Morning, Dave. Rome is built.
Now it needs a launch.
Four months of build, ten systems talking to each other, running inside your own practice. This is the go-to-market side: who to sell, how to price it, who owns it, and how the agents stay accountable.
First to market beats best on paper.
Industry chatter says Q1 2027 is a big release quarter for ortho and dental software. Launching in October gives Rome a full quarter of founding practices, case studies, and noise before anyone else ships.
Needs you today
Only what a human has to decideEverything flows here
Calls, texts, demos, agents- Linda booked a new consult after hours and updated the schedule.
- Qualifier scored Bayview Smiles 91 and handed it to a human.
- 12 new waitlist signups from the stealth teaser.
- Lennox asked before sending a treatment note. Approved by Jess.
- Demo booked with Summit Peak Orthodontics, Thu 10:00.
Agents do the first 90%. A person closes.
Rome's agents find, research, and qualify practices. Orthodontists are busy and want to talk to a person, so the last 10% is human. Tap any practice for the full story.
All practices
Sorted by ICP fit| Practice | Market | Fit | Pain signal | Stage |
|---|
Don't sell every orthodontist. Sell the ones who feel it.
Rome solved your problems first. The practices that buy fastest are the ones with your problems: competitive markets, expensive staff, constant turnover.
Hyper-competitive metro practices
High cost of living, high turnover, front desk is a revolving door. Every hire costs months of training.
- Bay Area, LA, Seattle, NYC, Boston, Austin
- Pain: training cost, missed calls, lost follow-ups
- Hook: hire for personality, Rome holds the know-how
Growing 2 to 5 location groups
Data siloed across offices and four tools that never talk. Owner can't see the whole business.
- Pain: closed software, no APIs
- Hook: one Forum across every location
Tech-forward younger owners
Already using AI tools, frustrated that practice software is years behind. Early adopters and loud referrers.
- Pain: the incumbent's AI is just a chat box
- Hook: actionable agents, open by design
Comfortable established practices
Making great money, stable staff, no reason to switch. Don't spend launch energy here.
- "A lot of orthodontists make a lot of money and don't care."
- Revisit once case studies exist
Three ways to charge. Run the numbers.
The three models you've been weighing, side by side. Move the sliders. The incumbent you're replacing charges about $1,000 a month per practice, so that's the anchor.
Subscription
Flat fee per location. Simple, predictable, easy for an office manager to approve.
- Easiest yes
- Clean revenue to raise on
- You eat AI cost spikes
Usage-based
Charge a markup on the AI the practice actually uses. Scales with value.
- Margins safe from inference costs
- Unpredictable bill scares buyers
- Hard to explain on a demo
On-prem managed
Software free, Rome runs a server in the office for a monthly fee. Data never leaves.
- Strongest privacy story
- Open-source friendly
- Hardware and support load
Come out of stealth loud.
Hot videos, real signups, a founding offer, and a site that doesn't read as AI slop. Five weeks, one owner per line.
Tighten the story
Make the proof
Seed the room
Go public
Close the 25
Founding offer
What the first 25 getThe build is done. Now it needs owners.
The website and sales system are fast to fix. The real gap is someone who treats Rome like it's theirs and runs all the pieces. Equity partners, sourced from Brody's Utah builder network.
Dr. David Majeroni
Founder. Product, clinical playbook, the face of the brand. Sponsor for every agent on the Rome Team.
GTM Operator
Owns launch, pipeline, pricing tests, and the weekly number. The person who treats it like theirs.
Human Closer
Takes AI-qualified practices the last 10%. Ortho buyers want a person, not an agent.
Brand + Design Partner
Makes the site and videos feel human and premium, not AI slop. Owns the October drop creative.
Every agent has a badge, a boss, and a leash.
Practices will ask one question before they trust Rome with patient data: who controls the agents? This is the answer, built on the Agent Accountability Framework. Identity, sponsor, role, authority, oversight, recourse.
Recourse ladder
Sized to the confidence score. Lighter first, heavier on repeats.Audit log
Every tool call, provable and replayableGuardrails live outside the agent
Ten systems. One Forum.
The practice software you hate stays closed. Rome sits beside it, then the Transfer Agent moves you off it on purpose.