Executive Overview Marketing performance at a glance
⚠️ Mockup with sample data β€” designed to facilitate the KPI conversation. Numbers, trends, and clinic splits are illustrative and not from production systems.
Headline KPIs Β· Last 12 Months
Total Marketing Spend
$4.2M
β–² 8.2% vs prior period
Total Inquiries
12,540
β–² 11.4% vs prior period
Attended NPVs
6,418
β–² 6.1% vs prior period
Attributed Revenue
$84.1M
β–² 9.8% vs prior period
Blended ROI
19.0x
β–² 1.2x vs prior period
Pacing to Annual Plan
Marketing Spend
$4.2M
of $4.4M annual budget
βœ“ 95% pacing Β· $200K headroom
Attended NPVs
6,418
of 7,200 annual target
⚠ 89% pacing · 280 NPVs behind plan
Attributed Revenue
$84.1M
of $95M annual goal
⚠ 88% pacing · $10.9M gap to goal
Marketing Funnel Last 12 months Β· all channels
Spend vs. Attributed Revenue by Month
Channel Mix β€” Attended NPVs
Service Mix β€” Attended NPVs
Payor Mix
CAC by Channel
Avg LTV by Channel
Clinic Performance β€” Attended NPVs vs Target
Top Movers β€” last 30 days
KPIClinicCurrentΞ” vs prior
Attended NPV rateBoston81.4%β–² 4.2 pp
Cost per attended NPV (Digital)Houston$614β–Ό $58
Physician referral inquiriesColorado412β–² 18%
No-show rateAtlanta12.8%β–² 2.1 pp
Meta CPLNorthern Virginia$87β–² $14
Google branded CTRMinneapolis9.4%β–² 1.1 pp
Website β†’ Lodus handoffAll14.6%β–² 0.8 pp
Spend
Digital Ad Spend
$2.84M
β–² 6.4% YoY
Budget: $2.95M Β· 96% pacing
Physician Referral Spend
$1.36M
β–² 12.1% YoY
Budget: $1.40M Β· 97% pacing
Spend vs. Budget
96.4%
$155K under budget
All channels combined
Spend Needed to Hit NPV Target
$4.6M
β–² $400K gap to target
7,200 NPV goal Β· $639/NPV historical
Spend by Channel β€” last 12 months
Spend vs. Budget by Clinic
Reach
Impressions
142M
β–² 9.1% vs prior
Click-Through Rate (CTR)
2.18%
β–² 0.21 pp vs prior
Cost per Click (CPC)
$0.92
β–² $0.07 vs prior
Impressions & CTR Trend
CPC by Channel & Clinic
ClinicMeta CPCGoogle CPCBlendedΞ” vs prior
Colorado$0.84$1.12$0.96β–² $0.04
Northern Virginia$1.06$1.38$1.18β–² $0.14
Houston$0.71$0.94$0.81β–Ό $0.05
Boston$0.92$1.21$1.05β–² $0.02
Atlanta$0.78$0.99$0.87β–Ό $0.03
Minneapolis$0.82$1.04$0.91β–Ό $0.01
Visit Volume
Total Visits
28,940
β–² 7.2%
Digital Visits
11,576
β–² 12.4%
Physician Referral Visits
8,973
β–² 5.1%
Patient + Insurance Referrals
6,225
β–² 3.8%
Unattributed / Other
2,166
β–² 1.4% (investigate)
Channel Attribution Share
Visits by Channel β€” last 12 months
Cost Efficiency
Cost per Visit β€” Digital
$245
β–Ό $18 vs prior
Cost per Visit β€” Physician
$152
β–Ό $9 vs prior
Cost per Visit β€” Blended
$145
β–Ό $11 vs prior
Attribution by Clinic (% of visits)
Media Campaign Funnel Β· Where are we losing patients?
