzzy logic" where persons also can get on a wait list. However, Maeda's invention does not offer a solution to address these persons in an efficient manner, and as they could not be confident about gaining admission, it is possible that such persons would change plans in the interim.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A number of problems arise in the organization of social activities. Generally, these problems comprise the difficulty of identifying and exclusively inviting a sufficient number of like-minded, yet unknown persons with a shared interest in a certain kind of activity, the impossibility to share experiences with other people, and the difficulties to reflect the preferences for partners of a higher number of persons when forming a group with a high number of mutual matches between members of that group. The available means to act upon these problems are far from being perfect and suffer a variety of secondary problems. What is needed to overcome the aforementioned problems is a method that attains the following objectives:

• low overhead costs;

• allowing simple yet logistically practical ways of arranging events;

• guaranteeing the desired profile and number of people attending the event or facilitating early cancellation of the event; • providing the opportunity to casually and efficiently get to know a high number of personally desired persons on either a one-on-one or group basis;

• efficiently maximize the chances of mutual matches by selecting attendees from a high number of persons;

• facilitating informal date matching events with an appropriate atmosphere for contacting prospective partners, while still allowing a high diversity of such events;

• effectively using information about personal relationships to increase an event's successfulness;

• collecting and using feedback data so as to inform coordinators of the integrity of potential guests and to inform potential guests about the performance of the coordinator; and finally

• allowing the efficient and reliable wait list management.

The present invention reaches these objectives while also protecting the privacy of its users. Additionally, the application of this invention is not limited to one specific type of or purpose for social activity. Instead, it can be simultaneously applied by any person who seeks a business partners, peers for visiting a concert, travel partners, soul mates, partners for role plays, Internet chat groups, sports activity groups, video conferences, charity activities, and more. Events can either help to meet the right people or may already comprise the desired activity. Meanwhile, this invention facilitates the easy and efficient coordination of one's social life with acquainted persons.

A preferred embodiment of this invention is the arrangement of date matching events of personally unknown but compatible persons. Here, persons who want to participate in the invention as prospects of events provide data about their attributes (traits, interests, etc.), data about their preferences for attributes of prospective partners, and data about their preferences for different types and terms of events (purpose, location, costs, daytime, possible weekdays, minimum/maximum number of people, outdoor/indoor, etc.), wherein the purposes include date matching. Every prospect and any third party can become a coordinator of an event.

Assuming that the event's purpose is date matching, a coordinator specifies (1) the type and terms of the event, (2) his preferences for one both guests, and (3) a target profile representing either himself (if he is himself interested in date matching) or a dummy personality that the guest is interested in meeting. A coordinator could be any person or party who promotes, hosts, organizes or is otherwise managing the invitation and marketing of an event. For heterosexual date matching events, the coordinator chooses initial invitees to his event from a choice of male/female prospects who are - as far as a comparison of the provided data indicates - likely to be (1) willing to attend that specific event, (2) meeting the coordinator's preferences for guests, and (3) interested in meeting a person as specified by the female/male target personality. Given initial invitees' attributes and partner attribute preferences, a choice of complementary female/male prospects is determined so as to maximize the chances of mutually compatible matches of all attendees. This goal is reached by assigning an equal valuation to the degree of how well the complementary prospects' preferences for attributes of prospective partners match those of the initial invitees. The invitation will then be sent or displayed to a number of initial and complementary invitees, and, if the response rate is too low, sent or displayed to additional invitees as often as appropriate.

The choice of prospects offered to the coordinator from whom to select invitees includes those prospects whose preferences for events clearly indicate an interest in the specified event. However, if the data about preferences for events is vague or unspecific, estimates of the prospects' interest can be based upon known event preferences, interest in past events, or on the preferences of other prospects with otherwise similar preferences (herein referred to as collaborative filtering). Also, the degree of strength of the estimated interest may be considered in the overall result of the matchmaking process that normally reflects only the prospects' match with preferences for attendee attributes.

An automated reservation system can record the invitees' confirmation of the invitation and on-line payment processing may be offered to attendees. Once all attendees are determined, they may be provided with introductory information about fellow attendees and location of the event. Also, the coordinator may receive a final list of attendees, including means to control their real or anonymous identity, so that he can control the attendance of his event and the eligibility of persons claiming to be an attendee.

If the coordinator uses reservation features, he may also specify a reservation deadline. Especially for events where attendees pay an admission fee, the coordinator may specify a cancellation deadline after which the fee is non-refundable or will be charged to a credit card after the event, even if the person decides not to attend. If so desired, the coordinator also has the opportunity to arrange an automated cancellation in the case where there are fewer reservations than a specified minimum number at a certain point in time.

The coordinator may be informed with most current data on the number of reservations and may invite additional prospects at any time if he desires to do so. To support the coordinator's ability to predict the needed total number of invitations, he may assign an exclusive reservation deadline for the first invitees. The coordinator will not be permitted to invite additional prospects before expiration of this deadline, thus giving the first invitees both a visible advantage to other prospects and an incentive to respond within this deadline. The coordinator may even block the first invitees from reservations for a limited time after their exclusive deadline, thus assigning an exclusive reservation deadline to secondary invitees. Also, the coordinator may use this exclusive reservation deadline to automatically invite a number of secondary invitees whom are chosen from a ranking of secondary prospects, which the coordinator has selected in advance. The number of secondary invitees can then be automatically determined based on the response ratio of the first invitees as measured at expiration of the deadline. This technique would ease the promotional duties of the coordinator and offer another incentive for the first invitees to respond in a timely manner, so as to avoid the risk of missing the event.

