Sample report — illustrative
Nine assets, six findings, two high-risk — rewritten inside 48 hours
- Turnaround
- Priority — 48 hours
- Reviewed
- 4 October 2026
- Sector
- Private dental & cosmetic
This is a sample. The practice, the adverts and the wording below are fictional — written to show the exact format of a delivered report. No real review is represented here, and nothing on this page should be read as a claim about a real client's results.
The brief
A private practice in England running paid social and search for whitening, veneers and implants, with a 0% finance offer in the bio of every channel. The adverts had been built by an agency that had since moved on, and nobody in-house owned the copy. They booked the 48-hour priority scan ahead of a seasonal campaign push, with nine adverts and landing pages in scope.
What was checked · 9 assets
- 01Facebook & Instagram carousel — whitening bundle
- 02Veneers landing page (hero plus before/after grid)
- 03Implants Google Search ads (three variants)
- 040% finance social caption and bio link
- 05Patient reviews page
- 06Email campaign — same-day whitening
- 07Homepage hero and treatment pricing table
- 08YouTube pre-roll script
- 09Google Business Profile photos and description
Summary
Six issues across nine assets, two of them high risk. The pattern is the same one I see on almost every account: absolute claims — guaranteed, permanent, cheapest — doing work that evidence should be doing. Every one of them has been rewritten so the claim is specific enough to hold up and, in practice, more persuasive. 'From £2,495 after assessment' reads as confident; 'cheapest in town' reads as a boast, and invites a check. The two finance disclosures were missing entirely, and those are the ones most likely to draw an ASA or FCA complaint, because they are public, checkable and easy to prove.
The findings · 6
3 high · 2 medium · 1 low
Original ad copy is not published. Each finding shows what the advert claimed, the rule it engages and the wording supplied in its place.
Facebook ad — whitening bundle
High riskHeadline reads 'Guaranteed results in one visit'. An absolute promise about an individual clinical outcome cannot be substantiated for every patient, so it falls short of CAP Code 3.1 (materially misleading) and 3.7 (substantiation). It also sets up the front desk for a dispute when someone is not a suitable candidate.
Rewritten as
“Many patients see a visible lift after one appointment. Results vary with starting shade and enamel condition, and we tell you what to expect at your consultation.”
Veneers landing page — before/after grid
High riskBefore-and-after images shown with no note on individual variation, and the two shots lit differently, which flatters the comparison. CAP Code 3.1 (misleading comparison) plus GDC advertising guidance on not creating unrealistic expectations.
Rewritten as
“Keep the images and label them: 'Illustrative examples. Individual results vary; images unretouched and photographed under the same lighting.' Add one line on the upkeep veneers need.”
0% finance caption and bio link
High riskCredit promoted with no disclosures. If the practice arranges or introduces credit it is acting as a credit broker and must say so; a 0% example needs the representative APR, the total payable and any deposit. 'Terms and conditions apply' on its own does not discharge that. FCA consumer credit rules (CONC) on promotional disclosures.
Rewritten as
“0% over 12 months, subject to status. Representative APR 0%. Example: £3,600 treatment, £600 deposit, 12 payments of £250, total payable £3,600. We act as a credit broker, not a lender, and may receive commission from the finance provider.”
Google Search ad — 'cheapest implants in town'
Medium riskA market-wide price claim that cannot be evidenced across every competitor and is exactly the kind of wording the ASA checks on complaint. CAP Code 3.1 and the comparative-claim requirements in Section 3 (comparisons must be accurate and verifiable).
Rewritten as
“From £2,495 for a single implant, following a full assessment. Not everyone is suitable — the final price depends on bone volume and the restoration chosen.”
Patient reviews page
Medium riskReviews displayed with no statement about incentives or filtering, next to a '5.0 from 200 reviews' badge pulled from a platform that only prompts satisfied patients. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and CAP Code 3.1, published testimonials must be genuine, not tampered with, and not misleadingly selective.
Rewritten as
“Reviews are collected from patients who chose to leave feedback. We do not offer incentives and we do not remove critical reviews. Read the full set on [platform].”
Email campaign — 'same-day treatment, no waiting'
Low riskImplies treatment is always available immediately, when a first assessment can rule it out. CAP Code 3.1 (misleading by omission). It is also a conversion problem: patients who travel expecting treatment and are turned away are the ones who leave one-star reviews.
Rewritten as
“Most patients are seen within 48 hours. When treatment can start straight away depends on a first assessment — we confirm before you travel.”
After the rewrite
The corrected wording went live across all nine assets. Nothing that was earning its keep was removed: the guaranteed headline was replaced with a specific, evidenced promise and kept its click-through rate. Two finance disclosures were added where there had been none. The practice now has its ASA/CAP and FCA wording in one document the front desk can quote on the phone.
Illustrative sample. The practice, the adverts and the wording are fictional and were written to show the format of a real report — no client is named and no real review is represented here. The client name and ad copy are withheld from every published report unless the practice has given written permission.