Campaign asset · 9 angles · 30 hooks

Nine angles, built as a first test.

The practice has never run paid, so nothing here is an optimisation of an existing account. Each angle names the belief it moves, the visual it moves it with, where the click lands, and the honest signal that it should be cut.

Every creative is authored from real content in the offer — the Cycle Overlay Chart, the one-page short list, the twelve-week arc, the refusal list. No stock photography and no decorative graphics.

Cold traffic goes to the free guide, not to the calendar. A mandatory twenty-minute call with the practice's only practitioner is not a cold-traffic destination.

The visual set

Every creative, at the size it ships at.

These are the exported image files, not mockups. The same PNGs are packaged in the creative archive at full platform resolution.

01 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350
The Moving Scale
Lands on /lead-magnet
02 · Facebook feed, 1200 x 628
Four, Not Forty
Lands on /lead-magnet
03 · Story / Reel, 1080 x 1920
The Three-Week Trap
Lands on /lead-magnet
04 · Facebook feed, 1200 x 628
What Normal Doesn't Cover
Lands on /lead-magnet
05 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350
The Refusal List
Lands on /lead-magnet
06 · Story / Reel, 1080 x 1920
One Dinner for the Table
Lands on /opt-in
07 · Story / Reel, 1080 x 1920
Ninety Seconds a Day
Lands on /opt-in
08 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350
Chart Fourteen Days
Lands on /interactive-tool
09 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350
Twelve Weeks With an End Date
Lands on /

The angles

What each one argues, and what would make me kill it.

Hooks are written in Maya's first person, in the third-person plural, or as the client's own words in quotation marks — never as an assertion about the reader's health, which is both a policy problem and a credibility problem.

Angle 01 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350

The Moving Scale

“The same lunch, twice.”

Day 10. Day 24. Two completely different afternoons.

Belief shift: From “My food log is uninterpretable, which means I'm bad at keeping food logs.” to “My food log was uninterpretable because I was measuring against a baseline that moved.”
Objection: Objection #2 — "How is this different from the free low-FODMAP info I already have?" — and the limiting belief "If I were disciplined enough I'd have figured this out already." This angle removes the self-blame before it asks for anything.
Destination: /lead-magnet · button: Download

The creative

Full-bleed warm cream. Occupying the lower two-thirds, an authored, to-scale rendering of the Cycle Overlay Chart: a horizontal axis labelled cycle day 1 through 28, a vertical axis labelled symptom score 0–10, and a hand-plotted line in deep forest green that stays low and flat through days 6–18 then climbs hard from day 21 to day 27. The premenstrual window, days 21–28, is a soft forest-green wash behind the line. One single terracotta dot sits on day 24 at the top of the climb — the only terracotta on the creative. Underneath the chart, in small sans, a real annotation in the register of a clinical note: "Same lunch, day 10. Same lunch, day 24." Above the chart, the serif headline. No people, no hands, no food styling — the chart is the visual, because the chart is the thing the practice sells and the thing she has never been shown.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 99 chars

"It worked for three weeks and then it just stopped." The result wasn't wrong. The measurement was.

Medium

"It worked for like three weeks and then it just stopped." Every elimination diet assumes the baseline sits still. But a lot of women notice their symptoms cluster in the week before their period, so the same meal can land very differently on cycle day 24 than on cycle day 10. That is a scale sitting on a boat. Every reading real. Every reading also wrong. Chart first. Subtract those weeks. Then test food. The guide is free and the charting template is in it.

Long

"It worked for three weeks and then it just stopped." I get some version of that most weeks. Here is the boring explanation. Every elimination diet assumes your baseline sits still — remove a food, feel better, blame the food. But a lot of women notice their symptoms cluster in the week before their period. So the same meal can produce a rough day on cycle day 24 and nothing at all on cycle day 10. It is like weighing yourself on a scale sitting on a boat. Every reading is real. Every reading is also wrong, because the deck is moving underneath you. So I don't test food first. Chart symptoms against cycle days, subtract those weeks from the analysis, and only then reintroduce foods one at a time. Fix the measurement first. Then test. The free guide has the charting template in it. Fourteen days is enough to see whether this is even your pattern. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

The same lunch. Two different days. (35)
Fix the measurement, then test food. (36)

Description

Free guide + charting sheet (27)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar A, post 01 (static chart, same file, caption trimmed to the boat metaphor) and post 03 (five-slide carousel — flat baseline, moving baseline, the boat, the subtraction, the reintroduction). Post 05 re-cuts the caption as a 40-second talking reel with the chart on screen. Email: This is E1, near-verbatim. The boat paragraph is the email's whole middle section. Retargeting: Serve to RT-2 and RT-3 with the caption cut to the first two paragraphs and the CTA switched to /interactive-tool. She has already heard the argument; the second exposure should hand her the instrument, not repeat the pitch.

