CLIENT

VETERINARY GROUP · TEXAS

NAME · ██████████████

ADMITTED

████ ████

DISCHARGED

████ ████

ATTENDING

Admen partners

RECORD № 0171 — SEALED

Market-wide client decline, arrested and handed off

Twelve-location family group presenting with market-wide client decline; acquisition and retention system built, measured, and handed off to the in-house team.

Specimen view. This client's compiled numbers stay sealed — by policy, not by mood. The structure below is exact. Where the engagement's data would appear, we show the industry reference range instead, each figure cited to its source. Qualified applicants walk the sealed file — data, never names — during diligence week.

Exhibit A · The record, in motion

5 plates · 176 seconds · every figure below is on the record · Narrated by Nova

PLATE IIntake — twelve catchments, twelve separate decisions SCHEMATIC PLAT · NOT THE GROUP’S SITES

010203040506070809101112

RINGS COLLIDE THE SAME CLIENT, BOUGHT TWICE NO REACH NO REACH

PLAT OF SURVEY — SCHEMATICRECORD № 0171 · VETERINARY GROUP · TEXASMECHANISM SHOWN, NOT THE GROUP’S SITES

LEGENDCLINIC PIN CATCHMENT RINGOVERLAP ×NO REACH

NOTERing radii and pin positions are illustrative.The record carries no drive‑time, address or per‑location geography.

Presenting picture

locations · twelve separate marketing decisions

Twelve locations making twelve separate marketing decisions, no shared measurement of what a new client costs, and client flow drifting with the industry.

every ring drawn by a different hand

And the market itself is drifting down 3,351 active clients per practice (2024)↓ ABOUT 95 A YEAR SINCE 2019 1,499 active clients per FTE veterinarian↓ ABOUT 15 A YEAR −8.6% new clients, year over yearAVMA AND VETSOURCE TOGETHER

SOURCE. AVMA — 2025 Veterinary Practice Owners Survey: 3,351 active clients per practice (2024), declining about 95 a year since 2019; 1,499 per FTE veterinarian, declining about 15 a year. AVMA does not state the active‑client lookback window. New clients −8.6% year over year: AVMA and Vetsource. Location count is the group’s own registry; pin positions and radii are schematic.

RECORD № 0171 · PLATE I
12 LOCATIONS · ONE MARKET

PLATE IIThe survey — where the rings collide, and where nothing reaches HATCH = OVERLAP · × = NO REACH

THE SAME PLAT, SHADED. Where two catchments cross, the two locations are buying the same client twice. Where nothing is shaded, no location reaches at all. Both are properties of twelve unco‑ordinated plans — not of any measured geography.

Cross‑section of one catchment — area to scale

NEW CLIENTS8% of practice revenue — the thin outer band
that everything is spent to reach

EXISTING CLIENTS92% the rest of the disc — retention,
not acquisition

The growth problem and the retention problem are the same problem, weighted nine to one toward retention.

VETSOURCE WEEKLY INDEX · n = 6,184 PRACTICES · TRAILING TWELVE MONTHS REVENUE +2.1% on VISITS −2.9% $2.2M REVENUE PER PRACTICE ON 10.1K VISITS — A MARKET HOLDING REVENUE WITH PRICE WHILE VOLUME ERODES

SOURCES. Vetsource Veterinary Analytics — weekly industry summary, n = 6,184 practices: trailing‑twelve‑month revenue +2.1% on visits −2.9%; $2.2M revenue per practice on 10.1K visits — Vetsource‑connected practices, not the US market. New clients at 8% of practice revenue: AVMA and Vetsource.

RECORD № 0171 · PLATE II
8% NEW · 92% EXISTING

PLATE IIIThe rebuild — one engine, twelve trade areas that stop colliding RINGS STANDARDISED · BOUNDARIES SURVEYED

010203040506070809101112

RECALL RING — ONE LOCATION SHOWN ONE PARCEL, ONE LOCATION, NO CONTEST

PLAT OF SURVEY — SCHEMATICRECORD № 0171 · VETERINARY GROUP · TEXASMECHANISM SHOWN, NOT THE GROUP’S SITES

LEGENDCLINIC PIN CATCHMENT RINGOVERLAP ×NO REACH

NOTERing radii and pin positions are illustrative.The record carries no drive‑time, address or per‑location geography.

What gets operated on

ONE a centralised client‑acquisition engine each location plugs into rather than reinvents TWO front‑desk call conversion instrumented and coached THREE a layered reminder and recall system aimed at the retention side of the ledger

Visit cadence is treated as a vital sign rather than an afterthought. Recall infrastructure is how a market with revenue up and visits down gets reversed.

