This is a sample. A real audit of a real practice, shown with identifying details removed.

The audit is the scorecard itself. The review is the thirty minutes we spend going through it together.

FAx

VISIBILITY
SCORECARD

Specimen I, a Pittsburgh surgical practice
specimen-i.example.com · July 9, 2026 · Tier 1 audit · Rubric v1.1
23
signals measured
Sample scorecard
More once we complete the manual review together.
Executive summary

Your practice has real assets a patient rarely sees clearly online, though the audit puts you in the room-for-improvement range. The biggest issue is that your 2023 rebrand never fully took hold across the web, so patients and search engines still find your old name and old owner in several places. That fragmentation is what a conversation can address first.

What the audit found

Strengths

+You have genuine innovation and academic standingReputation and proof

A first-mover claim in your market, a running clinical study, and a faculty appointment give you documented proof most competitors cannot match. Patients weighing expertise are more likely to trust this.

+Your before-and-after gallery is well organizedReputation and proof

The gallery is sorted into 13 surgical categories, which helps a patient find work like their own. Organized proof of results tends to move a considering patient toward booking.

+Your Google categories are on targetLocal presence and Google

Four aesthetic-relevant categories are set correctly, so the right searches can surface you. This is the foundation that lets patients find you for what you actually do.

Costliest gaps

Your old brand is still live in multiple placesIdentity and listings

Your former domain, , still carries roughly 700 backlinks, a separate Google listing under the former owner holds its own reviews, and old Yelp and LinkedIn entries persist. This splits your reputation and confuses patients comparing you.

Your name, address, and details disagree across directoriesIdentity and listings

Yelp shows duplicate listings, Healthgrades and WebMD carry the former name, and Healthgrades lists a retired physician as active. Patients who see conflicting information are more likely to doubt which listing is real.

Your paid ads send patients to the wrong pagesPaid media

Facelift and tummy tuck ads land on the homepage, and a body lift ad points to a misspelled, likely broken path. A patient who clicks an ad and lands on a generic page tends to leave before booking.

Treatments you promote have no page on your siteWebsite and booking

Preserve by Motiva, Ver-ve Regen, and Sculptra are marketed by email but have no dedicated pages. Patients searching those names after hearing about you find nothing and are more likely to pick a clearer competitor.

Your blog and podcast content is not working for searchContent and discoverability

Your newest post is about eight months old and many older posts carry your former name; your podcast has 50-plus yearly episodes but none are transcribed on the site, so that content stays invisible to search.

The path forward

Discuss the findings

Let's sit down and walk through what the audit found and where the real leverage is. The conversation gives you a clear picture of why patients comparing you may be choosing others, and what it would take to change that.

Lazar preps before the call: your old brand is still live in multiple places, and your name, address, and details disagree across directories, both mapped in advance, plus every item marked In your review, ready to walk through together.

Book your 30-minute review →

Lazar LaLone · lazar@fractionalaesthetics.com · (412) 944-5506

Methodology

The goal: a diagnostic read of what a patient, or a referring doctor, sees from the outside, working only from what is openly on display and never from the practice's own dashboards or private analytics. It intentionally does not prescribe fixes, because effective solutions need further conversation and analysis to get right.

