The Sugar Daddy / Secret Benefits Scam – What are the “Mechanics”?

[Al R]

If a girl's on both sites, then she's obviously genuine. 

I'm always surprised, however, by how few girls do sign up on both.   Among the 38 Secret Benefits "new joiners" over the past five weeks – using my standard search parameters – only one is also on Seeking.   (See my Reply #179.)

Also on the scam side (not sure if this has been mentioned previously)  but the girls have to put photos in a “private” gallery which you have to pay credits to view - but they receive nothing for. That’s according to the girl I got to know - she put several photos on public view and as few as possible in private as she thought it was a rip off on both sides. At least you could get a free look at what she was like, some only have a blurred public photo & the rest in private - I wonder if they’re some of the fakes…

Thats going back more than 12 months when I was told this, don’t know if it’s changed but I doubt it.

[Vice Admiral]

Also on the scam side (not sure if this has been mentioned previously)  but the girls have to put photos in a “private” gallery which you have to pay credits to view - but they receive nothing for. That’s according to the girl I got to know - she put several photos on public view and as few as possible in private as she thought it was a rip off on both sides. At least you could get a free look at what she was like, some only have a blurred public photo & the rest in private - I wonder if they’re some of the fakes…
Thats going back more than 12 months when I was told this, don’t know if it’s changed but I doubt it.

Correct.  Unless someone tells them, the girls have no idea that anyone who visits their "Secret Album" is paying SB a fiver for the privilege.

Just another sneaky, sly and dishonourable rip-off.

[Vice Admiral]

Elite perhaps feels more worth while, obviously best value is most economical per message but feels a huge outlay if vast amount of messages as you say are bot driven

Various comments on this thread make it clear that there are decent pickings to be had on Secret Benefits if you go into it with your eyes open and navigate the site's scam elements adroitly.

I would suggest that the two basic rules might be:
1.  Never reply to an unsolicited message.  Never get sucked in because a girl apparently adds you to her "admired" list.  The vast majority of both these events will be fake.
2.  Choose wisely.  The girl is certain to be genuine if she's also on Seeking and is likely to be genuine if she has a verification video.  Beyond that, it's a gamble.

Even then, you will probably need quite a lot of commitment and determination.

Finally, unless you're good-looking and under 50 (and ideally both), you could find it heavy going.

[Vice Admiral]

It’s nearly three weeks since my last survey update – and today is as good a day as any to update again, since it’s exactly 50 days since the start date of my survey.

To recap.

At six o’clock on the evening of 29 May I did my standard search on Secret Benefits, and noted the names of the two most recent arrivals on my patch.  Since then I’ve twice returned to SB to see how many new girls there had been since then; to do a comparable search on Seeking; and to report my findings – and I now do so a third time.

Here are today’s results:
Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who have joined the site within the last 50 days – 52.   
Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres of Portsmouth who have joined the site within the past 50 days – 8.

As can be seen from these figures, the rate of new joiners at the two sites is similar to when I have previously reported, although Seeking has slowed down a little.  SB remains at its usual one-a-day rate, while Seeking, instead of gaining one new girl every five days, is now gaining one every six days or so.  SB is “recruiting” at six-and-a-half times the rate of Seeking. 

I continue to find this imbalance hard to believe, and to take the view that many – perhaps most – of the new joiners on SB are fake.

Also might it not be expected that the rate of new joiners on sugar babe sites would anyway gradually decline, as the “novelty” of trying sugar-babedom gradually wears off and as word gets round that almost all sugar daddies simply want to get into a girl’s knickers (while many girls have other ideas)?

[Carl Adams]

Have you checked what it costs to join both sites?

SB is free to girls but stricter rules on photos and profiles.

I know there used to be a way for girls to get free membership on SA but don't know if that changed when it went to a dating site. lol.

If one or other of the sites is easier to use, that might start to explain a difference in registrations

[datwabbit]

Have you checked what it costs to join both sites?

SB is free to girls but stricter rules on photos and profiles.

I know there used to be a way for girls to get free membership on SA but don't know if that changed when it went to a dating site. lol.

If one or other of the sites is easier to use, that might start to explain a difference in registrations

Students are free on SA. Brandon knows his market 

[Al R]

Students are free on SA. Brandon knows his market 

Never knew girls had to pay to join SA… is it the same as us does anyone know?

[tynetunnel]

As far as I am aware, it’s free to join SA as an “attractive member” or girl/female

[Al R]

As far as I am aware, it’s free to join SA as an “attractive member” or girl/female

So they have to pay to send or receive messages like we do?

[KatieEdinburgh]

So they have to pay to send or receive messages like we do?

