Arctic Lab Supply

Ad-safe kit

Partner material. Not for public distribution.

← Partner resource library

KIT B — AD-SAFE CREATIVE

Use this kit for anything that will have money behind it: a boost, a Spark ad, a whitelisted ad, anything Arctic runs from an ad account.

If you're just posting from your own account with no spend, you don't need this — use ORGANIC-KIT.md, which lets you do far more.

Why this kit is so much narrower

An ad reviewer is not judging whether your video is honest. They are pattern-matching against a policy list, in seconds, usually by machine first. Arctic has a real rejection history and it is not theoretical:

So an ad-safe video is not a softened version of an organic video. It is a video about documentation practice that never names or shows the thing being documented. That sounds impossible until you realize Arctic's actual differentiator — publishing lot-matched third-party reports before a batch goes on sale — is a paperwork story. Paperwork films fine. Paperwork has no compound name.

The absolute NOs

Not judgment calls. Any one of these and the ad is rejected.

| Never | Including | |---|---| | Vials or product in frame | Even blurred. Even in a reflection. Even for half a second in a B-roll cut. Even as a tiny thumbnail on a screen recording. | | Compound names | On screen, in voiceover, in the caption, in the ad headline, on a page you screen-record, on a box label, in your hashtags. | | Before/after body imagery | No physique shots, no mirror, no scale, no side-by-sides, no "progress." | | Personal results narrative | "I've been using," "since I started," "my results." None of it. | | Dosing, amounts, units, protocols | Same as organic — but here it's an instant reject on top of everything else. | | Disease, treatment, or cure language | Any named condition, any symptom, "helps with," "supports," "improves." | | Brand names of approved prescription drugs | Do not type or say them. Not for comparison, not to say you're not that. Naming one at all is the trigger. | | Implied administration or ingestion | Via imagery, captions, or context. A person on camera next to anything product-adjacent reads as administration or ingestion even if you never say a word. | | "Studied for…" / "researched for…" / "known for…" | Indirect efficacy hedges are rejected identically to direct claims. There is no safe phrasing of this. Do not describe what anything does, at all. |

The test: could a reviewer who speaks no English, watching on mute at 2x, tell what category this ad is in? If yes, rewrite it.

On-screen text requirements — non-negotiable

1. The research-use disclaimer goes on screen as visible text at the START.

Within the first 2 seconds, held for at least 3 seconds, legible on a phone:

For laboratory research use only. Not for use in people or animals. 21+.

Not in the caption. Not at the end. Not in a 10pt grey font in the corner. At the start, on screen, readable. A reviewer who has to hunt for it treats it as absent, and an end-card disclaimer is worthless because most reviews never get that far.

2. The affiliate disclosure also goes on screen. Stack it under the disclaimer or run it right after:

Affiliate — I earn a commission if you use my link.

3. Any text you burn in must survive the safe zone. Keep everything inside the middle 80% vertically — platform UI eats the top and bottom, and a disclaimer hidden behind the caption bar counts as no disclaimer.

10 CONCEPTS THAT CLEAR AD REVIEW

Each names what you actually point the camera at, because "no product" is the part people get stuck on.

1. The four fields Hold a printed document. Four highlighter marks. Issuing lab, test date, method, lot number. No compound name visible — cover or blur the sample-identity line, that's the only line that can burn you. Shoot: printed page, hands, marker, overhead.

2. Three red flags when vetting a supplier Straight to camera, no product anywhere. Lot doesn't match. One report reused across products. No lab named. Shoot: talking head, clean background.

3. Published before, not on request The timing argument. A report posted before the batch is listed is a record; one produced after a complaint is a response. Pure concept — animate it with two dates on screen. Shoot: text animation, or talking head with a calendar.

4. "Can you verify that document with the lab that issued it?" The verification route. Certificate number → issuing lab → confirmation. You can film a laptop and an email window as long as no compound name is on screen. Shoot: laptop over the shoulder, hands typing, blurred screen.

5. A percentage with no method next to it "A number without a method isn't a measurement. It's a claim." Big text, one line, six seconds. Genuinely one of the highest-performing formats because it's a complete idea with zero risk surface. Shoot: text card + voiceover.

6. One report, one batch, one date A COA describes one sample from one lot on one day. It is not a product spec. Shoot a stack of paper, fan it out, land on one page. Shoot: paper, desk, overhead.

7. Anchorage operations Small team, packs and ships from Alaska, tracking on every shipment. Landscape, the drive in, a packing bench with sealed boxes only, a label printer, tape. Shoot: exterior Alaska, boxes, hands, shipping label (recipient info blurred, no product visible, nothing open).

8. The logistics offer Free U.S. shipping at $99. Tracking on every shipment. Ships from Anchorage. Purely commercial, zero category risk — often the single easiest thing to get approved. Shoot: boxes, tape gun, label printer, van, snow.

9. Why you should be able to falsify the claim Arctic's own framing: they're not asking you to take their word, they're asking you to check the record against the label and verify it with the lab. "A claim you can falsify is the only kind worth making." That line is philosophy, not efficacy, and it sails through. Shoot: talking head.

10. The library stays public Old reports don't get replaced or removed. Screen-record /batch-documentation only — see the warning below. Shoot: phone screen recording, carefully framed.

