Author Topic: The Sugar Daddy / Secret Benefits Scam – What are the “Mechanics”?  (Read 35847 times)

Offline Vice Admiral

Meanwhile, here are some numbers taken from the two leading Sugar Babe sites at 12.30 pm today:

Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres if Portsmouth who were "last active" either today or yesterday – 15

Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who are either currently "online" or have been online "today" – 85

Hilarious!

Offline Natwest

Meanwhile, here are some numbers taken from the two leading Sugar Babe sites at 12.30 pm today:

Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres if Portsmouth who were "last active" either today or yesterday – 15

Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who are either currently "online" or have been online "today" – 85

Hilarious!

Congratulations VA, I think you have truly exposed this site as mostly a scam. I admit to be taken in by their Customer Service after being banned from Seeking. But though as I have stated earlier it is possible to get something from the site if you complain enough to get back credits, in the main it is an elaborate hoax. I am sure it just works on the principle that most people will just write of the cost and not twig and those that do complain, it costs nothing to refund credits and placate them as they probably wouldn't have spent the money anyway. I can't mention the review site that most people can use on here but I do urge those who have wasted money on the site to post a negative review to counter the ridiculous amount of positive reviews it builds up almost weekly.

Offline datwabbit

Nice work on the reviews. No way SB is a runaway winner like that.

Offline paul_tall_

Whatever else the crooks who run Secret Benefits may be, they're not stupid – and leaving any "direct" fingerprint establishing a link between SB and External Link/Members Only would be very stupid indeed.

Anyone spending a few minutes on Sugar Daddy Websites will, however, find a number of "indirect" fingerprints.  Here's the most obvious, to be getting along with.

On the right of each page on the website, prominently displayed, is the table of “Top Sites for Sugar Dating” – which features just five sites, as follows:

Top Sites for Sugar Dating
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison
4. Cougar Pour Moi
5. Cougar Life

Then there is the tab for “Sugar Rankings”, which has nine categories.  When you click on each category, you just see the top three to begin with.  Here they are for each category:

Top-15 Legit Sugar Daddy Apps In 2023
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Sugar Daddy Sites in Canada
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Sugar Daddy Sites In UK
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Sugar Daddy Apps in UK
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Sugar Baby Sites
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Sugar Baby Apps
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Sugar Baby Sites Without Meeting
1. Secret Benefits
2. Sugar Daddy
3. Ashley Madison

Best Male Sugar Baby Apps
1. Cougar Life
2. Secret Benefits
3. Cougar Pour Moi

Best Sugar Momma Sites
1. Cougar Life
2. Secret Benefits
3. Cougar Pour Moi

On reflection, perhaps the Secret Benefits people aren’t as bright as all that – since it would look a little more convincing if Secret Benefits did not constantly sweep the board.

Also Seeking, the market leader, does not appear in any of the rankings lists (which each consist of between 10 and 17 Sugar Daddy sites).

Odd that…
The sugardaddysites.pro just seems to be an affiliate link marketing site, notice how when you click through the url on the landing site has a whole raft of identifiers on it.
Why seeking is not on there i'm not sure, as they do have an affiliate program, maybe they didn't accept the request or whoever was behind it was asking for too much in terms of fees.
Its interesting that the company they refer to in the footer of the site adventure media advertises as a leader in pay per click, so presumably who ever is behind the site used their services if the reference is legit.
What's telling is the team shown have very little references online if you look them up, also the social media links either don't work or in the case of twitter have limited posts or followers.

Offline Vice Admiral

The sugardaddysites.pro just seems to be an affiliate link marketing site, notice how when you click through the url on the landing site has a whole raft of identifiers on it.
Why seeking is not on there i'm not sure, as they do have an affiliate program, maybe they didn't accept the request or whoever was behind it was asking for too much in terms of fees.
Its interesting that the company they refer to in the footer of the site adventure media advertises as a leader in pay per click, so presumably who ever is behind the site used their services if the reference is legit.
What's telling is the team shown have very little references online if you look them up, also the social media links either don't work or in the case of twitter have limited posts or followers.

This is all most interesting.  My own relationship with technology and marketing is on a par with Liz Truss's relationship with sound economics, so it's very helpful to have an analysis like this from someone who clearly knows his stuff.

However I would be lying if I said I fully understood everything you have written.

What are the implications of your findings?  Clearly sugardaddysites.pro is not a genuine review site, nor does it provide an analysis by impartial "experts".  Even if we took the site at face value, it would be only a small group of people who determine which sites should appear where in the ratings.  So if SB does not actually "own" the site, then SB must pay the lion's share towards running it, since SB and its "duplicate" sister-site Sugar Daddy appear first and second in almost every category – while Ashley Madison and Cougar, which get the next highest ratings, must also pay a fair bit.  Do your findings support these various conclusions?