Nope

[Al R]

Nope

Thanks, thought it sounded a bit odd..

[datwabbit]

Never knew girls had to pay to join SA… is it the same as us does anyone know?

They pay for premium although lower than men.
Students get premium for free.

[Vice Admiral]

Of the “new girls” on Secret Benefits and Seeking over the past month, just one has a profile on both sites.  That in itself is surely a bit odd?  If 29 genuine Portsmouth-area girls join SB, is it likely that only one of them would also join Seeking? 

This is the girl in question:
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

(The links may only work for those who are members of the sites.)

Three points of interest arise from study of Leah’s profiles:

1.  The text on both profiles is longer than standard for the text on an SB profile.  Since Leah is the only new SB girl who we can say with absolute certainty is genuine, this is a pointer to the SB profiles that are less perfunctory being more likely to be genuine.  Which would anyway be a logical assumption.

2.  At the time of writing, Leah has supposedly been online today on SB, but hasn’t been on Seeking since 20 June – ten days ago.  It is surely highly improbable that she would sign in to one of her profiles and ignore the other?  This is further evidence, if any were needed, that SB often shows girls as online “today” when in reality they may not have been online for a week or two.

3.  The Vice Admiral is of course too much of a gentleman to let a vulgar ejaculation such as “Jeez, look at the tits on that!” pass his lips.
   He would nonetheless mildly suggest that there is a case for ocular examination of Leah’s embonpoint, in the likelihood that this will generate aesthetic satisfaction, not necessarily unaccompanied by erotic musings.
   Whether other UKP members are inspired to vulgar ejaculations when viewing Leah’s impressive assets is of course a matter for them.

Hidden Image/Members Only

Hidden Image/Members Only

Update.

Leah has still not signed in to her Seeking account since 20 June. That's almost six weeks.

Yet she (supposedly) signs in to her Secret Benefits account on a regular basis. At the moment it's been three days, but that's a longer interval than usual.

Is this disparity plausible?  I don't think so.

Of course girls have no way of knowing when they've (supposedly) been on SB, so have no idea how often the bots sign them in.  In addition, messages on SB aren't date-stamped, so when a girl finally signs in she has no idea how long they've been there. Just two of the ways in which the SB site is – very cleverly – designed to obfuscate and muddy the waters.

[Vice Admiral]

The same applies, even more strikingly, to the girl who calls herself Little Kitty on Seeking and Charlieboo3 on Secret Benefits:
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

She last signed in to Seeking on 8 June, over seven weeks ago – but I have noticed that she is (supposedly) a regular visitor to her SB account, and indeed last signed in "one day ago".

[datwabbit]

The same applies, even more strikingly, to the girl who calls herself Little Kitty on Seeking and Charlieboo3 on Secret Benefits:
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only

She last signed in to Seeking on 8 June, over seven weeks ago – but I have noticed that she is (supposedly) a regular visitor to her SB account, and indeed last signed in "one day ago".

That activity is unlikely to be genuine. I bet she's no doubt firing off those first messages causing guys to reply and spend money. But has she liked anyone? I do think random first messages isn't fraud if it's phrased like "sit back because we'll send out your simple greeting to interesting guys on your behalf" but liking randoms?

[DirtyHarry74]

As I understand from one of my previous SBs, when they first signed up on Secret Benefits, they get asked to select a number of profiles from a list of suggested Sugar Daddies.  By doing so, the site sends out the 'greeting message' (the SB has set up in their account) to the selected Sugar Daddy profiles and the site unlocks the SB's private gallery to the same guys.

Interestingly, this particular SB had to record a verification video on account sign-up.  There was no option to skip it.

One of my current SBs is on Secret Benefits and Seeking.  I'll need to ask her next time I see her, about her experience of both sites, especially as she has not logged onto Seeking since setting up her profile.

[Vice Admiral]

As I understand from one of my previous SBs, when they first signed up on Secret Benefits, they get asked to select a number of profiles from a list of suggested Sugar Daddies.  By doing so, the site sends out the 'greeting message' (the SB has set up in their account) to the selected Sugar Daddy profiles and the site unlocks the SB's private gallery to the same guys.

Interesting.  The existence of this "selection procedure" by the girls is new information.  The standard procedure used to be that new girls give permission for their default message to be sent to as many men as the site's bots decide.  I wonder if this selection procedure is in addition to – or instead of – the bots' unilateral activity?
 

Interestingly, this particular SB had to record a verification video on account sign-up.  There was no option to skip it.

That is very curious – since new profiles without verification videos appear all the time.  Of the 40 newest profiles on my standard search, only 12 have verification videos.  Could it be, therefore, that only profiles with verification videos are genuine?  And that all the others are fake?