Kill criteria

Cut it if, after it has spent three times the cold set's running cost per lead with zero leads, the click-through rate is at or below the set's bottom quartile. Cut it faster on a qualitative signal: if link clicks are healthy but /lead-magnet opt-ins are not, the creative is winning attention on the chart and losing it on the page — that is a landing-page fault, not an angle fault, so pause the ad and fix the page before spending more. Also cut on comment-section drift: if the comments become a thread of individual symptom disclosures, the ad has become a medical-advice surface and the account risk outweighs the lead volume.

Angle 02 · Facebook feed, 1200 x 628

Four, Not Forty

“Forty suspects. No method.”

One page. Four items. A threshold beside each.

Belief shift: From “The answer is always fewer foods, and eventually there is nothing left.” to “The answer might be a shorter list than the one I'm carrying, with a threshold beside each item.”
Objection: Objection #5 — "I've already eliminated so much, I can't handle more restriction" — and the limiting belief "Restriction is the only lever." It is also the direct counter to the $400 panel that handed her forty suspects.
Destination: /lead-magnet · button: Download

The creative

A split composition on a warm cream ground, shot as a flat-lay from directly overhead on a real kitchen table in warm afternoon light. On the left, a printed sensitivity-panel report — dense, multi-column, forty-odd food names in small grey type, visibly crumpled at one corner and struck through with a single continuous deep-forest-green line drawn across the whole page. On the right, alone, a single sheet of cream paper headed "What's Actually Yours" in editorial serif, carrying exactly four line items, each with a quantity threshold written beside it in a plain hand. The four thresholds are legible; the panel's forty are deliberately not. One terracotta mark: a small hand-drawn check beside the fourth item. The visual argument lands before a word is read — the object she paid for versus the object she wanted.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 98 chars

A panel hands you forty suspects and no method for clearing a single one. There is a shorter list.

Medium

"I paid $400 for a test that told me to be scared of broccoli." A panel hands you forty suspects and no method for clearing a single one of them, which is why the list only ever grows. The document at the end of Rooted Reset is one page: which foods are actually yours, and how much of each you can have before it turns. How much, not never again. Reintroduction is the product. The elimination is just the part that has to come first. Start with the free guide.

Long

"I paid $400 for a test that told me to be scared of broccoli." That is a real sentence a real client said to me, and the tests keep producing it. A panel hands you forty suspects. What it does not hand you is a method for clearing a single one of them, which is why the list only ever grows. Rooted Reset is a subtraction offer in a market that only ever adds rules. The document at the end is one page: which foods are actually yours, how much you can have before it turns, and everything that was never the problem. How much — not never again. Reintroduction is the product. The elimination is just the part that has to come first. Start with the free guide. Chart fourteen days and see whether the pattern is even there. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

Four foods, not forty. (22)
A shorter list, not a longer one. (33)

Description

Free guide from an RD (21)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar B, post 07 (the flat-lay, same file) and post 09 (carousel: "what a panel can tell you / what it cannot / what actually finds your list"). Post 11 is the same argument delivered as a text-on-green quote card. Email: E4, the panel reframe — and this is the email that is blocked until [OPERATOR INPUT: approved IgG sentence] exists. Do not ship E4 or scale this ad's spend past the test stage until Maya has written the sentence about panels she is willing to put her name on. Retargeting: RT-4 and RT-5 with the destination swapped to / and the caption's last two lines replaced by the twelve-week structure. This is the strongest sales-page-warming angle in the set because it names the deliverable.

Kill criteria

Cut it if the click-through rate sits in the bottom quartile of the cold set after three times the set's running cost per lead. Cut it immediately, regardless of performance, if Meta flags the creative for a health-attribute violation twice — the panel imagery is the most likely trigger in the set and it is not worth an account strike. Also cut if the comments fill with people naming their own panel results and asking Maya to interpret them; that is an unpaid clinical liability, and the angle would need to move behind the guide before it runs again.

Angle 03 · Story / Reel, 1080 x 1920

The Three-Week Trap

“Twenty-one days. Twenty-eight-day cycle.”

The trial ends before the week that moves the number.

