An Atlanta plastic surgery practice generated 514 leads in 90 days at a $49 blended CPL.
Practice Growth Co inherited a structurally reasonable Google Ads + Meta Ads account where every procedure pointed to the same generic landing page. We rebuilt the landing-page layer procedure by procedure (breast augmentation, facelift, rhinoplasty, liposuction), then turned Meta into a procedure-matched retargeting system that answers each visitor with the offer for the procedure they actually researched. Over March 1 – May 31, 2026, the practice produced 514 combined leads on roughly $25,000 in spend at a $49 blended CPL — with May alone delivering 244 leads (+85% MoM) and a Meta CPL drop from $17.46 to $7.55 (−57%) on 4× the lead volume.
514
Leads · 90 Days
Google + Meta combined
$49
Blended CPL
~$25K total spend
+85%
May MoM Leads
244 vs. 132 in April
−57%
Meta CPL · May
$17.46 → $7.55, 4× leads
Snapshot
Client snapshot.
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Practice type
- Plastic surgery — core surgical procedures
- Core procedures
- Breast augmentation, facelift, rhinoplasty, liposuction
- Channels
- Google Ads + Meta Ads
- Engagement
- Account inheritance + landing-page rebuild + Meta retargeting system
- Window
- March 1 – May 31, 2026 (Windsor.ai reporting)
The Problem
Generic landing pages quietly capping a structurally reasonable account.
When Practice Growth Co inherited this account, the campaigns were structurally reasonable — but every procedure pointed to lightly built, generic landing pages that described the practice rather than the procedure. A rhinoplasty researcher and a breast augmentation researcher landed on functionally the same page, and neither page did the work of answering the specific questions their procedure required: candidacy, recovery, results, and why this surgeon for this operation.
Plastic surgery is one of the most research-intensive purchase decisions in healthcare. Patients compare surgeons for weeks or months, and the landing page is where a click either becomes a consultation request or evaporates. A generic page converts generic traffic at a generic rate. The keyword can be perfect and the ad can be perfect — if the page doesn't continue the conversation the patient started in the search bar, the practice pays for the click and loses the lead.
The diagnosis was not a media-buying problem. It was a landing-page problem with media-buying consequences. The Google account couldn't scale efficiently because added traffic hit pages that wouldn't convert it, and the Meta account couldn't go beyond generic awareness because there was no procedure-level intent data to retarget against.
From the Field
“Most plastic surgery practices running paid ads have a landing-page layer that quietly caps everything above it. The campaigns get audited and re-audited while every procedure keeps landing on the same general page. When you build procedure-specific pages, the conversion gain isn't the only win — the pages become retargeting infrastructure. Once you know which procedure page someone visited, you know exactly which offer to show them next.”
Mike Funkhouser
Founder, Practice Growth Co
Audit Findings
What was upstream of every CPL number we inherited.
The structural failures that compounded across both channels.
One generic landing page absorbing every procedure
Breast augmentation, facelift, rhinoplasty, and liposuction traffic all landed on functionally the same lightly built page describing the practice in general terms. Procedure-level candidacy, recovery, results, and surgeon credentialing were absent or buried — none of the questions the patient actually carries into the search bar.
No procedure-level intent data to retarget against
Without procedure pages, page-view events couldn't tell the practice (or Meta) which procedure each visitor actually cared about. Meta retargeting was running broadcast offers against a pooled audience instead of matching offer to demonstrated intent.
Google Ads couldn't scale without CPL drift
Adding budget to an account whose pages won't convert added traffic just inflates CPL. Quality Score also paid the tax: ad → page mismatch suppressed it, raising the cost of every subsequent click.
Campaign architecture was salvageable
Keyword targeting, ad copy, and account structure didn't need a teardown — the campaigns were defensibly built. The rebuild was downstream: pages first, then the Meta retargeting system the pages enabled.
Landing-Page Rebuild
One page per core procedure, built around how that patient actually decides.
Practice Growth Co built custom landing pages for each of the practice's core procedures: breast augmentation, facelift, rhinoplasty, and liposuction. Each page was built around the specific patient researching that specific procedure — not around the practice's general brand.
In practice, that meant each page addressed the questions that procedure's patient actually carries into the search: what the procedure involves, who is a good candidate, what recovery looks like, what results to expect, and what makes this surgeon the right choice for this operation specifically. Procedure-level proof, procedure-level FAQs, and a consultation request flow tied to that procedure.
The structural effect is that every ad click now lands on a page that matches its intent. A breast augmentation search lands on a breast augmentation page; a liposuction search lands on a body-contouring page. The match between query, ad, and page lifts conversion rate — and in Google Ads it also feeds Quality Score, which lowers the cost of every subsequent click. Equally important: each page generates the procedure-level audience data that the Meta retargeting system needs.
Before
One generic page absorbing all paid traffic
- • Practice-overview language; no procedure-level depth
- • Same page for breast, face, nose, and body intent
- • Recovery / candidacy / results questions unanswered
- • No procedure-level page-view events to retarget against
- • Quality Score paying an ad → page mismatch tax
Procedure pages
1 generic
After
Procedure-specific pages tied to consultation flow
- • Dedicated pages for breast aug, facelift, rhinoplasty, lipo
- • Procedure-level candidacy, recovery, results, surgeon fit
- • Procedure-level FAQs and consultation request flow
- • Page visits feed procedure-matched audience pools for Meta
- • Ad → page match lifts Quality Score and conversion rate
Procedure pages
4 (and counting)
Strategic Centerpiece
Procedure pages → intent-matched Meta retargeting offers.
