Before any of the business, I want to say something I mean completely.

In a lifetime you meet very few people you truly believe are capable of greatness. I've recently met two of them, and those two people are you.

You're intellectually sharp, capable, and ambitious. Each of those is rare on its own, but finding all of them together, in genuinely good humans, is rarer still. That last part is the one most people miss, and it's the one that matters most. You have the full recipe: not just to win financially, but to close the entire circle of a life well lived.

I'm not saying this to flatter you. I'm saying it because it's true, and because too few people remember to give flowers while they're still owed. I'm a big believer in doing exactly that.

I also don't take our relationship for granted. We haven't known each other long, but it already feels genuinely organic to me, the kind of connection that can't be forced, and I value that a great deal. I'd love to be part of your growth, and whether you see it or not, I learn just as much from you. You're the new blood, the future. I don't believe we grow older in order to stop learning from the people coming up behind us; the younger generation has far more to teach than people are willing to admit. Fresh eyes, and perspectives most people have already lost.

What impresses me most is where you started. You came from an environment and a culture that quietly pushes the opposite of what you're doing: play it safe, don't risk too much, keep your ambition small (I'm not speaking about your respective families here, but more about the overall European mindset). You chose the harder road anyway. That is far more difficult than chasing big goals in a place that already celebrates them, and most people never manage it. So I salute you for it, and I truly believe the future holds greatness for you. If you allow it, it would be my pleasure to join the ride with you.

Five months in, and already at breakeven.

I want to start by saying something plainly: what the two of you have built is genuinely impressive. Reaching breakeven inside five months for a direct to consumer brand is not normal. Most brands burn for far longer to get here. It tells me the fundamentals work, the product resonates, and the two of you know how to operate.

It also means we're standing at the interesting moment. The engine runs. The question now isn't "does this work". It's "how big can it become, and how do we get there without breaking the people running it." That's the conversation I want to have, openly and as a real partner.

Committed, and ready to back it with more capital.

I believe we have something real, and I want to back that belief with more capital. Just as importantly, I think we should talk and align on how I can contribute smartly on a weekly and monthly basis, and how I can use my strengths outside of the capital to assist.

I'm ready to commit €300K to €350K to power this first phase, the capital to carry us through the next six to seven months, added to my stake rather than structured as a loan.

I'd like us to discuss in person why I've framed it as just this first six to seven months. It isn't that there's no more capital beyond that point. It's that I want us to get clear together first on where we want to be by then, what the real goal is, and how we get there. The rest of my thinking, my ideas, and the questions I'd want us to work through are all laid out further down in this document.

What I can say now is that this is a first phase, not a ceiling. Based on where we land in that conversation, I'd be committed to putting more capital in to take us there. Moving in a clear first phase keeps us honest and lets the results guide the next decision, which is the spirit of everything else in this document.

And I want to be just as clear that my commitment here isn't only financial. Beyond the capital, I also want to know what kind of partner you'd want from me, and what would help you the most on a week-to-week or month-to-month basis. I'd far rather we define that together than have me guess at it. Knowing the role and the level of involvement you'd actually value from me matters to me as much as the funding does, because that's how we stay on the same page from day one.

More than the capital itself, what I really believe we need is to be aligned. The points laid out below are some of the things I'd want us to go through together in more detail, and beyond those there are a few others I'd rather we cover in person.

We don't know what we don't know.

This is the most important thing I'll write, because everything else flows from it. I genuinely believe that the way we win is by holding our opinions loosely and letting evidence decide.

I have instincts built from experience, but experience alone isn't proof. The only real answer comes from testing and letting the data speak, with no personal attachment to being right, because attachment clouds judgement. I can learn just as much from a nineteen year old as from a sixty year old. The more we keep our horizons open, the more good ideas can flow in, instead of being stopped at a wall.

Study the brands where we want to be, then earn our way there.

If we want full success, I think we should look hard at the companies already where we want to be, and be willing to adopt what makes them work. Not copy blindly, but understand why the things they do are necessary, and be in a position to apply them when the data tells us it's time. Here's what I keep seeing.

