B. Health · April 2026

Source: Polar Analytics · All amounts in AED

Full month

Revenue i

Gross sales i

251,666

Net sales i

210,535

Total sales i

226,457

Commercial

Total ordersi

433

AOV 523 AED

Contribution margini

135,617

CM2 · 60% of revenue

Ad spendi

31,632

14% of revenue

MERi

7.16x

total revenue ÷ ad spend

ncMERi

3.48x

new-customer ROAS

Acquisition

New customersi

218

55% of orders

Repeat customersi

215

45% of orders

Blended CACi

145

spend ÷ new cust.

Sessions

13,879

From Polar Pixel

Conversion ratei

2.76%

Above industry avg

Traffic & conversion

Sessions

13,879

Orders

433

Conversion rate

2.76%

Platform vs Polari

Meta (Paid Social)

9,153 AED · 2,786 clicks · 41.92 CPM · CTR 1.02%

Purchases

Conversion value

47,112

9,298

ROAS

5.15x

1.02x

CPA

416

Google (Paid Search)

22,479 AED · 3,592 clicks · 6.26 CPC · CTR 0.61%

Conversions

177

172

Conversion value

81,292

84,634

ROAS

3.62x

3.77x

CPA

127

131

Reading the gap

Google's numbers nearly match Polar — clean attribution. Meta's gap is wide (5.15x platform vs 1.02x Polar): Meta over-counts via view-through and overlapping touchpoints. True Meta contribution likely 35-50 purchases at ~2.5x effective ROAS.

All channels — Polar attribution

Channeli	Spendi	Ordersi	New cust.i	Revenuei	CPAi	ROASi
Google (Paid Search)	22,479	172	111	84,634	127	3.62x
Meta (Paid Social)	9,153	22	10	9,298	98	5.15x
Direct	—	136	63	78,635	—	—
Undefined / Untagged	—	65	13	28,336	—	—
Other	—	15	8	10,425	—	—
Organic Search	—	13	8	10,349	—	—
Email/SMS	—	7*	4	3,800	—	—
Organic Social	—	1	0	306	—	—

Two flags

UTM gap: 228 of 433 orders (53%) had missing or broken UTM tags in April. Now fixed — May will be the first clean month for cross-channel attribution. Klaviyo: *Email/SMS attribution above is from the wrong account read; B. Health Klaviyo is now live and reporting properly. See the Klaviyo tab for direct flow attribution numbers.

Top 50 products by revenue i

#i	Producti	Vendori	Ordersi	New cust.i	New %i	AOVi	Revenuei	% of totali
1	Magnesium Breakthrough	BIOptimizers	58	20	34%	307	17,810	8.5%
2	BPC Gold	Forus	14	8	57%	704	9,851	4.7%
3	Prime Protein Beef Isolate	Equip	17	4	24%	525	8,932	4.2%
4	NMN Pro™ Complete	ProHealth Longevity	19	11	58%	466	8,858	4.2%
5	Gut Feeling™	Integrative Peptides	6	2	33%	1,042	6,255	3.0%
6	NMN Pro 1000™	ProHealth Longevity	7	6	86%	830	5,812	2.8%
7	MegaSporeBiotic®	MICROBIOME LABS	11	6	55%	509	5,596	2.7%
8	Magnesium Glycinate Complex	Design Health	23	12	52%	222	5,102	2.4%
9	Liquid PC (Phosphatidylcholine)	BodyBio	11	8	73%	405	4,457	2.1%
10	E-Lyte Hydration	BodyBio	26	8	31%	160	4,156	2.0%
11	ATP 360®	Researched Nutritionals	8	3	38%	488	3,908	1.9%
12	BPC-157 Delayed Pro	Infiniwell	6	5	83%	624	3,747	1.8%
13	Sleep Breakthrough	BIOptimizers	12	3	25%	302	3,620	1.7%
14	Tri-Fortify® Watermelon	Researched Nutritionals	6	2	33%	603	3,616	1.7%
15	Unbroken®	Unbroken®	10	3	30%	344	3,438	1.6%
16	MassZymes Enzyme Blend	BIOptimizers	12	8	67%	278	3,330	1.6%
17	BPC-157 Delayed™ (250 MCG)	Infiniwell	6	6	100%	479	2,876	1.4%
18	HistaQuel®	Researched Nutritionals	8	4	50%	347	2,775	1.3%
19	Forus Protocol	Forus	4	1	25%	688	2,750	1.3%
20	Liposomal Glutathione	BodyBio	6	3	50%	452	2,714	1.3%
21	PC Phospholipid Complex	BodyBio	7	1	14%	360	2,521	1.2%
22	Whole Body Collagen®	Design Health	6	4	67%	399	2,394	1.1%
23	BDNF Essentials®	Researched Nutritionals	4	2	50%	538	2,150	1.0%
24	MegaSporeBiotic® Kids	MICROBIOME LABS	9	3	33%	222	2,000	0.9%
25	TUDCA	BodyBio	5	2	40%	382	1,909	0.9%
26	Digestzymes™	Design Health	8	3	38%	237	1,897	0.9%
27	Curcumin Longvida 1000	ProHealth Longevity	4	1	25%	435	1,740	0.8%
28	IgGI Shield™	Design Health	4	2	50%	426	1,706	0.8%
29	Vitamin D Supreme	Design Health	9	3	33%	189	1,702	0.8%
30	Prime Protein Bar	Equip	3	0	0%	567	1,702	0.8%
31	Glutathione Liposomal	Hinnao	4	4	100%	423	1,690	0.8%
32	DHEA (5 mg)	Design Health	10	9	90%	166	1,663	0.8%
33	BPC-157 PURE™ Delayed Release	Integrative Peptides	3	1	33%	521	1,564	0.7%
34	Physician's Daily + D3	Researched Nutritionals	3	1	33%	489	1,466	0.7%
35	ToxinPul™ Detox Formula	Researched Nutritionals	4	3	75%	365	1,458	0.7%
36	Omega-3 Plus™ Fish Oil	Researched Nutritionals	9	4	44%	155	1,397	0.7%
37	REM+	Forus	5	4	80%	275	1,376	0.7%
38	Magnesium Glycinate	Researched Nutritionals	7	6	86%	190	1,328	0.6%
39	Berberine Pro	ProHealth Longevity	7	5	71%	188	1,319	0.6%
40	Adrenal Complex	Design Health	6	3	50%	220	1,317	0.6%
41	MegaIgG2000 Capsules	MICROBIOME LABS	4	2	50%	320	1,280	0.6%
42	Liposomal Vitamin C	BodyBio	6	3	50%	212	1,269	0.6%
43	CoreBiotic® Sensitive	Researched Nutritionals	3	2	67%	421	1,264	0.6%
44	ProbioMed™ 250	Design Health	1	1	100%	1,261	1,261	0.6%
45	RenewGut Thrive™	Researched Nutritionals	3	3	100%	418	1,253	0.6%
46	NMN Pro™ 500	ProHealth Longevity	6	5	83%	208	1,245	0.6%
47	Amino Acid Supreme™	Design Health	4	0	0%	302	1,208	0.6%
48	Calm	BodyBio	3	0	0%	401	1,203	0.6%
49	GI Revive™ Powder	Design Health	2	0	0%	595	1,189	0.6%
50	Herbal Parasite Guardian	BIOptimizers	2	0	0%	582	1,165	0.6%
Top 50 subtotal							168,503	80.0%
Long tail (remaining ~270 SKUs)							42,032	20.0%