Campaign-level drop-off Β· last 12 months Β· Inline rates = conversion from prior stage Β· green = above benchmark Β· red = below benchmark Β· leak = worst stage for that campaign
Campaign Impressions β†’ Clicks Sessions β†’ Inquiries β†’ Scheduled NPV β†’ Attended NPV Worst stage
ImpsCTR Vol InqRate SchedRate AttRate
Google β€” Branded 290K27.0% 76K 3,8005.0% 2,83174.5% 2,26580.0% healthy
Google — Non-Brand IVF 1.07M10.8% 110K 2,2002.0% 1,36562.0% 1,02575.0% Session→Inq
Google — Non-Brand Egg Freezing 680K11.0% 71K 1,4002.0% 77055.0% 55572.0% Inq→Sched
Google β€” Geo-Targeted 420K9.0% 36K 8002.2% 54067.5% 42579.0% healthy
Meta — IVF Prospecting 6.8M1.4% 87K 1,3001.5% 75458.0% 55874.0% Session→Inq
Meta β€” IVF Retargeting 3.2M3.1% 96K 1,1001.1% 82575.0% 66080.0% healthy
Meta β€” Egg Freezing Prospecting 5.2M1.4% 70K 8001.1% 41552.0% 29571.0% multi-stage
Meta β€” Egg Freezing Retargeting 2.4M3.1% 72K 7001.0% 51073.0% 40579.0% healthy
All campaigns 20M3.0% 618K 12,1002.0% 8,01066.2% 6,18877.3% β€”
Funnel volume by campaign β€” drop-off visualization
End-to-end conversion rate (Impression β†’ Attended NPV)
Where the patients are leaking
  • Meta β€” Egg Freezing Prospecting is the weakest performer: drop-off at three consecutive stages (1.1% inquiry rate, 52% scheduling, 71% attendance). Highest priority to fix.
  • Non-brand Egg Freezing (Google) loses patients at the scheduling step: 55% scheduled vs ~70% benchmark. Likely a call-center / lead-quality issue specific to egg-freezing inquiries.
  • Meta IVF Prospecting under-converts at the form step: 1.5% sessionβ†’inquiry vs 2.5% network average. Landing-page or creative-relevance issue.
  • Retargeting campaigns dominate on conversion: Meta IVF and Egg Freezing retargeting both hit ~80% attended-NPV rates. Strong case for increasing retargeting budget allocation.
  • Branded Google remains the gold standard: 27% CTR, 5% inquiry rate, 80% attended rate β€” patients searching for "CCRM" already have intent.
Scheduling Conversion
Call Center Inquiries
7,840
β–² 4.3%
RingCentral
Total Appointments
11,210
β–² 8.1%
Lodus + SF + RC
Inquiry β†’ Scheduled NPV
65.3%
β–² 2.1 pp
Scheduled NPVs
8,190
β–² 9.4%
Scheduled vs. Target
94%
Target: 8,700
Attended Conversion
Attended NPVs
6,418
β–² 6.1%
Attended NPV Rate
78.4%
β–² 1.3 pp
Cancellation Rate
11.2%
β–Ό 0.6 pp
No-Show Rate
10.4%
β–² 0.4 pp
Full-Funnel Conversion
51.2%
β–² 1.8 pp
Inquiry β†’ Attended
Inquiry β†’ Scheduled β†’ Attended (trend)
Conversion Rate by Channel
Clinic Scorecard β€” Scheduling & Attendance
ClinicInquiriesSched NPVAttended NPVSched RateAttended RateNo-Showvs Target
Colorado2,1401,4851,18269.4%79.6%9.8%98%
Northern Virginia1,8901,23497465.3%78.9%10.1%96%
Houston2,5101,6721,34866.6%80.6%9.4%101%
Boston1,5601,06286568.1%81.4%8.7%97%
Atlanta1,9401,18487461.0%73.8%12.8%87%
Minneapolis1,5001,5531,17575.6%75.7%11.6%92%
Lifetime Value
Avg LTV β€” Digital
$12,400
β–² 3.2%
1.4 cycles avg
Avg LTV β€” Physician
$18,650
β–² 4.8%
1.9 cycles avg
Avg LTV β€” Patient Ref.
