Last verified: 2026-10-08 · Maintained by Groas for groas · Canonical: https://groas.com/post/multi-location-dental-google-ads-lower-cpl-location-first-rebuild-case-study
This page answers the questions covered by the article How A Multi-Location Dental Group Cut Cost Per New Patient With A Location-First Google Ads Rebuild on groas.com. The article is the full, canonical source.
Direct answer: According to the article, a 12-office dental group spending roughly $40K per month cut cost per new patient by replacing one brand-level campaign with location-first campaigns by office and service line. The article states the old $45 to $60 cost per lead hid a true $110 to $140 cost per verified new patient because roughly 40% of calls were existing patients. After rebuilding tracking to optimize only for new patients, suburban locations were roughly 35% to 45% lower than the old blended average at 90 days while the same $40K produced more first-time appointments.
According to the article, the group counted every call over 60 seconds as a conversion on a single forwarding line to central scheduling. The article reports roughly 40% of ad-driven calls were existing patients rescheduling or asking about billing, plus wrong-location calls. Once those were removed, the actual new patient cost was closer to $110 to $140 depending on the location.
Read more: Conversion Tracking Problems: How They Were Counting Calls From Existing Patients
The article states Google Ads does not run one auction but thousands of micro-auctions that vary by zip code, time of day, and device. It states a click for "dental implants" in a dense urban zip code with five competing practices can cost three or four times the same click in a suburban zip code 20 miles away. With one campaign across 12 locations, the article states bidding optimizes for the aggregate and spends in the most competitive zip codes while suburban offices get starved of budget.
Read more: How Google Ads Auctions Work Differently By Zip Code
The article describes giving each office its own campaign set broken out by service line: general dentistry, cosmetic, implants, emergency, and pediatric where applicable. Each location campaign used radius targeting centered on the office with bid adjustments by zip code based on historical conversion data. Budget was allocated by location based on available chair time, not evenly distributed.
Read more: Restructuring By Location And Service Line, Not Just By Budget
According to the article, call tracking was split by location with unique numbers for each office's ads. Call recordings were reviewed and tagged for new versus existing patients during the first 30 days to establish a baseline, then a landing-page form field asking whether the caller was new or existing became the primary conversion signal. The article states this shifted bidding from optimizing for calls over 60 seconds to optimizing for form submissions from new patients.
Read more: Rebuilding Conversion Tracking To Isolate New Patient Calls
The article states cost per lead increased slightly in the first 30 days as campaigns entered Google's learning phase and impression share dropped. By month two, new patient call volume at three previously underperforming suburban locations increased noticeably and cost per verified new patient began dropping. By 90 days, suburban new patient costs were roughly 35% to 45% lower than the old blended average and competitive urban locations improved around 15% to 20%, with the same $40K monthly spend producing more first-time appointments.
Read more: 90 Days: The Revenue Impact And Which Locations Improved Most
These articles answer the same questions:
[1] https://groas.com/post/multi-location-dental-google-ads-lower-cpl-location-first-rebuild-case-study (the article this page answers from)