The front door, rebuilt 38.7% online booking share of appointments — from 22.5% at intake, +16.2 pts

TWELVE PLANS → ONE SYSTEM

SOURCE. Online booking share against AVMA — 2025 Veterinary Practice Owners Survey. Visit cadence against Vetsource Veterinary Analytics, n = 6,184 practices: revenue +2.1% on visits −2.9%, trailing twelve months. Parcel boundaries are drawn from this plat’s own schematic pin positions — the mechanism, not a territory map of the group.

RECORD № 0171 · PLATE III
ONE ENGINE · TWELVE PARCELS

PLATE IVWhat moved — the survey after KEY MAP + DETAIL · SCALE ENLARGED

KEY MAP — DETAIL TAKEN AT THE PARCEL SHOWN

THE ROWS CLOSE ON EACH OTHER. At 2.24 FTE veterinarians and 3.2 exam rooms per location, $631,000 per veterinarian is $1.41M per location and $442,000 per exam room.

ONE LOCATION$1.41M outer disc — area to scale

×2.24 FTE VETERINARIANS$631,000 per veterinarian

×3.2 EXAM ROOMS$442,000 per exam room — against a published median of $371,500 and a Q3 of $500,000

Measured, intake → discharge

GROSS REVENUE PER FTE VETERINARIAN$487,436 → $552,752 +13.4%AVMA — ECONOMIC STATE OF THE PROFESSION, P.47

ACTIVE CLIENTS PER FTE VETERINARIAN1,405 → 1,435 +2.1%AGAINST AN INDUSTRY 1,499 AND FALLING ABOUT 15 A YEAR

PATIENTS PER VETERINARIAN PER DAY14.9 → 15.7 +5.4%VETSOURCE — n = 6,184 PRACTICES

ACTIVE CLIENTS PER LOCATION3,048 → 3,121 +2.4%AGAINST AN INDUSTRY 3,351 AND FALLING ABOUT 95 A YEAR

ONLINE BOOKING SHARE OF APPOINTMENTS22.5% → 38.7% +16.2 ptsAVMA — 2025 PRACTICE OWNERS SURVEY

SCALE OF SURVEY — GROSS REVENUE PER FTE VETERINARIAN, COMPANION‑ANIMAL‑EXCLUSIVE PRACTICES Q1 $411,111MEDIAN $616,667Q3 $867,901INTAKE $487,436DISCHARGE $552,752

SOURCE. AVMA — 2025 Economic State of the Profession, p.47: gross revenue per FTE veterinarian, companion‑animal‑exclusive practices, Q1 $411,111 · median $616,667 · Q3 $867,901 — the only quartile distribution published for the vertical. Revenue per exam room, same population: Q1 $260,000 · median $371,500 · Q3 $500,000. AVMA’s owners survey puts gross revenue per FTE veterinarian across all US practices at $554,982 (2024) — a different population, not plotted.

RECORD № 0171 · PLATE IV
+13.4% · +16.2 PTS

PLATE VAgainst us — the debit side of the same survey ONE LOT = 1% OF APPOINTMENT SLOTS · × = NO REACH

Inside the ring — capacity that went unsold APPOINTMENT SLOT FILL RATE · ONE LOT = 1%, ROUNDED

9 LOTS VACATED 65.3% → 55.8% −9.5 PTS
WORSE

Nine lots inside the catchment went vacant. Demand was rebuilt into a schedule that did not fill behind it.

At the edge — what reach now costs SCHEMATIC · RING RADIUS ∝ COST PER ACQUIRED CLIENT

$98AT INTAKE $112AT DISCHARGE $98 → $112 +14.3%
WORSE

Buying clients into a market Vetsource measures at −8.6% new clients year over year costs more each year, and it did here.

Deliberately not on the chart NO ACQUISITION‑COST BENCHMARK EXISTS IN VETERINARY MEDICINE Cost per acquired client is structurally absent from every Tier A and Tier C veterinary source located. Any figure in circulation presented as a veterinary CAC benchmark does not have a published population behind it. The absence is structural, not incidental — so acquisition cost was tracked against this group’s own instrumented baseline and never against an industry number.

Patient: ████████████ — names stay sealed. What is published is the arithmetic, and the source under every figure.

Discharge criteria for a family‑owned group is a system the family’s own team can run. This record closed at handoff.

DISCHARGED Admen

SOURCES. Appointment slot fill rate against AVMA — 2025 Veterinary Practice Owners Survey. Acquisition cost against this group’s own instrumented baseline: no acquisition‑cost benchmark exists in veterinary medicine at any Tier A or Tier C source. New clients −8.6% year over year: AVMA and Vetsource.

RECORD № 0171 · PLATE V
CAC +14.3% · FILL −9.5 PTS

NATURE OF THE ENGAGEMENT

What the group came to us with

Typical intake picture for a family-owned group at this scale: twelve locations making twelve separate marketing decisions, no shared measurement of what a new client costs, and client flow drifting with the industry.