One application of this invention allows coordinators of recurrent events to control the number of times a prospect is invited to similar events. This is a helpful feature for product or service promotion events where the coordinator wants to reach a target audience among the prospects and uses a number of similar events to do so. He may want to limit the number of times he invites persons who are either uninterested in the event or who have previously attended the event. If the coordinator applies reservation features, he may also use the invention to automatically prevent attendees of past events from being repeatedly invited to similar events.

After the multi-person event, attendees may provide feedback about the other attendees and the coordinator, and the coordinator may provide feedback about attendees. To help remind attendees of the identity of fellow attendees, photographs or other personal data may be displayed. The feedback may be limited to the opposite sex or any other voluntary or required selection of attendees. Feedback may also include information confirming or contradicting attributes data of other attendees, whether or not one would like to meet the attendee again, or even if one would like to contact the other person directly. If the desire is mutual, a rendezvous at a future date matching event may be facilitated or mode of communication (such as e-mail) are revealed. At least, feedback data can inform invitees about the coordinator's performance as evaluated by attendees of previous events or to inform a coordinator about prospects' integrity as evaluated by coordinators of past events.

Feedback data may also be used for collaborative filtering: For example, if a female prospect A reveals fondness for male prospects C, D, and E, then it is likely that female prospect B will also like the (yet unknown to him) prospect E if B coincides with A in respect to his fondness for C and D. Thus, this feedback data may not only be used to prevent "cheating" in the initial data gathering, but may also improve both the (1) selection of prospects to be displayed to a coordinator from which to select invitees and (2) selection of complementary invitees. Also, the coordinator may specify certain criteria for feedback values of invitees. With this feature, the selection and invitation process may go without the selection of invitees on an individual basis because criteria for invitees are sufficiently comprehensive to rely on an automated selection.

This invention can be applied to select attendees of events who do not explicitly aim at date matching and wherein attendees are not explicitly seeking prospective partners. Here, there is no need for statements of preferences for attributes of prospective partners. Only the coordinator's preferences for invitees determine the displayed selection. Still, the invention's property of facilitating the efficient organization of a variety of different multi-person events with homogenous attendees is effective. The coordinator may also further enhance the event by specifying preferences for at least two groups of invitees/attendees so as to vite a sufficient number of goalkeepers for a soccer event or to balance the gender ratio of a recreational event. Also, prospects may participate in fixed groups of at least two persons (e.g.: couples), maintaining a joint set of attπbutes, preferences for events, and optionally, preferences for attπbutes of other attendees of the same event In any of these cases, the feedback features provided by this invention generates valuable information for coordinators and invitees of future events.

Of course, events - whether for date matching or for any other purpose - may occur either in real life where persons are present, or they may take place virtually as in chat groups on the Internet, or video/telephone conferences. In the case of this invention, events can compπse any form of social achvity with attendees whom interact with each other. Examples of these events may include but are not limited to: fundraismg, volunteer work, physical achvity, education, date matchmg, culture/arts appreciation, recreation, professional networking, and community building Prospects can be invited either as individuals or as fixed groups. Activities can be held one time only (like a cocktail party or a readmg) or recurrent (like a class in Pottery). The on-line or off-line events also can be limited to a short time (e.g.: meeting for brunch) or for a longer time (vacation tnp). To stretch the point, the event may also consist of the joint consumption of a certain type of exclusive good, such as dπvmg a Ferraπ. The Italian car manufacturer is known for its desire to form an exclusive community of Ferraπ dπvers, thus making the participation in that community an event in itself. Ferran now could use this invention to invite a select audience to buy its products, thus marketing the product to a rather exclusive community.

For his own convenience, the coordmator also may include his own contacts in the invitation and reservation process, even if these contacts are not actively participating as prospects m the application of this invention. In an attempt to encourage professional promoters of events to integrate their list of contacts in the invitation process, the promoters may be compensated based on the acttvity of those prospects whom interacted with the system through their invitation Thus, promoters would (1) be compensated for those contacts that become less responsive to their promotions by receiving other invitations and would (2) benefit from the access to additional and highly targeted prospects.

The most efficient embodiment of the present invention simultaneously facilitates the selection and invitation of attendees for an unlimited vaπety of different events and meetings by maintaining only one set of data for each prospect This is not only efficient in terms of saving the prospects the potential double entry of the same data into different systems but it is also beneficial because feedback evaluations of the attendance of different event types can jointly proof the integrity of one prospect.

In another application of this invention, groups of invitees are formed through utilizing information about personal relationships between prospects manifested through the invention. Here, prospects declare friendship or another personal relationship with a number of other prospects, who confirm the relation- ship. This data can be used to reveal a network of relationships among a list of prospects, invitees, or guests, or to form a list of prospects by specifying at least one initial prospect, then addmg prospects that have such a mutual relationship with that prospect, and adding those prospects that have such a mutual relationship with those additional prospects, and so on.

Event coordinators are often uncertain about the market need for their offeπng. In this case, still another application of this invention effectively and efficiently assists the coordinator in performing the interest scouting: Without having to plan, prepare, and specify an event in full detail, he may specify an event project as detailed as is currently possible Rather than sendmg out an invitation to selected prospects, however, he only sends a request to respond if there is an interest to be invited once the event is further established and the coordinator has decided to host it Those who do not respond m time (either before expiration of a specified deadline or before the event actually takes place) may be blocked from the invitation process so as to increase the mcenhve to respond to the interest polling and to avoid annoying them with another message if the event does not match their interests.