Belief shift: From “I'll just cut gluten strictly on my own first — it's free and I'll know in a few weeks.” to “A three-week trial is shorter than one cycle, so it cannot return an answer I can trust — running it again costs me another six months.”
Objection: Objection #3 — "I'll just try cutting gluten myself first." This is the free DIY competitor and, per the offer document, the most frequent loss. It also targets "I already know my triggers. Gluten and dairy. I just have to be stricter."
Destination: /lead-magnet · button: Learn More

The creative

Vertical, deep forest green ground. Down the centre of the frame runs a single calendar strip rendered as 28 small cream squares in four rows of seven, numbered as cycle days — the 14-day charting grid extended to a full cycle. A cream bar labelled "three-week gluten trial" is drawn over days 1 through 21 and stops, visibly and awkwardly, seven squares short of the end of the strip. The seven uncovered squares, days 22–28, are shaded in a slightly deeper green, and one of them carries the single terracotta mark. Beneath, in sans: "The trial ended before the week that changes the reading." Nothing else in the frame. The whole point is the gap you can see, which is the argument the copy then names.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 104 chars

Three weeks is shorter than one cycle. That is why the answer came back ambiguous. Free 1-page briefing.

Medium

"It worked for like three weeks and then it just stopped." Three weeks is shorter than one cycle. So a three-week gluten trial cannot return a trustworthy answer — it returns noise that happens to look like an answer for a while. Run it again and you get the same ambiguous result and lose another six months. If you want to test gluten, test it properly. Chart first, then challenge it in a window where the reading means something. The guide is the charting half, and it costs nothing.

Long

"It worked for like three weeks and then it just stopped." I take that sentence seriously, because it is usually offered as evidence of failure and it is actually evidence of a design flaw. Three weeks is shorter than one cycle. So a three-week gluten trial cannot return a trustworthy answer — it returns noise that happens to look like an answer for a while. Run it again and you get the same ambiguous result and lose another six months. If you want to test gluten, test it properly. Chart first. Then challenge it in a window where the reading means something. The free guide is the charting half, and it costs nothing. Fourteen days of it will tell you more than the last three attempts did. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

Three weeks is shorter than a cycle. (36)
Why it worked, then just stopped. (33)

Description

Free 1-page briefing (20)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar B, post 08 — the same vertical asset posted as a reel with a 25-second voiceover of the first three paragraphs. Pillar E, post 27 reframes it as "the question I ask on every fit call: how many weeks in did it stop working?" Email: E3, the gluten argument, is this angle at full length. It is also the public version of Bonus 1, The Three-Week Trap, so the email and the bonus must not contradict each other. Retargeting: RT-1 and RT-3 with the last line changed to "you already downloaded the guide — the charting template is in it" for RT-3 specifically. Do not re-serve to RT-4; they have already been given the argument in E3 and a third exposure reads as nagging.

Kill criteria

Cut it if three-second video plays are strong but the click-through rate is bottom-quartile after three times the set's running cost per lead — that combination means the strip is entertaining and the argument is not landing. Cut it if the completion rate on the story is under half the set's average, which would mean the vertical strip takes too long to read and needs to be a static frame instead of an animated one. And cut it outright if it stops producing leads once the cohort open window closes, because this angle's whole value is that it intercepts a decision she is making right now.

Angle 04 · Facebook feed, 1200 x 628

What Normal Doesn't Cover

“Within range.”

Which is good news, and still not dinner.

Belief shift: From “My labs are normal, so there is nothing to find. It is stress, or age, or in my head.” to “Normal labs rule serious things out. That is real and it is good. It is a different question from what to eat on Tuesday, and nobody has answered that one yet.”
Objection: The limiting belief "My labs are normal, so there's nothing to find" and the need to be believed as a reliable narrator of her own body. This is the third of the three content pillars that already perform organically — respectful, never doctor-bashing.
Destination: /lead-magnet · button: Download

The creative

Landscape, warm cream ground. On the left, a lab report page rendered honestly — column headings, a stack of marker names, a result column, a reference-range column, and every row marked within range in flat grey. It is deliberately unremarkable and deliberately not mocked. On the right, separated by a thin forest-green rule, a small cream card that reads, in the practice's serif, "Tuesday, 6:40pm" above four empty ruled lines where a dinner would be written. The two objects are photographed on the same wooden table in the same warm light so neither one wins on styling. One terracotta element: a short handwritten arrow in the gutter between them, pointing from the lab page toward the empty card. The argument is the gap between a page that says nothing is wrong and a page that is still blank.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 95 chars

Normal labs rule things out. They don't tell you what to eat on Tuesday. Free guide from an RD.