$14,820
β–² 2.1%
1.6 cycles avg
Avg Time to Convert
42 days
β–Ό 3 days
Inquiry β†’ attended NPV
Return on Investment
Revenue β€” Digital
$33.6M
β–² 11.2%
Revenue β€” Physician
$38.4M
β–² 8.9%
Digital ROI
11.8x
β–² 0.6x
Physician ROI
28.2x
β–² 1.4x
CAC β€” Digital
$442
β–Ό $24 vs prior
CAC β€” Physician
$152
β–Ό $9 vs prior
LTV : CAC β€” Digital
28:1
Healthy
LTV : CAC β€” Physician
123:1
Healthy
Revenue Attribution by Channel
LTV vs CAC by Channel
Payor Mix
Service Mix by Acquisition Channel
Traffic Overview
Total Sessions
1.84M
β–² 14.2%
Unique Visitors
1.21M
β–² 13.1%
New : Returning
68 : 32
stable
Engagement Rate
54.2%
β–² 2.4 pp
Avg Session Duration
2:14
β–² 0:18
Sessions by Traffic Channel
Sessions Trend β€” Mobile vs Desktop
Conversion Actions
Schedule Page Sessions
96,420
β–² 8.2%
"Request a Call" Clicks
14,210
β–² 11.4%
Phone Number Clicks
28,540
β–² 6.7%
Website β†’ Lodus Handoff
14.6%
β–² 0.8 pp
Top Landing Pages by Sessions
Landing PageSessionsEngagementCTA Click %
/ (home)312,54048.2%4.8%
/treatments/ivf/184,21062.1%9.2%
/locations/colorado/98,64058.4%11.4%
/treatments/egg-freezing/86,21064.7%8.6%
/treatments/iui/54,82055.3%6.4%
/locations/houston/52,14057.1%10.8%
/about/our-team/48,72051.8%3.2%
/blog/42,64042.6%1.8%
Service Page Engagement by Treatment
Physician Form Submissions
Patient Portal & Pay-My-Bill Clicks
Top Site Search Queries
egg freezing cost2,140
ivf success rates1,820
insurance coverage1,540
locations near me1,210
fertility consultation980
donor egg820
Paid Media β€” Combined
Total Paid Media Spend
$2.84M
β–² 6.4% YoY
Spend Pacing vs Budget
96.2%
On track
Total Clicks
3.09M
β–² 8.4%
Blended CPL
$226
β–Ό $18
Paid β†’ Lodus Booking
3.8%
β–² 0.4 pp
Spend by Platform & Month
Performance by Platform
PlatformSpendClicksCTRCPCCPLConv %
Meta$1.18M1.42M1.84%$0.83$2543.2%
Google Search$1.66M1.67M8.42%$0.99$2084.4%
Combined$2.84M3.09M3.18%$0.92$2263.8%
Meta
Meta Spend
$1.18M
β–² 7.1%
Meta Impressions
78M
β–² 11.2%
Meta CTR
1.84%
β–² 0.18 pp
Meta CPM
$15.20
β–² $0.80
Meta β€” Spend by Campaign
Meta β€” Prospecting vs Retargeting
Google
Google Spend
$1.66M
β–² 5.8%
Google Impressions
64M
β–² 6.4%
Google CTR
8.42%
β–² 0.42 pp
Google CPC
$0.99
β–² $0.06
Google β€” Branded vs Non-Branded
Google β€” Device Performance Split
Top Converting Google Search Queries (sample)
Search QueryTypeImpressionsClicksCTRCPCConv
ccrm fertilityBranded142,00038,40027.0%$0.621,840
ivf clinic near meNon-Brand88,2009,42010.7%$3.20412
egg freezing coloradoNon-Brand54,8007,64013.9%$2.84318
fertility doctor houstonNon-Brand42,1405,82013.8%$2.94241
ccrm reviewsBranded38,40012,82033.4%$0.58488
donor egg programNon-Brand28,1403,42012.2%$3.42142
πŸ₯ Illustrative data β€” fabricated figures for review purposes. Period: 4-month rolling window.
