Distinct listing IDs across collected cells in Detroit metro and Washtenaw County, MI. Observed October 21, 2026. This is a category inventory, not a complete clinic census.
In 225 observed skin-care clinic listings.
Google’s primary Skin Care Clinic category across the Detroit metro and Washtenaw County, MI collection area. Explore where listings cluster, inspect named practices, and check the sources behind each layer. This category does not capture every aesthetic provider.
Observed October 21, 2026. Collection boundary: Detroit metro and Washtenaw County, MI. Directory evidence has separate check dates.
Published evidence
What we can observe in Detroit Metro Area.
82 have reviewed evidence for at least one treatment at that location; 235 other listings have no qualifying location menu yet. Unknown menus do not establish treatment absence.
What the source check established.
The 2026-10-31 release check read 6 selected locations here: 1 supported the asserted menu, 1 supported a named location, 0 had an address conflict, and 4 remained unresolved. Corrections followed. This small sample does not establish market-wide accuracy or completeness.
Inspect the evidence assessmentInspect definitions and source receiptsExperimental resident-capacity model
This model has not been independently validated as a census of aesthetic providers. Its assumptions and sensitivity scenarios are available below; its planning ranges do not establish market attractiveness or patient demand.
Resident demand capacity
Census estimates · experimental supply modelWhere 2,150 comes from.
One division, two inputs. The rest of this brief tests them.
Both inputs are estimates: ACS resident households and a modeled provider footprint. The ratio range varies the provider estimate only; it does not capture all survey or model uncertainty.
No equivalent-boundary comparison cohort is published for this market. County and metro readings are excluded from the city benchmark. The map observed 225 distinct primary-category listings within Detroit metro and Washtenaw County, MI. The named directory covers Detroit metro and Washtenaw County, MI and has 82 location-reviewed menus, a selected subset. The historical model does not establish the missing provider total.
Capacity relates resident high-income households to estimated provider locations. It is not searches, revenue, or treatment intent.
Two other resident-to-supply views
Estimated providers divided by resident population, across the modeled 250–400 range
The same division with a demographic numerator — an audience-size proxy, not treatment intent
Context for Detroit Metro Area
Detroit metro and Washtenaw County, MI, 2020–2024 ACS. Interpolated from combined income brackets; not a published Census median. Not part of the ratio above
2015–2019 versus 2020–2024 ACS estimates for the same boundary
Checking the provider count
Three cross-checks. One market.
Three related evidence layers describing provider supply, placed on one axis against the modeled footprint. An unvalidated historical scenario with material missing-source sensitivity. The directory and category signal do not establish its total.
The registry incorporates website and Google evidence, which also inform the model. Agreement is useful context, not independent validation. Do not add these counts together.
Modeled 250–400
Named location registry82 confirmed, 235 probable
317
Google category signalPrimary skin-care-clinic listings
225
Historical website layerEarlier automated evidence; not the corrected menu count
161
Google observed 225 primary-category listings; the registry contains 317 names. The planning range is 250–400. Category coverage and missing records prevent these observations from validating its bounds. The release check read 6 selected locations in this market. Unknown outcomes and the small sample prevent a population accuracy claim. Location-reviewed menus are a selected subset; see the evidence assessment for the frozen frame and corrections.
Inside the metro
How the local market is distributed
78 active local areas appear across the observed density surface. We do not publish invented neighborhood names where a reliable polygon source is unavailable.
Provider mix in this directory
Med spa & medical aesthetics 38%Dermatology & plastic surgery 44%Laser, injectable & weight-loss 18%
What the provider estimate assumes
281 of 829 evaluated websites (34%) were technically unreachable. The model extrapolates accessible-site evidence within candidate groups; inaccessible sites may differ.
The Foursquare estimate is 225 when unreachable sites count as misses, versus 327 when they are excluded from the evidence-rate denominator. These are sensitivity scenarios, not measured totals.
The range uses the website model; Google is context only. The upper signal receives 15% coverage headroom before rounding. The central value is based on the rounded website model, with bounds constructed around it. The central planning value is not a measured count or necessarily the arithmetic middle.
The model has not been independently validated against a complete provider census. The historical website snapshot has not been re-estimated from the fresh directory review; agreement between layers does not establish missing-source coverage.
The published 250–400 range is not a confidence interval and does not cover all missing-source uncertainty.
How accurate is the practice list?
A representative audit of the published directory is not available for this market. Samples of the separate website-supported layer cannot establish the accuracy of directory names, addresses or every listed treatment.
Menu percentages now require reviewed evidence for this location. Historical, brand-only and unresolved treatment signals remain in the research history and do not enter those percentages. This reviewed subset is selected and incomplete.
Inspect the release’s evidence assessment · Inspect metric definitions and sources
Out of scope
What this brief does not answer.
Market Pulse keeps three questions apart. Resident capacity is explored in the experimental model. The other two are not measured — and folding all three into one opportunity score would hide that.
Read the full methodologyWhether treatment interest is high or rising. It is not required for the capacity ratios above, and we will publish it only from an approved or properly licensed source.
Whether a specific practice turns local opportunity into durable, profitable growth. A market document cannot measure execution, pricing, or clinical quality.
Methodology & source notes
What counts
The broad aesthetic-treatment universe includes med spas and medical aesthetics, dermatology and plastic surgery, plus laser, injectable, and medical weight-loss clinics. It is intentionally broader than strict “med spa” naming.
How capacity works
High-income households and the core-audience proxy are divided by the low and high ends of the provider estimate. The $100,000 threshold is the same nominal amount in every market, without a local cost-of-living adjustment. The ranges describe resident-to-supply ratios, not treatment demand.
Geography
Capacity and supply use matching boundaries within each market. The city benchmark excludes Miami-Dade County and Detroit’s seven-county footprint. Even city boundaries are imperfect clinic catchments. Neighborhood polygons show relative concentration, not a separate market total. Grid accounting for this market reconciles 225 cell memberships with 0 repeated memberships; each listing ID is counted once in the headline inventory.
Fresh directory source review
On October 30, 2026, 330 locations were crawled and 55 earlier website-evidence locations were checked by hand: two med spas, two physician practices and one specialty clinic per market. Eighteen rows fully reconfirmed, eighteen had explicit conflicts and nineteen remained unresolved. These balanced strata are not population-weighted and do not measure full-directory precision or recall. Four additional context conflicts were checked outside that sample. Corrections and twenty reversible source holds followed; no post-correction population audit is claimed. A blocked website or missing text does not prove closure or service absence.
Evidence labels
The headline counts distinct Google primary-category listing IDs within the map collection boundary. The practice list and experimental model use broader source populations. Website labels describe earlier evidence, not current licensure, clinical quality or confirmation of every branch menu.
Your market, interpreted
Get the one-page Detroit Metro Area market brief.
We’ll turn the public evidence into the short version: observed listings, local concentration, named practices, and the limits of each source.
- Dated local evidence
- Concentration takeaways
- No generic opportunity score