One of my current SBs is on Secret Benefits and Seeking.  I'll need to ask her next time I see her, about her experience of both sites, especially as she has not logged onto Seeking since setting up her profile.

Any information you can pass on to us from the girl in question could well be worth its weight in gold!

[datwabbit]

Interesting.  The existence of this "selection procedure" by the girls is new information.  The standard procedure used to be that new girls give permission for their default message to be sent to as many men as the site's bots decide.  I wonder if this selection procedure is in addition to – or instead of – the bots' unilateral activity?
 
That is very curious – since new profiles without verification videos appear all the time.  Of the 40 newest profiles on my standard search, only 12 have verification videos.  Could it be, therefore, that only profiles with verification videos are genuine?  And that all the others are fake?

Any information you can pass on to us from the girl in question could well be worth its weight in gold!

Or pose as a woman and see what happens when you join. No need to wait.

[Vice Admiral]

The same applies, even more strikingly, to the girl who calls herself Little Kitty on Seeking and Charlieboo3 on Secret Benefits:
External Link/Members Only
External Link/Members Only
She last signed in to Seeking on 8 June, over seven weeks ago – but I have noticed that she is (supposedly) a regular visitor to her SB account, and indeed last signed in "one day ago".

That activity is unlikely to be genuine. I bet she's no doubt firing off those first messages causing guys to reply and spend money. But has she liked anyone? I do think random first messages isn't fraud if it's phrased like "sit back because we'll send out your simple greeting to interesting guys on your behalf" but liking randoms?

Although it was implied, I left unstated the conclusion I derived from Charlieboo3’s implausible enthusiasm for her Secret Benefits account and total lack of interest in her Seeking account.  That conclusion was that, as with Leah – and numerous other girls – it is SB’s bots that are signing in to the accounts and bumping them up in order to attract interest.  And doubtless the bots are also sending the girls’ default messages to random men.  (The “bumping up” of profiles is of course essential to the operation of the SB scam.  If a man receives a message from a girl who hasn’t signed in for a month, he’s likely to smell a rat!)

However random first messages are fraud – not against the girls, but against the men who are duped into paying a fiver in the belief that the girls have made a considered decision to contact them.  How many men would part with a fiver if they knew that the message had been sent by a bot?

Or pose as a woman and see what happens when you join. No need to wait.

I’ve thought of doing this, but decided it would be too much of a palaver!

In any case, SB’s bots would very likely spot that the profile was fake.  Also I’d have to find a photo of a girl, and so on. 

However if anyone has a “tame” girl in their lives who would like to set up a genuine(ish) account, that might be of interest – although, on further reflection, such an account might not tell us much we don’t already know.  Messages sent by a bot “on the girl’s behalf”, for example, will clearly not show up in her account – only the replies from the men who have fallen for the scam.

[tynetunnel]

Or pose as a woman and see what happens when you join. No need to wait.

I considered this, to help test vice admiral’s extensive research. But, this in itself could lead to innocent guys being conned more than they already have been by the site. It would be a simple thing to do, but morally I’m not so sure!

[datwabbit]

Although it was implied, I left unstated the conclusion I derived from Charlieboo3’s implausible enthusiasm for her Secret Benefits account and total lack of interest in her Seeking account.  That conclusion was that, as with Leah – and numerous other girls – it is SB’s bots that are signing in to the accounts and bumping them up in order to attract interest.  And doubtless the bots are also sending the girls’ default messages to random men.  (The “bumping up” of profiles is of course essential to the operation of the SB scam.  If a man receives a message from a girl who hasn’t signed in for a month, he’s likely to smell a rat!)

However random first messages are fraud – not against the girls, but against the men who are duped into paying a fiver in the belief that the girls have made a considered decision to contact them.  How many men would part with a fiver if they knew that the message had been sent by a bot?

I’ve thought of doing this, but decided it would be too much of a palaver!

In any case, SB’s bots would very likely spot that the profile was fake.  Also I’d have to find a photo of a girl, and so on. 

However if anyone has a “tame” girl in their lives who would like to set up a genuine(ish) account, that might be of interest – although, on further reflection, such an account might not tell us much we don’t already know.  Messages sent by a bot “on the girl’s behalf”, for example, will clearly not show up in her account – only the replies from the men who have fallen for the scam.

No lady photo required.

Just say you're Trans.
Or take photo of back of head assuming you have hair.
Or just say you're a bloke who filled in the form wrong.

[datwabbit]

I considered this, to help test vice admiral’s extensive research. But, this in itself could lead to innocent guys being conned more than they already have been by the site. It would be a simple thing to do, but morally I’m not so sure!

Depends on how attractive you are.