Medium

"My doctor keeps telling me everything's normal. Cool. I still can't button my jeans." Both halves of that are true at once. A negative celiac panel and a clean colonoscopy rule out the things you most want ruled out. That is genuinely good news. It is a different question from which foods are yours, and how much. I'm a registered dietitian. Six years of it in a hospital GI clinic. I don't order labs. I read patterns with people. The free guide shows you how to chart fourteen days.

Long

"My doctor keeps telling me everything's normal. Cool. I still can't button my jeans." Both halves of that sentence are true at once, and holding them together is the whole job. A negative celiac panel, a clean colonoscopy and labs within range are genuinely good news. They rule out the things you most want ruled out. What they were never designed to do is tell you which foods are yours and how much of each you can have — that question needs a different instrument, and it is a nutrition question, not a lab question. I am a registered dietitian. Six of my eleven years were in a hospital GI clinic. I don't order labs and I don't diagnose. I read patterns with people. The free guide shows you how to chart fourteen days of yours. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

Normal labs rule things out. (28)
What a normal panel doesn't say. (32)

Description

Free guide + chart template (27)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar C, post 13 (the flat-lay), post 15 (carousel: "what a normal panel rules out / what it does not measure / what to ask for instead — educational naming only, no dosing"), post 17 (the Physician Conversation Sheet teased as a free-with-guide asset). Email: E2, the past-failure reframe, opens on this quote. The Physician Conversation Sheet is the natural PS. Retargeting: RT-1 and RT-2 with the destination held at /lead-magnet — this angle should not be pushed to / because a woman still processing "everything's normal" is not ready for a $1,800 page. Its retargeting job is the download, twice.

Kill criteria

Cut it if it produces cheap leads that never open E1 — a high opt-in rate paired with sub-set email engagement means it is attracting sympathy clicks rather than the researcher who will actually chart. Cut it on the standard gate too: bottom-quartile click-through after three times the set's running cost per lead. And cut it on any sign the comment section is turning into physician criticism; the moment this angle reads as anti-doctor it costs the referral loop, which is a more valuable channel than the ad set.

Angle 05 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350

The Refusal List

“Things I don't do.”

No IgG panels. No hair mineral tests. No labs ordered. No longer list.

Belief shift: From “The clinic with the big test panel is being more thorough than a dietitian who won't run any tests.” to “Refusing to sell me a panel is the most credible thing anyone in this category has done.”
Objection: Objection #4 — "Shouldn't I get proper testing first?" — and the belief "Real answers come from tests. If nobody's testing me, nobody's actually looking." It also feeds the deeper need: trustworthy authority without hype, where the restraint is the proof.
Destination: /lead-magnet · button: Learn More

The creative

Portrait, deep forest green ground, almost no imagery — this one is typographic on purpose, because a refusal should look like a statement, not a product shot. A cream panel occupies the middle two-thirds, headed in editorial serif: "Things I don't do." Below it, four items set as a plain list in sans, each preceded by a small cream dash: no IgG food-sensitivity panels · no hair mineral tests · no ordering labs · no handing you a longer list of foods to be afraid of. Below the list, in smaller type and separated by a hairline, one line in terracotta — the only terracotta in the frame: "I ask your physician for a conventional panel instead." At the bottom of the cream panel, small and sans: "Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD · 11 years · 6 in a hospital GI clinic." The credential sits underneath the refusal, which is the correct order.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 95 chars

No IgG panels. No hair mineral tests. No labs ordered. No longer list of foods to be afraid of.

Medium

Here is my list of things I don't do, so you can rule me out early. No IgG food-sensitivity panels. No hair mineral tests. No ordering labs. And never a longer list of foods to be afraid of, because that list has only ever grown in one direction. What I do instead is ask your physician for a conventional panel, and then read your own chart with you. Eleven years as a registered dietitian. Six of them in a hospital GI clinic. The guide is free.

Long

"I looked into a functional medicine place — the test panel was fourteen hundred dollars." Here is my list of things I don't do, so you can decide early whether I am useless to you. I don't run IgG food-sensitivity panels. I don't run hair mineral tests. I don't order labs. And I will never hand you a longer list of foods to be afraid of, because that list has only ever grown in one direction and you already know how that story ends. What I do instead is ask your physician for a conventional panel, and then read your own chart with you. Eleven years as a registered dietitian. Six of them in a hospital GI clinic. Every enrollment starts with a free twenty-minute fit call, and if I don't think I can help you, I will say so. The guide is free and it is the honest first step. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

No panels. No labs. No fear list. (33)
The tests this dietitian won't run. (35)

