Between reviewing Hyros data, tracking variations, and handling feedback, our pipeline was getting messy across too many tabs. What helped was simplifying the stack: google.com/sheets for tracking historical test results and hypothesis logs, chatgpt.com for drafting rapid hook angles, and floment.ai for active creative to-dos, brief handoffs, and project tracking. Keeping active execution separate from long-term data cut down our turnaround time significantly on launching new angles. Curious how your team keeps ad briefs and creative tests organized internally, do you keep everything in one tool, or run a split workflow?

I built a LTO Funnel dashboard on top of HYROS This tab splits it out every month: - Front end, each order bump, upsell and downsell: each with its own ROAS - Day 1 ROAS: the whole funnel on the day of purchase - Back end: conversion to your high-ticket offer, how many are still paying, ROAS to date, and weeks to break even - Click any number to see the buyers and their full HYROS customer journey Setup takes about 5 minutes: connect HYROS, pick your products for each slot, pick your funnel's ad sets. Done.

Hi all, Looking for advice from anyone who's dealt with Meta's Health & Wellness data-sharing restrictions. Context : - We sell dietary supplements, based in France (EU market). Legit business, compliant products, no grey-hat stuff. - ~€150k/month on Meta, 20 full-time employees, Meta is our main acquisition channel. - Meta classified our domain under Health & Wellness / pharmaceutical. Ads still run and get approved, but lower-funnel events (Purchase, AddToCart) are blocked. Ad delivery is fine, only the conversion data is cut. - We never saw the warnings. Notifications went to the BM email and the Events Manager banner, and we only noticed when attributed conversions dropped. - Our Meta account managers say there's nothing they can do: the classification is automated and considered accurate because we sell supplements. - We only need to optimize for Purchase. Our read on what triggered it : Most likely a mix of health claims in our copy / landing pages and what Meta's crawlers picked up when scanning the site. Nothing structural, but enough for the classifier. Our plan 1. Clean the whole ecosystem: site, landing pages, product pages, ad copy, claims. Then re-submit the category review in ~90 days with everything in order. 2. Rebuild tracking properly: move to CAPI server-side, with strict data minimization. We'll stop sending Meta everything about our customers and only pass what's needed for matching and optimization, with product/health signals stripped from the payload. 3. Domain architecture: a clean domain that Meta "sees" in the ads, a buffer domain in between, then our actual store. Click IDs/UTMs captured server-side, persistent ID across the hops, events sent via CAPI from the clean data source with a neutral custom event name. What we understand so far - The restriction is at the root-domain / data-source level, so CAPI on the same domain doesn't help (events get dropped on receipt) and subdomains inherit the classification. - Appeals rarely succeed for brands that genuinely sell supplements, so our 90-day re-appeal is a bet, not a plan A.

I'm looking for a long-term partner. After eight years working as a software engineer, I realized something about myself: I love building things, but I don't enjoy selling myself. Give me a difficult technical problem, a messy codebase, or a system that needs to be designed from scratch, and I can spend hours happily working on it. But put me in an HR interview, ask me to explain my value in a few minutes, or ask me to convince someone why an idea is worth pursuing, and suddenly I'm not playing my strongest game. I've met many people who are the opposite. They might not want to spend their nights thinking about system architecture or debugging a difficult production issue, but they are naturally good at talking with people, understanding what others need, explaining ideas clearly, and building trust. And I think that's valuable. The problem is that the industry often expects one person to be everything at once: an excellent engineer, a great communicator, a salesperson, a leader, and a relationship builder. Those people exist, but they are rare. I've started thinking that maybe the better approach is not trying to become someone I'm not. Maybe the better approach is finding someone whose strengths complete mine. I'm looking for someone who enjoys the parts I struggle with: talking to clients, creating opportunities, building relationships, and communicating ideas. In return, I bring eight years of experience designing software, building systems, and turning ideas into working products. I don't think great companies are built by people who are good at everything. I think they're built by people who know what they are good at and find others who complement them. If you feel like you have the opposite problem - you're great with people and opportunities but need someone who can build - I would love to talk.