[Vice Admiral]

It’s nearly three weeks since my last survey update – and today is as good a day as any to update again, since it’s exactly 50 days since the start date of my survey.

To recap.

At six o’clock on the evening of 29 May I did my standard search on Secret Benefits, and noted the names of the two most recent arrivals on my patch.  Since then I’ve twice returned to SB to see how many new girls there had been since then; to do a comparable search on Seeking; and to report my findings – and I now do so a third time.

Here are today’s results:
Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who have joined the site within the last 50 days – 52.   
Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres of Portsmouth who have joined the site within the past 50 days – 8.

As can be seen from these figures, the rate of new joiners at the two sites is similar to when I have previously reported, although Seeking has slowed down a little.  SB remains at its usual one-a-day rate, while Seeking, instead of gaining one new girl every five days, is now gaining one every six days or so.  SB is “recruiting” at six-and-a-half times the rate of Seeking. 

I continue to find this imbalance hard to believe, and to take the view that many – perhaps most – of the new joiners on SB are fake.

Also might it not be expected that the rate of new joiners on sugar babe sites would anyway gradually decline, as the “novelty” of trying sugar-babedom gradually wears off and as word gets round that almost all sugar daddies simply want to get into a girl’s knickers (while many girls have other ideas)?

Here's a strange thing.

For most of the period since I started my "survey" two months ago, the rate of new joiners on Secret Benefits (using my standard search parameters) has remained consistent at almost exactly one a day.

A fortnight ago, there was an acceleration – to the extent that about a week ago I had a figure of something like 66 girls in 58 days.  (I didn't write the exact figure down, because I wasn't about to do an update to my survey for this thread.)

Then, just a few days ago, there was a cull.  My survey has been going on for 64 days, and there are now 56 new girls over that period – whereas I would have expected there to be 72 to 75.

In other words, SB appears to have removed around 20 profiles out of 72–75.  That's a very big cull!

I assume that this cull has applied across all age-ranges and locations – and I have no theory as to why it has taken place.

It certainly wan't a cull of long-dormant profiles, because the cull within my search results was by definition of girls who had joined the site within the last two months.

Was this a cull of genuine profiles that were proving troublesome to SB in some way?  Or did SB for some reason weed out a lot of its own fake profiles?

It's very puzzling.

[Vice Admiral]

Then, just a few days ago, there was a cull.  My survey has been going on for 64 days, and there are now 56 new girls over that period – whereas I would have expected there to be 72 to 75. In other words, SB appears to have removed around 20 profiles out of 72–75.  That's a very big cull!

Correction. My arithmetic was faulty.  It should have been "around 16 to 19". But it's still a cull of around 25%!

[tynetunnel]

This does all continue to be a mystery indeed, and your in depth research and interpretations are a great insight. Thanks Vice Admiral 

[Vice Admiral]

This does all continue to be a mystery indeed, and your in depth research and interpretations are a great insight. Thanks Vice Admiral 

Thank you for your thanks, TT.  However "insight" is all very well, but, as I have said before, it butters no parsnips.  It's impossible to counter all the fake positivity with which SB has flooded the internet.

I've just done a Google search on "Secret Benefits" scam – and almost all the hits I got are fake reviews and fake websites telling the world that SB is not a scam.

Meanwhile, after further reflection, my best guess as to the nature of the 25% cull of SB profiles a few days ago is that the culled profiles are not genuine ones that have in some way fallen foul of SB's bots.  Rather, they are probably fake profiles that have served their purpose and have made way for new fake profiles that will attract fresh interest and flood SB's luckless male victims with fresh bot-sent messages that supposedly come from attractive girls who like the look of the men's profiles.

As I've indicated, that's only a guess, but it will have to do unless and until a more persuasive theory is offered.

[datwabbit]

It doesn't help that there are guys on here who say they're successful. We're not talking about one woman either. So it's not just bad for everyone.

Intermittent faults are the worst to fix!!

[Vice Admiral]

It doesn't help that there are guys on here who say they're successful. We're not talking about one woman either. So it's not just bad for everyone.
Intermittent faults are the worst to fix!!

Yes, there are people who have had success on Secret Benefits. This is how I summarised the situation in my Reply #202 on 5 July:

Various comments on this thread make it clear that there are decent pickings to be had on Secret Benefits if you go into it with your eyes open and navigate the site's scam elements adroitly.

I would suggest that the two basic rules might be:
1.  Never reply to an unsolicited message.  Never get sucked in because a girl apparently adds you to her "admired" list.  The vast majority of both these events will be fake.
2.  Choose wisely.  The girl is certain to be genuine if she's also on Seeking and is likely to be genuine if she has a verification video.  Beyond that, it's a gamble.

