B. Health · June 2026

Source: Polar Analytics · All amounts in AED

Report month

Table arrows compare to May: up · down · coloured by whether the move is good or bad (so falling spend, CAC and discount-code use show green). Hover any arrow for the May figure.

Revenue i

Gross sales i

16%

279,332

Net sales i

14%

230,719

Total sales i

13%

246,529

Deltas vs May 2026. All three revenue lines up 13-16% — a clear recovery month after May's dip, and on slightly lower ad spend.

The June story in one line

Revenue recovered hard — net sales up 14% (203K → 231K) while ad spend actually fell 5% (48.4K → 45.8K). MER jumped back from 4.50x to 5.39x. But the recovery was repeat-driven: repeat customers rose 14% (195 → 222) and repeat revenue rose 30%, while new customers fell again (193 → 175). The bottom of the funnel is now carrying the business while the top keeps shrinking. Detail below and on the Channel Deep-Dive tab.

Commercial

Net revenuei

230,719

14%vs May

Total ordersi

435

2%AOV 530 · vs May

Ad spendi

45,774

5%20% of revenue · vs May

MERi

5.39x

20%vs May's 4.50x

Blended CACi

262

4%vs May's 251

Acquisition

New customersi

175

9%40% of orders · vs May

Repeat customersi

222

14%60% of orders · vs May

Repeat ratei

57.8%

6.2ptvs May's 51.6%

LTV (30-day)i

pending

30-day window still filling

Days between ordersi

~104*

*provisional · see note

Traffic & conversion

Sessionsi

11,433

Ordersi

435

Conversion ratei

11%

3.12%

Traffic read — the structural pattern is intensifying

Sessions fell 9% (12,616 → 11,433) and unique visitors fell 21% (8,178 → 6,433) — the top of the funnel keeps shrinking. But conversion rate rose again to 3.12% (from 2.80%), so the fewer visitors who arrive convert better than ever. This is the same pattern we've been flagging for months, now sharper: a starving top of funnel, compensated by an increasingly efficient bottom. Revenue grew this month despite less traffic — which is impressive, but not durable. Eventually the shrinking visitor count caps how far repeat purchasing can carry the business.

Platform vs Polari

Meta (Paid Social) 11%

17,278 AED · CPM 59 · CTR 1.08% · spend down vs May

Purchases

150

Conversion value

83,815

18,412

ROAS

4.85x

1.14x

CPA

115

455

Google (Paid Search) 2%

28,497 AED · 161 conv · CPA 177 · spend flat vs May

Conversions

161

148

Conversion value

79,694

76,071

ROAS

2.80x

2.85x

CPA

177

193

Reading the gap — June

Google's Polar and platform numbers sit almost on top of each other again (2.80x platform vs 2.85x Full Impact) — clean, honest attribution, and both roughly flat vs May. Meta's gap stayed wide and is the story of the month: platform ROAS jumped to 4.85x (from 3.19x) and Meta claims 150 purchases, but Full Impact credits Meta only 38 orders / 18.4K / 1.14x. The platform read got prettier while the incremental read barely moved. That divergence is exactly what Full Impact is built to expose — Meta claiming credit for orders from customers who'd have bought anyway. See the campaign-level breakdown on the Channel Deep-Dive tab for where that credit is coming from.

All channels — Polar attributioni

Channeli	Spendi	Ordersi	New cust.i	Revenuei	CPAi	ROASi
Google (Paid Search)	28,497	148	73	76,071	193	2.85x
Meta (Paid Social)	17,278	38	15	18,412	455	1.14x
Klaviyo (Email/SMS)	—	26	3	11,932	—	—
Direct / Organic / Other	—	210	78	115,826	—	—

Channel attribution read — June

Direct/Organic is now the largest single block — 210 orders / 116K / 78 new customers under Full Impact. That's the signature of a repeat-heavy month: a lot of revenue arriving without a paid touchpoint. Google remains the paid workhorse — 148 orders / 76K / 73 new / 2.85x, doing the real acquisition lifting. Meta stays small and expensive incrementally — 38 orders / 18.4K / 1.14x / 455 CPA, on 38% of paid spend but delivering only 15 new customers. The Email/SMS row (26 orders / 11.9K) is the channel-attributed slice; the fuller retention read — direct flow + campaign attribution of 126 orders / 65.9K — is on the Klaviyo tab. Reminder: this table uses Full Impact, so it isn't directly comparable to May's linear-attributed channel table.

Top products by revenue — June i

#i	Producti	Ordersi	New cust.i	New %i	AOVi	Revenuei	% of totali
1	Magnesium Breakthrough	63	20	32%	277	17,444 +31%	7.6%
2	Gut Feeling™	13	7	54%	865	11,245 +55%	4.9%
3	MegaSporeBiotic®	26	9	35%	433	10,737 +29%	4.7%
4	Prime Protein Beef Isolate	21	7	33%	573	9,451 −29%	4.1%
5	BPC-157 PURE™ Delayed Release	11	5	45%	776	8,537 +19%	3.7%
6	Prime Protein Bar	20	7	35%	383	7,226	3.1%
7	Liquid PC (Phosphatidylcholine)	15	8	53%	428	6,419 −9%	2.8%
8	PC Phospholipid Complex	14	5	36%	404	5,654	2.5%
9	ATP 360®	9	4	44%	513	4,614	2.0%
10	Digestzymes™	13	4	31%	344	4,476	1.9%
11	Butyrate (Sodium)	27	9	33%	155	4,187 0%	1.8%
12	MegaIgG2000 Capsules	11	5	45%	328	3,605	1.6%
Top 12 subtotal						93,596 +6%	40.6%
Long tail (remaining SKUs)						137,123 +20%	59.4%

Retention i

Repeat customer ratei

57.8%

up from 51.6% in May

Repeat sales ratei

58.7%

majority of revenue

Repeat customersi

222

vs 175 new · +14%

Repeat revenuei

144,763

+30% vs May

LTV (30-day)i

pending

window still filling

3-month trend

Month	New cust.	Repeat cust.	Repeat %	Repeat sales %	Repeat revenue	LTV	Days between
April	218	190	47.9%	51.4%	116,484	591	78
May	193	195	51.6%	55.2%	111,724	544	74
June	175	222	57.8%	58.7%	144,763	pending*	~104*

Retention read — carrying the business

June is the strongest retention month in the dataset. Repeat customer rate hit 57.8% (vs 25-35% supplement benchmark), repeat sales rate 58.7%, and repeat revenue jumped 30% to 144.8K. Repeat customers grew to 222 (from 195). The retention engine isn't just healthy — it single-handedly turned a shrinking-traffic month into a +14% revenue month.

The three-month arc is clear: repeat rate 47.9% → 51.6% → 57.8%, climbing every month, while new customers step down 218 → 193 → 175. The business is getting more from fewer people. That's great for margin and MER today, and it's the reason revenue held up — but it's also the risk: a retention-led business still needs a functioning top of funnel to refill the base it's harvesting.

*Two metrics are provisional this month. LTV (30-day) and days-between-orders both depend on a forward window that hasn't finished filling — we're only two days past month-end, so June buyers' 30-day windows run well into July. The raw feed reads a long days-between (~104) and an inflated LTV, but neither is trustworthy yet. We'll have clean readings once the window closes; treat them as pending rather than as a real jump.

The strategic move is unchanged and now more urgent. The single highest-leverage work remains the missing Klaviyo flows — replenishment, post-purchase education, browse abandonment, winback, VIP. With the base compounding this fast, a replenishment flow in particular is close to free money. Estimated +110-180 incremental orders/month at zero ad spend. Building these deepens exactly the engine that's already winning, and buys time to fix the top of funnel.

Discount code performance i

Orders with codei

20% of orders

Revenue from codedi

38,265

17% of revenue

Organic (no code)i

350

80% of orders

Organic revenuei

192,454

83% of revenue

Top codei

HEALTH15

36 orders · 27 new

Promo discipline improved again

83% of B. Health revenue came from full-price organic orders in June — only 17% ran through discount codes, healthier still than May (26%). Promo dependency has fallen three months running. Pricing power is real and the revenue recovery this month was NOT bought with discounts — it was full-price repeat demand. This is one of the cleanest strengths in the business.