An automated wait list processing method is yet another application of this invention. It enables the customer-friendly and highly efficient filling of openmg spaces on events or other offeπngs that are of limited time and supply and where there is a wait list.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

These steps and their underlying mechanisms, as well as other objects and advantages of this invention, will be more completely understood and appreciated by the study of a detailed descπption of the invention, viewed in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, of which:

Fig.1 is a block diagram illustrating the overall environment in which the present invention may be used,

Fιg.2 is a flow chart depicting the steps of a person becoming a prospect withm a system applying the invention, becoming an invitee, and becoming an attendee of a multi-person event or any other event;

Fιg.3 is a flow chart specifying the steps of selecting and mvinng initial and complementary invitees to a specified event accordance with one method of this invention,

Fιg.4 is a flow chart showing this invention's process of manifesting, recording, and using personal relationships for group forming, event planning, and coordination of social activities;

Fιg.5 is a flow chart that shows this invention's steps of recording and using an event's feedback data on the coordinator and attendees; and

Fιg.6 is a flow chart that specifies the steps of automated wait list processmg in accordance with this invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The block diagram of Fig.1 shows an example of an overall environment in which the present invention may be used. This environment includes a communication network 60 (box 160) that is able to transport messages exchanged between the entities and individuals connected to it. Thus, network 60 may be fully represented by the Internet or any other form of communication system. Each box 111-117 represents a participating type X prospect 11-17 connected to network 60, and each box 121-127 represents a participating type Y prospect 21-27 connected to network 60. Box 110 represents at least one event coordinator 10 who is connected to network 60 and who may participate as a prospect himself. Also, a moderating, filteπng, processing and database unit 70 (box 170), which may be a computer system or a human operator, is connected to network 60. Thus, messages can be exchanged between each prospect, event coordinator, and unit 70 over network 60, and anonymous communication links of prospects/coordinators to other prospects/coordinators can be provided over unit 70.

A line from box 170 to box 171 shows that unit 70 stores the customized databases 71 of each prospect (71 :11-71: 17 and 71.21-71 :27). Each individual database contains up to four subsets of data: prospects' preferences for attπbutes 1 (box 101, optional); prospect's feedback attπbutes 2 (box 102, optional); prospect's attπbutes 3 (box 103); and prospect's preferences for different types and terms of events 4 (box 104). A line to box 109 shows that unit 70 also stores the coordinators' feedback data 9. Information stored m unit 70 can also be stored on other computers that are connected to the network, including those of prospects and coordinators.

The subsets of data may contain but are not limited to the age, size, weight, educational background, professional background, traits, interests, social circles, values, etc. in attπbutes 3 and in the preferences for attπbutes of other attendees of a same event 1. Attπbutes 3 may also include data about manifested mutual relationships with other participating prospects. The subset of data "preferences for events 4" may contain but is not limited to the daytime, possible weekdays, duration, costs, outdoor/mdoor preference, alcohol and smoking policies, cultural, sports or other foci, number of attendees, purpose of the event, activity of the event, etc. The subset of data "feedback attπbutes 2" may contain but is not limited to correcting entπes on prospects' attributes, data about the emotion of other prospects for this prospect, data about this prospects' emotion to other prospects, and data about the prospect's integrity as a guest evaluated by coordinators of previous events.

Another line from box 170 to boxes 105-108 shows that unit 70 also contams several filters that limit the access of prospects, coordinators, attendees, and invitees of events to different sets of data: attendees' filter 5 for data about other attendees of the same event (box 105); coordinators' filter 6 for data of prospects (box 106); prospects' filter 7 for his own feedback attπbutes 3 (box 107); and invitees' filter 8 for data of the event, the coordinator, other invitees, and attendees of the event to which they are invited (box 108).

The flowchart Fig 2 shows the steps of a type X person 11 first becoming prospect 11, then invitee 11 to a multi -person event, and finally attendee 11 of that event. Initially, a person 11 requesting to become prospect 11 (box 201) is provided with controlled access to unit 70, so that secure and reliable means of communication are established (step 202) Such customized data access πghts could be achieved through an anonymous login name and password, and technical access and communication could be provided, for example, through a computer connected to unit 70 over the Internet and using an Internet Browser program, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer, Version 5 0, or Netscape Communicator, Version 6.0.

In the next step 203, statements about the prospect's attπbutes 11 -3, his preferences for attπbutes of other attendees 11.1, and his preferences for different types and terms of events 11:4 are recorded. This data may be elicited by means of standardized terms m the profiling form, which are actively completed by the prospect and may be generated by observing the prospect's behavior, or collected from other sources where such data is already available. It may not be necessary to record the preferences for attπbutes of other attendees if the prospect is not interested in, for example, date matchmg events. Prospects may be entitled to access and may modify this data at any time. The data is then used to form prospects' customized database 7 T 11 in step 204. Prospect 11 is offered to become a coordinator of an event in step 205. Whenever he chooses to do so, he can continue to connector A (step 206/301) leading to Fιg.3, to be addressed below.

Following step 204, prospect 11 not only is entitled to become a coordmator of an event, but can also be invited to the events of other coordinators There are five general ways for this to occur in accordance with this invention.