Retention i

Repeat customer ratei

47.9%

vs benchmark 25-35%

Repeat sales ratei

51.4%

majority of revenue

Repeat customersi

190

vs 218 new

Repeat AOVi

506

close to overall 487

Days between ordersi

⚠ jumped from 22

LTV (30-day)i

534

trending down

3-month trend

Month	New cust.	Repeat cust.	Repeat %	Repeat sales %	Repeat revenue	LTV	Days between
February	183	203	54.4%	53.9%	128,350	686	—
March	184	190	52.5%	55.0%	120,712	636	22
April	218	190	47.9%	51.4%	116,484	534	78

Retention read

The exceptional context. B. Health is fundamentally a retention business — 48% repeat customer rate (vs 25-35% supplement benchmark), 51% of revenue from repeat customers. This is the commercial foundation everything else sits on. The brand has built genuine loyalty across multiple supplement categories, which is rare and valuable.

Three signals worth watching honestly:
1. Repeat rate trending down — 54.4% → 52.5% → 47.9%. Most likely explanation is dilution: April brought in 218 new customers (the strongest acquisition month of the quarter), which structurally lowers the repeat % even if absolute repeat numbers hold. Repeat customer count actually held steady at 190 in both March and April, supporting the dilution theory. If repeat count starts dropping in absolute terms, that's a different story.
2. LTV trending down — 686 → 636 → 534. Same direction as Forus. Important caveat: this is 30-day LTV only (Polar can't compute longer windows yet). Could be artifact of newer cohorts being measured before they've had time to build LTV. Worth re-checking once 6+ months of cohort maturity.
3. Days between orders jumped Mar → Apr (22 → 78). This is a notable jump — too big to dismiss as noise but possibly a methodology shift in how Polar calculates the metric (Feb showed 0). Worth investigating directly with Polar support to confirm what changed. If the trend is real, replenishment flows become an even higher priority.

The strategic context. Unlike Forus, B. Health isn't in an "investment phase" — it's a curated multi-brand retailer where the unit economics should already be healthy. They are: 7.16x MER, 60% CM2, ~50/50 new/repeat split. The retention engine is working. The question now is how to make it grow faster — and the answer is almost certainly the same: build the missing 5 Klaviyo flows. Replenishment, post-purchase education, browse abandonment, winback, VIP. Estimated +110-180 incremental orders/month at zero ad spend.

Discount code performance i

Orders with codei

121

28% of orders

Revenue from codedi

56,820

27% of revenue

Organic (no code)i

312

72% of orders

Organic revenuei

153,715

73% of revenue

Active codesi

in active use

Healthy promo discipline

73% of B. Health revenue comes from full-price organic orders — only 27% runs through discount codes. That's significantly healthier than Forus (43% coded). The brand has pricing power and customers don't need to be incentivized to buy. Worth defending — every additional public promo erodes this.

