Considering 11-T, Your Experience?

Nutrition
21

Thanks for the insight Bill, one thing i wish Biotest would do is be a bit more upfront about why products go away.

We all understand that not everything is going to be a raging success and that things will have to be discontinued but when things are so hyped up (i believe 11-t was going to sell out within minutes according to the report)its a little “off” when they just disapear without any reason why.

There are countless products that this has happened to over the years and it justify’s a lot of the skepticism people are feeling when they hear about the next big thing.

I don’t wish to turn this into a Biotest conspiracy or bashing thread, just a piece of constructive criticism i think we would all appreciate.

22

Or maybe say “last chance to buy” so I can get another bottle or two before it goes away forever… >_<

I mean it did sell out within like a week of it’s first arrival, then it took like a month or something to get another supply. Then I guess they made too much? I don’t know.

23

We did have an expectation that the first batch would sell out promptly.

First, the number of bottles produced for the first run was quite low.

Second, while I have the above view regarding spray format as a very large impediment to first-time buying, for whatever reason that may be, there was not an overall view within Biotest, so far as I know, that that would necessarily be a killer this time. I rather expect that wasn’t generally thought, or the product wouldn’t have been launched.

And while the first batch didn’t sell out quite as quickly as expected, it wasn’t that slow to sell out. If I recall correctly it was only about 2 months before the store was showing it as out-of-stock.

Lastly, do keep in mind that I don’t know for a fact why it has been discontinued now. The above is personal opinion on the topic that was brought up on volume of sales. For all I know, volume remained sufficient that it would have been kept in the line-up, but for example it could have been that there was a supply problem.

On it not being the usual practice to announce why products are discontinued without replacement: I can’t think of a single company that routinely, if indeed ever, does that. I doubt that for anybody it’s usually because of something to hide, it’s just that there’s nothing obviously productive about doing it. People probably just usually figure it’s because of sales, profitability, manufacturing, or regulatory issues, and for most any business and product that is probably right the great majority of the time.

24

You might be right that it sold out initially faster than I said in the above post. I certainly don’t have a specific recollection on the time frame; I do recall seeing “out of stock” not so long after the launch.

Maybe my about-2-month recollection is for the second run. That would fit in with the timeframe you described above.

25

Because 11-T is such an expensive product to produce, and it was possible that at any time an FDA order might prevent our selling it, it was always planned to keep stock low and ideally to end the product with zero bottles on hand.

If a decision was made – again, I don’t know, I’m speaking only from the standpoint of what seems to me reasonable business practices combined with knowledge of the product itself – when at some low number of bottles that it was time to discontinue it, whether from sales, production issues, FDA environment, or some other reason, it seems to me it would have been rather cruel to make a “last chance to buy” announcement and have quite a good number of faithful customers immediately put in an order or try to, and have 90% or whatever of them suffer disappointment.

Not a single extra customer would have wound up with a bottle that way. It would only have changed who got the bottles from those who in the natural course of things wanted to order at that time, to those people largely not being able to get it but instead others getting it.

MAG-10’s discontinuance was a different thing. There, the government had given us a specific date. Thus, we could make a good offer and satisfy a lot of customers. The only ones disappointed would be those that just waited way too long to place the order. So we were able to do that there.

26

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

On it not being the usual practice to announce why products are discontinued without replacement: I can’t think of a single company that routinely, if indeed ever, does that. I doubt that for anybody it’s usually because of something to hide, it’s just that there’s nothing obviously productive about doing it. People probably just usually figure it’s because of sales, profitability, manufacturing, or regulatory issues, and for most any business and product that is probably right the great majority of the time.[/quote]

We will probably have to end up agreeing to disagree, I just think that if something is so totally revolutionary that its going to change the world of lifting as we know it, when it disappears without a word of warning or any explanation then it comes across as strange to me.

If a company stop selling a particular line of T-shirts, of course not, but they weren’t claiming to change to t-shirt world forever more than likely

Im not just specifically referring to just 11-T here, there are a few examples

In any event, just a suggestion that wouldn’t be very hard to do when you own the internet forums that accompany the products you sell. To me, that would be productive and im sure many would agree.

27

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not all products are the same in that.

Those containing IPM stay sticky longer.

Androsol was very fast to apply. Less than 60 seconds, and ordinarily there would be things to do taking a couple of minutes in the morning that one could take care of before putting clothes on anyway.

11-T was not quite as fast as Androsol. There never seemed to be feedback that people were bothered by the application time.