Even then, you will probably need quite a lot of commitment and determination.

Finally, unless you're good-looking and under 50 (and ideally both), you could find it heavy going.

[Vice Admiral]

After further reflection, my best guess as to the nature of the 25% cull of SB profiles a few days ago is that the culled profiles are not genuine ones that have in some way fallen foul of SB's bots.  Rather, they are probably fake profiles that have served their purpose and have made way for new fake profiles that will attract fresh interest and flood SB's luckless male victims with fresh bot-sent messages that supposedly come from attractive girls who like the look of the men's profiles.  As I've indicated, that's only a guess, but it will have to do unless and until a more persuasive theory is offered.

Regular readers of this thread will know that my opinion as to whether or not many of the Secret Benefits profiles are fake has changed more than once.

I now have a settled view (for what it's worth) – namely that a large proportion of the profiles are indeed bogus. 

I think that my theory of a week ago about the "cull", pasted above, was probably correct.  It is the only explanation that makes sense.  SB needs to have a reasonable proportion of genuine profiles in order that some users can report genuine experiences.  If the number of fake profiles were to get out of hand, the structure of the scam would be in danger.

In addition Dirtyharry74's information of 31 July – that girls now apparently have to do a verification video – would appear to indicate, as I suggested at the time, that all recent profiles without videos are fake.

If this deduction is incorrect, it should be easy to disprove.

Has any UKP member actually spoken to or met up with a girl who has recently arrived on the site but who had no verification video?  ("Recently arrived" is important, because we don't know for how long a video has been required.  I don't think it used to be compulsory.)   

[DirtyHarry74]

I had a meet n greet very recently with a new potential SB and new to the site, but she already had a verification video on her profile.  Will ask her if it was mandatory as I've noticed a few familiar old faces with apparently 'new' profiles, but no verification videos.

This might be of interest, she was originally on Seeking but did not find it very successful.  I asked her about how she found about Secret Benefits, she claimed it was via a well-known online discussion site.

[paul_tall_]

there is a girl on there that i have met from seeking previously, she's quite honest as girls on the sites go
she only joined sb last month but had googled sugar daddy sites uk as was fed up with seeking
when she joined no requirement to create a verification video, but she had to upload 6 photos which is interesting as there are some profiles with less
she didn't realise that a guy cant see any messages without subscribing first, and you can only send one message to a guy without him answering
so far she has had limited messages from sb compared to seeking

[Vice Admiral]

Thank you, Harry and Paul (Enfield and Whitehouse?), for those snippets of interesting and useful information.

What sugar babes report is of considerable value when assessing the overall picture.

[Vice Admiral]

there is a girl on there that i have met from seeking previously, she's quite honest as girls on the sites go
she only joined sb last month but had googled sugar daddy sites uk as was fed up with seeking
when she joined no requirement to create a verification video, but she had to upload 6 photos which is interesting as there are some profiles with less
she didn't realise that a guy cant see any messages without subscribing first, and you can only send one message to a guy without him answering
so far she has had limited messages from sb compared to seeking

It is reasonable to assume that this is because (from the evidence of my "survey") SB – supposedly – has about six times as many active sugar babe members as Seeking has. 

Meanwhile, my guess is that the pool of male members is probably larger on Seeking, the market leader.

Since the men have at least six times as many girls to choose from on SB, it is unsurprising that an SB girl will receive fewer messages than a Seeking girl.

My belief, however, remains that a significant proportion of the sugar babe profiles on SB are fake – perhaps as many as three-quarters.

[paul_tall_]

have you come across any profiles where the person is known in the media for anything, ive just noticed one this evening, and have seen they have mentioned having fake profiles created previously on social media?

[Vice Admiral]

I don't closely monitor Secret Benefits any more, but when I do visit the site I see the usual improbable amount of "Online" or "Today" activity and the usual improbable number of new profiles (most of them almost certainly fake).

However, to be fair to SB, you can't fault them for ingenuity (aka bare-faced cheek)!

A fairly recent addition to the ways you can waste your money at the site is by becoming a particular girl's "Top Admirer".

The rubric is "Show [girl's name] you're serious by becoming a Top Admirer".

If you then click on "Become a Top Admirer", you're asked how much you value being Top Admirer.

You can pay anywhere between 30 and 1,000 credits to show you serious you are. 

At today's prices, if you buy a package of 200 credits (the smallest amount you can buy at a time) each credit is worth 45c / 40p.  However presumably anyone who wants to play the Top Admirer game will be a buyer of the most economical package of credits – 1,000 credits for $289, which works out at 29c / 24p per credit.

