For therapists and counselors
LPCs, LMFTs, LCSWs, psychologists, associates building toward licensure. Solo or a small group. Private pay, hybrid, or on a few panels and wanting off them.
Heard's 2026 survey of private practices put referrals at 83 percent and online directories at 82 percent of how clinicians get clients, far ahead of anything paid. The median practice spends about $500 a year on marketing. That is roughly this subscription, and it is the reason this subscription is built around the two channels that already work, not the ones that need a budget.
A referral still ends in a search. The friend gives your name; the person types it into Google. What comes up is your Business Profile, your directory listings, and your site. If those are current and consistent, the referral converts. If the Google listing shows your old office and the site says you are not accepting clients, it does not.
Local search has a ranking logic, and it is documented. In Whitespark's 2026 survey of local search factors, the Google Business Profile itself carries the largest share of ranking weight, reviews next, then the pages on your site. None of that is a trick. It is a profile that is complete, categories that are right, hours that are true, and a site whose pages say what you treat and where.
Foundation does the profile and the site. Local adds the pages that name each specialty in each city you serve, because "EMDR therapist Springfield Oregon" is a search, and you cannot rank for a page you do not have.
I run orcounselors.com, a directory of Oregon mental health clinicians where every listing is checked against the state boards. If you are licensed in Oregon, a Pro listing there is part of Foundation, and it is filled from the same profile as your site, so it does not drift. Featured placement comes with Local.
Licensed elsewhere? The site, the Google profile, the reports, and the booking all work anywhere in the country. Only the directory line is Oregon.
The codes do not all draw the line in the same place, so the review card does not treat them the same. The APA code (5.05), the NASW code (4.07(b)), and the AAMFT code (9.2, in the revision that took effect this January) stop at current clients and at anyone whose circumstances leave them open to undue influence. The ACA code (C.3.b) goes further and names former clients as well. Oregon settles it for counselors and for marriage and family therapists by rule: OAR 833-100-0011(1) adopts the 2014 ACA code as the code of professional conduct, so an Oregon LPC or LMFT is held to C.3.b whether or not they hold an ACA membership.
So the intake asks which code you practise under, and the site is built to match. Under the APA, NASW, or AAMFT codes the card is on: it asks after care ends, asks everyone the same way, and routes the request to Google's public form, so nobody picks who is invited. Under the ACA code, and for every Oregon LPC and LMFT, the card turns itself off. Not softened, not moved into an email, not replaced with a hint: there is no invitation of any kind on your site, because C.3.b bars asking a former client and I would rather the product answer that than leave it to you to remember. If you told me only that you hold to your board's own code, or to one I have not read, the card stays off as well, because a code nobody has read is not permission. Say which one applies and I will set it. The setting sits on your record and I will change it if your situation does.
None of that is what the FTC's 2024 review rule is about. That rule (16 CFR part 465) bans fake reviews, paying for a particular sentiment, and burying the ones you did not like. It prescribes no way of asking, and this design does none of those three things.
Your copy is checked before it reaches you for the phrases boards flag: guaranteed results, "best," "leading," cure. Not because you would write them, but because a template might, and it should not be your job to catch it.