Subscription has to be a core engine, not an afterthought

In the US, a very large share of new customer acquisition, by many accounts more than half, is subscription based. One time purchases alone don't sustain growth, because two things are almost guaranteed and outside our control: advertising keeps getting more expensive, and competition is coming. The US market is a preview of where the EU is heading. If we get ahead of that curve, the head start is the advantage. Subscription being uncommon in Europe isn't a reason not to try. It's a reason to figure out how to do it properly before everyone else does.

On top of the physical subscription, we also need a digital subscription of some sort. We already have a few ideas, and the priority is to implement and test them as soon as possible, especially for the customers who don't want a physical subscription but would still pay for ongoing value delivered another way.

Backend marketing is where the model actually works

Without strong backend marketing, the US model doesn't hold together. Email is the most undervalued and cheapest channel we have, and we should be leveraging it to the maximum. Right now, a single product newsletter only really speaks to the slice of our list interested in that topic, and everyone else tunes out. So I think frequency should increase, done well: not aggressive selling for its own sake, but consistently generating the revenue this channel is capable of. Almost every brand making it work is sending campaigns at least four to five times per week. We can't rely on customers to come back on their own. The loyal forever customer is maybe the 1%. People switch brands for a hundred reasons. We want the highest LTV in the shortest time, without compromising the brand.

Above everything else, LTV is basically the only thing that matters. The lower our LTV, the less chance we have of building a big brand; the higher it is, the more room we have to acquire, to spend, and to grow. I think most of our decisions should be made with this number in mind.

All figures are approximate and based on the period from 1 January to today.

Those first two numbers are why this matters: lifetime value is already healthy and climbing, and backend marketing is the cheapest lever we have to push it further. But the third number is the one I keep looking at. A 18.8% returning customer rate is lower than where I want us to be. There are really only two ways to lift it. The hard way is hoping customers come back on their own, which depends on them building a routine, staying consistent, and being patient for results. That's human nature working against us: people want results now, and when they don't see them fast, they drop off. Often it isn't the product that failed, it's that the lifestyle is hard to keep up. The reliable way is the opposite: the work is on us to bring them back, to remind them, motivate them, and stay in front of them. That's the entire case for backend marketing in one statistic.

And we have a real asset here most brands don't: more than one trusted voice. Carlo and Marina are two distinct, credible personas, which means the content can be genuinely varied and never feel like it's all coming from one person. Over time we can add a third authority too, so subscribers feel they're hearing from a team of professionals, not a single sender. That alone changes how the backend is received.

This also extends beyond email: WhatsApp marketing synced intelligently alongside the email calendar, and eventually real phone conversations with customers to build an actual relationship. Done properly, that last one could change our dynamics completely.

Build ads around what works, not how we think the brand should look

With ads, what we're really after is ROI. The truth is customers forget the initial ad almost immediately anyway. What they actually remember is the experience the brand gave them and the product that showed up at their door. So I think we should let performance lead: test a wide range of formats and ad types, and back what genuinely works, rather than what we assume will work or what simply feels truest to the brand's look.

Owning the checkout to lift AOV

Most brands scaling to serious volume have their own payment processing setup, whether Stripe, third parties, or their own MIDs, so they can fully customize the checkout and capture the highest possible order value on that first purchase. That means one click post purchase upsells (I'm hearing take rates as high as 35% on the first upsell), plus customized thank you and order pages. It takes more setup, but look at our own numbers: if we lifted AOV by even 20% from this alone, it's a completely different business.

Manufacturing has to keep pace

I want to flag something practical that could quietly become our biggest constraint: our current manufacturing. As things stand, even if we wanted to triple revenue tomorrow, our current setup simply couldn't fulfil it. That's worth thinking about as soon as possible, because the best ideas in the world won't matter if we can't actually deliver the growth they create. I'd much rather we get ahead of this now than have it become the ceiling we hit at the exact moment everything starts working.

Let's agree on the field we're allowed to play on.

Before we push the marketing harder, I want us to define together what we're comfortable with: what this brand can and can't do, and the lines we don't want to cross. This isn't me asking to be more aggressive; it's me asking where the edges are, so I know how far we can push and where we stop.