Description

Read the refusal list (21)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar E, post 25 (the same typographic card), post 26 ("what I'd ask your doctor to check — educational only, no dosing"), post 29 (Bonus 2 teased: bring your panel to the Week 1 kickoff and we read it and set it aside). Email: E4, the panel reframe, alongside angle 02. Blocked on [OPERATOR INPUT: approved IgG sentence] — this angle states the refusal but deliberately stops short of characterising what the panels do or don't measure, and it must keep stopping short until Maya writes the sentence she will put her name on. Retargeting: RT-3 and RT-6. For RT-6 — sales-page visitors who did not book — swap the destination to /book and the final line to "the fit call is twenty minutes and it is where I tell you if this isn't for you." The refusal is the strongest booking argument in the set for a skeptic who has already read the price.

Kill criteria

Cut it if cost per lead is above the cold set's median after three times the set's running cost per lead, but read the result carefully first: this angle is designed to filter, so a lower volume of higher-intent leads is a pass, not a fail. The honest kill signal is a low click-through combined with low opt-in — that means the refusal read as evasive rather than principled and the list needs to be shorter. Also cut on any policy flag, since naming specific commercial test categories is the most reviewable copy in the set.

Angle 06 · Story / Reel, 1080 x 1920

One Dinner for the Table

“One dinner. Four plates.”

The swaps live on one of them.

Belief shift: From “I can't do another protocol while I'm still cooking for four people — I'd be eating plain chicken alone.” to “This one is built to be cooked as the family's dinner, with the swaps on my plate only.”
Objection: Objection #6 — "Can I really do this while cooking for a family?" — and the limiting belief "Elimination diets are for people with more time and fewer children." Per the offer document, the second dinner is the number one reason a mid-career mother quits in week three.
Destination: /opt-in · button: Sign Up

The creative

Vertical, shot in a real kitchen at the hour it actually happens — late afternoon, warm low light coming in sideways, a slightly cluttered counter that has not been staged into a magazine. One sheet pan of a genuinely ordinary family dinner sits centre frame. Four plates are being served from it. On one plate — hers, nearest the camera — two small swaps are marked with two thin cream tags on the rim, and one of those two tags is terracotta. No faces, no laughing, no salad. A child's hand is reaching in from the top of the frame for a plate, which is the only human element and it is doing work: it says this dinner is being eaten by a family, tonight, in a real house. Cream type sits in the clear space above the pan.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 88 chars

Built to be cooked as one dinner for the table, with the swaps on one plate. Free guide.

Medium

"I'm making two dinners every night at this point." That sentence ends more protocols than the food rules do. So the Calm phase is a modified low-FODMAP baseline — deliberately modified — and it is built off your actual grocery list to be cooked as one dinner the table shares. The swaps sit on your plate. Nobody else has to notice. Free guide first. No shopping list, no recipes to buy, just fourteen days of charting.

Long

"I'm making two dinners every night at this point." That is the sentence that ends most protocols by week three. Not the food rules — the second dinner. So the Calm phase is a modified low-FODMAP baseline, deliberately modified, and it is built off your actual grocery list to be cooked as one dinner the table shares. The swaps sit on your plate. Nobody else has to notice. There is also a family dinner bridge file inside the program for the meals that do not adapt cleanly, because some of them don't and pretending otherwise is how people quit. Start with the free guide — no shopping list, no recipes to buy, just fourteen days of charting. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

One dinner for the whole table. (31)
Not a separate mom meal. (24)

Description

Free guide. No recipes to buy. (30)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar D, post 19 (the still), post 21 (a 30-second reel of the same dinner being plated four ways with the two swaps called out), post 23 ("what a modified baseline actually means, in one sentence"). Email: E6, the offer email, family-logistics objection block. Also the natural home for Bonus 3, Feeding Four. Retargeting: RT-1 and RT-4 with the destination moved to / and the caption extended with the twelve-week structure. For RT-4 specifically, lead with the bonus name rather than the objection — she has already been persuaded that the method is real and now needs to picture the Tuesday.

Kill criteria

Cut it if it is the cheapest ad in the set on cost per click and the most expensive on cost per lead — that pattern means the kitchen photo is buying scrolls-stops from people who wanted a recipe, and this angle attracts recipe-seekers if the copy is not doing enough. Cut it if /opt-in completion is materially below /lead-magnet completion on the same angle in the stage-2 destination test. And cut it if the top comments are asking what is on the sheet pan, because that means the food out-performed the argument and the creative needs to be less appetising, which is a genuinely funny sentence to write and also true.