Discount code breakdown

Codei	Typei	Orders	New cust.	Revenue	AOV
HEALTH20	General promo	67	56	30,442	454
Askdave	Influencer / partner	8	0	3,593	449
BIOPTIMIZERS20	Brand-specific (T1)	5	3	3,049	610
BODYBIO20	Brand-specific (T1)	4	3	2,306	577
8P2P3XZX3AEK	System-generated	1	1	2,259	2,259
ORIGIN	Partner	7	2	2,149	307
WELCOME15	Welcome / first-purchase	3	2	1,942	647
biohack15	Influencer / partner	3	0	1,898	633
JS	Influencer initials	2	2	1,539	770
Mennat	Influencer / partner	3	0	1,385	462
Jeremy15	Influencer / partner	2	0	1,192	596
ACCART10	Abandoned cart flow	2	0	913	456
Biohackit	Partner	1	0	755	755
F&F15	Friends & Family	1	1	699	699
RAGEENA10	Influencer / partner	1	1	581	581
IVAN10	Influencer / partner	2	2	500	250
Shirley	Influencer / partner	2	0	382	191
KARO	Influencer / partner	1	1	332	332
WELCOME10	Welcome / first-purchase	2	2	226	113
BRENDIN20	Internal / staff	1	1	190	190
MediGyn	Partner	1	1	140	140
Other system codes	System-generated	3	0	568	189
All discount codes		121	77	56,820	470
Organic (no code)		312	140	153,715	493

Discount code read

HEALTH20 is the discount workhorse. 30K from 67 orders, 56 new customers (84% new). Same pattern as Forus's GETFORUS15 — single general promo code doing the bulk of code-driven new acquisition. Worth understanding where it lives and whether the discount level is right.

Brand-specific codes align with tier strategy. BIOPTIMIZERS20 (Tier 1) and BODYBIO20 (Tier 1) are doing what they should — driving brand-specific trial. Worth tracking whether brand-led codes for ProHealth, Designs for Health, Microbiome Labs, and Equip exist and are being used. If not, that's an easy gap to close.

The influencer/partner code spread is unmanaged. 11 different individual-named codes (Askdave, JS, Jeremy15, Mennat, Ivan10, Shirley, KARO, RAGEENA10, biohack15, Biohackit, MediGyn) totaling ~14K revenue. Most drive 0-2 new customers. Without a formal program (like Forus's Superfiliate setup), there's no payout tracking, no performance threshold, and no way to know which partnerships are worth scaling vs cutting. Worth considering whether B. Health needs its own affiliate platform — even just to track and pay properly on what's already happening organically.

BRENDIN20 driving 1 order at 190 AED is your own staff code — a useful reminder that internal/staff codes are mixed in with the partner codes in this view.

The summary

Strong commercial month: 226K total revenue (211K net), 7.16x MER, 60% contribution margin. New-vs-repeat split at 50/50 is healthy. Google attribution clean across both Polar and platform. Meta's 5.15x platform ROAS is structurally inflated — true contribution is closer to ~2.5x. UTM tagging fix + Klaviyo reconnect are the two near-term unlocks for clean channel-level decisions.

Headline KPIs in Polar ↗

North star · 1,000 monthly orders

433 of 1,000 orders · 43% there

Today: 218 new + 215 repeatGap: +567 orders/mo

How the tier strategy works

The core question

Every brand gets a different share of marketing budget. The tier framework is the ruleset for deciding who gets what. It's built around one question: "Where should the next dollar of spend go?"

Two axes, four positions

Brands are sorted by two things:

Local sales reality — the past 3-month and 6-month average DTC revenue on Shopify. This tells you which brands are working today.

Global brand equity — a consensus reading of brand authority, founder voice, scientific credibility, and category positioning. This tells you which brands have a ceiling worth chasing.

High sales

Low sales

High equity

SCALE (Tier 1)
Lead investment

BUILD (Tier 2)
Structured investment

Low equity

HARVEST
Hold, don't grow

EXIT (Tier 4)
Liquidate

What each tier gets

Tier 1 SCALE — Lead Meta + Google investment. Inventory priority. Hero positioning on site. Target 40K AED/month each. Six brands: BIOptimizers, Designs for Health, BodyBio, Microbiome Labs, ProHealth Longevity, Equip.

Tier 2 BUILD — Smaller paid budgets but real investment. Path to scale exists, just longer. Three brands: Researched Nutritionals, Integrative Peptides ex-BPC, Designs for Sport.

Tier 3 MAINTAIN — No marketing investment, no liquidation. Stable customer base pays its own way. Forus (own brand), Infiniwell, RnA ReSet, Oxford HealthSpan, Purasana.

HARVEST — Specifically Integrative Peptides BPC-157. Sells well but carries regulatory risk on Meta. Hold revenue, ringfence from paid ads.

Tier 4 EXIT — Liquidate stock to recover working capital. Zinzino, Unbroken, ALP, Tonik, Nutrined, Awak'n, Hinnao.

The phase trigger logic

Spend doesn't increase automatically. It's conditional on revenue. Phase 0 → 1 unlocks when 3 of 6 Tier 1 brands hit 85% of target. Phase 1 → 2 needs all 6 Tier 1 at target plus Tier 2 combined at 50K. Phase 2 → 3 needs total run rate above 750K AED/month.

If revenue doesn't rise, spend doesn't rise. Phasing is conditional, not promised.

When to adjust a brand's tier

Tiers should be re-evaluated every 3 months. Don't react to a single month — supplement businesses are lumpy by nature (corporate orders, batch restocks, seasonal patterns). Wait for sustained signals.