As to why Seeking doesn't appear, surely the reason is that sugardaddysites.pro couldn't accommodate both it and Secret Benefits, any more than Cassius Clay and Sonny Liston could have shared a bed?  Seeking would hardly be willing to pay good money to be ranked below SB – although it is odd that Whatsyourprice features, since it and Seeking were both founded (and are, I believe, both still run) by the same person, a man called Brandon Wade.

Offline paul_tall_

To be honest I'm not sure what the implications might be. There is obviously a market out there to put together review sites in the dating arena to generate income. There is a possibility the owners of the dating sites are paying for advertising and don't care they are ranked alongside other sites.
With affiliate linking the only cost to the site would be when someone signs up and they pay a commission. Remember by initially clicking through from the site a cookie will be stored in your browser and may remain for a number of days/weeks so a subsequent sign up will pay the commission as having been linked through at some point.
From my brief searching all the review sites are pretty similar and have mainly the same sites, and seeking doesn't appear though  wyp does. I guess seeking don't allow for these spam linking type sites for their main site but wyp they are more relaxed
Hopefully not getting into trouble by posting links but for example the review site External Link/Members Only if you reverse image search the reviewers picture it appears on a number of other sites with different names
Another example External Link/Members Only, they explain what they do and their site covers the whole dating spectrum,  the guys here appear on a fitness site. Are they real people not sure but one does have a linkedin that mentions SEO.
All these types of sites just seem to be put together by people reviewers real or not as a way to gain an income, it would be quite easy/cheap to pay a copywriter/student to copy review sites to earn a passive income.



 

Offline Vice Admiral

Thank you, Paul Tall, for your further expert input.  These are deep and murky waters.

Meanwhile …

THE NATIONAL CYBER SECURITY CENTRE

Sadly all that my and others' researches can do is warn potential users of Secret Benefits and Sugar Daddy who may see this thread.  I wish I had the energy and know-how to get the sites taken down. 

However I slightly suspect that in reality no-one could achieve this. Indeed, if it were relatively easy to get sites like this removed, presumably Seeking (which I believe to be an honest company) would have done so, since SB must take a lot of its business.
 
In this context, this page is of interest:
External Link/Members Only

It would appear that the focus of the National Cyber Security Centre is, understandably, to try to remove websites that are involved in what might be described as Level 1 scamming – phishing, malicious activity, scam e-mails, texts and phone-calls, theft of credit card details, and so on.  Level 2 scamming, such as SB engages in, would be a lower priority, and indeed be quite hard to prove.  We now more or less know what’s going on, but without access to SB’s back systems (or a whistle-blower who defects) it would be difficult to prove.

POSSIBLE PARALLELS BETWEEN ASHLEY MADISON'S MODUS OPERANDI AND THAT OF SECRET BENEFITS

Meanwhile, I have been re-reading the Wikipedia article about the Ashley Madison website, which is of much interest – and, since I suspect few users of UKP will have clicked on the link I gave in post #147, I will quote here some excerpts from the article.

Although Ashley Madison is not owned by the Secret Benefits / Sugar Daddy outfit, the fact that the site comes third in most categories on sugardaddysites.pro suggests that that two firms have a friendly and collegiate relationship.

One reason the sites would be happy to work together is that they are not direct rivals – Ashley Madison is not a Sugar Babe site as such, but is in the business of facilitating adulterous relationships.  Its tag-line is:  “Life is short.  Have an affair.”

Anyway, in 2015, following the theft by hackers of all Ashley Madison’s customer data, the site was found to have been engaging in exactly the kind of nefarious activity that SB appears still to engage in.

Wikipedia takes up the story.  (The emboldenings and the comments inside square brackets are mine.)

On July 15, 2015, hackers stole all of its customer data — including emails, names, home addresses, sexual fantasies and credit card information — and threatened to post the data online if Ashley Madison and fellow Avid Life Media site Established Men were not permanently closed. By July 22, the first set of customer names was released by hackers, with all of the user data released on August 18, 2015. More data (including some of the CEO's emails) was released on August 20, 2015. The release included data from customers who had previously paid a $19 fee to Ashley Madison to supposedly have their data deleted. The fee was also applied to people who had accounts set up against their will, as a workplace prank, or because of a mistyped email address.

According to Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of Gizmodo, who has analyzed the 2015 leaked data, Ashley Madison had over 70,000 bots sending fake female messages to male users. She had previously released an analysis purporting to show that only a minuscule proportion (12,000 out of 5.5 million) of registered female accounts were used on a regular basis, but she has subsequently disavowed this analysis, saying that from the data released there is no way of determining how many women actually used the service.  [Although Newitz had to "row back" from this allegation, it remains intriguing.]

Newitz noted a clause in the terms of service which states that "many profiles are for 'amusement only'".

In July 2016, CEO Rob Segal and newly appointed President James Millership told Reuters that the company had phased out bots by late 2015.