Discount code breakdown

Codei	Typei	Orders	New cust.	Revenue	AOV
HEALTH15	General promo	36	27	16,323	453
BODYBIO20	Brand-specific (T1)	7	3	3,817	545
ACCART10	Abandoned cart flow	4	2	2,494	623
WELCOME15	Welcome / first-purchase	6	3	2,191	365
WELCOME10	Welcome / first-purchase	2	1	2,017	1,008
RAGEENA10	Influencer / partner	1	1	1,906	1,906
ORIGIN	Partner	5	1	1,679	336
HEALTH20	General (legacy)	4	4	1,240	310
Mennat	Influencer / partner	3	1	1,057	352
BIOPTIMIZERS20	Brand-specific (T1)	2	1	605	302
Other codes (10+)	Mixed	15	4	4,936	329
All discount codes		85 −19%	48	38,265 −26%	450
Organic (no code)		350 +9%	127	192,454 +28%	550

Discount code read

HEALTH15 stays the discount workhorse — 36 orders, 16.3K, 27 new customers (75% new). It's doing the bulk of code-driven acquisition on its own, and the 15% level is holding volume fine. HEALTH20 (the legacy 20% code) still trickles in — 4 orders, all new — worth fully retiring so everything routes through HEALTH15.

Brand-specific codes stay tier-aligned. BODYBIO20 and BIOPTIMIZERS20 (both Tier 1) keep driving brand trial — fitting given BodyBio's strong month. Still no codes visible for Designs for Health, Microbiome Labs, Equip, or ProHealth — the same easy gap to close, and now more worth it since three of those (Design Health, Microbiome, Equip) are climbing toward their targets.

The influencer/partner spread remains unmanaged. A dozen-plus individual-named codes (RAGEENA10, Mennat, ORIGIN, CoachJoyous, DRELIE10, NELLA20 and others) scattered across small volumes with no payout tracking or performance threshold. Same recommendation as prior months: decide whether B. Health wants its own affiliate platform, because the partner activity is happening regardless — it's just untracked.

The promo picture is genuinely healthy. 83% organic, promo dependency down three months running, volume held. Nothing to fix here — just keep HEALTH15 as the single general lever and tidy up the legacy/partner code sprawl.

The summary

Strong recovery month: 247K total revenue (231K net), 5.39x MER, spend down 5%. The catch is the split — repeat customers (+14%) and repeat revenue (+30%) did all the work while new customers fell again (−9%) and traffic kept shrinking. Google attribution clean; Meta's platform ROAS looks great (4.85x) but Full Impact says 1.14x, and it drove only 15 new customers. Retention is winning; acquisition still needs fixing.

Headline KPIs in Polar ↗

Table arrows compare to May: up · down · coloured by whether the move is good or bad (so falling spend, CAC and discount-code use show green). Hover any arrow for the May figure.

North star · 1,000 monthly orders

435 of 1,000 orders · 44% there

Today: 175 new + 260 repeat ordersGap: +565 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

46K

monthly spend

Active. June: 45.8K (Google 28.5K + Meta 17.3K). Doc baseline 37K.

Phase 1

53K

monthly spend

Trigger: 3 of 6 Tier 1 brands within 15% of 40K target. Now 2 of 6 — one away.

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 — closest we've been

Stay in Phase 0, but June is the strongest Tier 1 month yet and the Phase 1 trigger is nearly live. Two of six Tier 1 brands are now within 15% of their 40K target — BodyBio (90%) and Design Health (89%) — the first time any brand has crossed the 85% line. The trigger needs three. BIOptimizers (67%) and Microbiome Labs (65%) are the next closest. If one of those clears 85% next month while BodyBio and Design Health hold, Phase 1 unlocks. Don't pre-empt it — but flag to the agency that a genuine spend-increase decision is now within reach, conditional on the numbers, not the ambition.

Tier 1 SCALE — brand targets i

Brandi	June 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.BodyBio	35,928 +65%	40,000	90%	106	40	38%	341
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.Design Health	35,588 +197%	40,000	89%	103	35	34%	358
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month. Lead Meta + Google investment.BIOptimizers	26,616 −6%	40,000	67%	89	30	34%	299
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.Microbiome Labs	26,130 +40%	40,000	65%	71	28	39%	375
T1Tier 1 SCALE (promoted) — High equity, recovering sales. 30K target reflects larger gap.Equip (promoted)	18,183 +3%	30,000	61%	41	16	39%	517
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.ProHealth Longevity	11,224 +38%	40,000	28%	29	20	69%	404
Tier 1 subtotal	153,669 +44%	230,000	67%	439	169	38%	360

Tier 1 read — June

Tier 1 had its best month in the dataset — 67% of target (153.7K vs May's 107K). Two brands led it: BodyBio surged to the top (21.7K → 35.9K, now 90% of target) and Design Health fully recovered (12K → 35.6K, 89%).

The May Design Health red flag is resolved. Last month it dropped ~62% and I flagged it for investigation — was it a stock-out, a one-off April order, or a real decline? June answers it: the brand bounced right back to 35.6K, so May was a one-month blip, not a structural problem. Good to have that closed.

The middle of the tier is climbing too — Microbiome Labs (18.7K → 26.1K) and BIOptimizers (holding at 26.6K) both moved up, and ProHealth, while still the laggard at 28%, had the strongest acquisition signal of any Tier 1 brand (69% new customers). The only soft note: new-customer share across Tier 1 sits at 38% — the revenue growth was more repeat-weighted than acquisition-weighted, consistent with the store-wide pattern. But on the tier scoreboard, June is unambiguously the best month yet.

Tier 2 BUILD — brand targets i

Brandi	June 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	26,548 +7%	30,000	88%	69	28	41%	385
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Catalogue ex-BPC-157. Target 20K AED/month. BPC-157 ringfenced in HARVEST. June vendor total (incl BPC) was 27.0K — see note.Integrative Peptides (incl BPC)*	26,954* −12%	20,000	incl BPC*	29	15	52%	929
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Sports nutrition. Target 15K AED/month. Build phase.Designs for Sport	4,602 −21%	15,000	31%	17	10	59%	271
Tier 2 subtotal*	58,104* −5%	65,000	see note	115	53	46%	505

Tier 2 read — June (with the usual data caveat)

Researched Nutritionals is knocking on the door — 26.5K, 88% of its 30K target, up again from May's 83%, with a healthy 41% new-customer rate. It's now consistently near target and worth watching for a Tier 1 promotion conversation at the next quarterly review. Designs for Sport stays small (4.6K) but keeps the best acquisition signal (59% new).

*Same caveat on Integrative Peptides as every month: Polar reports it as a single vendor at 27.0K, but the tier system splits it — the ex-BPC catalogue sits in Tier 2 (20K target) while BPC-157 itself is ringfenced in HARVEST (regulatory risk on Meta). The 27.0K shown here includes BPC, so the true Tier 2 ex-BPC figure is lower. This still needs a product-level tag or SKU exclusion rule in Shopify to report cleanly — it's been outstanding for a few months now and would take one afternoon to set up.

Tier 3 MAINTAIN, HARVEST & EXIT i

Brandi	June 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	2,010 −81%	10,000	4	Well below target — see note
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Legacy mineral users. Maintain.RnA ReSet	3,373 +123%	3,000	23	Above target
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Stable customer base, no investment.Infiniwell	1,375 −49%	8,000	3	Below target this month
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Amazon AE organic traffic source. Maintain.Purasana	1,339 −58%	3,000	11	Below target · Amazon AE organic
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Low volume, premium niche. Maintain.Oxford HealthSpan	757 −66%	5,000	2	Maintain · low volume
EXITTier 4 EXIT — Liquidate to recover working capital. Wind down inventory, no reorders.Unbroken, Hinnao, Zinzino, Tonik, Nutrined	~6,700	Liquidate	~20	Wind down · recover working capital
NEWMoleqlar (untiered)	751	—	4	New vendor · needs tiering

Tier 3 / EXIT read — June

Forus dropped sharply — 10.3K in May to 2.0K in June (4 orders). The own-brand normally pays its own way at ~10K; this is a big one-month fall worth a direct check (stock availability on the B. Health listings? A May bulk order that didn't repeat?). Forus's own siloed dashboard will show whether this is a B. Health-channel issue or brand-wide. RnA ReSet ran above target (3.4K vs 3K) on good volume. EXIT brands continue winding down (~6.7K combined) as planned. Moleqlar appeared as a small new vendor (751) and needs a tier at the next quarterly review. Note last month's new vendor STEMREGEN didn't repeat at volume this month — worth confirming it wasn't a one-off listing.

