Let's TalkLet's TalkThe highest case values in aesthetics and the tightest advertising constraints - the surgeon's reputation does the selling, so the work is building that in public rather than buying clicks.
Cosmetic surgery patients research for months and shortlist three surgeons. We will go through that comparison as a patient would - your site, your content, your reviews and your consult booking against two local competitors - and tell you where you lose the comparison and why.
Four failures we see repeatedly in this vertical, and what each one actually costs.
Nobody books a facelift because a clinic's brand felt polished. They book the surgeon whose explanation they trust after weeks of watching and reading. Practices that market the facility rather than the surgeon are competing on the one dimension that does not decide this purchase.
Surgical results are the most persuasive asset the practice has and the most restricted - before-and-after imagery is limited on Meta and constrained by many state boards. Practices either run it and collect restrictions or abandon visual proof. Neither is necessary, but the alternative has to be planned rather than improvised.
Cosmetic surgery is researched for months and often timed around recovery windows, work and family. A sequence built for a fortnight loses cases that were always going to decide in month four, and the practice never learns that is what happened.
A surgeon's consultation hours are the scarcest resource in the building. Filling them with unqualified enquiries costs more than any media saving, which means qualification and consult fees exist to protect the schedule, not to filter out interest.
The real deliverables, not a list written to make a proposal look thicker.
Your practice reviewed against two local competitors exactly as a shortlisting patient would see it. This identifies the missing signal, which is rarely the ads.
Batched filming of the surgeon explaining procedures, recovery and candidacy. This is the asset that decides shortlists and the one competitors cannot copy.
Paid creative built around explanation and technique rather than results imagery, reviewed against both platform policy and your state board before launch.
A sequence that stays present for months, with screening ahead of the consult so surgical hours are spent on candidates.
Budget follows cost per surgical case against procedure value. Blending procedures with very different values produces an average that guides nothing.
Worth being straight about the fit: the clinic group below was a multi-state medical group, not a surgical practice. It is here because the mechanic that unlocked it is the same one that unlocks surgery - splitting demand by service line instead of running one campaign across everything, and moving the conversion to the booked consult. That cut cost per lead 57% in two weeks and funded expansion from three states to twelve. The surgical equivalent is separating procedures by value rather than reporting a practice-wide average.
Read the full case studyThe competitor comparison was uncomfortable and completely fair. We lost the shortlist on content, not on price or results.
Batched filming was the only version of content that survived my operating schedule.
They built paid creative without before-and-afters and it outperformed the campaigns that had been getting us flagged.
For this vertical, yes, and it is the highest-leverage thing available. Patients shortlist surgeons rather than facilities, and the decision is made on whose explanation of the procedure and the recovery they trust. Practice-branded content about the facility competes on a dimension that does not decide the purchase. We batch filming so it survives an operating schedule - typically one session a month.
You largely have to on Meta, where results imagery is restricted and enforcement is routine, and many state boards constrain it further. What performs instead is the surgeon explaining candidacy, technique and recovery honestly, procedure walkthroughs, and patient-decision content. Where your board permits results imagery it still belongs on your own site - it is the paid channel that constrains it.
Months, and often timed around recovery windows, work commitments and family. That means a nurture sequence built for a fortnight systematically loses cases that were always going to decide in month three or four, and the practice records them as lost interest. Staying present without pressure over that period is most of the work.
Usually yes, and it should be handled as a qualification tool rather than revenue. A surgeon's consultation hours are the practice's scarcest resource, and a fee filters out browsing without deterring serious candidates - many practices credit it against surgery. The alternative is spending clinical time on enquiries that were never going to proceed, which costs far more than any media saving.
Significantly, and they bind you regardless of platform policy. Boards differ by state on what counts as a testimonial, whether and how results imagery may be shown, what disclaimers must accompany claims, and how a surgeon may describe board certification or specialty. We review your state's rules before any creative is produced, because a board complaint is a slower and far more serious problem than a rejected ad.
The content programme and the media are separate commitments, and at these case values both are usually justifiable - a single surgical case often covers a month of both. Below roughly $10,000 a month in media it is hard to gather enough signal per procedure to optimise, and procedures differ enough in value that blending them defeats the reporting. We would rather run one procedure properly than four badly.
This is one part of a bigger service. Here is the whole of it, and the closest neighbours.
No pitch deck, no discovery call you have to sit through. Tell us the situation and we will tell you whether we can help.