Contents
The Story
Most case studies show a launch. Some show scale. Almost none show the full arc — launch, peak, decline, and what happens after. This is that story.
PRD-01 was a direct-to-consumer supplement product family operated through PRJ-02 infrastructure. Over 14 months of active revenue, it generated $499K in initial sales, $43K in rebills, and processed $33K in refunds — all tracked at the transaction level through Konnektive CRM.
The Three Phases
Phase 1 — Ramp (Nov 2023–Jan 2024). Three months from first real revenue ($289) to $48K/month. Affiliate-driven scale, primarily through AFF-01 traffic.
Phase 2 — Peak (Feb–Apr 2024). Three months above $100K/month. February hit $173K gross — the single highest month for any product in the portfolio. March and April sustained six-figure months as affiliate traffic rotated from AFF-01 to AFF-02.
Phase 3 — Decline (May 2024 onward). Revenue dropped 88% in a single month (April → May: $119K → $14K). By September, initial revenue was $410. The decline wasn't gradual — it was a cliff when affiliate traffic stopped flowing.
The Revenue Anatomy
92% initial, 8% rebill. This is a front-loaded product — most revenue came from first purchases, not recurring subscriptions. The rebill model existed but retention was low.
6.0% refund rate across $542K gross. Within the acceptable range for DTC supplements (industry benchmarks: 5–15%). PRD-01 landed at the low end.
The product didn't fail — the traffic source dried up. When AFF-01 dropped after February and AFF-02 dropped after April, PRD-01 had no owned traffic to fall back on. A product can be operationally sound and still decline to zero if it depends entirely on external traffic.
3 months to peak. 7 months to wind-down. Complete lifecycle.
What the Operator Took Forward
| Lesson | What Changed |
|---|---|
| Affiliate-dependent products are volatile | Investment in owned traffic infrastructure (STL) |
| Front-loaded revenue needs constant volume | Later products designed with stronger rebill models |
| Refund rate is manageable at scale | Refund management processes carried to subsequent products |
| The infrastructure survives the product | Same stack runs PRD-03, PRD-08, PRD-06 |
The PRD-01 infrastructure — payment processing, affiliate tracking, rebill management, refund handling — didn't die with the product. It became the foundation for every subsequent launch.
Key Numbers
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total net revenue | $509,821 |
| Peak month gross | $173,247 |
| Refund rate | 6.0% |
| Rebill rate | 8.7% |
| Revenue model | Initial + rebill (92/8 split) |
| Months to peak | 3 |
| Months peak → wind-down | 7 |
| Active lifecycle | ~14 months |
| Primary traffic source | External affiliates (AFF-01, AFF-02) |
| Owned traffic contribution | ~0% |
| Infrastructure reuse | 100% — same stack runs subsequent products |
Why This Matters
Every operator eventually runs a product through its full lifecycle. Most don't document it. Fewer still have transaction-level data covering every phase.
The PRD-01 arc proves three things: the operator can scale a product to six-figure months, the infrastructure handles the volume, and the lessons from decline (affiliate dependency, rebill model weaknesses, traffic diversification) directly shaped the business that followed.
This isn't a failure story. It's a completion story. The product ran its course. The operator kept the infrastructure and the data.
References
- Keating, M.G. (2026). "The Compounding Execution Method: Complete Technical Documentation." Stealth Labz CEM Papers. Browse papers