(1) The coordinator has specified an event, which prospect 1 1 - according to his event preferences - will likely be willing to attend. For example, the event's purpose is professional networking, the achvity is a general gatheπng with alcoholic beverages, smoking is allowed, the venue is at the Vine Bar in New York's Financial Distπct, and the date/time is Wednesday Apπl 26, 2000, from 6.30 to 9.30pm. The event preferences of prospect 11 indicate his interest in such an event, that he stays close to that location or that he is willing to travel the corresponding distance, and that he is not blocked for such an event at that time Now, the coordinators' preferences for attendees are compared with the attπbutes of prospect 11. The following table offers an example of how this could be accomplished: Table 1: Standard Matchmaking

The degree of how closely prospect 11 matches the preferences of the coordinator can be measured in points that are calculated according to an index value of 100 representing the maximum. In this example, prospect 11 receives no points for his race because he is not African American, he gets no points for gender because he is not female, and he gets no points for income because he opted not to provide any information about it. If he would have opted not to provide any information about his field of work, he would be excluded from the list of potential invitees without further consideration of his other matchmaking values.

After comparing all the preference criteria of the coordinator, prospect 11 received 8 points out of 18 possible points, signifying 44.4 of the index (100). This value can now assist the coordinator to select invitees for his event without the need of comparing each prospect on an individual basis. This process does not necessitate data about the other attendees' preferences for attributes. This method is not graphically represented in Fig.2 and replaces either step 207 or 208.

(2) For certain events, it makes a lot of sense to consider the preferences of prospect 11 for attributes of other attendees in addition to the coordinator's preferences for attendees. One way to carry this out in accordance with this invention and Fig.2 of this specification is indicated by box 208. This method is particularly useful for date matching events and other gatherings where there are two groups that do not have to be homogeneous in itself but instead should offer a high number of mutual matches of each member of the one group with members of another. In the context of this invention, one group is called the initial group, and the other group is the complementary group. In the first step, those prospects whom are likely to be interested in the specified event are selected. Then, the all coordinator's preferences for members of the initial group of attendees are compared with the attributes of the prospects and a ranking list of prospects is generated. Table 2: Matching Prospect 11 with Coordinator's Preferences for Members of the Initial Group

In this case, prospect 11 gams 8 points. Because there are negative values involved, it makes sense to take the lowest possible value as 0 and the highest possible value as 100 for the indexing. Thus, prospect 11 scored 12 points out of 20, resulting in 60 mdexed points. If prospect 11 would fail to meet a "Must" preference of the coordmator (e.g : bemg too young), he may either not be eligible at all as an invitee or may score 0 points m this table.

In another step, the eligible prospects' preferences for other attendees of the specified event are similarly compared to a target profile specified by the coordinator. Such a target profile may represent the coordinator of the event himself if he is interested m meeting a high number of compatible persons or it may merely represent a dummy personality created only for the purpose of selecting prospects.

Table 3: Matching a Target Profile with the Preferences of Prospect 11 for Members of a Complementary Group

In this case, prospect 11 scored 12 points out of 30, resulting in 40 indexed points calculated in accordance to the other step. Similar to the other step of this matchmaking process, prospect 11 would either not be eligible at all as an invitee or he would score 0 points in this table if the target profile does not meet one of his "Must" preferences. The average value now is 50 indexed points, showing the coordinator to what extent prospect 1 1 will match the event's complementary group of attendees. In the case that prospect 11 has not specified attribute preferences for other attendees, this calculation could be omitted, resulting in 60 points as an indicator. At the end of step 208, the coordinator's choice of initial invitees from the members of the initial group is recorded.

(3) The third way of a prospect becoming eligible to become an invitee of an event is by becoming a member of a complementary group of prospects as represented by step 207 in Fig.2. Here, either all or only a selection of members of the group of initial invitees as selected by the coordinator or of the group of initial prospects determine the composition and ranking of the complementary group of prospects from which the coordinator chooses the complementary invitees. In one step, the attributes of each prospect who is likely to be interested in the specified event are compared to the preferences of the selected initial invitees, just as their attributes have been compared with the coordinator's preferences in Table 2. Generally, if the event is a heterosexual date matching event (as this example suggests), it makes sense to initially limit the considered group of complementary prospects to the (female) type Y prospects 21 - 27 as the initial group of invitees comprises only (male) type X prospects 11 - 17. In another step, the members' preferences of the considered group of complementary prospects are compared with the attributes of the selected members of the initial group, in the same way the initial prospects' preferences have been compared to the attributes of the target profile. Again, each time that a "Must" preference of a complementary prospect is not met with the attributes of one initial invitee, either the complementary prospect would not be eligible as an invitee or would score 0 points in the corresponding table. Also, the members' attributes of the considered group of complementary prospects are compared with the preferences for attributes of the selected members of the initial group, in the same way the initial prospects' attributes have been compared to the coordinator's preferences for attributes. Correspondingly, each time that a "Must" preference of a selected member of the initial group is not met with the attributes of the complementary prospect, either the complementary prospect would not be eligible as an invitee or would score 0 points in the corresponding table.

As in method (2), an index is formed out of the points generated in the two calculations of each pair of initial invitee and complementary prospect. Since more than one pair of matchmaking calculation is carried out per complementary prospect, the final score is the average of all indexed points per calculated mutual match. In an alternative scenario, an average personality is calculated with the average attributes and preferences for attributes of the selected initial invitees, and the complementary prospects are matched with this average personality. If so desired, the coordinator can specify additional preferences for invitees, thus further refining the choice of prospects from which the complementary invitees are selected.

Fig.3 illustrates in detail how a coordinator chooses prospects and invites them to an event in accordance with this invention and methods (1), (2), and (3) of selecting invitees. Either entering over connector A (step 206/301) or starting as a third party coordinator of events, the event's coordinator initially specifies the event and his attendee preferences. He may also specify a target profile for the selection of prospects in accordance with the methods (2) and (3) as described above. Step 303 represents the matchmaking calculation of method (2)/step 208 of Fig.2. The resulting ranking of prospects is displayed to the coordinator in step 304, who then selects initial invitees from this choice of prospects in step 305, this choice being recorded by the system. Step 306 represents the matchmaking calculation of method (3)/step 207 of Fig.2. Step 307 records the coordinator's selection of complementary invitees.