Ashley Madison employs guerrilla marketing techniques to advertise its site. One such technique has been the creation of fake criticism [that is, review] websites filled with ads for Ashley Madison and anonymous testimony that the site is legitimate. For example, the site "AshleyMadisonScams.com" was registered to Ashley Madison's owner, Avid Life.

In 2012, the company was sued by former employee Doriana Silva, who stated that in preparation for the launch of the company's Portuguese-language website, she was assigned to create over a thousand bogus member profiles within a three-week period in order to attract paying customers, and that this caused her to develop repetitive strain injury.  [Although the case was dismissed, this dismissal related not to a refutation of Silva’s claim that she had been tasked with creating bogus profiles, but to there being doubt as to her injuries having been genuine.]


Offline datwabbit

I've just had a full refund and my account closed. I went down that route as my only connection on WA sent me single sentence replies and then ghosted.

Success on SB is connecting with a woman who is genuinely on there at the same time as you. So using anonymous payments you could subscribe, see if you're scammed and try for a refund. Then repeat.

Offline Natwest

I've just had a full refund and my account closed. I went down that route as my only connection on WA sent me single sentence replies and then ghosted.

Success on SB is connecting with a woman who is genuinely on there at the same time as you. So using anonymous payments you could subscribe, see if you're scammed and try for a refund. Then repeat.

This is what happened to me. I think they sniff out potential troublemakers and then get them off the site hoping that as they haven't lost anything they won't leave a revealing review and upset the operation.

Offline hungrypunt

well done VA...great work.

I must say though I did meet an absolute cracker from Manchester months ago and trotted around with her for a few months till she got needy.
As for all the rest ...yes I have wasted plenty money on messages .

Offline Vice Admiral

I suspect I may be approaching the stage where I have nothing more to say about the Secret Benefits scam.  (Sighs of relief and loud cheers all round – although it's true that no-one has to visit this thread if they don't want to...)

However there is one final – for now – point I would make.

When I started this thread, I made the assumption that it was not only much of the "activity" on Secret Benefits and Sugar Daddy that was fake, but also many of the profiles.

In due course I retreated from that position, deciding that – while almost all "viewing", "favouriting" and unsolicited messages from girls were fake – the profiles were genuine.

Over the last couple of weeks, however, I have increasingly been returning to the view that there are indeed a lot of wholly fake profiles on the site.  If an employee of Ashley Madison could produce 1,000 bogus profiles in a three-week period – with or without repetitive strain injury – then sites like these clearly are not constrained from such activity either by moral scruples (!) or by having too few employees.

The profiles are, after all, the bedrock of all the other scamming.  Without a constant supply of new profiles, the "activity" scams will make diminishing amounts of money.  Why rely on enough real students deciding, after one drink too many on a Friday night, to go in search of a "mentor"?  Much easier to create some students of your own.

« Last Edit: May 14, 2023, 12:57:30 pm by Vice Admiral »

Offline tynetunnel

I suspect I may be approaching the stage where I have nothing more to say about the Secret Benefits scam.  (Sighs of relief and loud cheers all round – although it's true that no-one has to visit this thread if they don't want to...)

Not at all VA. Yours has been a thorough and interesting investigation and insight.  None of us knows exactly the score, but I think you’ve done a pretty good job at pulling it all together and putting your thoughts and findings into words that I can understand.

I think you’ve pretty much summed up the situation with SB. And as others have said, those who complain and ask for refunds are quickly given their wish and removed from the site. Equally there may be many others who are clueless or even unsure and continue to pay these guys money in the hope that, like a gambler, just one more ‘punt’ will uncover the girl of their dreams

Someone described SA as honest. And I guess really that’s true. As long as you avoid the banned words and don’t get whacked with the ‘ban hammer ‘ as a result, then it’s the site that continues to pay dividends for me and many others. I’m having a break from SA as 2 consecutive months was completely knackering, plus I have found a very nice young professional woman and am due to have a third meet with her this week.

Anyway, as I said at the start, you’ve done a great job, and thank you for the detail you have gone into and the time you have spent  :thumbsup:

Offline datwabbit

You can reduce your risk on SB.
1 Choose a lower cost but higher message price subscription.
2 Use a replaceable money system like Revolut.
3 If you feel you've been scammed then get your money back.
4 Wait a while then try again

Choosing a lower cost subscription reduces the loss if they say no.

Offline paul_tall_

Im not sure why would you continue to pay money to a site that you feel is operating a scam or is false advertising
If you have been lucky enough to get a refund then move on

Offline datwabbit

Im not sure why would you continue to pay money to a site that you feel is operating a scam or is false advertising
If you have been lucky enough to get a refund then move on
I'm not but if you're getting a refund then there's very little risk to your money as some guys on here do find success. It's not all a scam. If you get a refund then you've lost your time only.