↑ Promote (T2→T1, T3→T2)

6-month avg consistently exceeds tier target for 3+ months
New customer % stays above 50%
Margin holds or improves at higher volume
Inventory + supplier can support 2-3x volume

↓ Demote (T1→T2, T2→T3)

3-month avg drops 20%+ below target with no obvious cause
CAC for that brand 30%+ above blended CAC
Repeat purchase rate drops below 30%
Better candidate emerges and budget is constrained

→ Move to HARVEST

Regulatory or platform policy risk emerges
Margin compresses below sustainability
Brand can't be advertised without policy violations

→ Move to EXIT

Below 5K AED/month for 3 consecutive months
New customer % below 20%
Inventory turns slower than 90 days

How tiers connect to Meta and Google

Meta and Google play different roles per brand. Meta creates demand (consumer education, audience building, new-customer story). Google captures intent (someone is already searching). Each Tier 1 brand has a defined channel mix in the doc — DTC-led brands lean Meta-heavy, clinic-led brands lean Google-heavy.

What this dashboard tells you each month

One question every month: "Should we move to the next phase?" The answer is in the Phase Tracker below. If 3 of 6 Tier 1 brands aren't within 15% of their 40K target, the answer is no — even if MER looks good. Discipline beats ambition here.

Spend phase tracker i

Phase 0 · current

37K

monthly spend

Active. April: 31.6K. Doc baseline 37K (Google 27K + Meta 10K).

Phase 1

53K

monthly spend

Trigger: 3 of 6 Tier 1 brands within 15% of 40K target. Currently 0 of 6.

Phase 2

85K

monthly spend

All 6 Tier 1 hit target + Tier 2 at 50K combined. Est. month 7-9.

Phase 3

125K

monthly spend

Run rate above 750K AED. Est. month 12-15.

Phase verdict

Stay in Phase 0. None of the six Tier 1 brands are within 15% of their 40K target this month. Closest is Designs for Health at 31.5K (79%). Earliest plausible Phase 1 trigger: 2-3 months out, dependent on Klaviyo flows landing and UTM data improving so we can confidently scale Meta.

Tier 1 SCALE — brand targets i

Brandi	Apr neti	Targeti	Progressi	Ordersi	New cust.i	New %i	AOVi
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month. Lead Meta + Google investment. Inventory and merchandising priority.BIOptimizers	28,840	40,000	72%	86	31	36%	335
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month. Lead Meta + Google investment.Designs for Health	31,509	40,000	79%	105	59	56%	300
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.BodyBio	23,906	40,000	60%	76	35	46%	314
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.Microbiome Labs	14,312	40,000	36%	39	17	44%	367
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.ProHealth Longevity	22,817	40,000	57%	56	37	66%	407
T1Tier 1 SCALE (promoted) — High equity, recovering sales. 30K target reflects larger gap. Highest-investment brand on a percentage-lift basis.Equip (promoted)	10,634	30,000	35%	19	4	21%	560
Tier 1 subtotal	132,018	230,000	57%	381	183	48%	347

Tier 1 read

Designs for Health (79%) and BIOptimizers (72%) are closest to target — but neither will hit Phase 1 trigger (≥34K) without Meta intervention. ProHealth Longevity has the strongest acquisition signal (66% new customers) and warrants the heaviest Meta investment among Tier 1. Microbiome Labs and Equip are furthest from target — long runway.

Tier 2 BUILD — brand targets i

Brandi	Apr neti	Targeti	Progressi	Ordersi	New cust.i	New %i	AOVi
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Lower sales, strong equity. Target 30K AED/month. B2B push the lead motion, with DTC support.Researched Nutritionals	27,903	30,000	93%	64	37	58%	436
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Catalogue ex-BPC-157. Target 20K AED/month. BPC-157 ringfenced in HARVEST.Integrative Peptides (ex-BPC)	9,566	20,000	48%	13	3	23%	736
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Sports nutrition. Target 15K AED/month. Build phase.Designs for Sport	5,987	15,000	40%	22	9	41%	272
Tier 2 subtotal	43,456	65,000	67%	99	49	49%	439

Tier 3 MAINTAIN, HARVEST & EXIT i

Brandi	Apr neti	Targeti	Ordersi	Notei
HARVESTHARVEST — Sells well but regulatory risk on Meta. Hold revenue at current level, zero growth marketing, ringfence from paid ads.Integrative Peptides BPC-157	~ in T2 above	Hold	—	No marketing · regulatory ringfence
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Stable customer base. No marketing investment. Pays its own way. Forus is BHealth's own brand.Forus	13,977	10,000	21	Above target · highest AOV
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Stable customer base, no investment.Infiniwell	7,272	8,000	14	93% of target · 93% new cust.
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Legacy mineral users. Maintain.RnA ReSet	1,997	3,000	14	Maintain
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Low volume, premium niche. Maintain.Oxford HealthSpan	1,071	5,000	3	Maintain · low volume
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Amazon AE organic traffic source. Maintain.Purasana	2,098	3,000	17	Amazon AE organic
EXITTier 4 EXIT — Liquidate to recover working capital. Wind down inventory, no reorders.Zinzino, Unbroken, Hinnao, others	~9,200	Liquidate	30	Wind down · recover working capital

Klaviyo flow opportunity i

Polar ↔ Klaviyo data

Connected · syncing properly

Live

Welcome series

Live · in production

Live

Abandoned cart

Live · in production

Live

Post-purchase education

Not built · brand-specific

+20-30 orders/mo

Replenishment

Not built · 30/60/90 day cycles

+40-60 orders/mo

Browse abandonment

Not built · viewed-not-bought

+15-25 orders/mo

Winback (60/90/120 day)

Not built · lapsed customers

+15-25 orders/mo

VIP / loyalty tier

Not built · point accrual

+20-40 orders/mo

Klaviyo total opportunity

+110-180 orders/month at zero incremental ad spend if all flows built. That's the difference between Phase 0 and Phase 1 spend levels delivered through retention rather than acquisition.