Klaviyo flow opportunity

The flow-build opportunity (5 unbuilt flows, +110-180 incremental orders/mo at zero ad spend) lives on the dedicated Klaviyo tab — including the build-priority order and per-flow estimates. With repeat revenue compounding this fast, it's more valuable than ever, and a replenishment flow especially would deepen exactly the engine that carried June.

Strategy read — June

The summary

44% of the way to the 1,000-order north star (435 of 1,000). Tier 1 had its best month yet at 67% of target (153.7K vs 230K monthly) — up sharply from May's 46% — led by BodyBio and Design Health, both now within 15% of their 40K targets. That puts the Phase 1 spend trigger one brand away (2 of 6 vs the 3 needed). Hold Phase 0 for now, but a real, conditional spend-increase decision is finally on the horizon. The highest-leverage work is still the unbuilt Klaviyo flows — and after a month where repeat purchasing did all the heavy lifting, doubling down on retention infrastructure is the safe, compounding bet.

Vendor breakdown in Polar ↗

Table arrows compare to May: up · down · coloured by whether the move is good or bad (so falling spend, CAC and discount-code use show green). Hover any arrow for the May figure.

July 2026 · Meta focus One job: find new customers.

★ Meta new customers · Full Impact

15→30+

Roughly double it — the number that answers "is Meta working."

★ Store-wide new customers

175→190+

Reverse the three-month slide — first up-month in four.

Meta budget

~17K

Held flat — same money, prove it finds new people.

Platform ROAS

4.85x

Expected to fall — not the scoreboard this month.

Full mandate & how it's judged ↓

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 should show 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. But the awareness thesis only holds if the downstream signals actually move — new visitors, branded search, list growth. When Meta spends and those signals fall, it's not awareness investment, it's waste. That two-gate test is the core of how we judge Meta.

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

Meta’s role in the funnel

Top of funnel · June 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.

Spend17,278

Impressions292K

CTR1.08%

Platform ROAS4.85x

Full Impact ROAS1.14x

Blended business view · June 2026

The actual scoreboard

If MER stays healthy and the customer base grows month-over-month, the system is working — regardless of any single channel's ROAS. This month MER recovered strongly, but the growth was repeat-driven while new customers fell — so the system is half-working.

MER5.39x

Total revenue247K

New customers175

Repeat customers+14%

Are we growing the customer base? i

New customers — month over month

Fell for a third straight month — the top-of-funnel problem the recovery is masking.

Apr

218

—

May

193

−11%

Jun

175

−9%

Total orders — month over month

Nudged to a new high, but essentially flat at ~430 for four months. Path to 1,000 needs growth we're not yet seeing.

Apr

433

—

May

427

−1%

Jun

435

+2%

MER — month over month

Recovered strongly in June as spend fell and repeat revenue climbed.

Apr

7.16x

—

May

4.50x

−37%

Jun

5.39x

+20%

The trend read — June

MER recovered but the customer base still isn't growing. Revenue and MER bounced back nicely (+14% and +20%), and total orders ticked to a new high of 435. But look at what's underneath: new customers fell for the third straight month (218 → 193 → 175), while repeat customers carried the load (+14%). The recovery is real, but it's a retention recovery, not an acquisition one.

The good news: the retention engine is exceptional and compounding — repeat rate is now 57.8% and repeat revenue jumped 30%. Falling spend against rising revenue is exactly the efficiency we wanted after May's overspend.

The watch-out: a business can only harvest its existing base for so long. Orders have been flat at ~400-435 for four months because every gain in repeat purchasing is being offset by a shrinking pool of new customers. Getting to 1,000 orders needs the top of the funnel to grow, and right now it's doing the opposite — visitors fell 21% this month. Fixing acquisition (better Meta creative/targeting, not more spend) and building the Klaviyo flows are both still the priorities.

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 then splits credit across all touchpoints.

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 — split the credit by real contribution"

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

Why we use Full Impact

From June, the Polar column uses Full Impact — Shapley-value attribution that weights each channel by its marginal contribution (what actually changes when the channel is present vs absent from a journey). This is the model that correctly discounts a channel claiming credit for orders that would have happened anyway. It's especially important for Meta in a retention-heavy business: when Meta "converts" a loyal customer who was going to buy regardless, Full Impact gives it little credit, while the Meta pixel gives it full credit.

Why Meta's gap is bigger than Google's

Meta counts view-through (someone saw the ad, didn't click, bought later anyway) and has a wide 7-day click + 1-day view window — a big net that scoops up conversions it didn't cause. Google is click-only by default — much tighter.

That's why in June our Meta gap is large — 4.85x platform vs 1.14x Full Impact — while Google's is tiny — 2.80x platform vs 2.85x Full Impact (they essentially agree).

What this means in practice

Platform numbers: useful for comparing campaigns within a channel (which Meta ad beats which).
Full Impact 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 + Full Impact + whether new customers actually grew, not platform ROAS alone.

Meta — top of funnel deep-dive i

Meta reach (impressions) — month over month

Held roughly flat as spend eased — reach didn't fall much even though spend came down.

Apr

218K

—

May

305K

+40%

Jun

292K

−4%

Meta spend — month over month

Pulled back from May's peak — the right call after May's overspend, and reach barely moved.

Apr

9,154

—

May

19,380

+112%

Jun

17,278

−11%

Meta awareness verdict — June

Meta's platform numbers look great this month — its incremental numbers don't. Platform ROAS jumped to 4.85x (from 3.19x), CTR rose to 1.08%, CPA fell to 115. On Meta's own scoreboard, June was a strong month. But Full Impact tells the real story: 38 orders / 18.4K / 1.14x, and just 15 new customers from 17.3K of spend.

Applying the two-gate test: Gate 1 (Full Impact ROAS floor) — Meta blended is 1.14x, barely above breakeven, and only DABA clears comfortably. Gate 2 (store-level new-customer movement) — new customers fell again (193 → 175), and Meta contributed only 15 of them. Gate 2 fails. So despite the pretty platform numbers, Meta still isn't proving its awareness job: reach was flat-to-down, new customers fell, and the store-level lift Meta is supposed to create didn't show up.

The honest read: Meta's improved platform ROAS is mostly the pixel claiming credit for repeat/loyal purchases in a strong retention month — not new demand it created. The campaign table below shows exactly where. Keep Meta lean, concentrate on the one campaign that earns incremental orders (DABA), and judge the rest on whether they move new customers — not on platform ROAS.

Meta campaigns — June, platform vs Full Impact

Campaign	Type	Spendi	Platform purch.i	Full Impact ordersi	Full Impact revi	Full Impact ROASi
ag \| testing abo	Prospecting	9,672	84	16	6,738	0.75x
ag \| march \| conversions \| daba	Prospecting	3,499	42	13	6,972	2.12x
ag \| march \| retargeting \| dpa	Retargeting	2,197	11	1	767	0.37x
ag \| march \| conversions \| scaling cbo (new)	Prospecting test	1,909	13	3	1,295	0.73x
Meta total		17,278 −11%	150	38 −5%	18,412 +17%	1.14x +41%

Meta campaign read — the platform-vs-reality gap

"testing abo" is the story of the month — again, but inverted from May. In May it looked terrible on both scoreboards. In June it claims 84 platform purchases and a 5.07x platform ROAS — but Full Impact credits it just 16 orders / 6.7K / 0.75x. It still absorbed 9,672 (56% of Meta spend) and delivered only 7 new customers. The platform thinks it's the best campaign in the account; Shapley says it's under breakeven. This is the textbook loyal-customer-inflation case — the campaign is being served to warm audiences who convert regardless. It should be cut or rebuilt as genuine prospecting, not scaled on the strength of its platform number.

DABA is the one real workhorse — 2.12x Full Impact (up from 0.93x in May), the only Meta campaign clearly earning incremental orders. If Meta budget stays, it belongs here.

DPA retargeting (0.37x) is doing what retargeting does — reclaiming credit for people already going to buy. Low incremental value; keep small or pause. The new "scaling cbo" test (0.73x) is another prospecting attempt that isn't converting incrementally yet — watch closely, cut if it doesn't improve. Note ASC+ was pulled this month (only residual attribution remains) — the right move given its 0.30x in May.

Meta overall at 1.14x Full Impact is barely above breakeven and, more tellingly, drove only 15 new customers while store-wide new customers fell. Meta is not doing its demand-creation job right now — it's mostly harvesting existing demand at a worse rate than the platform pretends. Concentrate on DABA, cut testing abo's budget hard, and hold Meta lean until a campaign proves it can actually move new-customer count.