Offline Mr_Shins

There is a difference between getting a refund of your money, and getting your misspent credits refunded, i.e. credits you spent opening conversations that were not genuinely sent by the person behind the account.

My experience on SB was not terrible, by the way. The conversations after a period are deleted.
I've had far more success though on WhatsYourPrice than any other such site.

Offline datwabbit

There is a difference between getting a refund of your money, and getting your misspent credits refunded, i.e. credits you spent opening conversations that were not genuinely sent by the person behind the account.

My experience on SB was not terrible, by the way. The conversations after a period are deleted.
I've had far more success though on WhatsYourPrice than any other such site.
I've had a refund of money. Has anyone had a credits refund which would be pretty useless. I think you'd have to ask for a credits refund i.e. I think your site is a scam but you can keep my money and just give me my credits back.

Right now, I think they'll do anything you want so you could get your credits back if you felt there was a chance of success later.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2023, 02:17:55 pm by datwabbit »

Offline LeedsLadWalks

Thanks for the info in this thread!! Emailed yesterday and got a confirm within an hour that refund was on its way and account deleted. Did manage to meet one girl there so I'm pretty happy with the result overall!

Offline Vice Admiral

As regular readers of this thread may have noticed – and a very cordial “Good evening” to you both! – I’ve twice changed my opinion as to whether some of the profiles on Secret Benefits are fake.  (See my Reply #160.)

In my initial post I assumed this was the case.  Later I concluded it wasn’t.  More recently I’ve returned to my original position.

Then, about a fortnight ago, I thought I would bring some statistics to the table – so, at six o’clock on the evening of 29 May, I did my usual search on SB, and noted the names of the two most recent arrivals on my patch. 

At six o’clock today I did the same search to see how many new girls there had been since then – and then did a comparable search on Seeking. 

Here are the results:

Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who have joined the site in the last 16 days – 15.   (That’s almost exactly one a day.  Is that just a coincidence?)

Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres if Portsmouth who have joined the site within the past 16 days – 3.

These figures suggest that, in the Portsmouth area, the rate for new girls joining SB is five times higher than that for the market leader.  I don’t believe it.

In Reply #160 I wrote:  “If an employee of Ashley Madison could produce 1,000 bogus profiles in a three-week period – with or without repetitive strain injury – then sites like these clearly are not constrained from such activity either by moral scruples or by having too few employees.”

In the case of SB, the texts of the profiles are usually so brief and sketchy that one of SB’s clerks could easily churn out hundreds of fake profiles a day. Or indeed, as a couple of UKP members suggested on the first page of this thread, perhaps AI is doing the work?

Less easy, however, would be the sourcing of photos.  If I’m right in thinking that a large number of the profiles on SB are indeed fake, how do SB’s clerks get hold of photos of plausible-looking girls?

Does anyone have a theory?  Indeed could AI again be involved?

Spooky, as the late Dame Edna Everage might have said.

Offline datwabbit

AI is not generating photos. You can tell.

Fake profiles would take photos from other regions, possibly other countries, probably on SB for ease. Otherwise you've got the hassle of copying photos from another site.

Check out the verification voices though. How many have local accents. If they don't, do their profiles say Student?

I'm not convinced about the fake profiles. Loosely interpreting when genuine local accounts are online and auto sending messages would explain what I've seen.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2023, 08:50:48 am by datwabbit »

Offline Vice Admiral

Fake profiles would take photos from other regions, possibly other countries, probably on SB for ease. Otherwise you've got the hassle of copying photos from another site.

Oddly enough, this was also my shot-in-the-dark theory, expounded in my initial post on this thread – at the time when I first held the view that a lot of the profiles were probably fake:
"So one of the central mysteries is this.  Where do the photos come from?  Clearly the site can’t use photos without permission.  Among the profiles in my area, there are a few girls from ethnic minorities, but most are white.  The white girls certainly look like British girls, but I suppose they could equally well be from (say) the USA, western Europe or Australia.   They’re certainly not the Vivastreet type – professional quality photographs of model-gorgeous girls who bear no resemblance to the girl you will encounter if you’re so misguided as to take a trip down Viva Street.  Again SB are too clever for that.  The photos are the kind of everyday photos that normal girls take on their mobiles – selfies in the mirror and so on.  Indeed, although most of the girls are very attractive, they’re very rarely 'fake model' types."

I'm not convinced about the fake profiles. Loosely interpreting when genuine local accounts are online and auto sending messages would explain what I've seen.

I just don't know.  You may indeed be right that the scam element consists purely of (a) profiles showing as "online" or "today" when they may not have been online for ages and (b) auto-messages.

On the other hand my figure of 15 recent joiners on SB set against 3 on Seeking makes no sense unless some of the new SB profiles are fake.  Seeking is a widely known and much-written-about site which most student-type girls will have heard of.  SB is relatively obscure. 