Network Headline Β· 4-month window
Total Network Revenue
$54.2M
19 clinics
Digital Attribution
27.0%
$14.6M digital revenue
Physician Attribution
14.0%
$7.6M physician revenue
Digital ROI (blended)
14.3x
CAC: $370 Β· Spend: $1.02M
Physician ROI (blended)
5.4x
CAC: $890 Β· Spend: $1.18M
Attribution & ROI by Clinic Β· Period: Nov 2025 – Feb 2026
Site Total Rev Attribution (%) Spend ($) Revenue ($) ROI CAC ($)
DigitalPhysicianPatientInsur.Other DigitalPhysician DigitalPhysician DigitalPhysician DigitalPhysician
NTWK TOTAL$54.2M27.0%14.0%8.5%4.7%45.8%$1,020K$1,180K$14.6M$7.59M14.3x5.4x$370$890
Arizonaβ€”18%1%3%3%75%$58K$112Kβ€”β€”β€”β€”$410$11,200
Austin$0.92M38%12%7%4%39%$51K$96K$350K$110K5.9x0.1x$445$2,520
Boston$0.58M26%14%9%6%45%$82K$108K$151K$81K0.8xβˆ’0.25x$364$1,180
Chicago$0.74M32%22%11%4%31%$36K$98K$237K$163K5.6x0.7x$324$1,640
Colorado$18.7M22%16%8%1%53%$108K$156K$4.11M$2.99M37.1x18.2x$258$580
Dallas$1.45M35%17%7%5%36%$44Kβ€”$508K$247K10.5xβ€”$452β€”
Delawareβ€”20%22%10%4%44%$68Kβ€”β€”β€”β€”β€”$480β€”
Greenville$0.07M26%9%8%5%52%$19K$94K$18K$6Kβˆ’0.05xβˆ’0.94x$530$13,400
Houston$7.4M28%26%8%4%34%$98K$128K$2.07M$1.92M21.1x14.0x$284$498
Miami$1.65M30%6%5%4%55%$48K$94K$495K$99K10.3x0.05x$342$4,180
Minneapolisβ€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Napervilleβ€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
New Jerseyβ€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
New York$3.4M26%4%15%4%51%$92Kβ€”$884K$136K8.6xβ€”$526β€”
Northern VA$7.8M32%16%8%3%41%$76K$108K$2.50M$1.25M32.9x10.6x$192$478
Orange County$4.1M40%14%11%12%23%$42K$98K$1.64M$574K39.0x4.9x$264$1,420
San Francisco$3.2M44%6%9%6%35%$68K$112K$1.41M$192K19.7x0.7x$312$3,640
Seattleβ€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”
Virginia Beach$0.45M19%1%6%0%74%$24K$52K$86K$5K2.6xβˆ’0.91x$548$26,200
Digital ROI by Clinic β€” ranked
Physician ROI by Clinic β€” ranked
Total Revenue by Clinic
Key takeaways
  • Colorado is the network engine: $18.7M revenue (~35% of network) at 37.1x digital ROI / 18.2x physician ROI β€” best-in-class on both.
  • Hubs performing well: Houston, Northern VA, and Orange County all return >21x digital ROI and >4.9x physician ROI.
  • Physician ROI lags digital network-wide: 5.4x physician vs 14.3x digital β€” physician spend ($1.18M) is similar to digital ($1.02M), yet returns less. Raises the question of whether to shift spend toward digital.
  • Underwater markets: Boston, Greenville, and Virginia Beach all have negative physician ROI (spend > attributed revenue). Likely either spend tracking issues or genuine underperformance β€” needs investigation.
  • Missing data flag: Delaware, Minneapolis, Naperville, New Jersey, Seattle have incomplete attribution rows β€” data-availability item to resolve.
  • "Other" bucket is large: ~46% network-average β€” unattributed revenue. Reducing this would tighten every downstream metric.
πŸ“‹ Compares marketing performance across acquisition channels (Digital, Physician Referral, Patient Referral, Other) β€” lead volume, funnel conversion rates, efficiency (CAC, margin, ROI), and how current spend stacks up against budget and the spend needed to hit NPV targets.
Marketing Efficiency Across Channels
Channel performance vs. target Β· last month (Apr 2026) Β· Inline β–²β–Ό = month-over-month Β· "vs Target" column = gap to monthly target
Channel Leads / Inquiries Inquiry β†’ Scheduled NPV Scheduled β†’ Attended NPV Efficiency Benchmark
Currentvs Target Currentvs Target Currentvs Target CACMarginROI SpendBudgetTo hit NPV target
Digital 1,180 β–² 3%β–² +4% 58.2% β–Ό 0.4ppβ–Ό βˆ’1.8 pp 75.4% β–² 0.3ppβ–² +0.9 pp $442 β–Ό 2%62% β–² 1pp11.8x β–² 0.4x $236K β–² 3%$245K$268K
Physician referral 820 β–² 5%β–² +7% 82.1% β–² 1.2ppβ–² +2.3 pp 84.2% β–² 0.6ppβ–² +1.1 pp $152 β–Ό 4%68% β–² 0.5pp28.2x β–² 1.2x $118K β–² 1%$120K$125K
Patient referral 340 β–² 2%β–² +3% 74.0% β–² 0.3ppβ–² +0.6 pp 81.4% β–² 0.2ppβ–² +0.4 pp $84 β–Ό 3%65% β€” flat42.1x β–² 0.8x $24K β€” flat$24K$26K
Other (insurance + unattr.) 210 β–Ό 4%β–Ό βˆ’2% 68.0% β–Ό 0.8ppβ–Ό βˆ’1.4 pp 77.9% β–² 0.1ppβ–² +0.2 pp $98 β–² 2%60% β–Ό 0.5pp34.6x β€” flat $14K β€” flat$14K$16K
Total / Blended 2,550 β–² 3%β–² +5% 67.4% β–² 0.2ppβ–² +0.4 pp 79.1% β–² 0.5ppβ–² +0.8 pp $246 β–Ό 2%64% β–² 0.5pp19.0x β–² 0.6x $392K β–² 2%$403K$435K
Spend Waterfall β€” what's needed to hit NPV target
Current spend β†’ gap to budget β†’ gap to NPV-target spend
Key takeaways
  • Physician referral is the highest-ROI channel (28.2x) and on-budget β€” consider increasing budget allocation.
