A consultation is an hour of clinical time somebody has to pay for.

In aesthetics the consultation is often free, takes forty minutes, and occupies a provider or a trained advisor whose time is the practice's scarcest resource.

Cost per consultation therefore understates the true cost of a channel by exactly the amount of time it wastes, and the waste is not evenly distributed.

A source producing ten consultations for one treatment is consuming a working day per patient acquired, which is invisible in every advertising report.

Because both halves are in one system here, conversion from consultation to treatment can be reported per source without any additional tracking.

That number is usually more actionable than the revenue ranking, because it points at the offer and the consultation script rather than at the channel.

A course of injectables, a device package and a surgical procedure differ enormously in value, in consideration time and in who is looking for them.

A channel weighted towards one is ranked as though it produced the mix, which is how a good source of high-value work gets cut for producing few patients.

Where the export carries a procedure category, the report splits on it and each category gets its own ranking and its own sensible window.

Most practices find the sources feeding injectables and the sources feeding surgical enquiries barely overlap, which argues for separate budgets rather than one.

It also stops a single large case from deciding a channel's ranking, because the median is shown beside the total.

Treatment packages and membership plans are bought once and consumed over months, which breaks any match that attributes on the treatment date.

Attributing on purchase keeps the decision with the campaign that produced it, and the report sums by patient so a package is one outcome rather than six.

It also prevents a maintenance visit a year later being credited to whatever campaign happened to be running that week.

Where the export flags the package, this is automatic; where it does not, the amounts and dates usually make it obvious.

The distinction matters most for the channels that sell on price, because a discounted package looks like strong revenue on the day it is bought.

Holding the enquiry and the revenue in the same place removes most of the joining problems this catalogue exists to solve, and it is a genuine advantage.

What it does not do is verify the source field, which is still filled in by whoever took the enquiry and is subject to the usual drift.

Where you also run call tracking or have a separate lead file from an advertising platform, bringing it in gives a second, independent view.

Where the two disagree, the report shows the gap rather than preferring one, which is how a source field gets corrected rather than trusted.