Also every profile on SB, whether genuine or fake, must generate – who knows – maybe a couple of hundred pounds of income for the site?  Maybe more?  So it's not as though there isn't a very strong financial motive for creating fake profiles.

Offline datwabbit

Oddly enough, this was also my shot-in-the-dark theory, expounded in my initial post on this thread – at the time when I first held the view that a lot of the profiles were probably fake:
"So one of the central mysteries is this.  Where do the photos come from?  Clearly the site can’t use photos without permission.  Among the profiles in my area, there are a few girls from ethnic minorities, but most are white.  The white girls certainly look like British girls, but I suppose they could equally well be from (say) the USA, western Europe or Australia.   They’re certainly not the Vivastreet type – professional quality photographs of model-gorgeous girls who bear no resemblance to the girl you will encounter if you’re so misguided as to take a trip down Viva Street.  Again SB are too clever for that.  The photos are the kind of everyday photos that normal girls take on their mobiles – selfies in the mirror and so on.  Indeed, although most of the girls are very attractive, they’re very rarely 'fake model' types."

I just don't know.  You may indeed be right that the scam element consists purely of (a) profiles showing as "online" or "today" when they may not have been online for ages and (b) auto-messages.

On the other hand my figure of 15 recent joiners on SB set against 3 on Seeking makes no sense unless some of the new SB profiles are fake.  Seeking is a widely known and much-written-about site which most student-type girls will have heard of.  SB is relatively obscure. 

Also every profile on SB, whether genuine or fake, must generate – who knows – maybe a couple of hundred pounds of income for the site?  Maybe more?  So it's not as though there isn't a very strong financial motive for creating fake profiles.

What about the verification messages?

I'm in NE and hear a lot of Yorkshire. But that's still possible  local variations. No way that SB understands NE accents. I'm sticking with auto generated message and bringing old accounts back from the dead. New members I can't explain.

Like SA, more and more profile photos look professional. We can blame Apple for that but it makes it harder to distinguish a photo lifted from Grazia from someone at a party with a good phone.

Offline Vice Admiral

What about the verification messages? I'm in NE and hear a lot of Yorkshire. But that's still possible  local variations. No way that SB understands NE accents.

I've just done my standard search (age-range 18-25, within five miles of Portsmouth), choosing the "Recently Active" option.

Of the 45 results on the first page, 15 have verification messages and 30 don't.

I think we can reasonably assume that the 33% of the profiles that are verified in this way are genuine.  The other 67%?  Who knows? 

It might be argued that doing a verification message would be something that most genuine girls setting up a profile on SB would want to do and enjoy doing.   So why do so many supposedly not bother?

Offline paul_tall_

What proportion of the profiles in your area do you recognise as being on seeking also?
I was quite surprised to see a number of profiles in my area on there that are also on seeking.
How do you tell registration date on sb? Other than seeing the first registered profile that has not been active foe x months its hard to tell


Offline Vice Admiral

What proportion of the profiles in your area do you recognise as being on seeking also?

Quite a few.  This might be an interesting avenue of research.  Since any girl with a profile on both sites is clearly genuine, I'll have a look tomorrow to see if, for example, "duplicate girls" I can identify in my area have generally done verification videos for SB.  This wouldn't prove anything, but it might be indicative.

How do you tell registration date on sb? Other than seeing the first registered profile that has not been active foe x months its hard to tell

You can't, as you correctly imply.  It's one of the many unhelpful ways that SB deliberately muddies the waters.  Ordering search results by "Newest" gives only the vaguest of indications.  I suppose that if the "average of one new girl a day" I found in my experiment on my search parameters is consistent, a girl who's placed (say) 100th may have been on the site around 100 days – but that's a pretty rough-and-ready methodology, to put it mildly!

Offline Vice Admiral

It’s time for an update.  (Hold the front page.)

But first a brief recap.

In my Reply #168 of 14 June I indicated that I was increasingly returning to my initial view that a significant proportion of the profiles on Secret Benefits are fake.

I gave several reasons for this belief – among them the otherwise inexplicable fact that in my area new girls were joining SB at a far faster rate than those joining Seeking, the market leader. 

At six o’clock on the evening of 29 May I did my standard search on SB, and noted the names of the two most recent arrivals on my patch.  At six o’clock on 14 June I did the same search to see how many new girls there had been since then; and did a comparable search on Seeking.

These, as I reported on 14 June, were the results:

Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who had joined the site within the previous 16 days – 15.   
Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres of Portsmouth who had joined the site within the previous 16 days – 3.

Exactly a month has now passed since the start date of my research.  Here are the figures that applied at six o'clock today:

Secret Benefits
Girls aged 18-25 within five miles of Portsmouth who have joined the site within the last 31 days – 29.   
Seeking
Girls aged 18-25 within eight kilometres of Portsmouth who have joined the site within the past 31 days – 6.

