Everyone else sells on feelings, because feelings are all they own. We hold a factory, a standardised ingredient and a human trial.
Different game, not played yet. Today that fact sits on the product page as four quiet words: “2 clinically studied ingredients.”
| Stage | Result |
|---|---|
| 366 paid visitors → add to cart | 4.9%, the normal industry rate Working |
| Add to cart → paid | Zero To build |
Adding to cart is free. Paying is where belief gets tested. The interesting part already works. The convincing part is the piece still to build, and no layout change reaches it.
Belief in this category comes from seven places and no others.
| Door | Today |
|---|---|
| Authority · a named expert | Nobody yet To build |
| Mechanism · why my body broke | Pathway not spelled out To build |
| Evidence · study, assay, bloodwork | Exists in the business, not on the page Cheapest win |
| Peer proof · reviews | Waiting on real customers Needs sales |
| Risk transfer · guarantee | 60 days Open |
| Identity · who built it | No face yet To build |
| Enemy · what we both hate | Not chosen yet To build |
Mars Men runs ~1,900 live US ads. Menerals ~550. Neither can claim the left column.
This is the branded-ingredient model, the one that made KSM-66 and Capsimax names other brands pay to print. That is the company we already are.
Both from published research, not from us. That is what makes them usable.
| Tongkat Ali | Standardised to | |
|---|---|---|
| NEXEDGE | 200 mg | 1.5% eurycomanone |
| Mars Men | 1,000 mg | not stated on label |
| Published trials | 200 mg/day | at least 0.8% |
A 2013 randomised trial used 200mg standardised in 63 adults over four weeks. A six-month RCT used the same dose. We sit at the studied dose, at nearly double the studied standardisation. Today the page states that number without defending it.
| 37% of tested Tongkat Ali products authentic. 27% adulterated |
| Only 11 of 24 brands met the national standard for eurycomanone |
| Some assayed under 0.5mg of active compound per dose |
| Some carried undeclared PDE-5 drugs. Mercury and lead documented in the category |
Pull the primary sources and check them. These came from a research sweep, not from the papers in hand. The moment we cite a study we own its accuracy, and a number we cannot defend does more damage than no number.
| Version | Verdict |
|---|---|
| “They have 12 dusted ingredients, we have 2 proven ones” | Loses on inspection. Mars Men prints real clinical doses: Tongkat Ali 1,000mg, Shilajit 400mg, Fenugreek 675mg, Zinc 30mg, D3 4,000 IU. And on raw count a shopper sees 8 against our 2, and reads it as more for the money |
| “1,000mg of what, exactly?” | Cannot lose. Anyone can add ingredients. Nobody can fake an assay |
It is not how many ingredients. It is whether the ones on the label are real. 1,000mg of unverified root can carry less active compound than 200mg of standardised extract. We publish the assay for your batch. Ask the others for theirs.
Keep the other two as support, never as the headline: 200mg standardised is the trial dose, and one capsule a day against their two to eight.
Fair worry: Americans prefer domestic, and Menerals is spending on exactly that. But their ad sells minerals from soil, which are generic. That play cannot be run against a Southeast Asian plant.
| Ingredient | Where trust lives |
|---|---|
| Manuka honey | New Zealand. Nobody wants American Manuka |
| Ginseng · matcha · ashwagandha | Korea · Japan · India |
| Tongkat Ali | Origin is the proof, not the problem |
| Word | Job |
|---|---|
| Rainforest, single-origin, source-direct | The picture. Ads and hero images |
| The country, the standard, the assay | The proof. Science page, beside the certificate |
Use both, never swap them. Grand words with nothing behind them are what every competitor already sells. Menerals chose “American dirt” and “Wyoming soil” over anything grand, on purpose. Specificity reads as true.
The distrust is of a foreign salesperson, not a foreign scientist. So the face goes on the science page, not the front door, where the reader already wants proof and is looking for a credential.
Most supplement brands are marketing companies with a supplier. We are the supplier.
Stop answering “how will you feel?” Nobody believes that from anyone. Answer “who made this, and can they prove it?”
Items 1 to 4 need no customers, which is how we break the loop where you need trust to get customers and customers to get trust.
| Build | Owner | Time | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A real science page. The paper, the ingredient spec, the GMP cert, the batch certificate of analysis | Jia Yi | 1 wk |
| 2 | Meet the formulator. 90 seconds, in the lab | Jia Yi | 2 days |
| 3 | “Why our number looks small.” Wins the 200mg argument | Jia Yi | 2 days |
| 4 | Source footage. Factory, root, extraction, assay. Phone is fine | on site | days |
| 5 | The pre-sell article, built on 1 to 4 | Jia Yi · Faiz | 1 wk |
| 6 | Assay five US competitor bottles and publish. We have a lab. Nobody else can run this | Jia Yi | 4 wks |
| 7 | First 50 customers get a day 0 and day 60 panel. Our own US data | Jia Yi | 90 days |
For the pre-sell article, once 1 to 4 exist.
| 1 · The bottle on your shelf — almost every US T supplement has Tongkat Ali in it. Almost none can tell you which root |
| 2 · Why that matters — 27% adulterated. Published, not our opinion |
| 3 · The label question — 1,000mg of what? Dose on the label is not dose in your blood |
| 4 · Our side of it — the factory, the extraction, the assay, the person who formulated it |
| 5 · The study — what we tested, on how many, for how long, what happened |
| 6 · Your batch, your number — certificate of analysis for the bottle we would send you |
| 7 · What to expect and when — honest that this takes weeks, not days |
| 8 · Sixty days, keep the bottle — he does not have to believe us, only try us |
| Is the human study peer reviewed, or our own internal research? Both are usable and both beat what any competitor has. It only changes the staging: published goes above the fold with the journal named, internal goes on the science page as our own research |
| Do we supply other brands, and can it be said? If US brands already sell our ingredient, the founder story writes itself. Check the supply contracts first, most forbid naming the customer |
| Is there a US entity or US fulfilment? If yes: “Formulated and assayed at source. Made to US GMP. Ships from [state].” Answers the origin question without hiding anything |
A real trial tempts a team into a drug claim in a way a fake one never does, because we would actually have a result to promise.
| Never | Instead |
|---|---|
| “NEXEDGE raises testosterone 37%” | “In a randomised trial of [n] adults published in [journal], the extract was associated with [outcome]” |
| “Fixes low T” · “treats ED” | Structure and function language only |
| Naming competitors in the assay | Anonymised brands, named lab, published method |
The study is a credibility asset, not a claims licence.