Firm performance — SPI and financials
Share price index — all firms
P1–P8
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
Revenue vs EBT — Firm Tactical ($k)
P1–P8 · stacked
Revenue
EBT
Market share (value %) — all firms
P1–P8
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
Clinites vs Nutrites — revenue contribution ($k)
Clinites
Nutrites
TURN revenue
P&L and margins
P&L key lines — Tactical ($k)
Revenue · Contribution before mktg · EBT
Revenue
Contrib before mktg
EBT
Net contribution % — all firms
P1–P8
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
Cumulative investment and costs
Holding + disposal costs per period ($k)
Per-period inventory cost · not cumulative
Holding
Disposal
R&D spend % of revenue — all firms · per period
Who invested when · Tactical committed through P6
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
All brands — contribution and segment performance
Brand contribution ($k) — TIME · TINY · TURN · P1–P8
Stacked · TURN launches P7
TINY
TIME
TURN
Segment share — primary segment · all brands
TINY→Singles · TIME→High Earners · TURN→Families
TINY (Singles)
TIME (High Earners)
TURN (Families)
Awareness — primary segment · P1–P8
TINY
TIME
TURN
Purchase intent — primary segment · P1–P8
TINY
TIME
TURN
Segment ranking — primary segment · P1–P8
Lower = better · 1 = leader
TINY
TIME
TURN
TIME — Clinites · High Earners primary target
TIME — awareness → PI → segment share · High Earners
P1–P8 conversion funnel trend
Awareness %
Purchase intent %
Segment share %
TIME — P8 funnel vs SING · High Earners
Competitive snapshot
Price vs recommendation ($)
Actual price
Coach rec.
Segment ranking · High Earners
Lower = better (1 = market leader)
TIME — brand perceptions
Perception scores over time (1–7 scale)
R&D upgrade PITIME unlocked P4 — step-change visible
Efficacy
Safety
Packaging
Pleasure
Usability
P8: TIME vs High Earners ideal values
Brand perception vs what segment wants (1–7)
TIME P8
HE Ideal
TIME — ad spend and R&D
Ad spend by segment ($k) · P1–P8
Stacked · focus on High Earners and Affluent Families
High Earners
Aff. Families
Others
R&D timeline — TIME Clinites projects
Budget by period · availability · characteristic improvements
TINY — Clinites · Singles primary target
TINY — awareness → PI → segment share · Singles
P1–P8 conversion funnel trend
Awareness %
Purchase intent %
Segment share %
TINY — P8 funnel vs SILK · Singles
Competitive snapshot
Price vs recommendation ($)
Actual price
Coach rec.
Segment ranking · Singles
Lower = better (1 = market leader)
TINY — brand perceptions
Perception scores over time (1–7 scale)
R&D upgrade PITINY unlocked P5
Efficacy
Safety
Packaging
Pleasure
Usability
P8: TINY vs Singles ideal values
Brand perception vs what segment wants (1–7)
TINY P8
Singles Ideal
TINY — ad spend and R&D
Ad spend by segment ($k) · P1–P8
Stacked · focus on Singles
Singles
Others
R&D timeline — TINY Clinites projects
Budget by period · availability · characteristic improvements
TURN — Nutrites · Families · Launched P7
TURN — awareness → PI → segment share · Families
P7–P8 · strong launch trajectory
Awareness %
Purchase intent %
Segment share %
TURN — P8 funnel vs SUPA · Families
Head-to-head — TURN winning the segment
Price vs recommendation ($) · P7–P8
Actual price
Coach rec.
