What makes this different
Therapy marketing has rules most agencies have never read
This is the part that catches generalist agencies out, and it is the reason a lot of therapy practices have had a bad experience with one.
Testimonials are usually off the table
Professional bodies on both sides of the Atlantic restrict soliciting testimonials from current clients, and some restrict former clients too. The APA ethics code and BACP guidance both address it, and individual state boards and registers add their own conditions. An agency that opens by asking you to gather Google reviews from people you are actively treating is telling you it has not worked in this field.
Social proof still exists for therapy practices. It looks like clinician credentials, supervision and training, professional referral relationships, and being visibly present where the profession talks to itself. It rarely looks like a five-star review carousel.
Ad platforms treat mental health as sensitive
Meta and Google both restrict how you may target and phrase advertising that touches mental health. You cannot build audiences that imply a person has a condition, and copy that names the reader's diagnosis back to them tends to get an ad account restricted rather than a warning. The workable version advertises the practice and the outcome, not the presumed problem.
Confidentiality shapes what you can ever publish
The case study format that works in most industries is unavailable here. Nothing about an identifiable client can be published, and composite or anonymised examples still need care. It means the content that earns trust has to do it through expertise rather than through results, which is slower and more durable.