Rubric
Aesthetic Practice Visibility Scorecard v1.1, 100-point composite
Two kinds of number
Scores of 0 to 3 are ours, applied from this rubric. Figures such as Google's PageSpeed result, your star rating, review counts and follower counts are third-party measurements we read and report, not numbers we assign
This audit
Tier 1, the complimentary read. Every one of the 34 signals is drawn from patient-facing data. Tier 2 adds paid-media spend analysis, and only when you choose to share your ad data.
Signals
23 measured from patient-facing data so far; the rest walked through together in your review
Review items
Excluded from both earned and maximum points; they never count against the practice, and we look at them together in your review
Generated
July 9, 2026
Category breakdown
IN YOUR REVIEW = these signals need a closer look than patient-facing data alone allows, so we walk through them together in your review. They are excluded from the score entirely and never count against the practice.
1Local Search Visibility
52%
Your Google profile is claimed, verified, and correctly categorized, which is solid footing. The costliest gap is an empty Q&A section, where common patient questions sit unanswered. Several photo and post fields we could not score from public data are worth walking through together in the review.
1.1 GBP Claim & Completeness 2 / 3
1.2 GBP Categories 2 / 3
1.3 Service Menu on GBP In your review
1.4 GBP Photo Volume & Recency In your review
1.5 GBP Posts Frequency In your review
1.6 Local Pack Presence (Primary Terms) 2 / 3
1.7 Q&A Section Activation 0 / 3
2Website & Infrastructure
48%
Your site loads at a middling mobile speed and offers scheduling, though booking sends patients off to a separate site. The sharper gap is that treatments you actively promote have no page here. A patient searching those names lands on nothing and tends to move on.
2.1 Mobile Speed Score 2 / 3
2.2 Above-the-Fold Booking CTA 2 / 3
2.3 Online Scheduling Integration 2 / 3
2.4 Branded Treatment Page Coverage 0 / 3
2.5 Financing Surfacing 1 / 3
3Reputation, Trust & Innovation
57%
This is your strongest area. Real innovation proof, an academic appointment, and an organized gallery all work in your favor. Your review count is genuine social proof, yet it trails the market leader, which is what this item measures. Several trust items need a closer look in the review.
3.1 Google Review Volume (Market-Relative) 1 / 3
3.2 Review Response Discipline In your review
3.3 Before/After Gallery Depth & Consent 2 / 3
3.4 Board Certification & Society Visibility In your review
3.5 Patient Evidence Beyond Stars In your review
3.6 Innovation Leadership & First-Mover Evidence 2 / 3
4Content & Discoverability (incl. AEO)
34%
Your site carries the code labels that tell search engines what your business is, which helps. The blog has gone quiet for months and your podcast episodes are not transcribed, so that content does not surface in search. Your visibility in AI search still needs review together.
4.1 Blog Recency & Topical Depth 0 / 3
4.2 Visibility in AI search In your review
4.3 Schema Markup Completeness 2 / 3
4.4 Podcast/Video Content Indexing 1 / 3
5Paid Media Presence
17%
This is your weakest paid area. A single repeated video ad shows little variety, and your ads point patients to the homepage or a broken path rather than matching pages. A patient who clicks and lands somewhere generic is likely to leave.
5.1 Meta Ad Activity & Creative Variety 1 / 3
5.2 Google Ads Presence (Competitive Terms) In your review
5.3 Landing Page Alignment 0 / 3
6Social & Community
27%
You have a working link hub in your Instagram bio, which is a positive. Engagement sits at 0.11 percent, well below a healthy level, so posts are reaching few people. Posting cadence and content mix need paste-in data we review together.
6.1 Instagram Posting Cadence In your review
6.2 Engagement Rate 0 / 3
6.3 Content Mix Diversity In your review
6.4 Link-in-Bio Strategy 2 / 3
6.5 Story Highlights Organization In your review
7Identity & Citation Consistency
15%
This area costs you the most. Your 2023 rebrand never fully settled: the old domain, old directory listings, and duplicate profiles are still live and splitting your reputation. Patients comparing practices see conflicting names and details and are more likely to trust a cleaner competitor.
7.1 NAP Consistency Across Directories 0 / 3
7.2 Aesthetic-Directory Presence 1 / 3
7.3 One consistent identity online 0 / 3
7.4 Cross-Channel Brand Consistency 1 / 3
Fractional Aesthetics

That is the whole read: 23 signals measured from what a patient can see. The rest we go through together.

Prepared for Specimen I, a Pittsburgh surgical practice · July 9, 2026 · Rubric v1.1

Download this scorecard (PDF) ↓ All sixteen samples →

Want one for your practice?

Complimentary, no call required, and every scorecard is prepared and personally reviewed before it goes out. Leave your practice's website and yours is on its way.

Run my audit →