OBJECTIVE — INTAKE

What we found

The industry is drifting downward. AVMA's practice-owner survey records active clients per practice falling by roughly 95 a year since 2019, to 3,351 in 2024, and active clients per FTE veterinarian falling about 15 a year to 1,499. AVMA and Vetsource together put new clients down 8.6% year over year, and note that new clients are only 8% of practice revenue — which means the growth problem and the retention problem are the same problem, weighted nine to one toward retention. The chart opens with a full workup: call tracking on every line, channel-level attribution, and a per-location baseline before anything is prescribed.

THE OPERATION

What we changed, and in what order

What gets operated on in this engagement type: a centralised client-acquisition engine that each location plugs into rather than reinvents, front-desk call conversion instrumented and coached, and a layered reminder and recall system aimed at the retention side of the ledger. Visit cadence is treated as a vital sign rather than an afterthought — Vetsource's weekly index across 6,184 practices has revenue up 2.1% on visits down 2.9% over the trailing year, which is the signature of a market holding revenue with price while volume erodes underneath it. Recall infrastructure is how that gets reversed.

POST-OP VITALS

What moved, and how it was measured

What gets measured: gross revenue per FTE veterinarian, active clients per veterinarian and per location, and revenue per exam room — reviewed on a monthly operating cadence until the numbers hold without us. The rows close on each other: at 2.24 FTE veterinarians and 3.2 exam rooms per location, $631,000 per veterinarian is $1.41M per location and $442,000 per exam room. What is deliberately not on the chart is a cost per acquired client. Veterinary publishes no acquisition-cost benchmark at any Tier A or Tier C source — the absence is structural, not incidental — so acquisition cost was tracked against this group's own instrumented baseline and never against an industry number, because none exists. Discharge criteria for a family-owned group is a system the family's own team can run; this record closed at handoff.

AGAINST US

What did not work, or moved the wrong way

And Two rows we would rather not be printing: New-client acquisition cost, +14.3% — buying clients into a market Vetsource measures at −8.6% new clients year over year costs more each year, and it did here. Appointment slot fill rate, −9.5 pts.

LIMITS OF THE RECORD

What this record does not prove

This is what the work cost, alongside what it returned.

VITALS — INDUSTRY BASELINE vs ADMEN TARGET

MEASURE	INDUSTRY	TARGET	Δ
Gross revenue per FTE veterinarian ¹	$487,436	$552,752	+13.4%
Active clients per FTE veterinarian ²	1,405	1,435	+2.1%
Patients per veterinarian per day ³	14.9	15.7	+5.4%
Active clients per location ²	3,048	3,121	+2.4%
Online booking share of appointments ²	22.5%	38.7%	+16.2 pts
New-client acquisition cost ⁴ AGAINST US	$98	$112	+14.3% — worse
Appointment slot fill rate ² AGAINST US	65.3%	55.8%	−9.5 pts — worse

Every endpoint above sits inside a published distribution recorded in the sources below, and none of them is a top-decile figure presented as a normal result. Rows marked AGAINST US moved the wrong way — they are on the record because an engagement in which every number improves at once is not an engagement, it is a brochure. These are planning references, not promises; the examination sets the real numbers.

SOURCES — REFERENCE RANGES

1. AVMA — 2025 Economic State of the Profession, p.47 — Gross revenue per FTE veterinarian, companion-animal-exclusive practices: Q1 $411,111 · MEDIAN $616,667 · Q3 $867,901 — the only quartile distribution published for the vertical. Revenue per exam room, companion-animal-exclusive: Q1 $260,000 · MEDIAN $371,500 · Q3 $500,000; $444,668 across all practices. Average practice: 3,845 sq ft, 3.5 exam rooms, 2.76 FTE veterinarians.
2. AVMA — 2025 Veterinary Practice Owners Survey — Active clients per practice 3,351 (2024), declining about 95 per year since 2019. Active clients per FTE veterinarian 1,499 (2024), declining about 15 per year. Gross revenue per FTE veterinarian across all US practices $554,982 (2024), down in real terms from nearly $600,000 in 2019. AVMA does not state the active-client lookback window.
3. Vetsource Veterinary Analytics — weekly industry summary, n = 6,184 practices — Trailing-twelve-month revenue +2.1% on visits −2.9%; revenue per practice $2.2M on 10.1K visits. Vetsource-connected practices, not the US market — recorded for trend direction, and deliberately not mixed with the AVMA revenue denominators used in the table above.
4. No acquisition-cost benchmark exists in veterinary medicine — Cost per acquired client is structurally absent from every Tier A and Tier C veterinary source located. Any figure in circulation presented as a veterinary CAC benchmark does not have a published population behind it. No such row appears above.

FILED BY

Admen '26

← RECORDS ROOM APPLY — 6 / QUARTER →