These figures make no sense whatsoever – unless, just conceivably, SB offers girls who are already on the site a reward for persuading their friends to join?  Has anyone heard of anything like this?

If not, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that many of the profiles on SB are indeed fake.

As can be seen from the figures, the rate of new joiners at the two sites is the same as it was when I last reported – Seeking, one girl every five days; SB, one a day. 

Perhaps SB’s bots register how many genuine girls have recently joined – and then the site’s human workers make up the numbers to about one a day by creating the necessary number of fake profiles?

As previously discussed, if many of the profiles are indeed fake, then the source of the photos is the more intriguing element – with the use of photos from dormant SB profiles in other countries being one possibility.

The text of a fake profile is easy, however.  It need be the work of no more than a minute, since the text of most of the profiles on SB is anyway pretty perfunctory.  Perfunctory profiles are, however, not in themselves evidence of fakeness, since quite a lot of the profile text on Seeking is pretty perfunctory too.  The proportion of perfunctory profiles is I think higher on SB than on Seeking, but I wouldn’t want to rest a case on that.  Or at least not without further research.

Offline datwabbit

I don't know how locations work on fake profiles. It would mean storing every village+ from every country in the world. Just not possible. But I've been on other dodgy Sugar Daddy sites and the number of profiles from small villages is incredible.

What's that all about?!?

Offline cunningman

the use of photos from dormant SB profiles in other countries being one possibility.

I have a good look at the architecture and style of rooms.  If I can see a UK socket, I do get some comfort.
I don't like profiles that are all hot place holiday snaps.

Offline Vice Admiral

If I can see a UK socket, I do get some comfort.

Yep. I always like a girl who has a UK socket. 

Offline 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
« Last Edit: June 30, 2023, 05:48:49 pm by Vice Admiral »

Offline tynetunnel

Your continuing quest for the truth VA shows true dedication to the subject, and proves to be both very interesting, and telling. Good work Sir  :hi:

Offline ik8133

Yep. I always like a girl who has a UK socket.

First thing I look for in a photo!  :D

Offline Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,632
  • Likes: 69
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
Not certain that the 13 amp british socket is only used in the UK,  I'll look it up tomorrow!..

Offline Vice Admiral

Your continuing quest for the truth VA shows true dedication to the subject, and proves to be both very interesting, and telling. Good work Sir  :hi:

Thank you for your kind words, TT.  Sadly, however, my "quest for the truth" leads nowhere much. All this is really only of academic interest, since none of the evidence that I and others have presented will make so much as a dent in Secret Benefits' multi-million dollar business. A few members of UKP might decide that the trouble and expense of navigating through all the scam elements at SB in the hope of finding genuine gold isn't worth the effort, but that's about it. If SB were a bricks and mortar business, Trading Standards or the Serious Fraud Office or some such would have put paid to them long ago; but in many respects the internet is the Wild West.

Offline Natwest

Thank you for your kind words, TT.  Sadly, however, my "quest for the truth" leads nowhere much. All this is really only of academic interest, since none of the evidence that I and others have presented will make so much as a dent in Secret Benefits' multi-million dollar business. A few members of UKP might decide that the trouble and expense of navigating through all the scam elements at SB in the hope of finding genuine gold isn't worth the effort, but that's about it. If SB were a bricks and mortar business, Trading Standards or the Serious Fraud Office or some such would have put paid to them long ago; but in many respects the internet is the Wild West.

I think if you were to put your measured thesis on a well known review site in the manner you have on here, it would certainly make people question all the amazing positive reviews and ruffle the Secret Benefit feathers. They fought incredibly hard to get my review taken down. I was shocked at their tenacity.

Offline Natwest

I should add as well, superb work and if nothing else you have meant people on here in the most part have succeeded in getting refunds or loads of free extra credits. There are genuine girls on there and I had some success, but the cost of navigating through what is clear by your research, fake profiles makes it at least as expensive as Seeking.

Offline tynetunnel

I think if you were to put your measured thesis on a well known review site in the manner you have on here, it would certainly make people question all the amazing positive reviews and ruffle the Secret Benefit feathers. They fought incredibly hard to get my review taken down. I was shocked at their tenacity.

This 100%. The research is to my mind thorough and articulate. It would receive a wider audience on that review site and really wind up the scammers at SB.

Offline Vice Admiral

This 100%. The research is to my mind thorough and articulate. It would receive a wider audience on that review site and really wind up the scammers at SB.

Thank you for your suggestion, NW and TT.

It would take me a while to put all the evidence together into a single coherent and not-too-long review – I'm a very slow writer! – but perhaps I should give it a go.

I've never used the review site in question, but isn't Secret Benefits pretty good at challenging negative feedback left there and getting it removed?  If so, might it be the case that my ponderously crafted "report" lasted only a day or two on the site?

