You need to understand the clinics around you. You must not write about them. This module is about how to do the first without doing the second.
PrerequisitesModule 06 · The propositionModule 07 · Choosing treatments
Read your local market by studying what is already published and what is missing from it, not by ranking or reviewing the clinics that published it. Comparative claims about named competitors require substantiation you almost certainly cannot produce and invite complaints. The useful output of market reading is a list of questions nobody in your area has answered properly, which becomes your build list.

By the end of this module you will be able to:
There are two useful ways to look at the clinics around you, and they answer different questions. The plan view asks what exists: how many clinics, offering what, at what apparent price level, with what visibility. The elevation view asks what is missing: which questions nobody answers, which stages of the journey nobody serves, which patient group nobody addresses.
Clinics almost always do the plan and stop, which produces a list of competitors and a vague sense of being outgunned. The elevation is the useful one, because gaps are actionable and headcounts are not.
Work from what is publicly published, in your catchment, for the treatments on your build list from Module 07, Choosing the treatments to compete on. For each, note the following without recording clinic names in anything you will publish.
An hour of this is worth more than any paid competitive analysis, because you are reading the same pages a patient reads, in the same order.
The survey is for you. Almost none of it may be published, and the reasons are both regulatory and practical.
Comparative claims about identified competitors must be capable of substantiation and must not mislead. In practice a clinic cannot substantiate a claim that it is better than a named competitor, because it has not assessed that competitor's work and could not do so lawfully or meaningfully. The CAP Code treats denigration and unsubstantiated comparison seriously, and a complaint from a named competitor is the easiest complaint in the world to make.
This publication does not rank clinics or agencies, and neither should your clinic's website. A ranked list you cannot substantiate is a liability dressed as content.
The same applies to any "top clinics" or "best in town" list, whether or not you appear on it. If you did not assess the businesses on it against stated criteria you can produce, you have published an advertisement in the shape of an article, and the fact that it ranks well is not a defence.
A gap is a question a patient in your area is asking that nobody local answers well. Three kinds recur.
Stage gaps. Nobody serves the symptom stage. Everybody has a page named after the procedure and nobody has a page named after the thing the patient sees in the mirror.
Question gaps. Everybody answers what a treatment is. Almost nobody answers what happens if you do not like the result, who pays for correction, or what the two weeks afterwards actually feel like.
Group gaps. Everybody writes to the same implied reader. Nobody writes to the person who is nervous about looking treated, or the person with a specific medical history, or the person who has had a poor experience elsewhere and is frightened of a second one.
Positioning against a gap means occupying it, not announcing it. You do not write "unlike other clinics, we explain recovery properly". You write the recovery explanation, thoroughly, and let the absence elsewhere speak.
This is a discipline, and it is the difference between a publication a patient trusts and a brochure they discount. It is also the safer route under every rule in Module 05, The rules that constrain everything you publish, because a page that describes only your own practice makes no comparative claim at all.
Once a quarter, an hour, the same five columns. Markets move slowly and the point is not to react quickly; it is to notice when a gap you occupy is being closed, which usually happens over several quarters and is invisible if you only look once.
Record the survey in a private document with dates. Never publish it, never quote it in marketing, and do not let it become an anxiety exercise. Its only purpose is to keep the build list in Module 07, Choosing the treatments to compete on pointed at territory where you can win.
An hour, private, and it stays private. You need your build list from Module 7 and a spreadsheet with five columns.
Diarise a repeat in three months. The workbook contains a ruled survey sheet and a reminder of what may not be published from it.
There are narrow circumstances, such as correcting a factual matter of public record, and they almost never arise in clinic marketing. The working rule for a clinic website is simple: describe your own practice, name nobody else. It removes an entire category of risk at no cost to the reader.
Comparing treatments is legitimate and useful, and Module 17 sets out how to do it responsibly. Comparing businesses is the thing to avoid. The distinction is between comparing things you can describe factually and comparing organisations you have not assessed.
The route for that is a complaint to the relevant regulator, not a page on your website. Publishing a rebuttal turns a factual matter into a dispute in which you are a party, and readers discount both sides.
Whatever distance patients actually travel to you, which you can find out by asking them. It is usually smaller than clinic owners assume, and treating it as larger produces the doorway page problem covered in Module 26.
Disclosure. This module contains no commercial links of any kind. This course is published by Northbank Media, is free to read, and is funded by the workbook pack and by clearly labelled series sponsorship. We do not rank, review or recommend agencies or clinics.
Module 08 of 32