Angle 07 · Story / Reel, 1080 x 1920

Ninety Seconds a Day

“Ninety seconds.”

That's the daily log. Everything else is recorded.

Belief shift: From “I don't have the hours for this. Not the money — the hours.” to “The daily cost is ninety seconds, the calls are recorded, and the whole thing has a date it ends.”
Objection: Objection #1 — "I don't have time right now" — which the avatar document names as the top objection and explicitly frames as timing, not money. It also touches objection #7, the noon Pacific conflict, by leading with recordings.
Destination: /opt-in · button: Sign Up

The creative

Vertical, warm cream ground. Centre frame, a 14-day charting grid rendered at real scale — two rows of seven cream cells with hairline forest-green rules, sitting on a real table with a real pen resting across the corner of it. Nine of the fourteen cells are filled in with a quick handwritten symptom score and a cycle day; the remaining five are blank, because a half-finished log is what her life actually looks like and pretending otherwise insults her. One terracotta mark: the score in the ninth cell, the last one she filled. Above the grid, the serif headline. Below it, small sans, three lines set as a stack: "1 live call a week, at noon Pacific. All recorded. Four 1:1 hours across twelve weeks." No clocks, no stopwatches, no hourglass icons.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 86 chars

The daily log takes about ninety seconds. Fourteen days of it is the whole first step.

Medium

"How much time per week, honestly?" Here is the precise answer instead of the reassuring one. The daily charting takes about ninety seconds. One live group call a week, Tuesdays at noon Pacific, and every one is recorded. Four 1:1 hours with me across the whole twelve weeks. If ninety seconds a day genuinely isn't available, this isn't the right season, and I'd rather you came back for the next cohort than started one you can't finish. The free guide is fourteen days of that ninety seconds.

Long

"How much time per week, honestly?" It is the question I take most seriously, so here is the precise answer instead of a reassuring one. The daily charting takes about ninety seconds. One live group call a week, Tuesdays at noon Pacific, and every single one is recorded — you can miss two in a row and be completely fine. Four 1:1 hours with me across the whole twelve weeks. That is the real cost. If ninety seconds a day is genuinely not available, this is not the right season and I would rather you came back for the next cohort than started one you can't finish. The free guide is fourteen days of that ninety seconds, and nothing else. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

Ninety seconds a day. Fourteen days. (36)
The log takes under two minutes. (32)

Description

Free charting template (22)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar D, post 24 ("the honest weekly time cost, itemised"). Pillar E, post 28 (the recordings and catch-up path — Bonus 5 — as a static card). Email: E6, the offer email, time-objection block, using the same itemised numbers. Also the strongest PS line for E7, the last call. Retargeting: RT-3 and RT-5. For RT-5 — women who started a chart in the interactive tool — this is the highest-relevance ad in the set, because she has just experienced how long the logging takes and the ad simply names it. Swap the destination to / for RT-5.

Kill criteria

Cut it if it under-delivers against angle 06 on the same /opt-in destination at equal spend, since both are vertical, both are lightweight, and the set only needs one lightweight cold winner. Cut it if the story completion rate is high and the tap-through is low, which would mean the number is satisfying on its own and the ad is answering the objection for free without earning the click — in that case it becomes an organic post rather than an ad. And cut it at any point where message support cadence is still [OPERATOR INPUT: message support cadence and channel] and prospects start asking about response times in comments, because this angle invites that question and the account cannot answer it yet.

Angle 08 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350

Chart Fourteen Days

“Don't take my word for it.”

Chart fourteen days and read your own numbers.

Belief shift: From “I'd have to trust another practitioner's claim before I could find out whether it applies to me.” to “I can run the test myself, on my own body, for free, before I speak to anyone.”
Objection: Objection #8 — "What if I do all twelve weeks and nothing changes?" — pre-empted at the cheapest possible point, plus the general suspicion of anyone selling a program. This is the angle for the woman who has been lurking for six months.
Destination: /interactive-tool · button: Learn More

The creative

Portrait, warm cream ground. The frame is the Cycle Overlay charting tool as it actually appears mid-use: a clean 28-column grid with a symptom-score axis, roughly half of it populated, and the plotted line just beginning to show a rise as it enters the shaded premenstrual band. Unlike angle 01, this is not a finished chart — it is a chart in progress, with the cursor-style highlight sitting on the next empty day, because the invitation is to fill it in rather than to admire it. Beneath the grid, a single cream button rendered in terracotta type: "Start day one." That button is the only terracotta on the creative. Around the grid, generous cream margin and nothing else. No hands, no phone mockup, no dashboard chrome — the instrument, at scale, and an empty cell waiting.