Offline Natwest

They will fight very hard to get it taken down but there are negative reviews on there so they don't always succeed. And I shouldn't worry too much about the length. The comparisons with Seeking numbers are just so obvious it's a scam. As you point out, how can it possibly beat the market leader when it is such a marginal site. Let us know when it is up there.

Offline Watts.E.Dunn

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 2,632
  • Likes: 69
  •  
  • Reviews: 47
Not certain that the 13 amp british socket is only used in the UK,  I'll look it up tomorrow!..


Seems quite a few long list!

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Belize

Bhutan

Botswana

Brunei Darussalam

Cambodia

Cyprus

Dominica

Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

Gambia

Ghana

Gibraltar

Grenada

Guyana

Hong Kong

Iraq

Ireland

Isle of Man

Jordan

Kenya

Kuwait

Lebanon

Macau

Malawi

Malaysia

Maldives

Malta

Mauritius

Myanmar

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Qatar

Saint Kitts and Nevis

Saint Lucia

SaintVincent and the Grenadines

Saudi Arabia

Seychelles

Sierra Leone

Singapore

Solomon Islands

Sri Lanka

Tanzania

Uganda

United Arab Emirates

United Kingdom

Vanuatu

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

Offline datwabbit

Thank you for your kind words, TT.  Sadly, however, my "quest for the truth" leads nowhere much. All this is really only of academic interest, since none of the evidence that I and others have presented will make so much as a dent in Secret Benefits' multi-million dollar business. A few members of UKP might decide that the trouble and expense of navigating through all the scam elements at SB in the hope of finding genuine gold isn't worth the effort, but that's about it. If SB were a bricks and mortar business, Trading Standards or the Serious Fraud Office or some such would have put paid to them long ago; but in many respects the internet is the Wild West.

Trouble is, it only takes one guy on a punting site to say how successful he's been for others to ignore the negativity and subscribe. Some guys might even lie to save face. It's amazing how people can convince themselves that they're different.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2023, 09:38:07 am by datwabbit »

Offline Vice Admiral

They will fight very hard to get it taken down but there are negative reviews on there so they don't always succeed. And I shouldn't worry too much about the length. The comparisons with Seeking numbers are just so obvious it's a scam. As you point out, how can it possibly beat the market leader when it is such a marginal site. Let us know when it is up there.

I will, NW, draft something in the next few days and post it on the review site. Perhaps it'll stay there, perhaps it won't.  However, as you say, there are negative reviews there that Secret Benefits haven't managed to get booted off.  So we'll see. 

Trouble is, it only takes one guy on a punting site to say how successful he's been for others to ignore the negativity and subscribe. Some guys might even lie to save face. It's amazing how people can convince themselves that they're different.

It may indeed be the case, DW, that some "feedbackers" convince themselves of their success on a site when the reverse has been the case – but I have to say that I've just read all the five-star reviews on the first SB page on the review site, and I would judge every single one of them to be fake.

Offline DirtyHarry74

Despite the red flags, I've had a little success on SB, but it is extremely hard work.  Without a doubt, as with most, if not all, of these types of sites, there is some form of scam going on to get our hard-earned cash into the hands of the people that run the sites.  You only have to read the site T&C to realise that.

With regards to Seeking - I have previously asked some of those I've met (Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire area) and not one had heard of Seeking.  I did suggest to a couple of women that they may have more success if they ditched SB and went onto Seeking instead, as guys were suspicious of the scamming nature of SB, but neither did.  Interestingly when I ask where they had heard about Secret Benefits, I had a range of responses from 'a friend told me about it and was earning lots of money on there' to 'I found it via Google'.

Online southcoastpunter

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Forum Helper
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,121
  • Likes: 164
  •  
  • Reviews: 27
maybe SB do more marketing than Seeking and more "partnership" marketing - as they have with UKP!

Offline Vice Admiral

Despite the red flags, I've had a little success on SB, but it is extremely hard work.  Without a doubt, as with most, if not all, of these types of sites, there is some form of scam going on to get our hard-earned cash into the hands of the people that run the sites.  You only have to read the site T&C to realise that.
With regards to Seeking - I have previously asked some of those I've met (Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire area) and not one had heard of Seeking.  I did suggest to a couple of women that they may have more success if they ditched SB and went onto Seeking instead, as guys were suspicious of the scamming nature of SB, but neither did.  Interestingly when I ask where they had heard about Secret Benefits, I had a range of responses from 'a friend told me about it and was earning lots of money on there' to 'I found it via Google'.

Interesting.

So what you are saying is that, in your experience, girls of sugar-babeable age are more likely to discover / to have heard of / to join Secret Benefits than Seeking?

Offline DirtyHarry74

That certainly seems the case up here with those that I've spoken to.  There are some duplicate profiles between SB and Seeking in the local area, but not many. 



