lilouartz

Someone on Reddit suggested to make this data available via API and license it. This is genuinely an angle I didn't even consider.

A lot of the innovation happened in how we analyze every supplement by extracting the ingredients, normalizing them, and then doing the same with research papers. It has been a very exciting product to work on from the technical perspective. As far as I know, we are the only database to have this level of insight about the supplement market and research. However, it all does not matter if people cannot find it and use it.

I am in between of (1) Trying to get coverage and hopefully revitalizing the SEO (However, all attempts over the last 6 months didn't move the needle) (2) Finding a buyer who would benefit from the underlying technology. (3) Just reflecting on everything I've learned and moving to another project.

I am pretty stubborn so (1) is what I am pursuing, but it is hard to ignore the monetary loses. I was not thinking about it while the project was growing (I always thought I will grow it big and then monetize using referrals or by licensing the data), but that increasingly feels unlikely.

Just need advice from someone with more experience.

OMG you've noticed!

I was so proud when I came up with it, but I don't think anyone ever commented on it until now.

and I agree. It needs to catch on!

There is interesting context here. The first version of Pillser was focused on very narrow area of supplements, and specifically, supplements sold in the shape of pills (therefore the name "Pillser" [pill search]). However, it kinda snowballed from there, and powder substances were one of the last things I've added. The evals need to be expanded to have more examples specifically around powder substances. However, that's a fix I know how to implement and will prioritize.

Thank you for sharing the example that you've found!

That's solid advice for most people in the Western world. K2 and magnesium are sensible choices–genuinely hard to get enough of through diet alone. The bigger problem is that most supplement sales are marketing-led. That's what pushed me to at least try to make the whole process more scientific.

That's the plan. I don't intend to own any stock. I want to focus on covering the broadest range of supplements across all of the marketplaces, having the richest data about them, and then focus on the affiliate revenue.

The affiliate revenue can be anywhere from 5% to 10% depending on the affiliate partner. Considering no overhead of support, inventory, or logistics, it's a pretty good deal for me, especially for now, while I'm still a solo founder.

I don't want to, and I don't plan to. At a time when this happened, I was deep in my studies preparing for exams, and I just remember thinking to myself, "I cannot afford to pull myself into what could become a legal matter" I am now in better position to allocate time and attention should such claims be made again.

That said, the couple of brands that were removed were not brands that I would have wanted anyone to buy anyway. Not much is lost by not having them on the website from the perspective of fulfilling customers' journeys of finding a good product.

I do like the suggestion made in one of the comments informing customers why some brands are not visible on the website. That warning might on its own deter others from making such claims.

Aspirin is not a supplement; it's a medication.

Consumer Labs is definitely the furthest ahead compared to everyone else. I've been using them for many years now.

I am more of a geek than a business shark, but when I was doing market research, I couldn't believe just how big some of the supplement marketplaces are. iHerb ($2nb+), Amazong ($8bn+), GNC ($2bn+), Vitamin Shoppe ($1bn+). However, it's a market that requires a lot of investment to enter (logistic/storage/support). I'm hoping I'm going to get my foot across the door by providing the most comprehensive solution for education, as well as discovering and comparing supplements across all of these marketplaces.