The invitation is then sent to the selected invitees (step 308 and step 209 of Fig.2). This could be accomplished with an e-mail sent to invitees by unit 70 over the Internet (as network 60), or the coordinator could be provided with modes of communication with these invitees, e.g.: telephone numbers or anonymous e-mail addresses. Most practically, an invitation e-mail could either contain complete or abridged invitation information, and the complete invitation could be accessed by the invitee on demand. A unique identifier of the event, embedded in a hyperlink within the e-mail, could be used by the invitees to directly access the detailed information about the event on unit 70. Also, the unique identifier could iden- tify the invitee to unit 70, thus facilitating the easy and controlled sign-up and payment processing in the case where the coordinator desired such features. As far as considered appropriate, the invitation may or may not automatically contain information about the coordinator, the type and terms of the event, and data about other invitees/attendees in addition to commentary from the coordmator and as determined by filter 8. Additional invitees may be selected and invited as often as the coordinator desires to do so (step 309), wherein the choice of eligible prospects or even a selection of additional invitees can be prepared in advance in the corresponding steps.

To avoid prospects from being inundated with invitations to rather unappealing events, coordinators may be required to pay a per-invitee fee as an incentive to target their invitations as much as possible. The proceeds of these fees may be forwarded directly to the invitees as a compensation for their attention, may be retained to cover processing and overhead costs, or may be distributed to the attendees/coordinators of other events on a per-attendee basis.

Fig.2 continues with decision step 210, which is only needed if the invitations require a reply or reservation from the invitees. A successful confirmation of an invitation may presuppose at least the partial payment of the processing and/or admittance fee. If invitee 11 does not confirm the invitation with his reservation/reply, he will be unable to attend to the event. In this case, decision arrows 211 and 212 trace back to steps 207 and 208, respectively, which are permanently active. If invitee 11 does confirm the invitation, he receives additional information about the coordinator, the event, and other attendees since unit 70 now applies his filter 5 instead of filter 8 in regard to prospect 11 and this event (step 214). This information may contain data about the precise location of the event and more detailed data about other attendees according to the rules of attendee's filter 5. Given that the event is not cancelled by the coordinator, connector B (step 215/501) leads to the feedback process as shown in Fig.3.

(4) The fourth way prospect 11 could become an invitee is illustrated in Fig.4. In a first step (step 401), prospect 11 expresses his interest in manifesting a mutual relationship with a prospect 12. This can also be carried out during the post-event feedback process discussed below, here indicated with connector C (step 402/513). This expression will be forwarded to prospect 12 (step 403). In the case that prospect 12 confirms the interest in manifesting a mutual relationship with prospect 11 , this will be recorded in the customized databases 71:11 and 71:12.

A confirmation of a mutual relationship is followed by three independent steps: (1) Step 405 shows that both prospect 11 and 12 are informed of each others' actions (being invited, making a reservation, canceling attendance) in regard to an event to which both are invited, thus facilitating the easy coordination of activities with acquainted persons. (2) Step 406 reveals this relationship to coordinators of events that invite, are about to invite, or have hosted both prospects so as to facilitate a better informed selection and evaluation of attendees. Technically, this information can be revealed by assigning each prospect an identifying number that is mentioned with the other prospect. Also, this relationship may be revealed to other attendees or invitees, and may be used for automated processes of maximizing or minimizing the number of mutual relationships among the invitees of an event. (3) Step 407 may lead to an invitation of prospect 11 to an event. Here, a coordinator selects an initial prospect 12. This selection is being recorded, and step 408 complements the coordinator's selection with each first-degree prospect who has manifested a mutual relationship with prospect 12. Thus, prospect 11 is added to this choice of prospects. In an optional step 409, this choice is complemented with second-degree prospects whom have manifested a mutual relationship with the first-degree prospects. Finally, the choice of prospects is displayed to the coordinator who selects the invitees for the event (step 410). Again, this method of selecting invitees may be used in conjunction with any method described above, thus either displaying only prospects to the coordinator whom have expressed interest in attending the specified event with their preferences, or to maximize or minimize the number of expressed mutual relationships among attendees.

(5) Finally, a fifth way of becoming an invitee in accordance with this invitation is through indirect integration into the invitation process, wherein the individual does not necessarily participate as a prospect in the system. One way would simply be that the coordinator includes his own contacts as additional invitees. Another can be that invitees whom have been selected according to the methods described above are invited to attend with one or more partners of their choice. Also, invitees might be encouraged to send the invitation to their friends. Finally, the coordinator might announce the event to the public and provide a public access to the event and the optional reservation process. In all these alternative invitation steps, an almost seamless integration of invitees into the process can be achieved by embedding unique identifiers of the event and/or the invitee into the invitation correspondence if it is processed by unit 70.

The flow chart Fig.5 shows the post-event feedback process as disclosed in this specification. The statement of feedback data may be facilitated by means of feedback forms that show a photograph or other personal data of each attendee to be evaluated. Feedback forms may be filled out and submitted electronically, e.g., over the Internet. The evaluated person himself may have only restricted access to feedback data.

First, decision box 502 limits the access of prospect 11 to the feedback process and decision arrow 503 may lead to the exit (step 504). For example, prospect 11 might have cancelled his participation, the event might have been cancelled, or prospect 11 was not even invited to the event. If so desired, the feedback opportunity might be technically limited by giving feedback vouchers to attendees of the event. In the given example, prospect 11 comes from connector B (step 215/501) and has attended the event. Thus, four decision arrows (505, 508, 511, and 514) lead to different evaluative steps.

