[ Case study ]
The five practices' Google Business Profiles had inconsistent names, duplicated categories, and photos of a closed office. Location pages on the site were one template with the city name swapped — and Google had noticed, ranking none of them.
CLIENT a five-location dental group — FOCUS Rebuild each profile to its own reality
Representative examplesEvery case study in this library is an illustrative composite of the kind of engagement we deliver — written to show our method and standards, not to name clients.
Five dental practices share one brand, one phone system, and one small head office — and five practice managers who run their surgeries day to day. Appointment capacity differs by location: one books new patients out weeks ahead, another has room this week. Before us, the group's online presence was managed centrally and cheaply: profiles shared photos and categories, one practice's profile still showed a location that had closed years ago, and the website's location pages were a single template with the suburb swapped.
The five practices' Google Business Profiles had inconsistent names, duplicated categories, and photos of a closed office. Location pages on the site were one template with the city name swapped — and Google had noticed, ranking none of them.
We proposed rebuilding each location to its own reality rather than aligning the five to a corporate average. Profiles would be corrected per practice — categories, services, photographs — with the practice manager's sign-off, because their buy-in was the only way the changes would stick. Location pages would keep the template's structure but gain genuinely local content: each practice's own clinicians, parking and access notes, and the appointment reality patients actually face. A neutral, policy-safe review routine via post-appointment SMS would route responses to each practice within a day.
Just as important is what we ruled out, and why:
Categories, services, and photos were set per location with the practice manager's sign-off, ending the duplicated-category confusion.
Each page gained its own clinicians, parking and access details, and genuinely local content — the template kept the structure, not the sameness.
Post-appointment requests via SMS with neutral wording, responses routed to each practice within a day.
Delivered by the growth pod — local SEO specialist over 6 weeks, with working increments reviewed with the client every week.
Obstacle
Our first draft of two practices' service lists was materially wrong — written from the group's brochure before we had spoken to the managers who know the chairs.
Handled: We stopped drafting and ran manager interviews first; the corrected lists came from appointment types the front desks actually book, and every later draft followed the same order.
Obstacle
One practice manager refused the photo replacements for weeks, reading the request as criticism of how she runs her surgery.
Handled: We showed her the closed surgery's photo appearing on her own live profile in search; the replacement set was approved the same week.
The headline: location pages plus profiles ranking in the local pack for their own suburb's core terms, 12 weeks post-work — 3 → 11, read from Rank tracking per location. A second check: direction requests and calls from profile listings at +52%.
The practices stopped being interchangeable. Managers check their own profiles now and send photos without being asked, because the profile finally looks like their surgery rather than the brand's idea of it. Reception fields fewer misrouted calls, the review responses became a same-day habit, and the group can see which locations are booking out — which quietly settled a staffing conversation that had been running on anecdote for a year.
The result was read from Rank tracking per location against the pre-engagement baseline over the stated window, with a guardrail check on direction requests and calls from profile listings. Where platform-reported numbers and business outcomes differ, this record says which layer it is quoting.
What we would do differently
We would have run the manager interviews before writing anything — two practices' service lists were materially wrong in our first draft.
[ Related service ]
[ Related builds ]
4 27Weekly prompt-set answers citing or summarizing the brand's content, weeks 1 to 10
14 31Qualified inquiries per month attributed to service pages, over the 8 weeks after rollout versus the 8 before
[ Next step ]
Next case study