Offline Vice Admiral

So what you are saying is that, in your experience, girls of sugar-babeable age are more likely to discover / to have heard of / to join Secret Benefits than Seeking?

That certainly seems the case up here with those that I've spoken to.

All such evidence is valuable.  It would be useful if there were others who can offer input on this, but tapping into this particular perception is not easily done.

Either way, it remains puzzling that my "survey" continues to suggest that Secret Benefits is consistently getting five times as many female new joiners as Seeking.  The latest on this is that on SB there have been 38 female new joiners aged 18-25 in Portsmouth during the past 36 days, and 7 on Seeking – in other words, five times as many girls are supposedly joining SB as are joining Seeking.

If that is indeed the case, SB must be making a serious dent in Seeking's profits.  Indeed, is it any longer appropriate to describe Seeking as the “market leader”, as I and others intermittently do?

Since Seeking is, I believe, a wholly honest company – I have never seen it accused of any scamming activity – one wonders why it doesn't take steps to drive SB off the internet?  They surely have the tools and the know-how that an amateur sleuth like me lacks?

Meanwhile I summarise the current state of our knowledge of the SB operation, for the benefit of any new readers of this thread:

1.  We know for a certainty that almost all the unsolicited messages male members of SB receive are bot-generated.  The site probably makes most of its money from the fiver a time it costs men to open these messages.

2.  The evidence is overwhelming that the "online" and "[online] today" status of SB profiles often bear no relationship to the reality.  In addition there is strong evidence that SB bumps up long-dormant profiles without the girls knowing.

3.  On whether some – perhaps most? – of the profiles are entirely fake, the jury is still out.  Dirty Harry's input, though useful, is anecdotal and is only one man's experience.  Meanwhile my "survey results" continue to look surprising, to put it mildly.     

Offline paul_tall_

What package do you all subscribe to on SB? and are there any discount codes?
Based on seeking and conversations i've had in monthly subscriptions the introductory seems pointless as that is $59 for 10 conversations if you dont request pictures,
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
Unfortunately my profile location is too close to London so the messages and admirers have been drawn mainly from London, for me to judge surrey/berks.
There are not that many new profiles on a daily basis around say Guildford/Bracknell though maybe more than seeking, of the new profiles I dont immediately recognise them as having been on seeking, though there is a significant overlap as I look through.
I messaged a couple of girls who were active on both seeking and sb through seeking and asked how they had discovered seeking and where they on other sites, one said she was only on seeking , the other said she was on many different sites including dating apps, but both said recommended through a friend, a while back a girl mentioned to me she joined seeking after seeing the Oliva Attwood programme
The most interesting thing I have found re sb whilst browsing is the verification video, it just shows how heavily filtered some girls photos are!

Offline Al R

  • Age Check : 18+
  • Posts: 545
  • Likes: 11
  •  
All such evidence is valuable.  It would be useful if there were others who can offer input on this, but tapping into this particular perception is not easily done.

Either way, it remains puzzling that my "survey" continues to suggest that Secret Benefits is consistently getting five times as many female new joiners as Seeking.  The latest on this is that on SB there have been 38 female new joiners aged 18-25 in Portsmouth during the past 36 days, and 7 on Seeking – in other words, five times as many girls are supposedly joining SB as are joining Seeking.

If that is indeed the case, SB must be making a serious dent in Seeking's profits.  Indeed, is it any longer appropriate to describe Seeking as the “market leader”, as I and others intermittently do?

Since Seeking is, I believe, a wholly honest company – I have never seen it accused of any scamming activity – one wonders why it doesn't take steps to drive SB off the internet?  They surely have the tools and the know-how that an amateur sleuth like me lacks?

Meanwhile I summarise the current state of our knowledge of the SB operation, for the benefit of any new readers of this thread:

1.  We know for a certainty that almost all the unsolicited messages male members of SB receive are bot-generated.  The site probably makes most of its money from the fiver a time it costs men to open these messages.

2.  The evidence is overwhelming that the "online" and "[online] today" status of SB profiles often bear no relationship to the reality.  In addition there is strong evidence that SB bumps up long-dormant profiles without the girls knowing.

3.  On whether some – perhaps most? – of the profiles are entirely fake, the jury is still out.  Dirty Harry's input, though useful, is anecdotal and is only one man's experience.  Meanwhile my "survey results" continue to look surprising, to put it mildly.   
I know there are likely a lot of fakes on SB, but as an albeit small sample in my area (NW) out of half a dozen girls I met, 4 of them had profiles on SA and SB. The one I actually met via SB told me she used to have a seeking profile but had deleted it and was only using  SB when I contacted her.

Offline Vice Admiral

I know there are likely a lot of fakes on SB, but as an albeit small sample in my area (NW) out of half a dozen girls I met, 4 of them had profiles on SA and SB. The one I actually met via SB told me she used to have a seeking profile but had deleted it and was only using  SB when I contacted her.

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.)