Decision arrow 505 leads to step 506, which records the coordinator's evaluation of the event's attendees. For example, the coordinator receives a list with all the attendees who have made a reservation for the event. This list can be transmitted over the Internet (network 60) as an HTML-document that the coordinator can open with his own computer using a standard Internet browser program. With the same program, he can select checkboxes next to a short profile of each attendee, wherein each attendee can be additionally represented by a name or nickname he has chosen for this event when making the reservation. Assume that the coordinator recommends attendee 11 to coordinators of future events. In step 507, this information will be added to feedback attributes 2 in the attendee's customized database 71:11. The feedback data can then be displayed to future coordinators, invitees, and attendees in an aggregated form, for example revealing the number of positive minus the negative evaluations and the ratio of positive to negative evaluations. Thus, this data can prove the integrity of a prospect without the resignation of his anonymity.

Decision arrow 508 allows attendee 11 to evaluate the coordinator in step 509, which can also be accomplished on a form transmitted over the Internet. In addition, the entered evaluation data can be transmitted over the Internet, recorded by the system, and used to update the coordinator's feedback data 9 in step 510. This feedback of attendees of past events on a coordinator can be used to show future invitees the performance of any particular coordinator.

Decision arrow 511 leads to step 512, representing an opportunity to express one's interest (coordinator or attendee) to manifest a mutual relationship with another person who has attended the same event (as coordinator or attendee). As explained above, connector C (step 402/513) leads to Fig.4.

Decision arrow 514 leads to step 515, offering attendees and coordinators an opportunity to exchange notes with each other without their contact options being publicly revealed - unit 70 can forward the notes to undisclosed contact options. This feature can be useful to exchange contact information, follow- up notes, or to raise concerns about other attendees so that the coordinator may then relay a warning to future coordinators regarding this attendee.

Other possible uses of this post-event feedback opportunity are:

(1) Establishing non-intrusive mutual contact opportunities: Particularly for date matching events, it may be useful if attendees evaluate each other. If mutual fondness can be inferred from the feedback information of two attendees, the system may arrange at least one simultaneous invitation of the two attendees to future events in a timely manner. The invitation may automatically contain a message revealing the simultaneous invitation of the other person or may leave this to the surprise of the arranged rendezvous. Alternatively or additionally, unit 70 may inform the attendees of each other and provide direct or indirect (anonymous) modes of communication, if both deem desirable.

(2) Control of statements on attributes: Feedback data may include the confirmation or correction of data in regard to other attendees' attributes. This data can be added to the feedback attributes 2 in the atten- dee's customized databases 71 :11 - 71:17 and 71:21 - 71:27 and may be revealed to coordinators of future events.

(3) Attendees and coordinators can declare each other to favorites: This information, which does not have to be confirmed by the second party, can help remind prospects and coordinators of each other when they have the chance to communicate at a future event.

Fig.6 shows a flowchart of the wait list processing method disclosed within this specification. Interested invitees whom cannot gain immediate admission to the event because the event is already fully booked are added to a wait list. Each time an event space opens (step 601), for example, because the event is moved to a larger venue or because one attendee cancelled his participation, a specified number n of invitees is informed from the top of the wait list (step 602). Assume that the coordinator specified n to be equal to 3. The first of the three informed members from the top of the wait list who responds to the opening gets the space in step 603. In step 604, another event space opens. In step 605 those prospects are repeatedly informed about the new opening who have unsuccessfully responded to the last opening. However, there might be a need to inform additional persons from the top of the wait list, whose number will be determined by an algebraic formula. This number is smaller the more informed invitees have attempted to reserve the most recent free event space while the higher the number where (a) the less time is left to the event, (b) the more interested parties have been informed about the most recent free space, (c) the more time has passed since the last event space has become available for reservation, and/or (d) the higher the number n. For example, this formula may take the form of:

(number informed the last time * number n * days passed since last opening event space) / (days left until event * number of unsuccessfully responding invitees since last opening event space)

For the second opening, such a calculation may take the following form:

3 invitees from the top of the wait list have been informed about the first opening (n = 3);

2 invitees have already responded to the information, one filled the space, the other being immediately informed about the second opening;

2.5 days have passed since the first opening; and

21 days are left until the event.

The formula with the numbers filled in: (3*3*2.5) / (21*1) = 1.07 which is almost equal to one. Thus, depending on the invitation rule, either one additional invitee or no additional invitee from the top of the wait list will be informed. Thus, this method reacts dynamically and automatically on the difficult circumstances involved with filling an opening of an event space without annoying too high a number of prospects with messages about available space. If there is more than one opening, a corresponding multiple number of invitees from the top of the list should be informed. If there is no response for a certain time, the method could applied again simply by assuming that a new space opened. Also, one or more preferred wait lists might be administered For example, this allows the coordinator of the event to increase the chances of attendance of preferred invitees even if they are late in making their decision.

While the invention has been descπbed in connection with what is presently considered to be the most practical and preferred embodiment, it should be considered that the invention is susceptible to modification, vaπahon and change without departmg from the proper scope and fair meanmg of the accompanying claims. Of necessity, the steps m the claims are listed m particular order, though it should be noted that a different order of certain steps m the claims would yield logically equivalent results, which are equiva- lently claimed and are not disclaimed.