The blended verdict — what your boss should care about

The actual scoreboard — June

MER recovered to 5.39x. Revenue up 14%. Ad spend down 5%. On the blended scoreboard, June worked.

After May's overspend lesson, the discipline paid off: pulling Meta back didn't hurt revenue — revenue rose. The retention engine did the heavy lifting (repeat customers +14%, repeat revenue +30%, repeat rate 57.8%), and Klaviyo campaigns launching added a fresh, zero-cost revenue stream.

The one thing that stops this being a clean win: new customers fell for the third month running (218 → 193 → 175) and site visitors dropped 21%. The business is growing revenue by getting more from fewer people. That's great for margin today and it's why the month looks good — but it's borrowed time. The path to 1,000 orders runs through new-customer growth, and that number is still going the wrong way.

What to watch going into July:
1. New customer count — the single most important number. Three months of decline needs to stop. It won't come from more spend; it needs better Meta creative/targeting and a healthier top of funnel.
2. Site visitors — down 21% this month. If this keeps falling, repeat purchasing can't keep compensating forever.
3. The Phase 1 trigger — 2 of 6 Tier 1 brands now within 15% of target. One more clears it. Watch BIOptimizers and Microbiome Labs.
4. Meta's new-customer contribution — does cutting testing abo and concentrating on DABA improve new-customer count without hurting revenue?

July Meta mandate — top of funnel only i

The directive

July gives Meta one job: find new customers. The June puzzle — a 4.85x platform ROAS sitting on top of a 1.14x Full Impact reality — happens because the pixel keeps claiming credit for loyal, repeat buyers who'd have purchased anyway. The fix is to make that impossible: take the warm audience away and force Meta to prove it can create demand from cold traffic.

What changes for July:
1. Top of funnel only. Cold prospecting for the whole budget. No retargeting, no DPA — those ad sets go dark, since they exist to reclaim credit for people already on the way to buying.
2. Exclude every existing customer. Not just pixel purchasers — upload the full Shopify/Klaviyo customer list as an exclusion audience on top of the purchase event, or older customers leak back in as "new." The exclusion has to be complete or the test is contaminated.
3. Cold-education creative. Founder/authority and problem-solution angles that teach the methylation/gut/protocol story — not product ads. The brief has to match a cold audience or it tells us nothing.
4. Consolidate, don't fragment. Fewer, broader ad sets (or Advantage+ with the exclusions applied). At this budget, narrow interest stacks won't gather enough data to optimise.

Same money. Hold spend flat to June (~17K). The question isn't "does more spend work" — May already answered that. It's "can this channel find new people with the budget it already has."

July targets — judged on new customers, not platform ROAS

Metric	June actuali	July target	How it's judged
★ Meta new customers (Full Impact)i	15	30+	PRIMARY — roughly double it
★ Store-wide new customersi	175	190+	PRIMARY — first up-month in four
Meta cost per new customeri	~1,150	≤ 600	Guardrail — acquisition efficiency
Meta budgeti	17,278	~17,000	Constraint — same money
Meta Full Impact ROASi	1.14x	converge ↑	Secondary — should close the gap
Branded search (GA4 brand sessions)i	baseline	climbing	Secondary — awareness tell
Meta platform ROAS	4.85x	expected to fall	NOT judged on this

How July gets called — the two gates, restated for the test

The maths ties together on purpose: if Meta doubles its new-customer contribution (15 → 30) on flat spend and everything else holds, store-wide new customers land around 190 — the first monthly increase since March. That's the whole target in one line.

Expect platform ROAS to drop, and don't flinch. Cold prospecting ROAS is structurally lower than warm — that's true everywhere, and it's the price of the honest test. The August conversation cannot be "ROAS fell, let existing customers back in." It's agreed up front: platform ROAS is not the scoreboard.

The verdict at month-end:
• New customers move (Meta 30+, store-wide 190+) → the channel works cold. Keep it here and consider a measured scale.
• New customers don't move even with 100% cold budget and clean exclusions → Meta cannot create demand in this market at this spend, and the honest call is to shift that budget to Google brand and the Klaviyo flow build rather than keep funding a channel that only harvests.

One knock-on to hold in mind: with existing customers off Meta by design, repeat revenue now rides entirely on Klaviyo and Google brand. That makes the unbuilt flows — replenishment first — more important, not less, for the month the acquisition test is running.

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

Table arrows compare to May: up · down · coloured by whether the move is good or bad (so falling spend, CAC and discount-code use show green). Hover any arrow for the May figure.

How to read this tab — Google’s role

Google captures demand

Google is the mid funnel — demand capture. Some of it is people who saw the brand on Meta and now search it by name; the rest is already in the category (“methylated multivitamin”, “MTHFR supplement”). Google’s job is to be there for both and convert intent efficiently.

Why Google’s numbers are trustworthy

Google is click-only by default, so its platform ROAS and Polar’s all-channel Full Impact ROAS sit right on top of each other (2.80x vs 2.85x in June). Unlike Meta, there’s no big view-through gap to unpick — what Google reports is close to what it truly drove. So the platform ROAS on this tab is a fair number to judge on.

How we judge Google

Conversion efficiency (CPA, ROAS), the branded vs non-branded mix, and capture rate. Brand search should stay funded and efficient; prospecting is judged on whether it holds its target ROAS.

Google’s role in the funnel

Mid funnel · June 2026

Google · Demand capture

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

Spend28,497

Conversions161

CPA177

Platform ROAS2.80x

Google — mid funnel deep-dive i

Google campaigns — June (platform)

Campaign	Type	Region	Spend	Conv.	CPAi	Platform ROASi	Read
ad-lab \| pmax \| ae \| prospecting \| troas 3.5x	PMax prospecting	AE	10,026	55	181	3.19x	✅ workhorse
ad-lab \| pmax \| ae \| remarketing \| mcv	PMax remarketing	AE	8,215	45	184	2.31x	⚠️ marginal
ad lab \| pmax fo \| ae \| non-performers \| troas 3x	PMax catalog	AE	5,908	36	164	2.23x	⚠️ marginal
ad-lab \| search \| brand \| sa/ae \| max conv	Brand search	SA + AE	2,743	22	122	5.11x	⭐ strongest · now funded
ad-lab \| pmax \| sa \| prospecting \| troas 6x	PMax prospecting	SA only	1,022	1	767	0.26x	✗ collapsed — pause
ad-lab \| pmax ao \| nb \| ae/sa \| troas 3x	PMax (new)	AE + SA	366	0	—	0.19x	✗ near-zero — watch
ad lab \| pmax fo \| sa - new \| non-performers \| troas 3x	PMax catalog	SA	217	1	223	5.33x	✓ cut back as advised
Google total			28,497 0%	161 −5%	177 +3%	2.80x −3%

Google read — June

Google held steady — platform ROAS 2.80x on essentially flat spend (29K → 28.5K). Dependable as ever, and its Full Impact ROAS (2.85x) sits right on top of the platform number, so the attribution is clean and trustworthy.

The team acted on last month's recommendations — both landed:
• Brand search got funded. We flagged it as under-funded at 1,224 in May; it's now at 2,743 and still the most efficient campaign in the account (5.11x, 122 CPA). ROAS eased from 7.04x as expected when you scale a cheap campaign — that's fine, it's still the best money Google spends. Room to push further.
• The zero-conversion SA-new remarketing was cut. May's 1,556-for-zero problem is now down to 217 spend — resolved.

One campaign to pause now: SA prospecting (troas 6x) has fully collapsed — 14x back in April, 2.44x in May, now 0.26x (1 conversion from 1,022). It's dead; stop feeding it. The new "pmax ao" campaign (366 spend, 0 conversions) is tiny but also not working — watch or cut.

The AE prospecting workhorse stayed the biggest line (10K, 3.19x) and holds — that's still the healthiest home for the bulk of Google budget.

Note: per-campaign Full Impact ROAS not shown for June — platform numbers here. Full Polar breakdown available via the deep link below.

July — Google actions

What to do with Google in July

Push brand search further. It’s the most efficient thing Google does (5.11x, 122 CPA) and still has headroom now that it’s finally funded. Keep feeding it — it protects our own traffic and converts the demand Meta is being asked to create.