The sharpest result in this engagement came from Meta — and it came from matching offers to procedure intent, not broadcasting one message to everyone. The procedure pages aren't a tactic; they're the audience-segmentation layer that makes the retargeting system work.
Procedure pages as the audience layer
Each procedure page generates a distinct page-view audience. Visitors who research breast augmentation land in the breast augmentation pool; visitors who research liposuction or body contouring land in the body pool. The pages do the segmentation work that broad retargeting can't.
Offer matched to demonstrated procedure interest
Breast-augmentation researchers see a breast-augmentation offer on Meta. Body-procedure researchers see a liposuction + laser offer. The retargeting answers the question the patient was actually asking — not a generic "come visit our practice" pitch.
Google → Meta loop
Google Ads delivers the high-intent procedure search; the procedure page absorbs the click and tags the visitor with procedure intent; Meta returns later with the offer for that specific procedure. Both channels compound each other instead of competing for the same lead.
Honest Google scaling, not a sustained CPL claim
Google spend went +29% in April (CPL rose to $83 — the expected short-term cost of pushing an account into new volume). May proved the pages absorbed the scale: spend stayed 23% above March on $8,089 while CPL fell to $67 and leads rose to 122 (+27% vs. March). The point is the recovery, not the spike.
Results · 90 Days (Windsor.ai)
514 leads. $49 blended CPL. The May inflection.
514
Combined Leads
Google + Meta · 90 days
$49
Blended CPL
~$25K total spend
244
May Combined Leads
+85% vs. April
10.9%
May Meta CR
best of the window
Why This Matters
“At 514 leads in 90 days, the practice's constraint shifted from lead generation to consultation capacity — which is the constraint a plastic surgery practice wants. A single surgical case is typically worth $6,000 to $15,000+ depending on procedure, so a $49 blended CPL in one of the most expensive patient-acquisition categories in healthcare paid search isn't an efficiency win — it's a business-model unlock.”
Mike Funkhouser
Founder, Practice Growth Co
What Carries Over
Four lessons that generalize beyond plastic surgery.
Procedure-specific pages are infrastructure, not a tactic
A page-per-procedure isn't a conversion trick — it's the audience-segmentation layer that makes intent-matched retargeting possible. The CPL win on Google and the 4× lead win on Meta both downstream from the same pages.
Match the offer to demonstrated procedure interest, not the channel
Generic Meta retargeting against a pooled audience underperforms procedure-matched offers by 3–5×. The shift isn't "better creative" — it's giving the algorithm a clean signal about who's actually in market for what.
Tell the scaling story honestly — the recovery is the proof, not the spike
Account scale-ups produce a temporary CPL rise. Hiding the spike erodes credibility; surfacing it (and showing the next month's recovery) is the more durable proof that the conversion infrastructure absorbs the spend. April $83 → May $67 on higher spend is exactly that proof.
Architecture beats channel optimization
Neither Google alone nor Meta alone produces these numbers. The procedure pages connect them: Google delivers intent, the pages capture and segment it, Meta returns with the matched offer. The architecture is the asset.
If your ads are landing on generic pages
We audit campaigns and the landing-page layer together.
If your plastic surgery practice is running ads to generic pages, or your lead volume has stalled at a spend level you know the market can exceed, the ceiling is usually in the pages — not the bids. Book a strategy call and we'll audit both layers together and tell you exactly what we'd rebuild first.
Continue exploring
Related work and reading.
Services
Related services
Healthcare Google Ads
Capture high-intent searches and convert them into booked consults.
Meta Ads
Create demand for cash-pay and specialty healthcare services.
Landing Pages
Procedure pages engineered to turn visitors into booked consults.
Conversion Optimization
Tighten the path from inquiry to consult to confirmed appointment.
Specialties
Related specialties
Case Studies
Outcomes from similar engagements
How a plastic surgeon produced 510% more leads in 90 days while still under contract with another agency.
The practice's existing agency was underperforming but the surgeon couldn't get account access to audit or fix it. We built a parallel landing page and new ad campaigns that ran alongside the existing system without touching it. The new system produced 510% more leads within two weeks, giving the practice clear performance data and an obvious path forward.
How a Columbus med spa produced a 50% increase in patient volume by isolating campaigns at the procedure level.
The med spa was running blended ad campaigns that hid which treatments were profitable and which were losing money. We isolated each procedure into its own campaign with dedicated landing pages, ad copy, and bid strategies. ROAS now ranges from 2x to 6x by procedure, letting the practice scale what works and stop spending on what doesn't.
How a plastic surgeon turned an Instagram audience into 10–15 weekly inquiries in 30 days.
The surgeon had four months of strong Instagram brand-building but no website to convert that audience into inquiries. We built a high-converting landing page in two weeks and launched Meta retargeting against the existing follower base alongside Google Ads on procedure searches. The practice now generates 10–15 weekly inquiries with positive ROI inside 30 days.