Claims

CLAIMSWe claim:

1. A method of arranging a multi-person event and selecting attendees for same, said method comprising the steps of: a) collecting data about prospects relating to their attributes and preferences for different types and terms of events and maintaining the corresponding database or databases; b) offering to those prospects or other parties an opportunity to organize a multi-person event each time that they desire to do so, the coordinator specifying the type and terms of the event and preferences for attributes of guests of that event; c) selecting a choice of prospects who are likely to be interested in the type and terms of event as specified by the coordinator; d) matching the coordinator's preferences for guests with said data about the prospects in said choice of prospects and selecting a choice of prospects whom the coordinator is likely to want as guests, based upon said preferences and said attributes; e) displaying at least a selection or a summary of data about said choice of prospects to said coordinator, said data also being able to indicate the degree to which a member of said choice matches the coordinator's preferences for guests; f) eliciting and recording, from the coordinator, a selection of invitees from among said choice of persons; and g) sending and/or displaying an invitation of the event to selected invitees.

2. A method defined in claim 1, wherein the data about the choice of prospects being displayed is equipped with the ability to indicate how likely the prospects are to be interested in the specified type and terms of event if their specified preferences for different types and terms of events does not clearly express an interest, and/or there is a discrepancy between the event as specified and the prospects specified event preferences.

3. A method defined in claim 1 , wherein the coordinator of the event specifies preferences for and selects the members of at least one additional group of invitees for the same event.

4. A method defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of collecting a fee from said coordinator.

5. A method defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of limiting the number of times the same prospect is invited to the same type of event of the same coordinator.

6. A method defined in claim 1 , wherein at least some of said prospects participate as fixed groups of at least two prospects specifying collective attributes and collective preferences for different types and terms of multi -person events.

7. A method defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of automatically adding at least a selection or a summary of information about other invitees' attributes to the invitation.

8. A method defined in claim 1, wherein only an abridged invitation is sent to invitees and the detailed event information is stored for being sent or displayed upon the demand of invitees.

9. A method defined in claim 1, wherein the invitation contains at least one unique identifier specifying the event, invitee, or both.

10. A method defined in claim 9, further comprising the step of announcing the invitation to the public, the published invitation containing an identifier of the invitation and of the event to which the invitation refers.

11. A method defined in claim 9, further comprising the step of sending the invitation to contacts specified by the invitees who are selected by the coordinator and/or other invitees, the invitation being sent to these contacts containing a unique identifier of the newly invited contact, and the event to which the invitation refers.

12. A method defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of including additional persons in the list of invitees, the persons receiving the invitation through contact options specified by the coordinator.

13. A method defined in claim 12, further comprising the steps of: a) identifying those contact options of the coordinator that do not refer to other prospects participating in the system and that have not been submitted as contact options by other coordinators; b) registering activity of prospects who start participation in the system at a later point in time and that use said contact option; c) rewarding said coordinator according to the activity or general participation of said prospects in the system.

14. A method defined in claim 13, wherein any contact option that is not referring to a prospect already participating in the system and that is submitted by a coordinator as an invitee, is identified and compensation is conditioned upon the person's initial contact with the system through reaction upon the invitation.

15. A method defined in claim 1, wherein the coordinator's specification of the event may be incomplete, further comprising the steps of: a) recording the invitees' expressed tentative interest in attending such an event; and b) blocking those invitees from receiving the actual invitation to the corresponding and fully- specified event who have not expressed their tentative interest in attending within a specified deadline.

16. A method defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of collecting reservations for the event from the invitees.

17. A method defined in claim 16, further comprising the step of collecting a fee from invitees making a reservation for said event.

18. A method defined in claim 16, further comprising the step of preparing a final list of attendees of said particular event, said list revealing at least a selection or summary of each attendee's attributes.

19. A method defined in claim 16, further comprising the step of determining a reservation deadline for invitees and/or a cancellation deadline of reservations as specified by the coordinator.

20. A method defined in claim 16, further comprising the step of determining an automatic cancellation rule in the case that a specified minimum number of reservations has not been received after expiration of a specified deadline.

21. A method defined in claim 16, further comprising the step of preventing a prospect from being repeatedly invited to a similar event of the same coordinator, which he had previously attended, as indicated by reservation data.

22. A method defined in claim 16, further comprising the steps of a) displaying the current number of reservations and a response rate to the coordinator, the response rate being the ratio of reservations to sent invitations; b) eliciting from the coordinator a selection of additional invitees in the case that the coordinator decides that a higher number of invitees is needed based on the displayed response rate; c) sending and/or displaying an invitation of the event to said additional invitees as often as the coordinator requests, until said event is scheduled, or until there are no additional prospects remaining to become invitees; and d) collecting reservations for the event from said additional invitees.

23. A method defined in claim 22, further comprising the step of granting an exclusive reservation deadline to the first invitees, preventing invitations from being sent to additional invitees before expiration of said deadline.

24. A method defined in claim 23, further comprising the steps of: a) eliciting and recording from the coordinator a selection of a group or a ranking of additional prospects, the selection made from said choice of prospects; b) automatically inviting a number of said group or ranking of additional prospects to said event after the expiration of said exclusive reservation deadline of first invitees, the number of additional invitees being automatically determined based at least on the response rate of the first invitees.

25. A method defined in claim 1, further comprising the step of requesting a post-event feedback evaluation from attendees and or the coordinator of said multi-person event, wherein said feedback evaluation may include, but is not limited to: statements about fondness for or antipathy against other attendees of said event, statements confirming or contradicting attributes data of other attendees, attendees' statements about the coordinator's performance, and statements of the coordinator about attendees' integrity.