There's no wrong answer here, and it doesn't make or break the brand, since what we're doing already produces great outcomes. But it matters, because the difference is real: even being, say, 10% more direct in our messaging can give a meaningful lift.

Two smart hires, and fast, before you burn out.

This one is urgent and it's mostly about protecting the two of you. Bringing in two strong people as soon as possible is crucial. You're carrying an enormous load, and that's not sustainable as we add more.

Founders shouldn't only work in the business. They need room to work on it. Vision is what makes a company great, and vision needs breathing room. You can't see the big picture clearly while you're buried in daily operations and running on empty. A meaningful part of this first phase is simply buying you back the space to lead.

Are we spreading ourselves too thin?

This is an open question, not a position, and I might be wrong. We've got several products running and ideas to launch a new kit or protocol every month. That energy is great. But I want us to genuinely ask: what does that do to the limited bandwidth we already have for testing strong ads on each product every week? Are we, without meaning to, working against ourselves?

Here's the alternative I'd like us to weigh. We likely already have approx two products performing exceptionally on META. What if we went deep on those, with significant budget, many angles, and scaled them to their ceiling, before moving on to the next? New kits and protocols still matter, but we could launch them to existing customers first, through email and WhatsApp, where acquisition cost is a fraction of paid. That also tells us which ones truly deserve front end ad spend. Slower top line growth, maybe, but higher margins and far less waste.

To make this concrete, here's the question I keep coming back to:

Bigger revenue isn't the same as a bigger business. I'd take the second every time, and I want us aligned on which game we're actually playing before we pour fuel on the fire.

The real moat is the marketing engine, not any single product.

Something I've come to believe watching our own results: it's not so much the product that wins. It's the marketing built around it. That points to a bigger opportunity. I'd love us to be in a position to launch products across different niches, using GOFOR360 as the platform and the proof that our system works.

But, and this matters, we don't have the infrastructure to sustain that yet, precisely because the two of you are stretched. So the order is deliberate: first we put the talent and systems in place around the current brand, then we use that foundation to build outward. The current brand isn't a stepping stone we leave behind; it pays the bills, including your salaries, and it has to keep working. If it turns out GOFOR360 alone becomes a huge success and we never need other brands, then that's a great outcome too. I'm not attached to expansion for its own sake. I'm attached to building the capability to expand, and then letting the data tell us how far to take it.

Committed urgency, not desperation.

I want us to be honest with each other about timeline. I can see how hard you both work.

Are we prepared, emotionally and practically, for this to take another 24 months to reach where we want it? Because urgency and patience aren't enemies. I want the urgency, because it's what makes great teams move. What I want us to avoid is desperation, the kind that kills experiments too early and chases quick wins that cost us the bigger prize. If we agree now on a realistic horizon, then six months from now we make calm decisions on the data.

So here's the real question I want to put to you: if this needed five years to reach where we want to be, but with healthy growth the whole way there, does that still excite you? Or does it need to happen inside 24 months? There's no wrong answer. I just want to pick your brains, and we can get into it more in person.

Three of us on the decisions.

I don't want operational control. I think you're more than capable of running this, and I mean that. What I do want is for the three of us who live in this every day to decide together, and, most of all, to have the room to test the things I believe are important. Not to override anyone. To make sure good ideas get a fair test instead of dying as opinions.

Underneath all of that sits a simple question I'd like us to answer together: how do we actually make decisions moving forward? Is it a straight vote between the three of us, or something else that fits us better? I don't think there's one right answer. I'd just rather we shape it together so it feels fair and clear to everyone, before we're in the middle of a decision that needs it.

Something else worth naming, only because healthy partnerships name it early: we haven't really hit disagreements or hard conversations yet, and at some point we will. That's normal, and it's part of building anything real. What matters to me is that when it happens, we can stay constructive and look at things honestly together, rather than any of us needing to be right. That instinct is hard in any relationship, business or personal, and probably the hardest part of all. Getting it right is a lot of what lets a partnership last.