Direct-response landers for happyfinlabs.com, built on the brand's real palette, real product photography, and real offer ladder — with the Erewhon wellness collection as the reference point for restraint. Each page is a genuinely different conversion architecture, not one template reskinned, so they can be split-tested against each other by traffic source.
Each one is fully responsive, self-contained, and wired to the live product page. Click through and scroll all the way down — the interactive elements live below the fold.
The direct Erewhon translation. Stark white canvas, black CTAs, tiny all-caps labels, oversized product photography, and a lot of air. Underneath the restraint it's a full DR page: bundle selector above the fold, a sixteen-cell ingredient index, review wall, and a sticky buy bar that follows you down.
The paid-social workhorse. Warm cream, big serif display, six numbered chapters running the classic long-form DR spine — problem agitation, mechanism, the sourcing exposé, the founder, proof, then a three-tier offer stack with the savings math shown. Highest word count, hardest working.
A working five-question diagnostic. It scores the answers, animates a gap gauge, reflects the user's own symptoms back at them, then routes to the protocol length that fits the score — with a written rationale for why that length and not another. Commitment and personalisation doing the selling instead of copy.
The inverse of lander one — deep navy, gold, members'-club weight. Built around a protocol builder that reframes the purchase from "how many jars" to "how long am I covered," with live totals, live per-day cost, and a coverage timeline that fills as you move up the ladder. The AOV page.
Two things to flag before these go live.
1. A pricing inconsistency on the live site. The product page shows "$1.13 / serving" on the single-jar tier, but $39.99 across a 30-day supply is $1.33 a day. The $0.75 and $0.67 figures on the larger tiers both reconcile correctly. I've used math derived from the tier totals on all four pages rather than carry the discrepancy forward — worth someone confirming which number is the intended one.
2. Claim language. These pages are written to structure/function standards — "supports joint comfort," "helps ease everyday stiffness" — with the FDA disclaimer on every footer. I've deliberately not carried over some of the stronger lines currently live on the product page (cartilage rebuilding, and the testimonials referencing cancelled surgeries and specific pain-reduction percentages). Those read as disease-treatment claims and are the kind of thing that draws FTC attention in the supplement category. Flagging as existing exposure on the current site, not just a choice about these four pages.