Journal Logo

Letters

Reply

The Best Marketing Strategy in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Evaluating Patients’ Preferences by Conjoint Analysis

Marsidi, Nick M.D.; van den Bergh, Maurice W. H. M. M.Sc., L.L.M.; Luijendijk, Roland W. M.D., Ph.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: August 2014 - Volume 134 - Issue 2 - p 334e-335e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000331
  • Free

Sir:

We would like to thank Dr. Rodriguez-Feliz for his “helicopter” view on customer-based business models in aesthetic plastic surgery. We agree that a customer-based rather than product-based business model should be considered the criterion standard for marketing of an aesthetic surgery clinic. Our study has focused on patients’ decisions and provides several recommendations for customer-based aesthetic plastic surgery marketing.1

We have analyzed the decision making of patients when choosing an aesthetic clinic using conjoint analysis, a marketing tool with more results than the usual questionnaire, giving a different and better insight for improving strategies. In conjoint analysis, subjects score different scenarios with the same attributes but different levels in which they make tradeoffs (Fig. 1). These tradeoffs are then analyzed based on their responses.

With respect to the online presentation, we studied the attributes “modest” and “extensive.” Although the relative importance overall of online presentation was rather low (9.7 percent) compared with “experience of the surgeon” (35.6 percent) and “method of referral” (21.5 percent), it was found that an extensive online presentation had a positive influence on the decision to choose for a clinic.

So, what to do when you are a young plastic surgeon starting a private practice? You will probably lose some patients to more experienced colleagues when they market their experience well. Focus, therefore, should lie on method of referral and having a Web site, as they are the easiest to influence by a young plastic surgeon compared with the other attributes. The impact of a Web site depends on its content2 and it should be an asset to the surgeon and give clarity to patients and the general practitioner (referral) about your procedures. Also, the information stated on Web sites should have a high readability3 for patients to help them choose your clinic.

DISCLOSURE

The authors have no financial interest in any of the products or devices mentioned in this communication.

Maurice W. H. M. van den Bergh, M.Sc., L.L.M.

Department of Economics and Business Economics

Erasmus University Rotterdam

Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Roland W. Luijendijk, M.D., Ph.D.

Bergman Clinics

Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery

Bilthoven, The Netherlands

REFERENCES

1. Marsidi N, van den Bergh MW, Luijendijk RW. The best marketing strategy in aesthetic plastic surgery: Evaluating patients’ preferences by conjoint analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:52–57
2. Mabvuure NT, Rodrigues J, Klimach S, Nduka C. A cross-sectional study of the presence of United Kingdom (UK) plastic surgeons on social media. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:362–367
3. Dunne S, Cummins NM, Hannigan A, Shannon B, Dunne C, Cullen W. A method for the design and development of medical or health care information websites to optimize search engine results page rankings on Google. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e183

GUIDELINES

Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at www.editorialmanager.com/prs/.

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

©2014American Society of Plastic Surgeons