Strategy read for April

The summary

43% of the way to the 1,000-order north star. Tier 1 brands collectively at 57% of target (132K vs 230K monthly). Phase 0 spend correct for now: no Tier 1 brand within 15% of target yet, so Phase 1 trigger not met. Highest-leverage work is unbuilt Klaviyo flows (110-180 incremental orders/mo at zero ad spend) — bigger than scaling Meta in the next 90 days.

Vendor breakdown in Polar ↗

How to read this tab — the funnel framework

Each channel has a different job

B. Health doesn't run three independent acquisition channels competing on the same ROAS metric. We run one funnel where each channel does a specific job:

Top of funnel — Meta: Demand creation. Build awareness for brands the region doesn't know yet. Get eyeballs to the site. Plant the seed.

Mid funnel — Google: Demand capture. When someone searches for a brand they discovered (or for a category they need), Google catches them. Convert intent.

Bottom of funnel — Klaviyo: Demand compounding. Once someone buys, build the relationship and bring them back. Stack revenue.

Why this matters for ROAS readings

Holding Meta to a 3x+ first-purchase ROAS would mean cutting the awareness work that creates demand for Google and Klaviyo to monetise. Meta's Polar ROAS being ~1x at first purchase is by design — its real return shows up downstream as branded search volume, new visitor count, email list growth, and eventual conversions through other channels.

The honest scoreboard for the whole system is blended MER — total revenue ÷ total ad spend. If MER stays healthy (4x+), the funnel is working even when individual channel ROAS looks weak.

How to judge each channel

Meta: reach growth, new visitor count, branded search lift, list growth — NOT first-purchase ROAS
Google: conversion efficiency, branded vs non-branded mix, capture rate — Polar ROAS appropriate here
Klaviyo: repeat rate, time between orders, flow performance — LTV-driven
Blended: MER, customer base growth, new customer trend

Channel roles in the funnel

Top of funnel · April 2026

Meta · Demand creation

Building awareness for brands the region hasn't met yet. Getting eyeballs to the site. Feeding the funnel that Google and Klaviyo monetise downstream.

Spend9,153

Impressions218K

Clicks2,786

CPM42

CTR1.02%

Mid funnel · April 2026

Google · Demand capture

Catching intent — branded searches from people Meta brought in, and category searches from broader market. The conversion engine.

Spend22,479

Conversions178

CPA126

Polar ROAS2.41x

Bottom of funnel · April 2026

Klaviyo · Demand compounding

Once someone buys, bring them back. Welcome series, abandoned cart, replenishment, winback. Pure-margin retention revenue at zero ad cost.

Flow revenue62.7K

Flow orders127

Flow RPS31.0

Flows live2 of 7

New subscribers201

Blended business view · April 2026

The actual scoreboard

If MER stays healthy and customer base grows month-over-month, the system is working — regardless of what any individual channel ROAS looks like.

MER7.16x

Total revenue226K

New customers218

vs March+18%

Are we growing the customer base? i

New customers — month over month

Climbing. April was the strongest acquisition month of the past quarter.

Feb

183

—

Mar

184

+0.5%

Apr

218

+18%

Total orders — month over month

Recovered in April after a soft March. Path to 1,000 = +567 orders/mo from current.

Feb

421

—

Mar

398

−5%

Apr

433

+9%

MER — month over month

Healthy band of 7-8x throughout. Industry benchmark for supplements is 3-5x.

Feb

8.31x

—

Mar

7.09x

−15%

Apr

7.16x

+1%

The trend read

The system is working. New customers up 18% in April (183 → 184 → 218). Total orders recovered to 433. MER held above 7x throughout. Customer base is genuinely stacking — that's the leading indicator for the 1,000 order goal.

Pace check: If new customers grew 18% per month from here (unlikely but possible), you'd hit 1,000 orders/month in roughly 7-9 months. More realistic: 12-15 months at 8-12% monthly growth. The phase tracker on the Tier Strategy tab shows the corresponding spend phases needed to support this.

Platform pixels vs Polar attribution i

How they actually work — at the pixel level

Two pixels live on our site

Meta Pixel fires when someone visits, adds to cart, or purchases. When a purchase fires, Meta checks: did this person click or view a Meta ad in the last 7 days (click) or 1 day (view)? If yes, Meta claims that conversion. Meta only sees its own touchpoints — it has no idea Google or email also touched that journey.

Polar Pixel also fires on the same events. But it tracks the full journey — every UTM, every referrer, every session before purchase. It sees: this customer touched Meta on day 1, Google on day 4, email on day 6, then bought. Polar splits credit across all touchpoints (linear by default — equal share each).

The double-counting problem

For one shared customer journey:

Meta pixel says: "I saw the click 6 days ago — 100% mine"
Google pixel says: "I saw the click 2 days ago — 100% mine"
Klaviyo says: "Email opened yesterday — 100% mine"
Polar says: "All three touched it — 33% each"

Add up all the platforms and you get 300% attribution. Polar adds up to 100%. That's the gap.

Why Meta's gap is bigger than Google's

Meta counts view-through (someone saw the ad, didn't click, bought later anyway) — inflates a lot. Has 7-day click + 1-day view window — wide net.