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 101 chars

Chart fourteen days and read your own numbers. If the pattern isn't there, that is worth knowing too.

Medium

Long

"I don't want another diet. I want to know what's actually MY problem." Fair. So don't take my word for anything. Chart fourteen days. Score your symptoms daily, mark the cycle day beside each one, and then look at whether your bad days cluster or scatter. That is the entire test. It costs nothing and it takes about ninety seconds a day. If they cluster, you have found something specific about how your body works and you will walk into any conversation after this with data instead of a theory. If they scatter, then this is not your mechanism, and I would rather you found that out in fourteen free days than in twelve paid weeks. I will tell you so. The charting tool is open. Start on day one, whenever day one is. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

Chart it. Then read your own data. (34)
Fourteen days of your own numbers. (34)

Description

Free charting tool (18)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar A, post 02 (the tool, screen-recorded, 20 seconds), post 04 ("cluster or scatter — the only two answers the first fourteen days can give"), post 06 (a repost-friendly card of the four scoring rules). Email: E1's call to action, and then the day-3 nudge in the post-download sequence — "you downloaded it, here's the tool that does the plotting for you." It is also the E5 proof email's soft landing, because the honest proof of the mechanism is her own chart, not anyone else's. Retargeting: RT-3 and RT-4 as the primary vehicle. This is the ad that converts a downloader who never charted, which per the avatar's own behaviour pattern — downloads the guide, reads it in one sitting, does nothing for four months — is the single largest recoverable pool in the funnel.

Kill criteria

Cut it if tool starts are healthy but day-2 returns are near zero, because then the ad is working and the tool has a retention problem that no creative can fix — pause spend and fix the tool. Cut it if it cannot beat angle 01 on cost per tool start when both are served to RT-3, since angle 01 already carries the chart. And cut it if it is still being served to cold audiences after stage one; it is not a cold angle and letting it run on cold budget will quietly make the whole account look worse than it is.

Angle 09 · Instagram feed, 1080 x 1350

Twelve Weeks With an End Date

“It ends.”

Twelve weeks, three phases, and a one-page list at the end of it.

Belief shift: From “Every protocol I start is open-ended, which is why I abandon them and why abandoning them feels like a verdict on me.” to “This one is finite, it has checkpoints and a written exit, and I can see the date it ends before I start.”
Objection: The ranked need for an end date — proof this is finite, which the avatar document places second only to certainty. It also answers objection #1's deeper form — she can do hard things if the plan is finite, defined, and ends — and gives her the kitchen-table sentence for objection #9.
Destination: / · button: Learn More

The creative

Portrait, deep forest green ground. Centre frame, the 12-week phase timeline rendered as a single horizontal rule broken into three labelled segments of unequal length — Calm, weeks 1–4; Reintroduce, weeks 5–10; Root, weeks 11–12 — in cream. Three small cream markers sit above the rule at week 1, week 5 and week 11, each labelled with its 1:1 checkpoint. At the right-hand end of the rule, past week 12, sits one terracotta square and beneath it, in serif, the words "your one-page short list." The line stops. That is the point of the whole creative: the argument is made by the fact that the rule has an end and the object is sitting past it. Below, in small sans: "Cohorts of 15. Three a year. Every enrollment starts with a free 20-minute fit call."

Primary text, three lengths

Short · 100 chars

Twelve weeks. An end date. A short list. Then you go live your life. Three cohorts a year, 15 seats.

Medium

"I cannot survive one more elimination diet." Open-ended protocols are the ones people abandon, and then the abandoning gets read as a character flaw. It is a structure problem. Rooted Reset is twelve weeks and then it stops. Calm, Reintroduce, Root. Three 1:1 checkpoints, recorded weekly calls, and a one-page document naming which foods are actually yours and how much of each. The process and the clarity. Not a symptom outcome, because nobody honest can promise that. Cohorts of 15, three a year.

Long

"I cannot survive one more elimination diet." Neither could I. That is a structure problem, not a willpower one. Open-ended protocols are the ones people abandon, and then the abandoning gets treated as a character flaw. Rooted Reset is twelve weeks and then it stops. Calm, weeks one to four. Reintroduce, weeks five to ten. Root, weeks eleven and twelve, where a 1:1 checkpoint turns everything you learned into a maintenance plan you run without me. Three 1:1 checkpoints, weekly recorded group calls, and a one-page document naming which foods are actually yours and how much of each — how much, not never again. What I promise is the process and the clarity. I do not promise a symptom outcome, because nobody honest can. Cohorts run three times a year, capped at 15. Next cohort: [OPERATOR INPUT: next cohort dates]. Every enrollment starts with a free twenty-minute fit call, and if I don't think I can help you, I will tell you. — Maya Chen, MS, RDN, LD. Nutrition education and coaching, not medical care. Individual experience varies.