Segment ranking · Families · P7–P8
Rank 2 in debut period
TURN — brand perceptions vs SUPA
TURN vs SUPA — perception scores P7–P8 (1–7)
Clinical Benefit · Nutrition · Packaging · Flavor · Variety
TURN
SUPA
R&D timeline — TURN Nutrites · PUTIDAL project
Budget invested by period · unlocked P6 · $8,592k total
Clinites market — 5 segments
Segment size ($M) · P1–P8
Singles dominant and fastest growing
Singles
Low Income
High Earners
Med. Income
Aff. Families
Shopping habits — where each segment buys (P8)
% of purchases by channel · darker = more
Market share (unit) — all Clinites products · P8
Tactical brands highlighted in blue
Market share evolution — key Clinites brands
TINY · TIME · SILK · SING · P1–P8
TINY
TIME
SILK
SING
Segment deep-dive
Purchase intentions — Singles segment · P1–P8
TINY vs SILK — SILK collapse P7
TINY
SILK
Purchase intentions — High Earners · P1–P8
TIME vs SING — TIME dominance post R&D
TIME
SING
Volume by segment — TINY (000 units) · P1–P8
Where TINY is actually selling
Singles
Low Income
High Earners
Med. Income
Aff. Families
Volume by segment — TIME (000 units) · P1–P8
Where TIME is actually selling
High Earners
Aff. Families
Others
Nutrites market — 3 segments · emerging market
Segment size ($M) · P6–P8
Rapid expansion — Health Conscious largest
Health Conscious
Families
Elderly
Shopping habits — Nutrites segments (P8)
% of purchases by channel · darker = more
TURN vs SUPA — awareness and PI · Families · P6–P8
SUPA had full market P6 · TURN eroding fast
TURN aware
TURN PI
SUPA aware
SUPA PI
Nutrites market share (unit) — P8 snapshot
TURN vs SUPA across all 3 Nutrites segments
TURN vs SUPA — perceptions P8 (1–7)
Clinical Benefit · Nutrition · Flavor · Packaging · Variety
TURN
SUPA
Clinites vs Nutrites — revenue contribution ($k)
Nutrites ramp-up P7–P8
Clinites
Nutrites
Advertising — spend and effectiveness
Total ad spend — TIME · TINY · TURN ($k) · P1–P8
Stacked
TIME
TINY
TURN
Ad spend % of revenue — all firms
Efficiency benchmark
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
TINY — ad spend vs awareness · Singles segment
Investment-to-awareness efficiency · dual axis
Ad spend (left $k)
Awareness % (right)
TIME — ad spend vs awareness · High Earners segment
Investment-to-awareness efficiency · dual axis
Ad spend (left $k)
Awareness % (right)
Merchandising — channel investment
Merchandising budget — TIME by channel ($k) · P1–P8
Stacked · 4 channels
Dept. Stores
Mass Merch.
Spec. Mass
Beauty Portals
Merchandising budget — TINY by channel ($k) · P1–P8
Stacked · 4 channels
Dept. Stores
Mass Merch.
Spec. Mass
Beauty Portals
Commercial team — headcount by channel
Commercial team FTE — TIME by channel · P1–P8
Dept. Stores
Mass Merch.
Spec. Mass
Beauty Portals
Commercial team FTE — TINY by channel · P1–P8
Dept. Stores
Mass Merch.
Spec. Mass
Beauty Portals
Distribution — coverage and shelf space
Distribution coverage % — TIME by channel · P1–P8
Dept. Stores
Mass Merch.
Spec. Mass
Beauty Portals
Shelf space share % — Clinites key brands · Dept. Stores
TIME · TINY · SILK · SING · P1–P8
TIME
TINY
SILK
SING
Distribution coverage % — TINY by channel · P1–P8
Dept. Stores
Mass Merch.
Spec. Mass
Beauty Portals
Commercial cost breakdown % of revenue — Tactical
Advertising · Merchandising · Commercial team
Advertising %
Merchandising %
Comm. team %
Volume — planned vs actual vs sold
TINY — production vs sales (000 units)
Planned
Actual
Sold
TIME — production vs sales (000 units)
Planned
Actual
Sold
TURN — production vs sales · P7–P8
P7 launch · P8 exceeded planned by 384k units
Planned
Actual
Sold
Unit economics
Unit cost (current $) — all 3 brands
Scale effects and R&D upgrade impact
TINY
TIME
TURN
Unit cost vs recommended retail price ($)
Gross margin per unit by brand
TINY cost
TINY price
TIME cost
TIME price
Inventory management
Inventory at end of period (000 units) — TINY · TIME
Overproduction spike P3 · cleared by P6
TINY
TIME
Inventory holding costs ($k) — TINY · TIME
True cost of overproduction
TINY
TIME
COGS and brand waterfalls
COGS % of revenue — all firms · P1–P8
Lower = better cost efficiency
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
COGS by brand ($k) — TIME · TINY · TURN
TINY
TIME
TURN
Per-brand P&L waterfall — Period 8
TINY — P8 contribution waterfall ($k)
TIME — P8 contribution waterfall ($k)
TURN — P8 contribution waterfall ($k)
SABOTAGE — the collapse
SABOTAGE brand contribution ($k) · P1–P8
SILK collapses · SUPA the Nutrites pivot
SILK
SING
SUPA
SILK vs TINY — Singles PI and awareness · P1–P8
How TINY won the segment
TINY PI
TINY aware
SILK PI
SILK aware
All firms — performance trajectories
Revenue — all firms ($k) · P1–P8
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
COGS % — efficiency race · all firms
Who achieved production scale
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
R&D and budget — strategic investment
R&D spend % of revenue — all firms · P1–P8
Who invested in product improvements and when
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe
Contribution after mktg % — all firms · P1–P8
Net marketing efficiency
Tactical
SABOTAGE
Legacy
Rosanova
Metaluxe