⚠️ The screen-recording trap — this is how most creators get rejected

This is the #1 self-inflicted rejection. Creators screen-record arcticlabsupply.com to prove the documentation is real, and the recording drags product names, vial photos, and prices into an ad that was otherwise clean.

Never screen-record these pages for a paid ad:

Safe to screen-record for a paid ad:

Then check your own recording frame by frame. Scrub it. Autocomplete in the URL bar, a browser tab title, a bookmark, a notification, a previously-visited-page suggestion — all of these have killed ads. Record in a private window with a clean tab bar.

THREE FULL AD-SAFE SCRIPTS

SCRIPT 1 — "Four fields" (about 30 seconds)

The workhorse. No product, no names, no claims. Runs almost anywhere.

[0:00–0:03] — printed page on a desk, overhead, hand places a marker down

[ON SCREEN, LARGE, HELD 3s: For laboratory research use only. Not for use in people or animals. 21+.] [SECOND LINE: Affiliate — I earn a commission if you use my link.]

"This is four pages of analytical report. You need four fields off it."

[0:03–0:10] — marker circles the first field

"Who tested it. An actual laboratory, named. If nobody's named, nobody can be asked, and this is a graphic, not a report."

[ON SCREEN: 1 — WHO]

[0:10–0:16]

"When it was tested. And whether that date came before the batch was offered, or after somebody complained."

[ON SCREEN: 2 — WHEN]

[0:16–0:22]

"The method. Every number needs one next to it. A percentage with no method isn't a measurement, it's a claim."

[ON SCREEN: 3 — HOW]

[0:22–0:30] — marker circles the lot field hard

"And the batch identifier. That number has to match the label on what you receive. Different batch, different document, describing something else entirely."

[ON SCREEN: 4 — WHICH BATCH] [END CARD: Records published before the batch is offered. arcticlabsupply.com]

Frame check: the sample-identity line at the top of that report has a compound name on it. Fold the page, crop it out, or blur it in post. That one line is the only thing in this shot that can reject you.

SCRIPT 2 — "Three red flags" (about 35 seconds)

Talking head. Cheapest thing here to shoot. Zero product required.

[0:00–0:04] — straight to camera

[ON SCREEN, HELD 3s: For laboratory research use only. Not for use in people or animals. 21+.] [Affiliate — I earn a commission if you use my link.]

"Three things I check on any supplier's documentation. Any one of them fails, I'm out."

[0:04–0:14]

"One. The batch number on the report doesn't appear on the label of what shipped. If the report doesn't point at the exact batch in the box, it isn't describing the box."

[ON SCREEN: 1. The batch numbers don't match]

[0:14–0:24]

"Two. The same document covering several different items or strengths. That's a catalogue sheet. A batch record covers one batch. One."

[ON SCREEN: 2. One document, reused]

[0:24–0:33]

"Three. No issuing laboratory named. You should be able to see who ran the analysis, on what date, by what method — and take that to them yourself, independently."

[ON SCREEN: 3. No laboratory named]

[0:33–0:38]

"Third-party records, published before anything is offered, kept public afterward. Alaska. Link's below."

[END CARD: arcticlabsupply.com/batch-documentation]

SCRIPT 3 — "Anchorage" (about 30 seconds)

Brand/operations spot. No documentation talk at all. Easiest approval in the set — often clears when everything else is stuck in review.

[0:00–0:03] — exterior, snow, Alaska, wide

[ON SCREEN, HELD 3s: For laboratory research use only. Not for use in people or animals. 21+.] [Affiliate — I earn a commission if you use my link.]

"Everything ships out of Anchorage."

[0:03–0:11] — packing bench, sealed boxes, tape gun, hands. Nothing open. Nothing on the bench but boxes and packing material.

"Same small team that packs the boxes handles the paperwork. That's not a marketing line, it's just how small it is."

[0:11–0:20] — label printer, a label peeling off, boxes stacking

"Tracking on every shipment. Free U.S. shipping over ninety-nine dollars."

[ON SCREEN: Tracking on every shipment · Free U.S. shipping at $99]

[0:20–0:30] — back to wide exterior

"Being in Alaska isn't a quality claim. Paperwork matters more than a zip code. But our core products have lot-matched third-party reports published before they're offered, and the old ones stay up. That part you can check yourself."

[END CARD: arcticlabsupply.com/batch-documentation]

PRE-PUBLISH CHECKLIST

Run every line before you send it to the partner desk. If you can't tick all of them, it will be rejected and that rejection sits on the ad account.

Watch it on mute, at 2x, on a phone:

On-screen text:

Screen recordings:

Technical — Arctic's own QA gate, videos fail here constantly:

Rights:

If it gets rejected anyway

It happens, and it's usually not personal — this category gets false-positived constantly.

  1. Don't resubmit the same file. Repeat rejections damage the ad account, which hurts every creator in the program.
  2. Send the rejection reason to the partner desk and let Arctic handle the appeal. They have the rejection history and know which reasons are appealable.
  3. Most common actual cause: one frame of product that you didn't notice, or a compound name in a screen recording. Scrub the file again before you argue.

Some rejections are account-level, not creative-level — on Snap, for example, every campaign sits pending until an account-level review is approved, so nothing you shoot will fix it. If Arctic tells you a platform is blocked at the account level, don't keep cutting new versions for it. Post that one organically instead.

← Back to the partner resource library · Questions: support@arcticlabsupply.com