Headline field

Twelve weeks with an end date. (30)
Finite, defined, and then it ends. (34)

Description

Cohorts of 15, 3x a year (24)

Reuse path

Organic: Pillar E, post 30 (the timeline card, posted when a cohort opens). Pillar B, post 12 (the "What's Actually Yours" short list described in detail — the object at the end of the rule). Email: E7, the last call, is this angle at length, and it is the one email in the sequence that must carry [OPERATOR INPUT: next cohort dates] in the subject line as well as the body. It is also the closing block of E6. Retargeting: RT-5 and RT-6 exclusively. RT-6 gets the /book variant. RT-5 gets the / variant, because a woman who has charted has validated the mechanism and is ready to read the page but is not yet ready to be asked for twenty minutes of her calendar. Stage-4 variant: same creative, CTA Book Now → /book, on RT-6 only. Scheduler destination is [OPERATOR INPUT: fit call booking link].

Kill criteria

Cut it if it drives sales-page traffic with no fit-call bookings across a full cohort-open window — that would mean the timeline is persuasive and the page or the booking step is not, which is a page problem to fix rather than an angle to keep paying for. Cut the /book variant specifically if bookings arrive but the fit calls are screening out at an unusually high rate, since the ad would then be pulling unqualified applicants into Maya's calendar, which costs her the scarcest resource in the practice. And turn it off entirely between cohorts rather than letting it run — there is no honest urgency to manufacture in the gap, and running an end-date ad against a cohort that has not opened is exactly the kind of thing this account should never do.

Hook bank

Thirty first lines, each tagged to its angle.

Recombine these freely against the copy variants. Two of the avatar's strongest lines are deliberately held out of paid and kept for organic, because copy that asserts a reader's condition gets rejected.

1"It worked for like three weeks and then it just stopped." I get some version of that most weeks.moving-scale
2The same lunch, on cycle day 10 and on cycle day 24, is not the same experiment.moving-scale
3You cannot weigh yourself accurately on a scale that is sitting on a boat.moving-scale
4Most food logs aren't unreadable because they were kept badly.moving-scale
5"I paid $400 for a test that told me to be scared of broccoli."four-not-forty
6Forty suspects is not a finding. It's a longer list.four-not-forty
7"I did the whole thing. Turns out it's four foods. FOUR."four-not-forty
8The thing at the end of this isn't a rule. It's a threshold — how much, not never again.four-not-forty
9Three weeks is shorter than one cycle. That's the whole problem with the three-week gluten trial.three-week-trap
10"I'll just cut gluten myself first." Completely reasonable — except you've already run that one.three-week-trap
11On every fit call I ask the same question: how many weeks in did it stop working?three-week-trap
12"My doctor keeps telling me everything's normal. Cool. I still can't button my jeans."normal-labs
13A clean colonoscopy is genuinely good news, and it is still not a dinner plan.normal-labs
14Normal labs answer a question. They just don't answer the Tuesday-at-six question.normal-labs
15"I know my bloodwork is normal, but something is off — I'm not the same." I hear that sentence a lot.normal-labs
16Here is my list of things I don't do, so you can rule me out early.refusal-list
17"I looked into a functional medicine place — the test panel was fourteen hundred dollars."refusal-list
18I don't run IgG panels. I don't run hair mineral tests. I don't order labs.refusal-list
19"I'm making two dinners every night at this point."one-dinner
20The second dinner is what ends most protocols by week three. Not the food rules.one-dinner
21If a plan can't be cooked as the family's dinner, it isn't a plan. It's a hobby.one-dinner
22"How much time per week, honestly?" It's the question I take most seriously.ninety-seconds
23Ninety seconds a day. That's the daily cost, and I'd rather say it than soften it.ninety-seconds
24Every group call is recorded. You can miss two in a row and be completely fine.ninety-seconds
25"I don't want another diet. I want to know what's actually MY problem."chart-fourteen
26Don't take my word for it. Chart fourteen days and read your own numbers.chart-fourteen
27Cluster or scatter. Those are the only two answers fourteen days can give.chart-fourteen
28"I cannot survive one more elimination diet."end-date
29Twelve weeks. An end date. A short list. Then you go live your life.end-date
30Open-ended is why people quit. So this one stops on a date you can see before you start.end-date