Sugar Daddy Sites

[Katherine of Halifax 113932]

12 hours ago, Lookingfor said:

I don't understand how this became such a big deal if it's too much money for your pocket don't go on it. The money that I have spent on this site so far is well worth the women I have met. The debate for price will go forever because some people are willing to pay other people are not. Take it with a grain of salt it's a business and if you own this business you would do the same thing.

 

 Exactly Lookingfor .   Gee I like expensive shoes . But guess what,  I know what I want and how much they cost . I would not be able to shop Spring Garden Road and expect Payless prices.  I believe we al know what quality costs and well, if we can't afford the street , best to stay home.

 

 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Katherine said:

You are absolutely correct Savannah. Weather it be SA, Lyla or anywhere else.   We are certainly a luxury and if gentlemen are on  a budget  its hard to find what they may seek. 

 I have no doubt your services are worth every penny. I simply question the value of the services from the middle man.

 To use your analogy about shoes. If I pay $300 or $50 for the same exact pair of shoes, it changes nothing for the people who made it. Those people make minimal wage(and quite often way less) while those in the middle highly profit from it. I like quality and stay away from knockoffs. But when a price looks ridiculously inflated, I do my homework and buy from other retailers.

 From what I and other experienced, the website in question acts more like a scalper than a true bridge between offers and demands. I won't and will never condone this kind of business model.

 

[Katherine of Halifax 113932]

3 hours ago, Greenteal said:

 I have no doubt your services are worth every penny. I simply question the value of the services from the middle man.

 To use your analogy about shoes. If I pay $300 or $50 for the same exact pair of shoes, it changes nothing for the people who made it. Those people make minimal wage(and quite often way less) while those in the middle highly profit from it. I like quality and stay away from knockoffs. But when a price looks ridiculously inflated, I do my homework and buy from other retailers.

 From what I and other experienced, the website in question acts more like a scalper than a true bridge between offers and demands. I won't and will never condone this kind of business model.

 

Your point is fair and square . :) 

[good-date 1711]

On 10/13/2018 at 8:39 AM, Greenteal said:

   Let's be honest,  "fairly wealthy" people don't need those type of websites. There no reasons why any of those should be over $50 a month. If those were carefully screened and constantly monitored to avoid abuse and fraud I would understand why paying a premium would be appealing. But in reality most of those are managed like normal dating websites and users are not receiving benefits that would justify the higher rates. The only reason for the gouging is the lack of alternatives and not the actual service.

Well to be completely honest, those websites should charge what ever anyone is willing to pay, that's economics.  I remember someone complaining that rents were too high in a unit they wanted to rent and that it isn't right and the owner should lower them.  Then someone who didn't think they were too high rented it 2 days later.  If the price is too high they won't get enough buy in, but if it's too low then they don't make money, and it's harder to keep out the male rift raft!

The price is the price and it's up to the buyer whether or not they want to pay it.  One thing I do agree with however, is that these sites should provide excellent customer care and a high level of security and go above and beyond to screen for scams in both directions.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, good-date said:

Well to be completely honest, those website should be what ever anyone is willing to pay, that's economics.  I remember someone complaining that rents were too high in a unit they wanted to rent and that it isn't right and the owner should lower them.  Then someone who didn't think they were too high rented it 2 days later.  If the price is too high they won't get enough buy in, but if it's too low then they don't make money, and it's harder to keep out the male rift raft!

The price is the price and it's up to the buyer whether or not they want to pay it.  One thing I do agree with however, is that these sites should provide excellent customer care and a high level of security and go above and beyond to screen for scams in both directions.

    To quote Hornypt, "there are at least 5 to 1 women to men ratio", meaning most men are not willing to pay that amount.

 To use your example about apartments, it would be like owners doubling the rent to correct an 80% vacancy situation. I don't have a degree in economics , but I'm pretty sure you got it wrong.

[archibaldboenker 1029]

7 hours ago, Greenteal said:

    To quote Hornypt, "there are at least 5 to 1 women to men ratio", meaning most men are not willing to pay that amount.

