Sub-Benefit Targeting Framework

The Framework

A sub-benefit is worth targeting when it sits at the intersection of demand, momentum, and either competitive emptiness or competitive failure — backed by science that can support the claim. Two shapes of opportunity exist:

Empty Space

Few brands claim it, but consumer demand exists. First mover advantage.

Broken Space

Many brands claim it, but consumers aren't satisfied. Better execution wins.

Signal	Source	What it answers
1. Demand	perception_evidence_tags	Are consumers talking about this sub-benefit?
2. Trajectory	perception_evidence × date_posted	Is demand growing or shrinking?
3. Density	product_ingredient_claims_tags × branded_name	How many branded ingredients already claim it?
4. Delivery	product_tags × product_topics (sentiment)	Are brands claiming it actually satisfying consumers?
5. Science	science_evidence_tags	Can you back the claim clinically?

Scorecard: Cognitive Health Sub-Benefits

All five signals for all five cognitive sub-benefits. Each cell sourced directly from the database. High-confidence perception mentions (≥0.7), product review topic sentiment, and PubMed-sourced science evidence.

Signal	Brain Energy	Mental Clarity	Focus & Attention	Memory	Neuro- protection
Demand perception mentions	398	339	205	122	113
Trajectory share shift pre-2025 → 2025+	17.9% → 48.8% +31pp	37.0% → 21.1% −16pp	15.8% → 18.9% +3pp	16.1% → 4.9% −11pp	13.2% → 6.3% −7pp
Density branded ingredients (solo products)	8	107	51	45	43
Delivery effectiveness dissatisfaction	12.6%	11.8%	12.1%	11.6%	11.2%
Delivery side effects dissatisfaction	36.8%	38.0%	37.9%	37.9%	36.9%
Science studies (RCTs / meta-analyses)	132 96 / 21	1,294 870 / 316	656 512 / 91	766 526 / 201	1,232 633 / 437

Reading the Scorecard

1. The empty space is Brain Energy

Three signals converge on a single sub-benefit:

Demand

398

Highest mention count of any tag

Trajectory

+31pp

17.9% → 48.8% share — fastest growth by far

Density

vs. 107 for Mental Clarity — 13× less crowded

Brain Energy has the most demand, the fastest growth, and by far the least competition. This is the textbook empty space pattern.

2. There is no broken space in Cognitive Health

The delivery signal is flat across all five tags:

Effectiveness dissatisfaction

11.2% – 12.6% — a 1.4pp spread. No tag's products are failing meaningfully worse than any other's.

Side effects dissatisfaction

36.8% – 38.0% — a 1.2pp spread. Side effect pain is uniformly distributed.

If you're looking for a sub-benefit where incumbents are uniquely bad, it doesn't exist here. The "broken space" play requires a different category — or a different level of analysis (ingredient-level, not tag-level).

3. Brain Energy's weakness is science

The one signal where Brain Energy ranks last. With only 8 branded ingredients in the space, the science gap matters more — each entrant needs its own clinical story:

Brain Energy science

132 studies

96 RCTs, 21 meta-analyses, 54 ingredients

Neuroprotection science

1,232 studies

633 RCTs, 437 meta-analyses, 167 ingredients

Brain Energy has 9.3× less science than Neuroprotection. If you lead with Brain Energy, you're entering the sub-benefit with the strongest consumer tailwind but the thinnest clinical backing. Pairing with a science-heavy secondary tag compensates for this.

4. Memory is dying

16.1% → 4.9% share — the steepest proportional decline of any tag. It has no compensating advantage: middling science (766 studies), middling density (45 branded ingredients), flat delivery. Consumer interest is leaving Memory with no reason to follow it.

5. Neuroprotection is the science anchor

Neuroprotection's consumer demand is low (113 mentions) and falling (−7pp). On its own, it's a weak positioning choice. But it has:

1,232 studies — second only to Mental Clarity, and with the highest meta-analysis count (437)
Moderate density — 43 branded ingredients in solo products, comparable to Memory (45) but far below Mental Clarity (107)
Low refutation risk — long-term brain health is harder for consumers to self-disprove than "does this help me focus right now?"

Neuroprotection is not a lead claim. It's a supporting claim that gives your primary positioning (Brain Energy) the clinical credibility it lacks on its own.

Framework output

Lead with Brain Energy. Anchor with Neuroprotection.

Primary: Brain Energy

Highest consumer demand (398 mentions)
Fastest growing (+31pp share shift)
Least crowded (8 branded ingredients in solo products)
Weakest science (132 studies)

Secondary: Neuroprotection

Deep science base (1,232 studies, 437 meta-analyses)
Moderate density (43 in solo products — 5× more than Brain Energy, but far below Mental Clarity)
Low consumer refutation risk
Low standalone demand (113 mentions, declining)

Avoid: Mental Clarity

107 branded ingredients in solo products — 13× more than Brain Energy. Declining demand (−16pp). Highest side effects dissatisfaction. Maximum crowding, no edge.

Avoid: Memory

Collapsing demand (16.1% → 4.9%). No compensating advantage in density, delivery, or science. Consumer interest is leaving.

Which Cognitive Health Claim Should You Lead With?