At 24p per credit, if you only slightly value being Top Admirer, it will cost you £7-20.  If you really, really value being Top Admirer it will cost you £240. 

I'm not clear exactly how the system works, however.  Are you supposedly "bidding" against others to be Top Admirer?  If you bid 1,000 credits, will SB only take enough credits to beat the under-bidder?  (As if!)

Either way, I think we can safely assume that the sugar babes don't get a penny of this money.

Is anyone so gullible as to fall for this nonsense?
 

[jd181064]

To warn you about Secret Benefits, I wondered why I was doing so shit, girls would start an exchange of messages and quickly stop.
I was getting no extended chats, so did some test messages with a girl I know on there, sure enough after about 6 messages no more were delivered in either direction, me to her or her to me.
Sure this is deliberate policy, I spent nearly £400 in a couple of weeks cus having to start chats with new girls.
If you do use it suggest you exchange phone numbers in first couple of messages.
But suspect sometimes it's time related not number of messages.
I messaged their support team accusing them of running a con and had all my money refunded straight away, no arguements, but they also removed my profile.
The whole site is a scam.

[Vice Admiral]

I was getting no extended chats, so did some test messages with a girl I know on there, sure enough after about 6 messages no more were delivered in either direction, me to her or her to me.

That is exceptionally interesting, and is something that no-one has identified before. 

The logic of this would initially appear to be baffling.  You might wonder why it advantages Secret Benefits to simply stop delivering messages?

The answer, of course, is this.  The man has been hooked in by the fact that he gets replies.  Hurrah!  The girls are genuine.  (Some are.  Most aren't.)

The girl falls silent.  OK, he thinks to himself, she's found a better / richer / younger / more handsome sugar daddy.  Shit happens.  Never mind.  There's plenty more fish in the sea.  So he buys some more credits.

JD's discovery may, indeed, lend credence to the belief I have sometimes entertained that – on the bogus profiles – bots (or semi-humans?) may exchange a few messages with the luckless man, to keep him keen.

What is particularly nasty about this aspect of the scam is that the girl will – apparently – fall silent even if she is genuine and wants to continue the conversation.

It's absolutely jaw-dropping. 

[jofrenchy69]

That is exceptionally interesting, and is something that no-one has identified before. 

The logic of this would initially appear to be baffling.  You might wonder why it advantages Secret Benefits to simply stop delivering messages?

The answer, of course, is this.  The man has been hooked in by the fact that he gets replies.  Hurrah!  The girls are genuine.  (Some are.  Most aren't.)

The girl falls silent.  OK, he thinks to himself, she's found a better / richer / younger / more handsome sugar daddy.  Shit happens.  Never mind.  There's plenty more fish in the sea.  So he buys some more credits.

JD's discovery may, indeed, lend credence to the belief I have sometimes entertained that – on the bogus profiles – bots (or semi-humans?) may exchange a few messages with the luckless man, to keep him keen.

What is particularly nasty about this aspect of the scam is that the girl will – apparently – fall silent even if she is genuine and wants to continue the conversation.

It's absolutely jaw-dropping.

Hi
I'm more into seeking where I have plenty of joy. Reading this thread I'm wonder is girl get paid be secret benefits when guy using credit to speak to them?

[tynetunnel]

To warn you about Secret Benefits, I wondered why I was doing so shit, girls would start an exchange of messages and quickly stop.
I was getting no extended chats, so did some test messages with a girl I know on there, sure enough after about 6 messages no more were delivered in either direction, me to her or her to me.
Sure this is deliberate policy, I spent nearly £400 in a couple of weeks cus having to start chats with new girls.
If you do use it suggest you exchange phone numbers in first couple of messages.
But suspect sometimes it's time related not number of messages.
I messaged their support team accusing them of running a con and had all my money refunded straight away, no arguements, but they also removed my profile.
The whole site is a scam.

As Vice Admiral says, very interesting indeed and genuinely brings new clarity to their operation. As always, they are great at refunding everything you’ve paid, as happened to me. Thanks for your good work and to your friend for helping test it

[DirtyHarry74]

There's a certain irony as some of the girls I previously met via SB were just as frustrated with the perceived lack of comms and ghosting from guys.  I suspect someone could make a decent living running a legit SB/SD site, without the scam nature of Secret Benefits and the paranoia that exists on Seeking (random bans etc).

[Carl Adams]

I have not had the problems some have had on this post with SB but that latest point strikes a chord - I have had comms with several girls who have then stopped for no obvious reason.

I would not jump to say its down to SB - I have had the same thing happen with SB girl once we moved onto WhatsApp.

Don't forget we are dealing with girls who are as fickle as us!!