Google is click-only by default — much tighter attribution.

That's why our Meta gap is around 5x (5.15x platform vs 1.02x Polar) but Google gap is only 1.5x (3.64x platform vs 2.41x Polar).

What this means in practice

Platform numbers: useful for comparing campaigns within a channel (which Meta ad beats which).
Polar numbers: useful for comparing across channels and seeing fair contribution.
Neither is "the truth" — they answer different questions.
For business-level "is Meta worth it?" — look at blended MER + Polar, not platform ROAS alone.

The UTM dependency

Polar's accuracy depends on UTMs being clean on every link. If UTMs are missing or broken, Polar can't see "Meta touched this journey" — credit gets lost in "unknown" buckets.

April had a 53% UTM failure rate — so Polar numbers under-counted Meta this month. UTMs are now fixed → May will be the first clean attribution month.

Meta — top of funnel deep-dive i

Meta reach (impressions) — month over month

6x growth in 2 months. The awareness engine is genuinely scaling.

Feb

34K

—

Mar

86K

+153%

Apr

218K

+155%

Meta clicks — month over month

7x growth. People are responding to the creative.

Feb

388

—

Mar

1,179

+204%

Apr

2,786

+136%

Meta awareness verdict

Meta is doing its top-of-funnel job. Reach grew 6x in 2 months. Clicks grew 7x. New customers grew 18% in April when Meta spend nearly tripled. CPM (42) and CTR (1.02%) both in healthy range. The creative is working at scale — the audience is responding.

One signal not yet showing up: branded search lift. GA4 brand sessions actually dipped slightly in April (3,946 → 3,294) despite Meta scaling. This usually takes 2-3 months to materialise — branded search is a lagging indicator. Worth watching closely in May/June. If Meta is genuinely creating brand demand, branded sessions should climb noticeably by July.

What this means for Meta strategy: Don't optimise Meta on first-purchase ROAS. Optimise on: (1) impressions to qualified audiences, (2) CTR (creative quality signal), (3) new visitor count to the site, (4) downstream branded search volume.

Meta campaigns — judged on awareness metrics

Campaign	Type	Spend	Reach (Impr.)i	CPMi	CTRi	Clicksi	Platform ROASi	Polar ROASi
ag \| march \| conversions \| asc+	Advantage+ awareness	3,055	83K	37	0.79%	830	6.80x	0.77x
ag \| march \| conversions \| daba	Prospecting	4,324	109K	40	1.11%	1,531	4.13x	1.24x
ag \| march \| retargeting \| dpa	Retargeting	1,775	27K	66	1.35%	425	4.78x	1.08x
Meta total		9,153	218K	42	1.02%	2,786	5.15x	1.02x

Meta campaign read — through the awareness lens

DABA prospecting is the awareness workhorse. Largest reach (109K impressions), best CTR (1.11%), most clicks (1,531). Lowest CPM at 40 — meaning it's the most efficient at putting your brands in front of people. The Polar ROAS (1.24x) is also the highest of the three, suggesting it's *also* doing some incremental conversion work. Clear keep-and-scale.

ASC+ is the puzzle. Highest platform ROAS (6.80x) but worst Polar ROAS (0.77x), and middling reach (83K). Meta's algorithm is finding low-hanging-fruit conversions but most are people who'd have bought anyway (existing customers, branded search overlap). Through the awareness lens, ASC+ isn't pulling its weight on reach either. Worth a 2-week paused test — watch Meta's contribution to total revenue and total reach. If neither drops materially, redirect that budget to DABA scaling.

Retargeting (DPA) doing its specialist job. Smaller reach by design (warm audience), highest CTR (1.35%), reasonable Polar ROAS (1.08x). Don't grow it beyond ~20% of Meta budget — retargeting at scale just pays to reach the same people repeatedly.

Google — mid funnel deep-dive i

Google campaigns — platform and Polar side by side

Campaign	Type	Region	Spend	Conv.	Platform ROAS	Polar ROAS	Gapi	Read
ad-lab \| pmax \| ae \| prospecting \| troas 3.5x	PMax prospecting	AE	8,203	71	4.03x	2.69x	1.5x	✅ workhorse
ad lab \| pmax fo \| ae \| non-performers \| troas 3x	PMax catalog	AE	5,530	40	3.35x	2.22x	1.5x	⚠️ marginal
ad-lab \| pmax \| sa/ae \| remarketing \| mcv	PMax remarketing	SA + AE	5,196	31	2.84x	1.92x	1.5x	✗ weak
ad-lab \| search \| brand \| sa/ae \| max conv	Brand search	SA + AE	2,013	24	4.69x	2.76x	1.7x	✅ defends demand
ad-lab \| pmax \| sa/ae \| competitor \| mcv	Competitor PMax	SA + AE	1,176	3	0.84x	0.54x	1.6x	✗ losing money
ad-lab \| pmax \| sa \| prospecting \| troas 6x	PMax prospecting	SA only	361	10	14.06x	5.78x	2.4x	⭐ scale this
Google total			22,479	178	3.64x	2.41x	1.5x

Google read — both lenses agree

Saudi Arabia prospecting is exceptional on both lenses (5.78x Polar, 14.06x platform). Scale recommendation: 361 → 700 → 1,400 → 2,500 month-on-month, watching ROAS hold.