 To use your example about apartments, it would be like owners doubling the rent to correct an 80% vacancy situation. I don't have a degree in economics , but I'm pretty sure you got it wrong.

You do realize that the (alleged) "5 to 1 women to men ratio" is precisely why they can charge what they do? That ratio is actually part of their sales pitch. Maintaining that ratio is their objective, that's why the service is free for sugar babies.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, archibaldboenker said:

You do realize that the (alleged) "5 to 1 women to men ratio" is precisely why they can charge what they do? That ratio is actually part of their sales pitch. Maintaining that ratio is their objective, that's why the service is free for sugar babies.  

 And 80% of those sugar babies are left with little chances to get extra income from those websites. Other than the scalper in the middle, nobody wins.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Lookingfor said:

Where are you finding these numbers for this site are they telling all this information to you. If this site bothers you that much go on the site and help out the women you are so worried about. Is that not the right thing to do rather than complaining about it. 

You're on your own on that one.

[archibaldboenker 1029]

51 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

 And 80% of those sugar babies are left with little chances to get extra income from those websites. Other than the scalper in the middle, nobody wins.

We seem to have our wires crossed.

The comment which you responded to stated: "Well to be completely honest, those websites should charge what ever anyone is willing to pay, that's economics."

Your response to this was: ""there are at least 5 to 1 women to men ratio", meaning most men are not willing to pay that amount" 

This (along with you mentioning a degree in economics) leads me to believe we are discussing the economics of the business model and not the ethics of the company. As such, my response pointed out that the high women to men ratio is a selling feature of the website and that encouraging a closer women to men ratio would be a poor business decision.

Is it fair to sugar babies? Maybe not. Is it economically sound? Yes.    

On a related note, I would be curious if there is a source for this 5:1 ratio and how inactive accounts and scammers are weeded out when determining that ratio.  

 

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, archibaldboenker said:

   As such, my response pointed out that the high women to men ratio is a selling feature of the website and that encouraging a closer women to men ratio would be a poor business decision.

Is it fair to sugar babies? Maybe not. Is it economically sound? Yes.    

  If you enjoy throwing money in the fire. Enjoy.

[archibaldboenker 1029]

2 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

  If you enjoy throwing money in the fire. Enjoy.

Once again, irrelevant to my point. I never signed up for it. I am just pointing out that you're wrong about the business model. 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, archibaldboenker said:

Once again, irrelevant to my point. I never signed up for it. I am just pointing out that you're wrong about the business model. 

      If they offered more than a dating website interface and added better screening and services, it would at least be kind of worth it. But they're not. They're acting like scalpers. Being the bridge between men and women looking for arrangements doesn't cost more than dating websites or places like Lyla. They can't bottleneck the market forever and it's just a question of time before a few cheap apps or websites take over. 

    Greed doesn't pay for long.

[archibaldboenker 1029]

10 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

The business model is unsustainable in the long-term. If they offered more than a dating website interface with better screening, it would at least be kind of worth it. But it's not, and just a question of time before a few cheap apps take over. I'm not supporting scalpers.

That's entirely speculation. All we know is that it is profitable right now and that they have a majority of the market share.   

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, archibaldboenker said:

That's entirely speculation. All we know is that it is profitable right now and that they have a majority of the market share.   

   The magic word is "right now" until people wake up to the fact they're paying for something they can get for free.

They can screw newcomers out of their money, but once they get more educated on the practice, they'll find cheaper/free alternatives.

[archibaldboenker 1029]

5 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

   The magic word is "right now" until people wake up to the fact they're paying for something they can get for free.

They can screw newcomers out of their money, but once they get more educated on the practice, they'll find cheaper/free alternatives.

Maybe, but again that's speculation. There's all kinds of examples of successful businesses that sell something that is available cheaper/free. You don't even need to look past the world of dating websites to see this.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, archibaldboenker said:

Maybe, but again that's speculation. There's all kinds of examples of successful businesses that sell something that is available cheaper/free. You don't even need to look past the world of dating websites to see this.