Pause what’s collapsed. SA prospecting (tROAS 6x) has gone 14x → 2.44x → 0.26x over three months — it’s dead, stop feeding it. The tiny new “pmax ao” line (366 spend, 0 conversions) is also not working; watch or cut.

Hold the workhorse. AE prospecting (tROAS 3.5x) stays the healthy home for the bulk of Google budget at 3.19x. No change.

Credit where due. Both May recommendations landed this month — brand search got funded (1,224 → 2,743) and the zero-conversion SA-new remarketing was cut back. Good, responsive execution.

Google campaigns in Polar ↗

Table arrows compare to May: up · down · coloured by whether the move is good or bad (so falling spend, CAC and discount-code use show green). Hover any arrow for the May figure.

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 June vs 435 total Shopify orders. Klaviyo over-attributes (it counts any order from a customer who opened/clicked an email in the past 5 days), so we treat the broad number as directional and use direct flow + campaign attribution as the real scoreboard. Numbers below are direct flow/campaign attribution unless stated.

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), pull directly from the Klaviyo dashboard.

June headline — direct flow & campaign attribution

What changed this month

June is the first month with broadcast campaigns live — the #2 recommendation from the agency brief. Campaigns added 33 orders / 15.8K at a healthy 0.57 AED/send, on top of the flows. Direct Klaviyo revenue rose to 65.9K (from 59.4K in May) even though flows themselves eased, because the new campaign layer more than covered the difference. And new subscribers recovered to 174 (from 133), so May's signup worry resolved on its own.

Direct orders i

126

29% of all orders

Direct revenue i

65.9K

29% of total revenue

Flow RPS i

33.5

AED per send · industry 2-5

New subscribers i

174

+31% vs May

Total sends i

29,131

flows + campaigns

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
Direct flow + campaign (headline above)	126	65.9K	Orders driven directly by flows and campaigns. Cleanest read on direct contribution.
Klaviyo "total" attribution	436	227K	Anyone who opened/clicked email in past 5 days. Over-attributed — includes people who would've bought anyway.
Full Impact (Email/SMS channel)	26	11.9K	De-duplicated Shapley share across all channels. The strict cross-channel floor — lower because it strips journeys other channels also touched.

Use direct flow + campaign attribution as the primary scoreboard. The other two bracket it: Klaviyo total shows the upper bound of email's involvement, Full Impact shows the strict de-duplicated cross-channel floor.

Are Klaviyo flows scaling?

Flow orders — month over month

Eased for a second month on the still-only-2 live flows — the flip side is campaigns now picking up the slack.

Apr

127

—

May

106

−17%

Jun

−12%

Flow revenue — month over month

Softened as flow orders eased — the two live flows are near their ceiling until more are built.

Apr

62.7K

—

May

59.4K

−5%

Jun

50.1K

−16%

New subscribers — month over month

Recovered in June after May's sharp drop — the signup-health worry has eased.

Apr

201

—

May

133

−34%

Jun

174

+31%

The flow softening is a build-capacity story, not a health story. Flow orders and revenue have eased two months running — but that's because only 2 of 7 flows are live and they've reached the natural ceiling of what Welcome + Abandoned Cart can carry as the list churns. RPS is still an exceptional 33.5. The fix isn't tuning the existing flows — it's building the missing five, which would open entirely new streams (replenishment especially). Meanwhile campaigns launching gives Klaviyo a second gear, and subscriber recovery (133 → 174) refills the top of the email funnel.

Flow vs Campaign breakdown i

Type	Sendsi	Ordersi	Revenue	RPSi	% of total store revenuei
Flows (automated)	1,498	93 −12%	50,115 −16%	33.5	22%
Campaigns (broadcast)	27,633	33 new	15,796 new	0.57	7%
Direct Klaviyo total (June)	29,131	126 +19%	65,911 +11%	2.26	29%

Flow vs Campaign read

Campaigns are live — the 0% is fixed. The broadcast layer we've been recommending for months went out in June: 33 orders / 15.8K from 27.6K sends, at 0.57 AED/send. That's squarely in the healthy campaign benchmark (0.50-1.50) for a first month with no segmentation yet — plenty of upside as targeting improves.

Flow RPS of 33.5 AED/send stays exceptional. Industry benchmark is 2-5. The 2 live flows (Welcome, Abandoned Cart) remain tightly targeted to high-intent recipients. The dip in flow revenue is a ceiling effect, not a quality one.

Klaviyo now drives 29% of total store revenue (22% flows + 7% campaigns) — a meaningful contribution from just 2 flows plus a fresh campaign cadence. Once the remaining 5 flows are built, this should climb toward 40-50%.

What's built vs what's not

Welcome series

Live · catching new subscribers

Live

Abandoned cart

Live · recovering checkouts

Live

Newsletter / broadcast campaigns

Live this month · 33 orders / 15.8K

Live

Replenishment (30/60/90)

Biggest single retention lever

+40-60 orders/mo

Post-purchase education

Brand-specific, drives repeat

+20-30 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

Total remaining Klaviyo opportunity

With campaigns now live, the remaining build is the 5 automated flows — +110-180 incremental orders/month at zero ad spend. Replenishment is the priority: supplements have natural reorder cycles, and with repeat rate at 57.8% the audience is primed for it. This is still the highest-leverage growth work in the entire plan, and June's retention-led month makes the case stronger than ever.

For the Klaviyo agency i

Where we are and what's next

Progress since onboarding — two of the first priorities are done:
• Welcome + Abandoned Cart flows: live, RPS 33.5 (exceptional)
• Broadcast campaign cadence: launched in June — 33 orders / 15.8K first month
• New subscribers: recovered to 174/month

Current baseline (June 2026):
• Direct Klaviyo revenue: 65.9K/month (50.1K flows + 15.8K campaigns)
• 29% of total store revenue
• 2 of 7 flows live

Priority build order from here (highest impact first):
1. Replenishment flow (30/60/90 day cycles) — the biggest remaining lever. Build per-product or per-category with realistic depletion windows. Highest priority.
2. Post-purchase education — drives second purchase by reinforcing protocol. Brand-specific (BIOptimizers gets a different sequence than ProHealth).
3. Browse abandonment — catches high-intent traffic that didn't add to cart. Especially valuable now that site traffic is tighter.
4. Winback — re-engage 60/90/120-day lapsed.
5. VIP/loyalty — last, because it requires segmentation work first.

Also: segment the campaign sends. The first month went broad (0.57 RPS). Layering in tier/behaviour segments should lift campaign RPS toward the 1.0-1.50 range.

Targets to hold the agency to:
• Next month: replenishment live, direct Klaviyo revenue 80K+
• Month 3: 4 of 7 flows live, 110K+ direct revenue, segmented campaigns
• Month 6: all 7 flows live, 150-200K direct revenue

Reporting cadence: monthly review using this tab as the shared dashboard.

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 ↗

Revenue i

Gross sales i

241,055

Net sales i

202,545

Total sales i

217,495

Deltas vs April 2026. All three revenue lines down ~4% — the soft month shows up consistently across gross, net and total.

The May story in one line

Ad spend jumped 53% (+16.7K) while revenue fell 4%. MER dropped from 7.16x to 4.50x. The cause is concentrated: Meta budget doubled — mostly into a new untested campaign that returned 0.39x Polar ROAS. The retention engine stayed healthy (repeat rate up, repeat sales up), but the acquisition engine got materially more expensive and less effective. Detail below and on the Channel Deep-Dive tab.

Commercial

Net revenuei

202,545

4%vs April

Total ordersi

427

1%AOV 474 · vs April

Ad spendi

48,371

53%24% of revenue · vs April

MERi

4.50x

37%vs April's 7.16x

Blended CACi

251

73%vs April's 145

Acquisition

New customersi

193

11%45% of orders · vs April

Repeat customersi

195

3%46% of orders · vs April

Repeat ratei

51.6%

3.7ptvs April's 47.9%

LTV (30-day)i

544

8%vs April's 591

Days between ordersi

4dvs 78 in April

Traffic & conversion

Sessionsi

12%

12,616

Ordersi

427

Conversion ratei

13%

2.80%

Traffic read

Sessions fell 12% (14,272 → 12,616) and unique visitors fell 14% (9,491 → 8,178) — less traffic reached the site in May, consistent with the softer new-customer numbers. But conversion rate actually rose 13% (2.48% → 2.80%), so the traffic that did arrive was higher-intent. The drop is a top-of-funnel volume problem (fewer visitors), not a site/conversion problem.