Competitor PMax fails on both. Pause it. The 1,176 AED redirected to SA prospecting would deliver ~5 more incremental orders.

Brand search is the bridge between Meta and revenue. 2.76x Polar is fine — and the brand search volume is what we'll watch climbing as Meta's awareness work matures. If brand sessions on the trend chart above start climbing in May/June, that's Meta paying off through Google.

Remarketing PMax weakest active. Worth a paused test similar to Meta ASC+ — does total revenue drop if you turn it off?

Klaviyo — bottom of funnel deep-dive i

Klaviyo is live

Klaviyo is now live in Polar. Direct flow attribution drove 127 orders / 62.7K AED in April from just 2 of 7 flows live (Welcome + Abandoned Cart). RPS of 31 AED/send is exceptional vs industry benchmark of 2-5. Full breakdown including the 3-month trend, flow vs campaign split, and tier-aware Klaviyo strategy is on the dedicated Klaviyo tab. Estimated +125-205 incremental orders/mo at zero ad spend once all 7 flows + a campaign cadence are built.

The blended verdict — what your boss should care about

The actual scoreboard

MER 7.16x. New customers up 18% in April. Reach grew 6x in 2 months. The system is working.

The temptation when looking at channel-level data is to optimise each piece individually — push Meta ROAS higher, demand Google ROAS justify spend, ask Klaviyo to "prove" it. That breaks the funnel. Meta's job is to feed Google and Klaviyo. Holding it to 3x first-purchase ROAS would mean cutting the awareness work that makes everything else profitable.

What to watch month-over-month:
1. Blended MER — if it stays above 5x, the funnel is profitable
2. New customer count — if it grows 8-12% per month, we hit 1,000 orders in 12-15 months
3. Meta reach + branded search lift — paired signals that Meta's awareness work is creating downstream demand
4. Klaviyo repeat rate — once flows ship, this should drive retention compounding

What NOT to optimise on: individual channel ROAS in isolation. Each campaign has a job, and judging it on the wrong metric will lead to bad decisions.

Recommended actions for May

Scale (high confidence): Google SA prospecting from 361 → 700 AED.

Pause (high confidence): Google competitor PMax. Redirect budget to SA prospecting.

Test pausing (2-week experiment): Meta ASC+. Watch what happens to total Meta reach, total revenue, and branded search volume. If they hold, ASC+ wasn't doing real work. If they drop, ASC+ was doing awareness work that didn't show in either ROAS column.

Don't touch: Meta DABA prospecting (the awareness workhorse), Google AE PMax workhorse, Google brand search.

Build: Klaviyo flows — biggest unblocked lever in the entire plan. Briefs to be drafted next.

Monitor: UTM tagging audit mid-May (you mentioned all UTMs now fixed — full April-vs-May comparison will validate). Branded search trend in GA4 — should start climbing if Meta is creating real demand.

3-month trend in Polar ↗ Meta campaigns in Polar ↗ Google campaigns in Polar ↗

How to read the Klaviyo tab — what we're tracking and why

Klaviyo's role in the funnel

Klaviyo is the bottom of the funnel — demand compounding. Once Meta brings someone in and Google or another channel converts them, Klaviyo's job is to bring them back, sell them more, and keep them buying. Pure-margin retention revenue at zero ad spend.

What "good" looks like

Flow performance: automated emails triggered by behaviour (Welcome, Abandoned Cart, Replenishment, etc.). The strongest leverage point — they run forever once built. Industry benchmark for supplements: 25-35% of total Klaviyo revenue from flows.

Campaign performance: manual broadcast emails to segments (newsletter, promo, product launch). Lower per-email value but useful for category education and seasonal pushes. Industry benchmark: 30-40% of total Klaviyo revenue from campaigns.

List growth: new subscribers per month. Should compound with Meta awareness work — more eyeballs on site = more signup form fills.

Two attribution notes

Polar shows 436 Klaviyo-attributed orders in April vs 433 total Shopify orders. Klaviyo over-attributes slightly because it counts any order from a customer who opened/clicked an email in the past 5 days. Treat Klaviyo numbers as directional — they're useful for trend, not exact.

Flow-by-flow breakdown isn't available in Polar's data feed yet — we show aggregated flow performance here. For per-flow detail (Welcome vs Abandoned Cart vs Browse Abandonment), pull directly from Klaviyo dashboard.

April headline — direct flow attribution

A note on what these numbers represent

We're showing flow attribution as the headline because it's the cleanest read on what Klaviyo actually drove. Flows fire on specific behaviour (signup, abandoned cart) so the attribution is tight by design. Polar's broader Klaviyo total (228K) over-attributes by including any order from someone who opened an email in the past 5 days — even if other channels actually drove the purchase. We've kept that number visible at the bottom of this section as a reference, but treat the flow numbers as the real scoreboard.

Flow orders i

127

29% of all orders

Flow revenue i

62.7K

28% of total revenue

Flow RPS i

31.0

AED per send · industry 2-5

New subscribers i

201

+83% vs March

Flow sends i

2,021

low — 2 flows live

Reference: the three different Klaviyo attribution reads

Three numbers, three definitions

Klaviyo attribution is genuinely complicated. Different stakeholders care about different things, so here are all three readings with their caveats:

Reading	Orders	Revenue	What it means
Flow attribution (headline above)	127	62.7K	Orders driven by automated flows. Cleanest read on direct contribution.
Klaviyo "total" attribution	436	228K	Anyone who opened/clicked email in past 5 days. Over-attributed — includes people who would've bought anyway.
Polar pixel-paid (linear)	12	6.1K	De-duplicated linear share. Currently artificially low because UTM tagging only fixed late-April — under-counts.