 

     Websites like SA never earned that "success". They accidently inherited a large part of the market after the collapse of BP and from many classifieds dropping their personals sections. It could have been an opportunity to profit from the extra traffic, but they instead decided to take advantage of everyone in an outrageous way.

     As for "successful businesses that sell something that is available cheaper/free", they ALWAYS sell a far superior product. Better value, better service and the difference in quality is very obvious. In term of arrangement, if you meet a lady via SA or any other cheap or free alternative, there absolutely no difference with the exception of being $150 poorer with SA.

  

  

[archibaldboenker 1029]

14 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

     Websites like SA never earned that "success". They accidently inherited a large part of the market after the collapse of BP and from many classifieds dropping their personals sections. It could have been an opportunity to profit from the extra traffic, but they instead decided to take advantage of everyone in an outrageous way.

     As for "successful businesses that sell something that is available cheaper/free", they ALWAYS sell a far superior product. Better value, better service and the difference in quality is very obvious. In term of arrangement, if you meet a lady via SA or any other cheap or free alternative, there absolutely no difference with the exception of being $150 poorer with SA.

  

  

Backpage went down in April... SA was established years earlier and was already a multi-million dollar company by then. 

The premium difference with SA is the women to men ratio that you keep mentioning. 

 

Edit: I should mention, I have no vested interest in SA... I haven't even signed up for it and don't intend to pursue sugar arrangements... I am just baffled by your unwillingness to admit that from a business perspective they are doing well for themselves.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, archibaldboenker said:

Backpage went down in April... SA was established years earlier and was already a multi-million dollar company by then. 

The premium difference with SA is the women to men ratio that you keep mentioning. 

 I tried SA over a decade ago and the rate was similar to average dating websites. The rate started rising after Kijiji and others started dropping personals.

 As for the ratio, it was introduced to the conversation by Hornypt. Something you would know if you would have bothered following the thread. And again, it would only be worth the premium if they were all properly vetted and had exclusivity clauses with the website. Instead, many of those ladies simply skip the bottleneck to find SD's in far more efficient ways. 

[archibaldboenker 1029]

2 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

 I tried SA over a decade ago and the rate was similar to average dating websites. The rate started rising after Kijiji and others started dropper the personals.

 As for the ratio, it was introduced to the conversation by Hornypt. Something you would know if you would have bothered following the thread. And again, it would only be worth the premium if they were all properly vetted and had exclusivity clauses with the website. Instead, many of those ladies simply skip the bottleneck to find SD's in far more efficient ways. 

Ok, so the rate rose over time... that doesn't mean they are only successful because "They accidently inherited a large part of the market after the collapse of BP"

I have followed the thread, other than an estimate from Hornypt, I don't see any evidence of this ratio that you have referenced multiple times. Of course if you had understood my last post you would know that I actually agree that the ratio is favorable to men and wasn't questioning that in my last post. 

 

Does match.com thoroughly vet their members and impose exclusivity clauses? And before you counter that match.com is cheaper, keep in mind that the niche market of sugar dating is geared toward wealthy people.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, archibaldboenker said:

Does match.com thoroughly vet their members and impose exclusivity clauses? And before you counter that match.com is cheaper, keep in mind that the niche market of sugar dating is geared toward wealthy people.

  When you pay for dating services like match or eharmony, you tend to get better results because fees tend to make members more serious about the process. Unlike POF where the free membership drags a lot of spam and fraud, requiring a bit of weeding to find someone. Again if SA's services matched their rates, it wouldn't be an issue. And the argument that wealthy people don't mind being financially raped is ridiculous.

  For someone with "no vested interest in SA" you sure put a lot of energy to defend them. Are you also gonna defend bank fees? Scalpers and Ticketmaster who raped concertgoers for decades? Pharmaceutical CEO's who raise the price of life saving drugs by 2000% because it's "good business"? Any other honest businessmen you want to defend? 

