The campaigns were running. The right signals were missing.
The clinic needed a clearer view of who its advertising reached, which calls it generated and what the campaigns were learning from.
Calls were hard to attribute.
Paid, organic and existing-patient calls shared one number. Phone taps counted as conversions, while other website calls were not attributed.
Targeting was too broad.
A wide radius and broad-match keywords weakened relevance. Broad negative keywords with unclear rationale could also exclude useful searches.
The value signal was assumed.
Performance Max bid towards a fixed conversion value that did not reflect actual patient value.
Three systems. One connected view.
We integrated Google Ads, Weave and Dentrix into the Brain—bringing advertising, call activity and patient data together to find where the journey was breaking down.
Google Ads
Weave
Dentrix
ClinicKnowledge HubFrom an insight to a practical change.
The Brain identified three main issues. For each, the Nas team recommended actions that the clinic implemented.
Make the calls measurable.
Your ads, website and existing patients share one phone number. I can’t reliably separate paid-acquisition calls from everyday patient calls.
You’re also counting taps on a number, rather than completed calls. That gives the campaigns a weak signal to learn from.
Separate the numbers. Raise the conversion bar.
Created a dedicated paid-acquisition number and changed the conversion goal to calls lasting at least 60 seconds.
A focused landing page gave ad visitors one clear call or appointment action.
Match the targeting to patient intent.
Your radius reaches New Jersey and towards Long Island. Someone searching “dentist near me” may want a practice within walking distance.
Every Search keyword uses broad match. Your negative keywords are broad too, and their rationale is unclear—some may exclude relevant searches.
Two types of intent. Two campaign approaches.
Separated nearby convenience searches from wider treatment-specific demand.
Reviewed keyword exclusions and aligned ad messaging with the services people were searching for.
Convenience and treatment demand need different targeting.
One broad area treated very different searches as the same opportunity. The radius reached New Jersey and towards Long Island.Nearby: convenience first, for people who want a practice within walking distance. Wider area: specific treatment needs.
Illustrative targeting diagram. Campaign geography should reflect where patients actually come from.
Give optimisation a meaningful signal.
Performance Max is bidding towards ROAS using a fixed, assumed conversion value. That number doesn’t tell us what a patient is actually worth.
It also looks weaker than Search in this audit. Fix the measurement before asking the algorithm to optimise against it.
Stop optimising against an assumed value.
Paused Performance Max and focused the campaign rebuild on Search, supported by the new call-conversion signal.
The aim: give optimisation a stronger connection to meaningful enquiries.
See the difference in the daily trend.
The headline result tells the story. The Brain makes it possible to look closer at how call costs changed over time.
Cost per 60-second-plus call, down 87%.
“The cost per 60-second-plus call dropped sharply after 26 October, then remained well below that day’s level across the rest of this period.”
Marketing Brain · daily trendThe separately reported result is $170 → $22 per 60-second-plus call, with the new average measured over more than 14 days. The chart shows a separate 10-day window, not the full period behind the $22 average. Daily pairing is approximate: Google Ads uses Pacific dates and Weave uses New York dates.
Next: next opportunityGetting the call is one step. Answering it is the next.
With advertising efficiency improved, the next focus is booking conversion. The Brain’s call analysis revealed another gap in the patient journey.
Test extra phone coverage. Measure what happens next.
Add coverage during the periods identified, then compare answered calls, booked appointments and new patients. A prospective patient who cannot reach the practice may call another dental office.
Revenue at risk is an estimate, not recovered revenue. The phone-coverage test is a proposed next step; no booking or patient uplift is claimed here. The risk grid marks the reported times and days; it is not a measured distribution.