Use flow attribution as the primary scoreboard. The other two numbers are useful for context: Klaviyo total shows the upper bound of email's involvement, Polar pixel-paid (once UTMs are clean) will show the de-duplicated cross-channel share.

Are Klaviyo flows scaling?

Flow orders — month over month

3x growth Mar → Apr. Current 2 flows are working hard. Imagine when 7 are live.

Feb

no data

Mar

—

Apr

127

+210%

Flow revenue — month over month

3.5x growth in one month. Tracks subscriber growth + flow optimisation.

Feb

no data

Mar

18.1K

—

Apr

62.7K

+247%

New subscribers — month over month

8x growth Feb → Apr. List is compounding alongside Meta awareness work.

Feb

—

Mar

110

+340%

Apr

201

+83%

*Feb shows zero because Polar→Klaviyo connection wasn't active yet. Real Feb performance unknown.

Flow vs Campaign breakdown i

Type	Sendsi	Ordersi	Revenue	RPSi	% of total store revenuei
Flows (automated)	2,021	127	62,651	31.0	28%
Campaigns (broadcast)	0	0	0	—	0%
Direct Klaviyo total (Apr)	2,021	127	62,651	31.0	28%

Flow vs Campaign read

Flow RPS of 31 AED/send is exceptional. Industry benchmark is 2-5 AED/send. Either the 2 flows that are live are extremely well-targeted (Welcome to high-intent signups, Abandoned Cart to high-intent shoppers), or low send volume is concentrating high-quality recipients. Likely both.

Zero campaigns is the obvious gap. Even 1-2 newsletter/educational campaigns per week to the full subscriber base would significantly grow the Klaviyo contribution. Conservative estimate at industry-standard RPS: 4,000 subscribers × 1 send/week × 0.50 AED RPS = 8,000 AED/month additional revenue at minimum, likely 15-25K once segmentation kicks in.

Flows alone are driving 28% of total store revenue — that's a meaningful contribution from just 2 of 7 flows. Once the agency builds the remaining 5, this share should climb to 40-50%.

What's built vs what's not

Welcome series

Live · catching new subscribers

Live

Abandoned cart

Live · recovering checkouts

Live

Post-purchase education

Brand-specific, drives repeat

+20-30 orders/mo

Replenishment (30/60/90)

Biggest single retention lever

+40-60 orders/mo

Browse abandonment

Catches viewed-not-bought

+15-25 orders/mo

Winback (60/90/120 day)

Re-engage lapsed customers

+15-25 orders/mo

VIP / loyalty tier

Reward repeat behaviour

+20-40 orders/mo

Newsletter / broadcast campaigns

Educational + promo to full list

+15-25 orders/mo

Total Klaviyo opportunity

+125-205 incremental orders/month at zero ad spend if all flows + a basic campaign cadence are built. That's the difference between Phase 0 and Phase 1 spend levels delivered through retention rather than acquisition. Highest leverage work in the entire growth plan.

For the new Klaviyo agency i

Recommended agency briefing structure

Baseline they're starting from (April 2026):
• Flow revenue: 62.7K AED/month from 2 flows
• Flow RPS: 31 AED/send (very strong baseline)
• Subscriber list: ~4,000 (estimated, confirm in Klaviyo)
• Campaign sends: 0

Priority 1 build order (highest impact first):
1. Replenishment flow (30/60/90 day cycles) — biggest single lever. Supplements have natural reorder cycles, so this is mostly free money. Build per-product or per-category with realistic depletion windows.
2. Newsletter/broadcast cadence — start with 1 send/week to full list. Low effort, immediate revenue.
3. Post-purchase education — drives second purchase by reinforcing protocol. Brand-specific (BIOptimizers gets a different sequence than ProHealth).
4. Browse abandonment — catches high-intent traffic that didn't add to cart.
5. Winback — re-engage 60/90/120-day lapsed.
6. VIP/loyalty — last because it requires segmentation work first.

Targets to set with the agency:
• Month 1 (build phase): replenishment + newsletter live, 80K AED flow revenue
• Month 3: 4 of 7 flows live, 110K AED flow revenue, campaign cadence established
• Month 6: all 7 flows live, 150-200K AED flow revenue, segmented campaign program

Reporting cadence: monthly review using this tab as the shared dashboard. Quarterly retainer review covering flow build progress, RPS trends, and list growth.

Tier-aware Klaviyo strategy i

Once flows are built, tier strategy informs which flows go to which brands:

Tier	Brands	Klaviyo treatment
T1	BIOptimizers, Designs for Health, BodyBio, Microbiome Labs, ProHealth, Equip	Brand-specific post-purchase + replenishment + dedicated newsletter sections
T2	Researched Nutritionals, Integrative Peptides ex-BPC, Designs for Sport	Shared post-purchase template + replenishment + occasional spotlight in newsletter
T3	Forus, Infiniwell, RnA ReSet, Oxford HealthSpan, Purasana	Replenishment only · no proactive promotion
HARVEST	Integrative Peptides BPC-157	Replenishment to existing customers only · no list-wide promotion (regulatory)
EXIT	Zinzino, Unbroken, Hinnao, others	No flows · no campaigns · liquidate inventory only

Klaviyo metrics in Polar ↗