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 XIII, a Scottsdale dermatology group
specimen-xiii.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 practice, which puts your visibility in the room-for-improvement range. The technical foundation is solid, but the proof patients look for before booking is nearly absent: no review responses, no written or video testimonials, and an empty Q&A section. That gap is where consultations quietly go to competitors.

What the audit found

Strengths

+Search engines read your site correctlyContent and discoverability

Your site carries a full set of the code labels that tell search engines what your business is, including FAQ labels. This is the highest score on this item and helps AI search understand and quote you.

+Your Google categories are well matchedLocal presence and Google

Your Google Business Profile carries six relevant categories covering skin care, aesthetics, and medical dermatology. This scored a perfect 3 and helps you surface for the right patient searches.

+You are showing up in AI searchContent and discoverability

In a scan of AI search (the answers ChatGPT and Google's AI give patients), your practice was named and your site cited across several queries. Modest but real presence most competitors lack.

+Treatment pages are built outWebsite and booking

You have dedicated pages across medical, cosmetic, and aesthetic treatments. Patients researching a specific procedure find real content, which supports the decision to book.

Costliest gaps

No patient stories beyond star countsReputation and proof

Your site cites over 3,200 five-star ratings but shows no written or video testimonials. Patients comparing practices tend to pick the one whose real patients speak in their own words, so you risk losing them here.

No responses to any reviewsReputation and proof

Your review response rate is 0. Patients reading reviews see an owner who never replies, which reads as disengaged and makes them more likely to choose a practice that answers its patients.

No first-mover or leadership claimReputation and proof

Your site shows society badges and a video series but no evidence of research, outcomes, or a first-mover claim. Against practices that state what sets them apart, undifferentiated content tends to lose the higher-value patient.

Empty Q&A section on GoogleLocal presence and Google

Your Google Business Profile Q&A holds zero questions and zero answers. Patients who see a blank section next to competitors with answered questions are more likely to move on before they reach your site.

Booking is a form, not a live schedulerWebsite and booking

Your BOOK NOW button opens an on-page message form rather than a real-time calendar. Patients ready to commit at that moment tend to drift to a practice where they can lock in a time.

The path forward

Discuss the findings

Let's sit down and walk through what this audit found together. A focused conversation now sets up the changes that turn more researching patients into booked consultations.

Lazar preps before the call: no patient stories beyond star counts, and no responses to any reviews, 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
59%
Your Google Business Profile is claimed, well categorized, and posting at least monthly. The empty Q&A section is the drag: it holds zero questions and zero answers, so patients see a blank space where competitors show answered questions. Your map ranking and photos need a closer look together.
1.1 GBP Claim & Completeness 2 / 3
1.2 GBP Categories 3 / 3
1.3 Service Menu on GBP In your review
1.4 GBP Photo Volume & Recency In your review
1.5 GBP Posts Frequency 2 / 3
1.6 Local Pack Presence (Primary Terms) In your review
1.7 Q&A Section Activation 0 / 3
2Website & Infrastructure
57%
Your site is technically sound: mobile speed is mid-range and treatment pages are built out. The weak point is booking. The BOOK NOW button opens a message form rather than a live calendar, so patients ready to commit tend to drift to a practice where they can pick a time on the spot.
2.1 Mobile Speed Score 2 / 3
2.2 Above-the-Fold Booking CTA 2 / 3
2.3 Online Scheduling Integration 1 / 3
2.4 Branded Treatment Page Coverage 2 / 3
2.5 Financing Surfacing In your review
3Reputation, Trust & Innovation
9%
This is your costliest area at 8 percent. You cite over 3,200 five-star ratings but show no written or video testimonials, respond to no reviews, and make no leadership claim. Patients weigh voice and engagement heavily, so this gap sends comparison shoppers elsewhere. Your gallery depth needs a joint look.
3.1 Google Review Volume (Market-Relative) In your review
3.2 Review Response Discipline 0 / 3
3.3 Before/After Gallery Depth & Consent In your review
3.4 Board Certification & Society Visibility 1 / 3
3.5 Patient Evidence Beyond Stars 0 / 3
3.6 Innovation Leadership & First-Mover Evidence 0 / 3
4Content & Discoverability (incl. AEO)
67%
Your strongest category. Search engines read your site cleanly, and you already surface in AI search where most competitors do not. Video content exists but is not confirmed as transcribed, so search engines may not read what is said in it. We will confirm your blog cadence together.
4.1 Blog Recency & Topical Depth In your review
4.2 Visibility in AI search 2 / 3
4.3 Schema Markup Completeness 3 / 3
4.4 Podcast/Video Content Indexing 1 / 3
5Paid Media Presence
n/a
Paid media could not be scored. The Meta ad check hit a collection error and Google ad terms need a paste-in, so we cannot yet confirm whether ads are running. This is an area we walk through together rather than a failure on the scorecard.
5.1 Meta Ad Activity & Creative Variety In your review
5.2 Google Ads Presence (Competitive Terms) In your review
5.3 Landing Page Alignment In your review
6Social & Community
50%
Your Instagram link-hub works and story highlights exist, though the highlights are not organized by what a prospective patient wants to find. Posting cadence and engagement need data we gather together before we can read how much this presence is working 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 2 / 3
6.5 Story Highlights Organization 1 / 3
7Identity & Citation Consistency
n/a
None of your directory and brand-consistency items could be scored from patient-facing data. With two locations sharing one phone number, how your name, address, and phone number line up across directories is exactly the kind of thing we verify together in the review.
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 XIII, a Scottsdale dermatology group · 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 →