26. A method defined in claim 25, wherein at least a selection or summary of said feedback evaluation statements about attendees of events is included in the data about said choice of prospects to be displayed to coordinators of future events, and from which they select the invitees.

27. A method defined in claim 25, wherein at least a selection or summary of said feedback evaluative statements about the coordinator's performance is included in the invitation that is sent and/or displayed to invitees.

28. A method defined in claim 25, further comprising the step of displaying or sending at least a selection or summary of available feedback attributes of attendees of a said multi-person event to the evaluated prospects themselves.

29. A method defined in claim 25, further comprising the step of further refining said choice of other prospects to be displayed to future coordinators of subsequently scheduled events by using said feedback evaluation statements, wherein this may include the application of collaborative filtering techniques.

30. A method defined in claim 29, wherein invitations are sent and/or displayed to a specified number of members of said refined choice of prospects without performing the steps of: a) displaying data about said choice of prospects to the coordinator; and b) eliciting and recording a selection of individual invitees from the coordinator.

31. A method of forming two groups of persons with a high number of mutual heterogeneous matches of members of one group with members of the other group, said method comprising the steps of: a) collecting data about persons relating to their attributes and their preferences for attributes of desired persons and maintaining the corresponding database or databases; b) eliciting and recording a specification of attributes of a target personality and preferences for attributes of desired persons each time a party wishes to form two groups with a high number of mutual matches of members of one group with members of the other group; c) matching said specified preferences with the attributes of other persons and matching the other persons' preferences for attributes of desired persons with said specified attributes of said target personality; d) forming a ranking list of an initial group of persons based on at least these persons' degree of how well their attributes match the specified preferences for attributes of desired persons and the degree to which their preferences for attributes of desired persons match the attributes of said target personality; e) matching the preferences for attributes of desired persons from all or a selection of members of said initial group with the attributes of other persons, and matching other persons' preferences for attributes of desired persons with the attributes of said members of the initial group; and f) forming a complementary group of persons based on at least these persons' degree of how well their attributes match with the preferences for attributes of desired persons of the selected members of the initial group and the degree of how well their preferences for attributes of desired persons match the attributes of the selected members of the initial group.

32. A method defined in claim 31 , wherein the data collected about persons includes preferences for different types and terms of events, further comprising the step of selecting persons that are likely to be willing to attend a specified event and including only these persons in subsequent matchmaking.

33. A method of arranging a multi-person event and selecting attendees for same, said method comprising the steps of: a) collecting data about first persons relating to their interest in manifesting a mutual relationship with one or more second persons, the second persons being identified by a unique identifier such as an e- mail address, a login name for a specified system, or another unique code known to first persons; b) informing second persons about first persons' interest in manifesting a mutual relationship with them, identifying the first persons to second persons; c) upon second persons' confirmation of interest in manifesting a mutual relationship with a requesting first person, recording the manifestation of a mutual relationship with said person; d) eliciting and recording a coordinator's specification of at least one initial person each time a coordinator wishes to do so; e) forming a group of prospects including at least the initial person and those persons whom have a manifested mutual relationship with the initial person; f) displaying at least a selection or summary of available data of listed persons, wherein that data may reveal but is not limited to information about mutual relationships among members of the group of prospects; g) eliciting and recording, from the coordinator, a selection of invitees from among said choice of persons; and h) sending and/or displaying an invitation of the event to selected invitees.

34. A method defined in claim 33, further comprising the step of adding to that group of prospects at least such other persons who have said manifested mutual relationship with those other persons who have a said manifested mutual relationship with the initial person.

35. A method defined in claim 33, further comprising the step of revealing the information about said manifested mutual relationships to coordinators of other events in the case that they have the opportunity to invite at least two persons with said manifested mutual relationship to the same event.

36. A method defined in claim 33, further comprising the step of using the data about said manifested mutual relationships to inform persons about invitations, wait list positions, reservations, cancellations and/or other passive or active actions of other persons with whom they have said manifested mutual relationship, given that both persons are invited to the same event to which these actions relate.

37. A method defined in claim 33, further comprising the step of using the information about said manifested mutual relationships to automatically maximize or minimize the number of mutual relationships among invitees of a particular event.

38. A method of automated wait list management; said method comprising the steps of: a) on request, sequentially adding interested parties to a wait list as soon as the full capacity of a future and limited-time offering has been reserved by other interested parties; b) informing a limited number of interested parties from the top of the wait list as soon as at least one unit of the offering becomes available for reservation and only these informed interested parties being eligible to reserve this or a future available unit of the offering on a first-come first-serve basis; and c) each time another unit of the offering becomes available for reservation, repeatedly informing those parties that have unsuccessfully attempted to reserve the most recent available unit and, if necessary, informing a limited number of additional interested parties that (a) have not been informed about an earlier available unit and (b) are sequentially selected from the top of the remaining wait list, wherein the smaller the total number of newly informed parties the more informed parties have attempted to reserve the most recent available unit of the offering while the higher the number where (a) the less time is left to the availability of the offering, (b) the more interested parties have been informed about the most recent free unit, (c) the more time has passed since the last unit has become available for reservation, and/or (d) the higher the number of informed parties has been for the first unit that has become available after the opening of the wait list.

39. A method defined in claim 38, wherein at least two wait lists are automatically and simultaneously managed for one future and limited-time offering, further comprising the steps of: a) sequentially adding those interested parties that have a more preferred status than other interested parties to a more preferred wait list; and b) informing members of more prefeπed wait lists prior to any member of a less preferred wait list about units that became newly available, wherein only informed parties are eligible to reserve a new unit.