We argue that two types of applicative arguments need to be distinguished, namely benefactives and experiencers. Both of these pass Pylkkänen's (2008) tests for high applicatives, but only benefactives are properly accounted for by her analysis. We discuss several cross-linguistic differences between benefactives and experiencers, namely their interpretation, their ability to vary with a prepositional phrase, and the sentience of the denoted individual. Most importantly, experiencers contribute not-at-issue meaning that projects beyond negation and yes-no questions, while benefactives do not. We propose an analysis of experiencers that explains these properties, and also propose a typology of applicative constructions cross-linguistically.