Is Location-Based Exclusivity Still Serving Us?

This week inside the ABIC community, a question was raised that struck a nerve — and judging by the volume and depth of responses, it’s something many clinic owners have been quietly thinking about for a while.

The question was simple on the surface:

As client loyalty increasingly centres around the therapist’s expertise, education and treatment outcomes, does location-based exclusivity still play the same role it once did in supporting clinics?

In other words, should brands continue limiting distribution to one clinic per town or postcode? Or is there room for that model to evolve?

What followed wasn’t a heated pile-on - though I had my popcorn ready. It was a thoughtful, layered conversation from operators who have clearly lived both sides of the equation — as stockists, as brand partners, and as business owners trying to build something sustainable.

And it exposed something bigger than territory.

For decades, location-based exclusivity has been treated as a protective pillar of the professional skincare model. The logic was commercially sound. Limiting distribution reduced local competition, protected clinic investment in training and stock, and helped maintain brand positioning within a defined area. When retail was almost entirely in-clinic and clients searched for services within their immediate geography, territory was a clean and practical way to manage growth.

But the way clients choose practitioners today does not look like it did fifteen or twenty years ago.

Loyalty is increasingly built around the therapist themselves. Clients engage with your education online, observe how you approach skin concerns, listen to how you communicate, and often build trust long before they ever step into your treatment room. Many are willing to travel beyond their suburb or purchase through your online store because their confidence sits with you, not just the brand you stock. Geography still matters (convenience always will) but it is no longer the sole anchor of retention. That shift changes the weight exclusivity carries.

One of the responses that stayed with me came from Gry Tomte, who shared an experience that added a values lens to the discussion. She accepted an exclusivity agreement with a supplier, operating from the understandable belief that if she didn’t secure it, another clinic would. She later discovered that the supplier had removed the brand from an existing stockist because of her agreement. When she found out, she asked them to reverse the decision. Her reasoning was simple: there was room for both clinics, and she did not want her opportunity to come at someone else’s expense.

It was a reminder that this industry is relational before it is transactional. Therapists train together, refer to one another and build businesses within relatively small ecosystems. When exclusivity results in unnecessary friction, it doesn’t just affect sales; it affects trust and professional relationships that extend far beyond a contract.

At the same time, there was clear frustration expressed from another angle. One anonymous contributor articulated what many clinic owners quietly feel. When you are expected to be the face of a brand, commit to quarterly minimums, manage client education and uphold strict retail conditions, it becomes difficult to accept that same brand discounting online or appearing through major retailers. In that context, exclusivity can feel less like territorial control and more like protection against being undermined.

That tension speaks to something deeper than postcode. It speaks to alignment. Clinics are asking whether brands are prioritising scale at any cost or genuinely investing in long-term salon partnerships. When distribution strategies are not clearly communicated, exclusivity becomes a proxy for security. It is less about ownership of a territory and more about wanting fairness within the partnership.

The regional perspective added further nuance. Karen Tomic pointed out that oversaturation carries a different impact in rural areas. Smaller client pools mean duplication is felt quickly and margins are tighter. What may be commercially viable in a densely populated metropolitan area does not automatically translate to a regional town. In those environments, exclusivity can genuinely support sustainability and protect the viability of the clinic.

Conversely, another anonymous voice highlighted the frustration of being unable to work with a brand that aligns perfectly with their treatment philosophy and client needs purely because of geography. Two clinics within the same postcode can practise in completely different ways and serve distinct client demographics. Geography may treat them as interchangeable, but their capability and positioning are not interchangeable.

This is where the conversation matures beyond a simple yes or no.

Most operators agree that uncontrolled saturation benefits no one. The more complex question is whether geography alone remains the most sophisticated filter for managing distribution in 2026.

Postcode is administratively straightforward, but the professional channel is no longer simple. Education standards, performance metrics, brand representation and commercial commitment may provide a more accurate reflection of partnership value than location alone.

For me, this is not about dismantling exclusivity entirely. In certain markets, particularly regional ones, protective territory still makes sense. In higher-density areas, performance-based models, review clauses and transparent distribution strategies may better reflect the realities of modern business. Protection that is earned and maintained through active partnership feels more aligned with where our industry is heading than blanket territory held indefinitely.

Underneath all of this sits a belief I hold firmly: therapists are more powerful than they often realise. If your clinic is built on education, consistent results, strong consultation processes and clear positioning, your defensibility does not rely solely on being the only stockist in a postcode. Exclusivity can support your business, but it should not be the only thing holding it together.

What I found encouraging about the ABIC thread was not division, but depth. The responses were thoughtful, commercially aware and grounded in lived experience. That tells me the professional channel is not clinging to legacy structures out of fear, nor discarding them recklessly. We are doing what mature industries do — examining whether the frameworks we inherited still serve the businesses we are building now.

That, in itself, is a healthy sign.