[archibaldboenker 1029]

19 minutes ago, Greenteal said:

  When you pay for dating services like match or eharmony, you tend to get better results because fees tend to make members more serious about the process. Unlike POF where the free membership drags a lot of spam and fraud, requiring a bit of weeding to find someone. Again if SA's services matched their rates, it wouldn't be an issue. And the argument that wealthy people don't mind being financially raped is ridiculous.

  For someone with "no vested interest in SA" you sure put a lot of energy to defend them. Are you also gonna defend bank fees? Scalpers and Ticketmaster who raped concertgoers for decades? Pharmaceutical CEO's who raise the price of life saving drugs by 2000% because it's "good business"? Any other honest businessmen you want to defend? 

The assertion that you're not getting your money's worth on SA is your opinion. It is not a fact. Some others in this thread seem to think it's worth the price. I don't think paying $150 is being financially raped, and I sincerely doubt that the target audience for SA would disagree. 

 

There's no reason for you to get so hostile. I never said that SA were honest businessmen. I never said they were ethical. I said that their model has led to success and that it is purely speculation that their success won't continue.    

[Guest]

1 minute ago, archibaldboenker said:

The assertion that you're not getting your money's worth on SA is your opinion. It is not a fact. Some others in this thread seem to think it's worth the price. I don't think paying $150 is being financially raped, and I sincerely doubt that the target audience for SA would disagree. 

 

There's no reason for you to get so hostile. I never said that SA were honest businessmen. I never said they were ethical. I said that their model has led to success and that it is purely speculation that their success won't continue.    

If it makes you happy. I'm happy.

Good night.

[archibaldboenker 1029]

Just now, Greenteal said:

If it makes you happy. I'm happy.

Good night.

See, that wasn't so hard. 

Good night.

[Jake Peralta 155]

 

This is more entertaining than TV. You cowboys are obviously not going to agree here.

Subscribe, or don't subscribe to SA.

Do what works for you, but for God's sake go get some pussy and stop arguing over trivial matters that you have no control or influence over.

Christ..

[good-date 1711]

On 10/13/2018 at 11:07 AM, Greenteal said:

    I'm only saying they're taking advantage of the current shortage of alternatives. When other websites or apps will offer more affordable options, SA will have to adapt or disappear. If it's "horrible" or not is up for debate. But if I'm gonna spent $150, it will be for the lady instead of the lazy middle man.

Lack of alternatives?

There is a massive amount of competition in this space. A quick google search of “list of sugar daddy sites” pulled up dozens of these sites (see below).

I just don’t see how these sites are taking advantage of people.  It’s not the right to purchase clean air we are talking about.  If the price is too high then they go out of business, if it’s too low then they go out of business, so use your power as a consumer and don’t pay.  Maybe they’ll go out of business, maybe they’ll lower their price or maybe they’ll keep making money just the same.  

You mentioned that "When other websites or apps will offer more affordable options, SA will have to adapt or disappear".  Well SA was launched in 2006, a long window of opportunity for these better priced sites to have made their move so where are they?  In the list below perhaps.  And if one day SA does have to lower their price for reasons stated...so what, then they'll lower their prices and remain thankful for the good times, not regretful.  And sad to say...people like to think customers will remember, but sadly in most cases all they see is the new best deal among all the promotion fluff.  

 I can’t personally speak to the experiences of people who utilize these web sites, and reviews range from good to bad.  That’s why I started this post. But many of these “overly priced sites” have been around for over 10 years in what has become a very competitive space so they must be doing something right!  It kind of seems "boo hoo" to say otherwise!

1. Seekingarrangment.com

2. Secret benefits.com

3. Seeking.com

4. Whatsyourprice.com

5. Arrangementfinder.com

6. Chiccherri.com

7. Sugardaddymeet.com

8. Sugardaddyforme.com

9. Sugardaddie.com

10. Misstravel.com

11. Establishedmen.com