[paul_tall_]

Having given sb a go I am of the opinion that a number of the profiles and messages are driven by bots, the purpose I have yet to figure unless they are looking for active profiles and harvesting details or worse scenario the site or sites as they have a few are using it to drive purchase of credits to read which is a possibility

Example of messages I have received that could easly be bot driven where i have not initially messaged are

Hey lovely, Let’s get to know each other
Hey. Why don’t you say hi
Hi, how's you?
Hey there! It's lovely to meet you.
Hey there
Hi daddy
Hello how are you , people call me Stacy what about you ?
Hey, tell me something about you that I wouldn’t imagine
Hello 😊 Nice to meet you I’m Saffron xx
Hi I'm a sexy sugar baby.. Im not a sweet and innocent as you thought

I discovered quite quickly if you replied you didnt get a reply, the profiles of these girls rarely had any details other than just keywords or one sentence ie

I just want to make you feel good
or
I’m honest, direct, funny


My approach was to ignore messages to me where i one hadnt looked at them before ie i was avoiding London and only concentrating around Surrey/North Hants/ Berkshire

Primarily i messaged girls with less generic profiles and would say i received a very low percentage of replies, I never "paid" to see read receipts so obviously cant tell was the message read

Ones that replied include a few escorts/massage therapists , with inflated prices , usual content sellers but not as many as seeking, a couple were looking to meet at theirs when kids were in bed (not for me)

Of the 5 i spoke to more in depth one had marriage complications and it became clear she was never going to meet, 1 cancelled on the day due to a migraine but said we could play online for the allowance, 1 I was due to meet at the weekend suddenly appeared with a new profile which I questioned and she gave some excuse of forgetting her password and her allowance shifted , 1 reckoned she had had a very generous daddy who would give her 1k a month and money when ever she wanted for other things yet they only ever met in his car and 1 i met but she became too clingy after

There were numerous people that i had come across on seeking over the years , some girl who used to be a famous sports person but after messaging dropped off messaging, a few duplicate profiles

Its worth noting that if you message or reply to a message, the defaulted option of requesting access to their secret gallery is sent and then costs you if they grant access (90% did) to open it.

I also got some information after reconnecting with a girl i had met pre covid on seeking who i had lost touch with, she confirmed girls have to put photos up, verification is by video , its not obvious that if you create a private gallery only that the video doesnt remain private. She mainly got messages off of guys wanting pictures or meet at theirs or a hotel that day.

For me sb is too hit and miss, too credit centric and without setting rules such as not looking at secret galleries, being strict on what received messages you open or indeed who you send to you quickly spend the credits

[Vice Admiral]

I wondered why I was doing so shit, girls would start an exchange of messages and quickly stop.
I was getting no extended chats, so did some test messages with a girl I know on there, sure enough after about 6 messages no more were delivered in either direction, me to her or her to me.
Sure this is deliberate policy, I spent nearly £400 in a couple of weeks cus having to start chats with new girls.

Further to my Reply #236 of yesterday evening.

The more I reflect on this, the more I regard JD's discovery as – in a competitive field – the most mean-spirited of all the scams that this vile site perpetrates on those unlucky enough to get hooked in.

It's bad enough that many – perhaps most – of the girls' profiles are fake, and that therefore a male SB member is generally simply throwing into a latrine the fiver it costs to start messaging a girl.  (Together with, if he's very gullible, further fivers for "extras".)

However, it is simply jaw-dropping that, not content with milking men in this way, the site also closes down genuine conversations with genuine girls – which might have been going well, and might have led to a worthwhile arrangement – with the result that both parties, who have no knowledge of the reason for the sudden silence, may feel hurt or disappointed.

Truly horrible.

A possible explanation, I suppose, is that Cecelia Truax Basilotto, CEO of Secret Benefits, is a kind of Miss Havisham figure, who was jilted when young and is devoting her twilight years to wreaking revenge on the male sex.

[jd181064]

Do you think this counts as fraud and worth reporting?
There are so many scams/cons with this site surely criminal?

[Vice Admiral]

Do you think this counts as fraud and worth reporting?
There are so many scams/cons with this site surely criminal?

This has been suggested before on this thread.

It would need someone a lot more savvy about the law than I am – and indeed the way the internet works – to take this on.

If this were a bricks and mortar operation located in the UK, these dudes would have been in the slammer long ago.  But the internet is the Wild West.

[jd181064]

If I did nearly £400 in 2 weeks they must be making millions from the scam.
Without the scam I'd have spent just £75 and still been chatting/meeting the first girls I was in touch with.
I've also had 2 girls confirm messages are sent as though coming from their profiles that they've never sent.

[Vice Admiral]

If I did nearly £400 in 2 weeks they must be making millions from the scam.

