Sample Diagnostic
IVF Revenue Leak Map Example
See how a private Revenue Leak Map turns a public website and visible booking path into a prioritized diagnostic — without pretending public pages prove actual lost revenue.
SampleAnonymized preview
Sample · Anonymized · Synthetic
What a Revenue Leak Map looks like
A composite preview of page 1. Not a real clinic. Not a downloadable document. Real Leak Maps are private and only shared with explicit clinic approval.
Preview only. Full methodology, scoring, owner matrix and recovery cadence are not shown.
This sample uses an anonymised composite of common patterns from public IVF clinic sites. It is not a real client case. Real client Leak Maps are only shared with explicit approval.
What the sample checks
The Leak Map is a walk of the public patient path. Nothing here requires patient records or a CRM login.
- Homepage promise, treatment service pages, cost/eligibility surfaces, and trust proof placement.
- CTAs, contact and booking flows — clarity, effort, and moment of appearance.
- Phone-first paths: how a serious visitor would try to call and what she would see first.
- Signals of demand: which services and questions the public content most encourages.
Patient intent replay
The Leak Map opens by replaying a consult-intent visit as a specific persona — for example, a self-funded, 37-year-old visitor comparing three clinics for a first IVF cycle. The replay walks the exact steps that persona would take: search entry, homepage read, service page, cost/eligibility check, trust signals, then the CTA and booking flow.
At each step, the sample notes what the persona was likely trying to answer and whether the current page answered it. This is where most drift becomes visible — not because the page is broken, but because it does not answer the question that determines whether she will stay.
Moment of drift
A shortened example of the drift log. Each row names the moment, the visible reason, and the confidence level of the observation.
| Step | Likely question | What the page did | Drift risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Homepage → IVF service | "Is this clinic serious about my specific case?" | Generic hero, no service filter, trust proof below the fold. | Medium |
| Service page → cost / eligibility | "Can I afford this and am I eligible?" | No cost band, no eligibility hint, no next step until "Contact us". | High |
| Cost silence → CTA | "What am I actually being asked to commit to?" | CTA reads "Contact us"; no expectation of what happens next. | High |
| CTA → contact form | "How much effort now, for what?" | Long form asking for detailed history before showing value. | Medium |
| Phone-first path | "Can I just call and get a straight answer?" | Number is present, but no hours, no callback expectation. | Medium |
Before-inquiry findings
Findings that can be defended from the public path alone. Labelled as hypotheses — because that is what they are until movement is measured.
- Cost/eligibility silence is the highest-probability stuck point, based on visible depth of content and CTA placement.
- The "Contact us" CTA is likely under-selecting for consult-intent visitors compared to a service-specific next step.
- Trust proof (team, outcomes framing, standards) is placed after the moment of doubt, not before it.
- The phone path is functional but does not set expectation for who answers and when.
After-inquiry validation questions
The public path cannot answer these. They are the questions the Leak Map hands back so the clinic can validate the hypothesis with real movement.
- What share of contact-form inquiries reach a booked consult, split by service and source?
- How many missed calls per week come from likely consult-intent numbers, and how many are returned in time?
- What percentage of booked consults are actually attended, and where do no-shows cluster?
- How reliable are the current lead statuses — can we trust "lost — no reason" as a real finding?
What we checked but did not promote
Not every observation earns a place in the ranked findings. These are noted but held back because they either lack signal or would be too speculative to defend.
- Colour, brand tone, and typography — noted, but not linked to consult movement without evidence.
- Individual copy word choices where the drift signal is weak.
- SEO ranking speculation for keywords not tied to consult intent.
- Any implied lost-revenue figure that would require lifecycle data we do not yet have.
Fastest next validation step
The sample closes with the single smallest next step: instrument the current service-page → CTA → form path, add a service-specific alternative CTA, and measure a two-week baseline against a two-week test — no rebuild, no CRM migration.
That step is chosen not because it is the boldest, but because it is the fastest way to turn the top hypothesis into tracked movement. Once that rung is reached, the Leak Map can propose the next one.
Start with the proof
Request a private Revenue Leak Map for your clinic. Same structure as the sample, tuned to your site, services and visible booking path.