TL;DR
Compare agencies on the evidence and controls they propose for fertility content. Require an exact registry source, measure, denominator, period and population for any proposed success statement, with qualified practice review before use. A proposal should earn value through accurate deliverables and maintainable claim controls, not a promise that marketing will improve pregnancy outcomes.
Ask to see the claim before the campaign
An agency may offer to turn a clinic's registry presence into trust-building content. Before comparing the creative work, ask for the exact public sentence it proposes and the original source supporting it. A badge, cropped chart or broad word such as “leading” does not explain the claim.
GetPatients has a commercial interest in healthcare visibility services. Use the same evidence requirements for its proposals and other providers. This comparison does not rank agencies or establish any particular clinic's results.
The purchasing question is what the agency will verify, what the practice must supply and how the final display will preserve the approved meaning. Do not ask a marketer to resolve clinical interpretation simply because the source is public.
Make the registry brief part of the proposal
This original procurement brief is for assessing the agency's proposed content process. Leave the factual fields blank until the appropriate evidence is available. If the proposal makes no outcome claim, the agency can mark those fields outside scope rather than inventing a statistic.
| Evidence field | What the provider must show | Reason to return the proposal |
|---|---|---|
| Exact proposed sentence | Full wording and planned headline or card variant | General success language without a testable proposition |
| Original registry source | Actual report, clinic identity and specific display | A screenshot detached from its source |
| Measure | Source's exact outcome definition | Pregnancy and live-birth wording substituted for each other |
| Denominator | Source's exact unit and included population | A rate copied without what it divides by |
| Period and observation basis | Reporting period and cumulative or noncumulative scope | Historical evidence described as current performance |
| Population and exclusions | Applicable source category and limits | A subgroup presented as the clinic's universal result |
| Interpretation owner | Qualified practice reviewer and unresolved questions | Agency invents a personal expectation or clinical explanation |
| Final use and maintenance | Approved surfaces, evidence record and change trigger | Qualification disappears in ads or shortened copy |
A completed brief permits a source-to-claim decision. It does not establish that a clinical outcome is attributable to marketing or promise that the clinic is the right choice for a particular person.
Check that the denominator survives the rewrite
CDC explains that its own-egg success displays use measures per intended retrieval, actual retrieval and transfer. Its donor egg or embryo displays use per-transfer measures. CDC's interpretation guide. Those units cannot be silently replaced by “per new patient” in promotional copy.
CDC also cautions that clinic comparisons may be affected by different populations and treatment methods, and clinic rates do not describe an individual's chance of success. Read the same source's interpretation cautions. Keep the procurement task focused on accurate presentation and qualified review rather than selecting the most flattering display.
Do not reproduce a rate merely to fill a proposal template. The source, period and category need to support the exact practice claim. If the agency cannot preserve the limits in a short advertisement, ask for a narrower factual message or omit the rate from that placement.
Compare what the fee actually buys
Request separate scope descriptions for source retrieval, claim drafting, qualified practice review coordination, design, implementation and maintenance. Use actual written quotes in blank fields: included work ___; practice responsibilities ___; excluded review ___; implementation owner ___; quoted fee and currency ___; revision terms ___.
Compare these fields across providers without assigning invented weights or scores. A lower writing fee may leave interpretation and implementation with the practice. A larger package may still lack a process for withdrawing an outdated claim. The agreement needs to make those responsibilities visible.
Use the source-fit audit for the underlying proposition and the display acceptance worksheet for its final variants. This procurement brief adds registry-specific measure and denominator fields before the owner buys the content process.
Set a rejection rule the agency can act on
Return a proposed claim when its source cannot be located, its denominator changes, a historical period becomes a current promise or the language predicts an individual's outcome. State the defect precisely and ask for a supported alternative. Do not substitute an unsourced superlative after removing a rate.
An agency can instead build accurate administrative consultation information, verified practice facts and a clear inquiry route. Those are concrete deliverables even when outcome promotion is outside scope. Ask how the completed work will be demonstrated without claiming clinical impact.
Keep the approved brief with the content and reopen it when a source, service fact, layout or proposed sentence changes. Evaluate maintenance commitments in the actual contract. No universal review interval or agency package is asserted here.
Frequently asked questions
Does a link to a registry make any success headline acceptable?
No. Check the exact sentence, source category, denominator, period and intended display. Qualified practice review still needs to assess the actual interpretation.
Should we select the agency that promises the most patients?
Require evidence for its actual claims and compare scope, responsibilities and verifiable administrative measures. Do not use unsupported volume or clinical-outcome promises as proposal value.
Can an agency proposal avoid success-rate content entirely?
Yes. It can specify accurate public facts, consultation logistics and inquiry-path work. Make the exclusions clear and assess the proposed deliverables on their own evidence.