It is lumped in, probably because most people who do get great sleep routinely sleep 7-9 hours. I don’t think making an issue of that helps either. In fact, i

It is lumped in, probably because most people who do get great sleep routinely sleep 7-9 hours. I don’t think making an issue of that helps either. In fact, if your approach works, and people with problems achieve great sleep, it will be interesting to see if shorter time sleepers are able to revert to longer times naturally, or shorter times. Some frustrated short sleepers may achieve the bliss of a longer night’s sleep. Some longer sleepers may naturally wake rested earlier! You could frame that as the jury is out on that one. Not that aiming for enough time is wrong. But that sleep assist may alter the simple recommended time approach. And your hopes are to benefit everyone, including those who for practical reasons can’t allocate the recommended time, with the time deficit being less of a problem, or in the best case scenario, no longer a problem at all. I think remaining positive but flexible about current wisdom helps. It is the result of a huge amount of effort and observation - no matter how imperfect the results. Otherwise you are in danger of both claiming too much, and making claims that really are completely unnecessary. It is also a bad look. People are always hearing “everything you have been told is wrong”, without evidence to back that up, only to hear the opposite a month or year later. It gives the impression of clickbait, a scam, or vaporware. Until there are studies from major sleep research labs demonstrating you really do have a strong impact on sleep times, you are in danger of promising something you can’t deliver. The simple message of higher quality of sleep for everyone is the only one you need. It is the only thing people want. Demand for that is insane. Stay on that simple message. The story is a new approach, understanding practical work the brain does, creating sleep assist. Simple gets more attention. Simple is remembered. Don’t publically fight phantoms in your mind, that are not in your customers’ minds. You already have a good story. A major new angle on the problem. Sticking with a simple message is especially important before revealing something people cannot yet buy. And any real impact on hygiene, validated by credible independent studies, would make fantastic follow up post-availability PR. You might ask yourself, why are you already “selling” something you can’t sell yet? It’s not always wrong to attempt to pre-emptively stoke demand. But your demand is already there and already enormous. It is easy to seriously undermine your reputation if your message gets ahead of reality in any way. Avoid any complication, and avoid frustrating people with unsupportable (today) claims. You are going to genuinely have 1000 interesting viewpoints on this. Your customers rarely need more than one or zero before you ship.