Let's TalkLet's TalkA controlled substance on a subscription, advertised in the two categories platforms restrict hardest - where staying live is most of the competitive advantage.
TRT sits at the intersection of two things platforms restrict hardest - prescription medication and sexual health - and the second problem is that patients lapse. We will review your creative against the rules that actually get accounts restricted, and model revenue per patient against how long they genuinely stay on protocol.
Four failures we see repeatedly in this vertical, and what each one actually costs.
Testosterone is a scheduled controlled substance, and platform policy on prescription medication and sexual-health content is among the strictest that exists. Most men's health creative that performs well is creative that will eventually be restricted, and clinics discover the boundary by losing the account rather than by reading the policy.
Years of aggressive low-T marketing promising transformation have made patients sceptical and regulators attentive. A clinic using the same playbook inherits both. The practices building durable businesses sound like medicine - bloodwork, monitoring, protocol - rather than like a supplement advert.
Protocol adherence falls off once initial effects plateau or monitoring becomes inconvenient, and a lapsed patient rarely announces it. A clinic pricing acquisition against a year of treatment while patients actually stay five months is losing money on every enquiry and will not see it for two quarters.
Where the model is telehealth rather than in-person, Google requires LegitScript certification before ads will serve at all. It is an application process rather than a setting, and discovering it after a launch date has been committed is the most avoidable delay in this category.
The real deliverables, not a list written to make a proposal look thicker.
Creative against the platform rules, and the retention curve against the monthly price. Either alone gives a misleading picture of whether the account can work at all.
Bloodwork, monitoring and protocol instead of transformation language. This is what separates a clinic that scales from one that is restricted at the worst moment.
Adherence and monitoring sequences at the point patients lapse, because acquisition priced against a retention curve you have not improved buys a shorter patient than the budget assumes.
LegitScript handled before a launch date is promised where the model is telehealth, rather than discovered when the ads will not serve.
Budget follows revenue per retained patient. In a subscription category it is the only number that shows whether growth is profitable.
Not a men's health account, and we will say so. What the clinic group below demonstrates is the thing that matters most in a heavily restricted category: an account that stayed live across expansion into nine additional states, with the conversion on the booked consultation and cost per lead down 57% in two weeks. Where restrictions remove competitors from the auction periodically, staying live is a substantial part of the result.
Read the full case studyOur account was restricted three times in a year. The creative was the problem and nobody had told us which part.
We priced acquisition as if patients stayed twelve months. The median was five. That one figure changed the whole plan.
Moving the messaging to bloodwork and monitoring felt like it would convert worse. It converted better and stopped getting flagged.
Yes, but inside narrow limits, and most creative that performs well in this category is creative that will eventually be restricted. Testosterone is a controlled substance, and policy on prescription medication and sexual-health content is among the strictest there is. What runs durably is clinical - bloodwork, monitoring, protocol, candidacy - rather than transformation promises. Written that way from the start, campaigns survive; corrected after restrictions, they cost a month of pipeline.
Because this is a subscription and the retention curve decides whether growth is profitable. Adherence falls off once initial effects plateau or monitoring becomes inconvenient, and lapsed patients rarely announce it. A clinic pricing acquisition against a year while the median patient stays five months is losing money on every enquiry without seeing it for two quarters. Improving the plateau is usually worth more than any cost-per-lead reduction.
If the delivery model is telehealth, yes - Google requires it before the ads will serve at all, and it is an application process rather than a setting. In-person clinics generally do not. We check this before the campaign is built, because finding out afterwards means a launch date that was never achievable.
Yes, in both directions. Years of aggressive low-T advertising have made patients sceptical and regulators attentive, so a clinic using that playbook faces more resistance and more scrutiny than the creative alone would suggest. It also means clinical, measured positioning stands out in an auction full of transformation claims - which is why it tends to convert better rather than worse.
Closely, which is why the pages link. Both are cash-pay subscriptions in heavily restricted categories where retention decides profitability and staying live is most of the advantage. The differences are the specific policy constraints and the lapse point. Clinics offering both should market them separately, because the patient and the objection differ even though the economics rhyme.
This is one part of a bigger service. Here is the whole of it, and the closest neighbours.
No pitch deck, no discovery call you have to sit through. Tell us the situation and we will tell you whether we can help.