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 VII, a Miami high-volume surgical center
specimen-vii.example.com · July 28, 2026 · Tier 1 audit · Rubric v1.1
17
signals measured
Sample scorecard
More once we complete the manual review together.
Executive summary

Your website and ad presence do real work, yet your visibility scores, which puts you in the typical range for your market. The biggest risk is that your name, review, and directory signals were not confirmed, so patients comparing you cannot easily verify who you are. That verification is worth a conversation.

What the audit found

Strengths

+Deep patient evidence beyond star ratingsReputation and proof

You have 500-plus procedure-specific video testimonials naming your surgeons. Patients weighing a surgical decision trust seeing real outcomes and faces, and this depth is rare in your market.

+Active, varied paid advertisingPaid media

Roughly 86 active ads run across procedures, in English and Spanish, with financing offers and multiple formats. This scored a full 3 out of 3 and keeps you in front of patients actively searching.

+Real-time online bookingWebsite and booking

A dedicated consultation booking flow runs from a prominent call to action on your site. Patients ready to act can schedule without friction, so fewer drop off between interest and appointment.

+Clear booking button above the foldWebsite and booking

Your Free Evaluation booking button sits at the top of the mobile page and links straight to consultation. Patients see the next step immediately, which holds their attention.

Costliest gaps

Your name, address, and directory presence were never confirmed

Your identity and citation consistency, across Yelp, Healthgrades, and similar sites, could not be scored from public data. Patients who find conflicting listings hesitate, and you risk losing them to a practice that looks consistent everywhere.

Your blog stopped roughly three years agoContent and discoverability

The newest posts date to early 2023, scoring 0 out of 3. Patients and AI search (the answers ChatGPT and Google give patients) read a stale library as a practice that is less active than competitors publishing now.

Search engines cannot tell what your business isContent and discoverability

Your site has only basic organization code labels, no medical or physician labels, scoring 1 out of 3. Search engines and AI answers understand you less clearly, so you surface less often when patients ask.

Your Google service menu is emptyLocal presence and Google

No services are listed in your Google Business Profile, scoring 0 out of 3. Patients scanning the map results on Google see nothing about what you offer and are more likely to click a fuller competitor.

Your Krau Method claim has no visible proofReputation and proof

Your proprietary breast implant method appears as a name only, with no published outcomes or teaching evidence, scoring 0 out of 3. Patients weighing a first-mover claim in your market tend to want proof before they trust it.

The path forward

Discuss the findings

Let's walk through the review together and see where the clearest wins sit. It makes your existing strengths do more of the work of turning searchers into consultations.

Lazar preps before the call: your name, address, and directory presence were never confirmed, and your blog stopped roughly three years ago, 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
17 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 28, 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
45%
Your Google profile has hours, relevant categories, and accessibility details, so the basics are in place. The service menu is empty, though, scoring 0 out of 3, so patients scanning the map results on Google see nothing about what you actually do. Photo, posting, and map-ranking data need a closer look together.
1.1 GBP Claim & Completeness 2 / 3
1.2 GBP Categories 2 / 3
1.3 Service Menu on GBP 0 / 3
1.4 GBP Photo Volume & Recency In your review
1.5 GBP Posts Frequency In your review
1.6 Local Pack Presence (Primary Terms) In your review
1.7 Q&A Section Activation In your review
2Website & Infrastructure
75%
This is your strongest area at 75 percent. A clear booking button sits above the fold, real-time scheduling works, and procedure pages exist. Mobile speed is middling at 58, and financing shows on only one page, so some patients ready to act may not find the reassurance they want.
2.1 Mobile Speed Score 2 / 3
2.2 Above-the-Fold Booking CTA 3 / 3
2.3 Online Scheduling Integration 3 / 3
2.4 Branded Treatment Page Coverage 2 / 3
2.5 Financing Surfacing 1 / 3
3Reputation, Trust & Innovation
45%
Your 500-plus procedure-specific video testimonials are a genuine advantage that few competitors match. Your board-certification claim shows in only one place, and your innovation method carries no visible proof. Review volume, response habits, and gallery depth need the paste-in data we walk through together to score fairly.
3.1 Google Review Volume (Market-Relative) In your review
3.2 Review Response Discipline In your review
3.3 Before/After Gallery Depth & Consent In your review
3.4 Board Certification & Society Visibility 1 / 3
3.5 Patient Evidence Beyond Stars 3 / 3
3.6 Innovation Leadership & First-Mover Evidence 0 / 3
4Content & Discoverability (incl. AEO)
37%
You are cited in AI search answers about a quarter of the time, which is real footing. Your blog has not been updated since early 2023, and your site code labels do not tell search engines you are a medical business. Both mean you surface less than practices publishing and labeled clearly now.
4.1 Blog Recency & Topical Depth 0 / 3
4.2 Visibility in AI search 2 / 3
4.3 Schema Markup Completeness 1 / 3
4.4 Podcast/Video Content Indexing In your review
5Paid Media Presence
100%
Full marks here. Roughly 86 active ads run across procedures and languages with varied formats and offers. Your Google Ads footprint and landing page alignment were not supplied, so we confirm those together to see the full paid picture.
5.1 Meta Ad Activity & Creative Variety 3 / 3
5.2 Google Ads Presence (Competitive Terms) In your review
5.3 Landing Page Alignment In your review
6Social & Community
34%
With about 809,000 Instagram followers you have a large audience, but your bio link and story highlights each scored 1 out of 2, so the path from follower to booking is loose. Posting cadence and engagement need account data before we can judge how hard that audience works for you.
6.1 Instagram Posting Cadence In your review
6.2 Engagement Rate In your review
6.3 Content Mix Diversity In your review
6.4 Link-in-Bio Strategy 1 / 3
6.5 Story Highlights Organization 1 / 3
7Identity & Citation Consistency
n/a
None of this area could be scored from public data: directory consistency, aesthetic-directory presence, rebrand history, and cross-channel naming all need a closer look. This is where patients quietly lose confidence when listings disagree, so it sits high on what we review together.
7.1 NAP Consistency Across Directories In your review
7.2 Aesthetic-Directory Presence In your review
7.3 One consistent identity online In your review
7.4 Cross-Channel Brand Consistency In your review
Fractional Aesthetics

That is the whole read: 17 signals measured from what a patient can see. The rest we go through together.

Prepared for Specimen VII, a Miami high-volume surgical center · July 28, 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 →