I really don’t know the thinking of prospective buyers that did not do buy on account of the format. Whether it was just the entire concept, or a subcomponent such as imagining that great labor was involved. Whatever it was, though, it was a sales-killer.[/quote]

Loved Androsol, loved MAG-10! Spray on has never been in impediment to me. In fact, I asked for your opinion on a previous thread, Bill, about making an ‘spray’ using 99% isoproply alcohol and prescription Androgel. I’ve been making and using this spray for about six months, and if I don’t get better absorption, I at least am able to cover more exposed skin than with the gel alone. I actually think it’s MORE convenient to use it as a spray, I don’t get a pasty residue as I did from the gel, an obvious sign of over application in one area, and a waste of product.

Thanks for the info Bill.

28

[quote]stevo_ wrote:
right the great majority of the time.

We will probably have to end up agreeing to disagree, I just think that if something is so totally revolutionary that its going to change the world of lifting as we know it, when it disappears without a word of warning or any explanation then it comes across as strange to me.[/quote]

I really hadn’t thought it was ever said of 11-T that it was totally revolutionary and would change the world of lifting as we know it.

29

[quote]Ironliftr3 wrote:
Loved Androsol, loved MAG-10! Spray on has never been in impediment to me. In fact, I asked for your opinion on a previous thread, Bill, about making an ‘spray’ using 99% isoproply alcohol and prescription Androgel. I’ve been making and using this spray for about six months, and if I don’t get better absorption, I at least am able to cover more exposed skin than with the gel alone. I actually think it’s MORE convenient to use it as a spray, I don’t get a pasty residue as I did from the gel, an obvious sign of over application in one area, and a waste of product.

Thanks for the info Bill.[/quote]

You’re welcome of course!

That’s very interesting that you’ve gone ahead and done that. I’m glad that it seems to have turned out where added ingredients caused you no problem.

I agree on the convenience. Personally when coming up with Androsol I thought one of the interesting things was that while the pharmaceutical companies were focusing on trying to improve convenience by minimizing area of application (patches, and even use on the scrotum), while making that small area hardly unnoticeable, Androsol took the reverse approach and maximized area while making application absolutely imperceptible very shortly afterwards, and thus was less obtrusive.

And needless to say Androsol did way more than the pharmaceutical products.

But how many patches did they sell vs how many bottles did we sell? :wink:

30

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
stevo_ wrote:
right the great majority of the time.

We will probably have to end up agreeing to disagree, I just think that if something is so totally revolutionary that its going to change the world of lifting as we know it, when it disappears without a word of warning or any explanation then it comes across as strange to me.

I really hadn’t thought it was ever said of 11-T that it was totally revolutionary and would change the world of lifting as we know it.
[/quote]

No, but it was said to “make us forget about the ban”, or something like that.

I like 11-T, but it was no MAG-10

31

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Ironliftr3 wrote:
Loved Androsol, loved MAG-10! Spray on has never been in impediment to me. In fact, I asked for your opinion on a previous thread, Bill, about making an ‘spray’ using 99% isoproply alcohol and prescription Androgel. I’ve been making and using this spray for about six months, and if I don’t get better absorption, I at least am able to cover more exposed skin than with the gel alone. I actually think it’s MORE convenient to use it as a spray, I don’t get a pasty residue as I did from the gel, an obvious sign of over application in one area, and a waste of product.

Thanks for the info Bill.

You’re welcome of course!

That’s very interesting that you’ve gone ahead and done that. I’m glad that it seems to have turned out where added ingredients caused you no problem.

I agree on the convenience. Personally when coming up with Androsol I thought one of the interesting things was that while the pharmaceutical companies were focusing on trying to improve convenience by minimizing area of application (patches, and even use on the scrotum), while making that small area hardly unnoticeable, Androsol took the reverse approach and maximized area while making application absolutely imperceptible very shortly afterwards, and thus was less obtrusive.

And needless to say Androsol did way more than the pharmaceutical products.

But how many patches did they sell vs how many bottles did we sell? ;)[/quote]

One thing we need to take into consideration Bill with Androgel specifically

Is the abundance of 5 alpha enzymes on the skin.

The greater the application site, the more T that is going to be converted on the skin into DHT, something we don’t necessarily want.

Also, greater application sites in reference to testosterone also show a greater affinity to more conversion to estrogen.

Big pharma probably (or maybe didn’t?!) took this into consideration.

This obviously has no correlation with 11-T for those who are curious.

32

I think you have an excellent point on skin conversion of transdermally applied T to DHT being undoubtedly affected by the method of application. I was really referring to the general approach at the time being focused on (then) ever-nastier patches, trying for smaller and smaller size but more and more powerful penetration enhancement, rather than a specific substance.

I can’t say what was being thought in the industry with regard to testosterone.