Platform vs Polari

Meta (Paid Social) 112%

19,380 AED · CPM 64 · CTR 0.92% · spend more than doubled vs April

Purchases

128

Conversion value

61,720

15,719

ROAS

3.19x

0.81x

CPA

151

480

Google (Paid Search) 29%

28,991 AED · 169 conv · CPA 172 · spend up vs April

Conversions

169

~165

Conversion value

84,074

~83,000

ROAS

2.90x

~2.85x

CPA

172

~176

Reading the gap — May

Google's numbers still nearly match Polar — clean attribution, and both came down vs April (3.62x → 2.90x platform) as spend scaled. Meta's gap stayed wide (3.19x platform vs 0.81x Polar): the doubled Meta spend produced a much lower Polar ROAS, confirming the extra budget didn't convert efficiently. Note Meta's platform ROAS itself fell from 5.15x (April) to 3.19x — even Meta's own generous numbers show the scaling hurt efficiency. Google Polar figures are approximate pending the campaign-level pull.

All channels — Polar attribution

Channeli	Spendi	Ordersi	New cust.i	Revenuei	CPAi	ROASi
Google (Paid Search)	28,991	156	81	88,603	186	3.06x
Meta (Paid Social)	19,380	40	14	15,719	480	0.81x
Klaviyo (flows)	—	43	7	27,576	—	—
Direct / Organic / Other	—	~188	~91	~70,000	—	—

Channel attribution read — May

Google remains the paid workhorse — 156 Polar orders / 88.6K revenue / 81 new customers, by far the largest paid contributor. Meta's contribution is small and expensive — 40 orders / 15.7K / 0.81x ROAS / 480 CPA, despite being 40% of paid spend. Klaviyo flows quietly drove 43 orders / 27.6K at zero ad cost. This first clean-attribution full month confirms the funnel imbalance: Meta spend doubled but its share of attributed orders stayed small. Non-paid (Direct/Organic) figures are approximate — a separate pull would itemise them.

Top products by revenue — May i

#i	Producti	Ordersi	New cust.i	New %i	AOVi	Revenuei	% of totali
1	Prime Protein Beef Isolate	33	21	64%	405	13,370	6.6%
2	Magnesium Breakthrough	48	11	23%	278	13,329	6.6%
3	MegaSporeBiotic®	21	6	29%	397	8,326	4.1%
4	Release	4	3	75%	1,995	7,980	3.9%
5	Gut Feeling™	6	—	—	1,213	7,276	3.6%
6	BPC-157 PURE™ Delayed Release	13	6	46%	554	7,198	3.6%
7	Liquid PC (Phosphatidylcholine)	14	8	57%	506	7,083	3.5%
8	KPV™ Capsules	9	6	67%	671	6,037	3.0%
9	BPC Gold	8	2	25%	606	4,849	2.4%
10	REM+	11	5	45%	413	4,544	2.2%
11	Butyrate (Sodium)	21	9	43%	200	4,191	2.1%
12	Sleep Breakthrough	13	7	54%	299	3,888	1.9%
Top 12 subtotal						88,071	43.5%
Long tail (remaining SKUs)						114,474	56.5%

Retention i

Repeat customer ratei

51.6%

up from 47.9% in April

Repeat sales ratei

55.2%

majority of revenue

Repeat customersi

195

vs 193 new · +3%

Days between ordersi

vs 78 in April

LTV (30-day)i

544

−8% vs April

3-month trend

Month	New cust.	Repeat cust.	Repeat %	Repeat sales %	Repeat revenue	LTV	Days between
March	184	190	52.5%	55.0%	120,712	636	22
April	218	190	47.9%	51.4%	116,484	591	78
May	193	195	51.6%	55.2%	111,724	544	74

Retention read — the bright spot of the month

While acquisition struggled, retention quietly strengthened. B. Health remains fundamentally a retention business — 51.6% repeat customer rate (vs 25-35% supplement benchmark), 55.2% of revenue from repeat customers. Both climbed in May.

The repeat-rate decline reversed. The trend went 52.5% (Mar) → 47.9% (Apr) → 51.6% (May). April's dip was dilution from the strong acquisition month, exactly as suspected — and now that acquisition softened, the repeat rate bounced back up. Repeat customer count grew to 195 (from 190). The retention engine is healthy and compounding.

Two things still worth watching:
1. LTV (30-day) eased slightly — 636 → 591 → 544. Still 30-day window only (not true lifetime). Worth re-checking once Polar can compute longer windows. Not alarming, but the gentle downward drift across three months is worth keeping an eye on.
2. Days between orders held roughly steady at 74 (vs 78 in April). The earlier Mar→Apr jump (22→78) looks like it was a methodology artifact rather than a real trend, since it's now stable. Worth a quick confirm with Polar but no longer a red flag.

The strategic context. B. Health isn't in an "investment phase" — it's a curated multi-brand retailer where unit economics should be healthy. The retention side proves they are. The problem this month was entirely on the acquisition side (Meta overspend). The highest-leverage move remains 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 — which would more than offset the new-customer softness without spending another dirham on Meta.

Discount code performance i

Orders with codei

105

25% of orders

Revenue from codedi

51,851

26% of revenue

Organic (no code)i

322

75% of orders

Organic revenuei

150,694

74% of revenue

Top codei

HEALTH15

43 orders · 32 new

Healthy promo discipline — improved further

74% of B. Health revenue came from full-price organic orders in May — only 26% ran through discount codes, slightly healthier than April (27%). The brand has real pricing power and customers don't need incentivizing to buy. This is a genuine strength and worth defending — especially relevant this month, since it means the revenue softness was NOT caused by promo-chasing.

Discount code breakdown

Codei	Typei	Orders	New cust.	Revenue	AOV
HEALTH15	General promo	43	32	18,090	421
F&F15	Friends & Family	4	0	4,615	1,154
Amino25	Brand-specific	3	0	4,166	1,389
ACCART10	Abandoned cart flow	4	2	3,821	955
Askdave	Influencer / partner	4	1	2,551	638
BODYBIO20	Brand-specific (T1)	5	4	2,355	471
WELCOME10	Welcome / first-purchase	3	2	2,226	742
Biohackit	Partner	3	1	1,849	616
biohack15	Influencer / partner	4	1	1,538	384
WELCOME15	Welcome / first-purchase	2	1	1,389	694
ORIGIN	Partner	5	2	1,229	246
Mennat	Influencer / partner	3	0	1,136	379
BIOPTIMIZERS20	Brand-specific (T1)	4	4	984	246
Shirley	Influencer / partner	1	0	977	977
Other codes (12+)	Mixed	17	7	4,925	290
All discount codes		105	57	51,851	494
Organic (no code)		322	136	150,694	468

Discount code read

HEALTH15 is the discount workhorse (renamed from HEALTH20 — the discount level dropped from 20% to 15%, a smart margin move). 18K from 43 orders, 32 new customers (74% new). Still the single general promo doing the bulk of code-driven new acquisition. The lower discount didn't kill volume — good sign the brand can hold pricing.

Brand-specific codes still align with tier strategy. BIOPTIMIZERS20 and BODYBIO20 (both Tier 1) continue driving brand-specific trial — 100% new customers between them this month. Amino25 appeared as a new brand-specific code. Still no codes visible for ProHealth, Designs for Health, Microbiome Labs, or Equip — the same easy gap to close.

The influencer/partner code spread remains unmanaged. A dozen-plus individual-named codes (Askdave, biohack15, Mennat, Shirley, Biohackit and others) scattered across small volumes. Without a formal program like Forus's Superfiliate setup, there's still no payout tracking or performance threshold. Worth revisiting whether B. Health needs its own affiliate platform — the partner activity is happening regardless, it's just untracked.

The promo picture is genuinely healthy. 74% organic, lower headline discount (15% vs 20%), volume held. This is one part of the business that's working exactly as it should — the May problem was acquisition spend, not promo dependency.

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 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

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

When to adjust a brand's tier

↑ 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

What this dashboard tells you each month

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 — and Tier 1 collectively softened to 46% (107K). Closest is BIOptimizers at 28.5K (71%). Earliest plausible Phase 1 trigger: pushed further out after May's dip — dependent on fixing acquisition efficiency, Klaviyo flows landing, and recovering Tier 1 momentum.