  • Digital inquiry-to-scheduled rate slipped 1.8 pp vs target β€” investigate call center handoff.
  • $43K additional spend needed across channels to hit the monthly NPV target of 7,200.
  • "Other" lead volume down 2%, mostly insurance referrals β€” flag for benefits team.
πŸ“‹ Shows what kind of patient each acquisition channel produces β€” service mix (IVF / IUI / Egg Freezing / Genetic / Donor), payor mix (commercial vs. self-pay vs. Progyny/Carrot), average LTV, and time from first inquiry to attended NPV.
Marketing Outcomes Across Channels
Channel outcomes Β· last month Β· Inline β–²β–Ό = month-over-month
Channel Service mix Payor mix LTV Time to convert
IVFIUIEgg FrzGeneticDonor Self-payCommercialProgyny/Carrot Avg LTVvs Prior Days
Digital 48%18%22%6%6% 42%38%20% $12,400β–² +3.2% 38 β–Ό 2
Physician referral 62%14%8%10%6% 28%54%18% $18,650β–² +4.8% 48 β€” flat
Patient referral 55%17%15%7%6% 36%48%16% $14,820β–² +2.1% 41 β–Ό 1
Other 58%15%8%10%9% 30%52%18% $11,200β€” flat 46 β–² 1
Blended 54%16%15%8%7% 35%46%19% $14,820β–² +3.5% 42 β–Ό 1
LTV by channel
Time to convert (days)
Key takeaways
  • Physician referrals over-index on IVF (62%) and have the highest LTV β€” protect this channel.
  • Digital over-indexes on egg freezing (22%) and self-pay (42%) β€” younger demographic.
  • Time to convert is fastest via digital (38 days) β€” useful for short-horizon NPV pulls.
  • Progyny / Carrot share is consistent ~18-20% across channels β€” Progyny growth could lift LTV.
πŸ“‹ Breaks down inquiry volume and efficiency by source system β€” Lodus (digital bookings), PSC (call center), and Web form β€” to identify where drop-off happens in the handoff between marketing and operations.
Source Mix and Efficiency
Inquiry source performance Β· last month Β· Inline β–²β–Ό = month-over-month Β· "vs Target" column = gap to monthly target
Source Leads / Inquiries Inquiry β†’ Scheduled NPV Scheduled β†’ Attended NPV Efficiency
Currentvs Target Currentvs Target Currentvs Target CACMarginROI
Lodus (digital booking) 1,420 β–² 4%β–² +6% 62.8% β–Ό 1.2ppβ–Ό βˆ’2.4 pp 76.1% β–² 0.4ppβ–² +0.6 pp $418 β–Ό 2%62% β–² 0.3pp12.4x β–² 0.5x
PSC (call center) 780 β–² 3%β–² +4% 71.4% β–² 0.9ppβ–² +1.8 pp 81.2% β–² 0.8ppβ–² +1.4 pp $184 β–Ό 3%64% β–² 0.4pp22.6x β–² 0.9x
Web form 350 β–² 6%β–² +9% 54.2% β–Ό 0.6ppβ–Ό βˆ’1.1 pp 73.8% β–Ό 0.2ppβ–Ό βˆ’0.4 pp $262 β–² 3%61% β€” flat14.8x β–² 0.3x
Total 2,550 β–² 3%β–² +5% 65.3% β–Ό 0.5ppβ–Ό βˆ’1.0 pp 78.4% β–² 0.5ppβ–² +0.8 pp $246 β–Ό 2%64% β–² 0.5pp19.0x β–² 0.6x
Source share β€” last 12 months
Key takeaways
  • Lodus drop-off flagged: inquiry-to-scheduled rate down 2.4 pp β€” investigate booking-link friction.