I do know that in pharmaceutical science at the time, the focus in general was formulating for maximum delivery into smallest possible skin area even where skin metabolism was no issue; and I never once saw an effort towards allowing much larger area and much less transport per unit area (flux) on account of being less obtrusive after application. Maximizing flux was the Holy Grail and that was just that.

There are often weird things like that. For example, I am pretty sure you will find medicinal chemistry texts and most certainly medicinal chemistry professors and lecturers who will say that the principal thing, or I even once read, the DEFINITION of medicinal chemistry was increasing potency.

(Meaning, effect per milligram.)

Now that’s just flat stupid.

If derivative B requires three times the milligrams for same effect, but has less side effects at therapeutically-equivalent doses, a more suitable half-life, and is cheaper to manufacturer, then it’s better regardless that it is less potent.

Yet you could find literally thousands of articles in medicinal chemistry where potency is sought as the Holy Grail.

Sidetrack, but not unrelated.

33

I like 11-T. I find the spray application not a problem or issue at all! I am glad I still have one bottle in my cabinet. I also loved androsol. Thanks for the great products Bill.

34

God. Damnit. :frowning:

35

Glad you like! And thank you!

36

[quote]NewDamage wrote:
God. Damnit. :-([/quote]

you liked it too? Never heard your feedback on it, care to share?

37

Yeah just to give an afirmative to Bill… when the product came out i was interested. But the price plus spraying your body down made me pass. I’m sure if it had caught on and there was this huge positive buzz i would of been willing to try the spray tan supplement.

But… it seems many folks had the same idea as me… not going to spray tan our supplements without a really good reason… so no buzz… and now its gone. shucks.

Lesson here is find another way to release a new product other than spray tan.

Is it legal for a supplement company to make an injectible product? I’m guessing no. Not that many folks would be into that either.

38

[quote]DJS wrote:
Yeah just to give an afirmative to Bill… when the product came out i was interested. But the price plus spraying your body down made me pass. I’m sure if it had caught on and there was this huge positive buzz i would of been willing to try the spray tan supplement.

But… it seems many folks had the same idea as me… not going to spray tan our supplements without a really good reason… so no buzz… and now its gone. shucks.

Lesson here is find another way to release a new product other than spray tan.

Is it legal for a supplement company to make an injectible product? I’m guessing no. Not that many folks would be into that either. [/quote]

That’s a shame cause I don’t think most people realize how easy it is to apply these products.

I’ve had great results with Androsol, Nandrosol, and 11-T. They were 3 of the most effective supplements I’ve used. Application probably averages 30 seconds a day, which is nothing to me despite my busy schedule.

I’m all for more transdermal products provided that Biotest can sell enough to make them worthwhile.

39

Nope.

It’s not legal either for a nutritional supplement to be a topical spray, for that matter.

11-T was categorized as a cosmetic.

(How so? From anti-cortisol effect with regard to dermal fat cells, and being applied to the skin.)

(And nope, an over-the-counter cosmetic cannot be an injectable, or at least I don’t think so.)

Androsol was a cosmetic as well, by the way. It was a Sports Skin Tonic.

40

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I think you have an excellent point on skin conversion of transdermally applied T to DHT being undoubtedly affected by the method of application. I was really referring to the general approach at the time being focused on (then) ever-nastier patches, trying for smaller and smaller size but more and more powerful penetration enhancement, rather than a specific substance.

I can’t say what was being thought in the industry with regard to testosterone.

I do know that in pharmaceutical science at the time, the focus in general was formulating for maximum delivery into smallest possible skin area even where skin metabolism was no issue; and I never once saw an effort towards allowing much larger area and much less transport per unit area (flux) on account of being less obtrusive after application. Maximizing flux was the Holy Grail and that was just that.

There are often weird things like that. For example, I am pretty sure you will find medicinal chemistry texts and most certainly medicinal chemistry professors and lecturers who will say that the principal thing, or I even once read, the DEFINITION of medicinal chemistry was increasing potency.

(Meaning, effect per milligram.)

Now that’s just flat stupid.

If derivative B requires three times the milligrams for same effect, but has less side effects at therapeutically-equivalent doses, a more suitable half-life, and is cheaper to manufacturer, then it’s better regardless that it is less potent.

Yet you could find literally thousands of articles in medicinal chemistry where potency is sought as the Holy Grail.

Sidetrack, but not unrelated.[/quote]

Excellent points.

I have a feeling Big Pharma was simply looking out for layman, everyday user convenience - I.E. the more potent, less amount of gel/cream applied, therefor will have a higher user acceptability ratio, therefore more sales.

I don’t think they were necessarily concerned about things pharmacological speaking, just looking to get a higher user rate.