Tier 1 SCALE — brand targets i

Brandi	May 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	28,453	40,000	71%	89	41	48%	320
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month. Lead Meta + Google investment.BodyBio	21,731	40,000	54%	77	34	46%	282
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.Microbiome Labs	18,731	40,000	47%	46	19	43%	407
T1Tier 1 SCALE (promoted) — High equity, recovering sales. 30K target reflects larger gap.Equip (promoted)	17,676	30,000	59%	39	25	64%	453
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.Design Health	12,000	40,000	30%	47	19	40%	255
T1Tier 1 SCALE — High sales + high equity. Target 40K AED/month.ProHealth Longevity	8,127	40,000	20%	24	10	48%	339
Tier 1 subtotal	106,718	230,000	46%	322	148	46%	331

Tier 1 read — May

Tier 1 collectively softened to 46% of target (107K vs April's 132K). BIOptimizers held its position (71%), and Equip improved nicely to 59% with the strongest acquisition signal (64% new customers) — that promotion is paying off. But ProHealth Longevity fell sharply (57% → 20%) and Microbiome Labs actually grew (36% → 47%).

Design Health dropped sharply — and it's real. I checked the underlying Shopify vendor labels: "Design Health" was the vendor name in both April (31.5K) and May (12K), so this isn't a naming or re-tagging artifact — the brand genuinely fell ~62% month over month. It's a separate brand from "Designs for Sport" (Tier 2, 5.8K), so they shouldn't be combined. Design Health going from your strongest Tier 1 brand to one of the weakest in a single month is the biggest brand-level red flag of the month — worth investigating directly (stock-out? a large April order that didn't repeat? listing/merchandising change?).

Tier 2 BUILD — brand targets i

Brandi	May 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	24,866	30,000	83%	63	29	49%	395
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Catalogue ex-BPC-157. Target 20K AED/month. BPC-157 ringfenced in HARVEST. May vendor total (incl BPC) was 30.5K — see note.Integrative Peptides (incl BPC)*	30,532*	20,000	incl BPC*	37	15	41%	825
T2Tier 2 BUILD — Sports nutrition. Target 15K AED/month. Build phase.Designs for Sport	5,819	15,000	39%	20	14	70%	291
Tier 2 subtotal*	61,217*	65,000	see note	120	58	48%	510

Tier 2 read — May (with a data caveat)

Researched Nutritionals is the Tier 2 standout — 24.9K (83% of target), close to promotion-worthy, with healthy 49% new customers. Designs for Sport is small but has the best acquisition signal (70% new).

*Important caveat on Integrative Peptides: Polar reports it as a single vendor at 30.5K in May, but the tier system splits it — the ex-BPC catalogue sits in Tier 2 (20K target) while BPC-157 itself is ringfenced in HARVEST (regulatory risk on Meta). I can't cleanly separate the two from the vendor field alone, so the 30.5K shown here includes BPC. The true Tier 2 ex-BPC figure is lower. To split this properly we'd need a product-level tag or a SKU exclusion rule in Shopify — worth setting up so future months report cleanly.

Tier 3 MAINTAIN, HARVEST & EXIT i

Brandi	May 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	10,328	10,000	18	Above target · highest AOV
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Stable customer base, no investment.Infiniwell	2,690	8,000	7	Below target this month
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Legacy mineral users. Maintain.RnA ReSet	1,512	3,000	10	Maintain
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Low volume, premium niche. Maintain.Oxford HealthSpan	2,205	5,000	5	Maintain · low volume
T3Tier 3 MAINTAIN — Amazon AE organic traffic source. Maintain.Purasana	3,177	3,000	19	At target · Amazon AE organic
EXITTier 4 EXIT — Liquidate to recover working capital. Wind down inventory, no reorders.Zinzino, Unbroken, Hinnao, ALP, Tonik, others	~3,740	Liquidate	~14	Wind down · recover working capital
NEWSTEMREGEN (untiered)	9,315	—	5	New vendor · 75% new cust · needs tiering

Tier 3 / EXIT read — May

Forus held above its maintenance target (10.3K vs 10K) as expected — the own-brand pays its way. STEMREGEN appeared as a sizeable new vendor (9.3K, 75% new customers, but only 5 orders so high AOV) — it isn't in the tier system yet and should be classified at the next quarterly review. EXIT brands continue winding down as planned (~3.7K combined).

Klaviyo flow opportunity

The full flow-build opportunity (5 unbuilt flows, +110-180 incremental orders/mo at zero ad spend) lives on the dedicated Klaviyo tab — including the build-priority order and per-flow estimates. It remains the single highest-leverage growth lever for B. Health.

Strategy read — May

The summary

~36% of the way to the 1,000-order north star (427 of 1,000 monthly orders). Tier 1 brands collectively at 46% of target (107K vs 230K monthly) — down from April's 57%, reflecting the soft acquisition month. Phase 0 spend still correct: no Tier 1 brand within 15% of target, so Phase 1 trigger not met. Highest-leverage work remains the unbuilt Klaviyo flows (110-180 incremental orders/mo at zero ad spend) — bigger and safer than scaling Meta, especially after May showed what scaling Meta badly looks like.

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

Channel roles in the funnel

Top of funnel · May 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.

Spend19,380

Impressions305K

CTR0.92%

Platform ROAS3.19x

Polar ROAS0.81x

Mid funnel · May 2026

Google · Demand capture

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

Spend28,991

Conversions169

CPA172

Platform ROAS2.90x

Bottom of funnel · May 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 revenue59.4K

Flow orders106

Flow RPS39.1

Flows live2 of 7

New subscribers133

Blended business view · May 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. This month MER dropped sharply, so the system needs attention.

MER4.50x

Total revenue203K

New customers193

vs April−11%

Are we growing the customer base? i

New customers — month over month

Fell in May after April's peak — despite a 53% increase in ad spend.

Mar

184

—

Apr

218

+18%

May

193

−11%

Total orders — month over month

Essentially flat across the quarter. Path to 1,000 needs growth we're not yet seeing.

Mar

398

—

Apr

433

+9%

May

427

−1%

MER — month over month

Held at 7x through April, then dropped sharply in May as spend scaled.

Mar

7.09x

—

Apr

7.16x

+1%

May

4.50x

−37%

The trend read — May

The customer base stopped growing in May. New customers fell 11% (218 → 193), total orders flat (433 → 427), and MER dropped sharply from 7.16x to 4.50x. The 53% increase in ad spend produced lower revenue, not higher — the clearest possible signal that the extra spend wasn't working.

The bright side: repeat customers grew (190 → 195) and repeat rate climbed, so the existing base is healthy and loyal. The problem is purely new-customer acquisition efficiency — and it traces almost entirely to the Meta overspend detailed on the Channel Deep-Dive tab.

Path to 1,000 orders: we're not on track. Orders have been flat at ~400-430 for three months. Getting to 1,000 needs sustained new-customer growth, which means fixing acquisition efficiency first (cut the wasteful Meta/Google campaigns) and building the Klaviyo flows that compound the base — not simply spending more.

Platform pixels vs Polar attribution i

How they actually work — at the pixel level

Two pixels live on our site

The double-counting problem

For one shared customer journey:

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

Still growing as spend scaled, but the spend grew faster than the returns.

Mar

86K

—

Apr

218K

+155%

May

305K

+40%

Meta spend — month over month

Spend more than doubled in May — the core driver of the MER decline.

Mar

3,530

—

Apr

9,154

+159%

May

19,380

+112%

Meta awareness verdict — May

Meta spend more than doubled (9.2K → 19.4K) but the returns didn't follow. Reach grew 40% (good, but far less than the 112% spend increase), and total new customers for the business actually FELL 11%. So the extra Meta budget didn't translate into more eyeballs-per-dirham or more new customers — it translated into a lower MER.

The awareness thesis needs evidence it isn't getting. The whole funnel framework rests on Meta creating demand that shows up downstream (branded search, new visitors, list growth). But Klaviyo new subscribers also fell in May (201 → 133), and new customer acquisition softened. If Meta were doing its awareness job, we'd expect at least one of those leading indicators to climb. None did.

The honest call: This wasn't "awareness investment" — it was spend scaling into an untested campaign (testing abo) that didn't perform. The framework is doing its job by flagging it. Recommended: roll Meta back toward April spend levels (~9-10K), concentrate on DABA, pause testing abo and ASC+, and prove the awareness thesis at lower spend before scaling again.