  • PSC outperforms across the funnel (71% scheduled, 22.6x ROI) β€” call center quality is the lever.
  • Web form volume up 9% but lowest scheduled rate (54%) β€” lead-quality vs. follow-up speed?
  • Open question (slide 6): break out scheduled β†’ attended by no-show vs. cancellation.
πŸ“‹ Drills into the digital channel β€” Meta vs. Google paid media across the full funnel, showing spend, conversion rates, ROI, and the additional spend each platform would need to hit its share of the digital NPV target.
Digital Channel Deep Dive β€” Meta and Google
Paid platform performance Β· last month Β· Inline β–²β–Ό = month-over-month Β· "vs Target" column = gap to monthly target
Platform Leads / Inquiries Inquiry β†’ Scheduled NPV Scheduled β†’ Attended NPV Efficiency Benchmark
Currentvs Target Currentvs Target Currentvs Target CACMarginROI SpendBudgetTo hit NPV target
Meta 510 β–² 4%β–² +6% 54.8% β–Ό 0.8ppβ–Ό βˆ’2.1 pp 74.2% β–² 0.2ppβ–² +0.5 pp $486 β–Ό 1%60% β–² 0.3pp10.4x β–² 0.3x $98K β–² 4%$102K$112K
Google Search 670 β–² 2%β–² +3% 60.6% β–Ό 0.6ppβ–Ό βˆ’1.4 pp 76.4% β–² 0.5ppβ–² +1.2 pp $412 β–Ό 3%64% β–² 0.4pp13.0x β–² 0.5x $138K β–² 2%$143K$156K
Digital total 1,180 β–² 3%β–² +4% 58.2% β–Ό 0.4ppβ–Ό βˆ’1.8 pp 75.4% β–² 0.3ppβ–² +0.9 pp $442 β–Ό 2%62% β–² 1pp11.8x β–² 0.4x $236K β–² 3%$245K$268K
Spend efficiency β€” Meta vs Google
Key takeaways
  • Google Search is more efficient (CAC $412 vs $486, ROI 13.0x vs 10.4x) β€” concentrated on bottom-funnel intent.
  • Both platforms slipped vs. inquiryβ†’scheduled targets β€” call center capacity may be the bottleneck.
  • $32K combined additional spend needed to hit digital NPV target.
  • Working-backwards waterfall (slide 7): NPV target β†’ required attended NPVs β†’ required leads β†’ required clicks β†’ required spend.
πŸ“‹ Compares lifetime value, CAC, and ROI across acquisition channels to evaluate whether marketing investment is proportional to the long-term value each channel generates.
Lifetime Value (LTV) by Channel
Key question: Which channels generate the highest LTV customers, and are we investing proportionally?
Key takeaways
  • Physician referral generates 50% higher LTV than digital β€” driven by IVF service-mix and commercial payor mix.
  • Patient referral has the best LTV:CAC (176:1) β€” these patients self-select for higher commitment.
  • Digital ROI (11.8x) is healthy but the lowest β€” investment is still proportional given volume.
  • Investment imbalance: digital takes 60% of spend but produces 40% of revenue β€” physician referral is under-invested.
Channel summary Β· Inline β–²β–Ό = month-over-month
Channel Avg LTV CAC LTV : CAC ROI Share of spend Share of revenue
Digital$12,400 β–² 1.2%$442 β–Ό 2%28 : 111.8x β–² 0.4x60%40%
Physician referral$18,650 β–² 1.8%$152 β–Ό 4%123 : 128.2x β–² 1.2x29%46%
Patient referral$14,820 β–² 0.6%$84 β–Ό 3%176 : 142.1x β–² 0.8x6%10%
Other$11,200 β€” flat$98 β–² 2%114 : 134.6x β€” flat5%4%
Blended$14,820 β–² 1.3%$246 β–Ό 2%60 : 119.0x β–² 0.6x100%100%