Yes, many, many millions.  The site is international.  It's very cleverly conceived, as we know.  It's a licence to print money.  But my guess is that 95% of that money comes from its fake activities and its scams.

I've also had 2 girls confirm messages are sent as though coming from their profiles that they've never sent.

We know that the site's bots send out the girls' standard "introductory" messages without the girls' specific permission in any given case (although the girls seem to have given general permission for these messages to be sent to "the best sugar daddies").  But I don't think anyone has told us whether or not these bot-sent introductory messages appear in the girls' sent-boxes. 

I have theorised that bots or humanoids may also sometimes send out "conversational" messages in response to messages from men, but there has been no proof of this.  If you are able to find out from your two girls which category of messages were sent from their profiles without their knowledge, that would be exceptionally interesting.

[Cheshuk]

I've read the main post on this thread, and some of the comments. So I'm not sure if this has been covered. Recently been reading a lot of forms on Reddit, after a member on the London seeking thread, mentioned theres substantial sa discussion there, there's been some very useful ideas, mainly around 'freestyling' as they call it. Insights from both sugar babies and sugar daddies, which I found work well this past few weeks.

Seeking hasn't had anyone I've been interested in since January, however, I've seen a lot of people are finding sugar babies/daddies on dating apps outside of ukp. I followed methodology and been on a couple of arrangement dates on that basis from vanilla dating apps recently. The girls weren't quite what I was looking for, the quality on dating apps isn't what it was, I went through all the girls within 100 miles of me, sat and scrolled for an hour when I first downloaded and they're about 10 profiles that were decent. It's seeming apparent that the hottest young girls now exclusively date through Instagram, so it's not just punting missing them, it's also the vanilla dating scene. Unfortunately, I don't have any social media presence, due to preferring privacy, so only get to bang those girls when they come on seeking.

However, looking at other forums, sugardaddymeet seems to potentially legit, however, has very few members, and without the subscription, you can't set your radius to anything more than 0 miles, so whilst I shifted around other areas, it didn't look like there was any valuing subscribing.

On secret benefits, the consensus seems to be, the same as this thread saying it's a black hole for your money. However it does seem that people have figured out ways to have success on there, essentially the verified profiles are legitimate. So the advice is to set your filter to verified profiles only, doing this, i've seen plenty of girls I recognised from seeking and aw in the correct regions. The verification videos are great, the way I imagine the site presented to the girls is that they think this will not be seen by anyone. Nearly every profile has the girl lying in bed under the covers with no makeup on, looking worlds apart from their pictures. It's literally them before they go to bed or wake up. I found girls that I considered meeting on seeking, but weren't sure about, now I'm definitely sure I have no interest after seeing their veri videos. I've also found girls who only had professional shots on their aw profile, who have these unfiltered verification videos. It's certainly got value as a way of checking what girls look like irl on seeking.

One particular girl who reached out to me on sa a couple of months ago, I was considering meeting, but decided against it, as I wasn't sure what she looked like, I found a picture of her, looking hot in a bikini on secret benefits, and realised she has huge tits. So resubscribed to sa today & i'm going to try and set up a meet with her.

Once I know her a bit better, I'm going to ask her if she'll log into a secret benefits account, while I'm on mine, and see if the last active changes on her profile in real time. Currently it's showing she's not been on SB for a month.. wondering when she logs in whether it'll say online, and immediately after she logs out, it says 'active today', as with that, and the knowledge to only message verified profiles, it could well have potential, given that it's only approx £5 per girl to message. That may not be better for everyone style, but on seeking, I may only find 1-3 girls a month worth messaging, then if they go off for a bit, I have to resubscribe next month to reply.

Additionally i've been wondering why seeking is getting less and less popular for my type, I tried googling how to find a sugar daddy/how to find a sugar baby? to see what would be seen on both sides of the fence for someone looking to get into it. Seeking doesn't really make an appearance in current advice articles, hence new girls getting into it are seemingly directed to secretbenefits, sugardaddy, and sugardaddymeet. Currently the best for my type & value for money I found is the vanilla dating apps, using template messages I've found on the Reddit threads for 'freestyling'.

Main Point of post:
Interested to know if anyone's tried filtering for verified profiles only on SB, and messaging them when they're online. I'll update this thread if online and last active features are at least genuine, then will give it a go if I find someone I like there and report back.

[magnetico]

You could also simply create an SB account as a girl (via vpn, in a different web browser) , to test the features?

[Cheshuk]

You could also simply create an SB account as a girl (via vpn, in a different web browser) , to test the features?

You're right, this did cross my mind, and might resort to it, may not need the vpn, I have 2 active sa accounts I use and never been an issue.