Meta campaigns — May, platform vs Polar

Campaign	Type	Spendi	Platform purch.i	Polar ordersi	Polar revenuei	Polar ROASi
ag \| testing abo (new)	Prospecting test	10,047	58	9.5	3,953	0.39x
ag \| march \| conversions \| daba	Prospecting	4,479	37	9.9	4,187	0.93x
ag \| march \| conversions \| asc+	Advantage+	3,084	28	3.0	913	0.30x
ag \| march \| retargeting \| dpa	Retargeting	1,770	5	2.5	774	0.44x
Meta total		19,380	128	40.4	15,719	0.81x

Meta campaign read — the budget leak

The new "testing abo" campaign is the story of the month. It absorbed 10,047 AED — more than half of all Meta spend — and returned 0.39x Polar ROAS. Even on Meta's own generous numbers (58 purchases) it claims a lot of credit, but Polar shows only 9.5 incremental orders / 3,953 AED. This is where the extra Meta budget went, and it didn't work. Pause or drastically cut this campaign.

DABA remains the least-bad Meta campaign at 0.93x Polar ROAS — close to breakeven on first purchase, and the only Meta campaign genuinely earning close to its keep. If Meta budget stays, it should concentrate here.

ASC+ confirmed weak with clean attribution. 0.30x Polar ROAS — the lowest in the account. We flagged this in April when attribution was messy; now with clean UTMs it's confirmed. The 2-week pause test we discussed is overdue — there's little evidence ASC+ is driving incremental first purchases.

Meta overall at 0.81x Polar ROAS means Meta is not covering its ad cost on first purchase this month. That can be OK IF it's genuinely doing awareness work that pays back via downstream channels and LTV — but the doubling of spend wasn't matched by any lift in total new customers (which actually fell 11%). So this month, the extra Meta spend looks like waste rather than investment.

Google — mid funnel deep-dive i

Google campaigns — May (platform)

Campaign	Type	Region	Spend	Conv.	CPAi	Platform ROASi	Read
ad-lab \| pmax \| ae \| prospecting \| troas 3.5x	PMax prospecting	AE	11,727	78	150	3.39x	✅ workhorse
ad-lab \| pmax \| ae \| remarketing \| mcv	PMax remarketing	AE	6,708	35	192	2.47x	⚠️ marginal
ad lab \| pmax fo \| ae \| non-performers \| troas 3x	PMax catalog	AE	6,409	31	206	2.53x	⚠️ marginal
ad-lab \| pmax \| sa - new \| remarketing \| mcv	PMax remarketing	SA	1,556	0	—	0.00x	✗ zero conv — pause
ad-lab \| search \| brand \| sa/ae \| max conv	Brand search	SA + AE	1,224	20	60	7.04x	⭐ strongest
ad-lab \| pmax \| sa \| prospecting \| troas 6x	PMax prospecting	SA only	799	2	332	2.44x	✗ collapsed from 14x
Google total			28,991	169	172	2.90x

Google read — May

Google also softened — platform ROAS dropped from 3.64x to 2.90x while spend rose 29% (22.5K → 29K). Same pattern as Meta: more spend, lower efficiency.

Brand search remains the standout at 7.04x — the one consistently excellent Google campaign. Still under-funded at only 1,224 AED. This is captured demand, and it's cheap.

Two clear problems to fix:
• SA-new remarketing PMax: 1,556 AED for ZERO conversions. New campaign, completely broken — pause immediately. This is the Google equivalent of Meta's testing abo.
• SA prospecting collapsed from April's 14x ROAS to 2.44x. The campaign that was the star last month fell off a cliff — worth asking the Google team what changed (budget shift, audience expansion, seasonality).

The AE prospecting workhorse scaled from 8.2K to 11.7K spend and held a respectable 3.39x — that's the healthiest place the extra Google budget went.

Note: per-campaign Polar ROAS not shown for May — platform numbers here. Full Polar breakdown available via the deep link below.

Klaviyo — bottom of funnel deep-dive i

Klaviyo held steady

Direct flow attribution drove 106 orders / 59.4K AED in May from just 2 of 7 flows live (Welcome + Abandoned Cart). RPS of 39 AED/send remains exceptional vs industry benchmark of 2-5. Roughly flat vs April (127 orders / 62.7K) — the retention engine is stable. The one watch point: new subscribers fell to 133 (from 201 in April), worth checking the signup flow health. Full breakdown 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 single biggest unrealised lever in the business.

The blended verdict — what your boss should care about

The actual scoreboard — May

MER dropped to 4.50x. New customers fell 11%. Ad spend rose 53%. This month the system did NOT work as it should.

The funnel framework is built to catch exactly this. The retention engine held up beautifully (repeat rate up, repeat sales up, flows steady) — but the acquisition engine got more expensive and less productive, almost entirely because Meta spend doubled into an unproven campaign without any matching lift in new customers or downstream signals.

The single clearest lesson: scaling ad spend doesn't scale revenue unless the campaigns absorbing the budget actually work. The 16.7K of extra spend this month produced negative return — revenue went down, not up.

What to watch going into June:
1. Blended MER — needs to recover toward 6x+. Below 5x for a non-investment-phase retailer is a real concern.
2. New customer count — must stop falling. Goal of 1,000 orders needs growth, and we went backwards.
3. Klaviyo subscriber growth — the 201 → 133 drop needs investigating (signup flow health?).
4. Meta spend discipline — does rolling Meta back recover MER without hurting revenue? If yes, that confirms the overspend was the problem.

Recommended actions for June

Pause now (high confidence): Meta "testing abo" (10K spend, 0.39x Polar — the month's biggest leak) and Google "SA-new remarketing" (1.6K spend, zero conversions). Together that's ~11.6K of clearly wasted spend.

Pause/test: Meta ASC+ (0.30x Polar — confirmed weak with clean attribution). The 2-week pause test is overdue.

Roll Meta back toward April levels (~9-10K) and concentrate remaining budget on DABA (the only Meta campaign near breakeven). Prove the awareness thesis at lower spend before scaling again.

Investigate: Why did Google SA prospecting collapse from 14x to 2.4x? And why did Klaviyo subscribers drop from 201 to 133?

Protect & grow: Google brand search (7.04x, under-funded), the AE PMax workhorse (3.39x at scale), and the retention engine (repeat rate climbing).

Build (still the biggest lever): the 5 missing Klaviyo flows. +125-205 incremental orders/mo at zero ad spend would more than replace the softened acquisition — without spending another dirham on Meta. This is now the single highest-priority growth action.

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

What "good" looks like

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 417 Klaviyo-attributed orders in May vs 427 total Shopify orders. Klaviyo over-attributes (it counts any order from a customer who opened/clicked an email in the past 5 days), so we treat the broad number as directional and use direct flow attribution as the real scoreboard. Numbers below are flow attribution unless stated.

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.

May 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 (215K) 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

106

25% of all orders

Flow revenue i

59.4K

29% of total revenue

Flow RPS i

39.1

AED per send · industry 2-5

New subscribers i

133

−34% vs April

Flow sends i

1,520

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)	106	59.4K	Orders driven by automated flows. Cleanest read on direct contribution.
Klaviyo "total" attribution	417	215K	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

Grew sharply through April, eased slightly in May as subscriber intake slowed.

Mar

—

Apr

127

+210%

May

106

−17%

Flow revenue — month over month

Held strong in May — only a slight easing despite fewer sends.

Mar

18.1K

—

Apr

62.7K

+247%

May

59.4K

−5%

New subscribers — month over month

Grew strongly through April, then fell sharply in May — the key watch point.

Mar

110

—

Apr

201

+83%

May

133

−34%

The subscriber drop is the one to investigate. New subscribers fell 34% (201 → 133) in May. Since list growth feeds future flow revenue, a sustained decline would eventually pull flow performance down too. Likely linked to the softer acquisition month (fewer site visitors = fewer signups), but worth confirming the signup forms/popups are firing correctly.

Flow vs Campaign breakdown i

Type	Sendsi	Ordersi	Revenue	RPSi	% of total store revenuei
Flows (automated)	1,520	106	59,384	39.1	29%
Campaigns (broadcast)	0	0	0	—	0%
Direct Klaviyo total (May)	1,520	106	59,384	39.1	29%

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: 59.4K AED/month from 2 flows
• Flow RPS: 39 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 ↗

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

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 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

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

When to adjust a brand's tier

↑ 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

What this dashboard tells you each month

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

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

The double-counting problem

For one shared customer journey:

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

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

What "good" looks like

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.

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.

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

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

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 ↗