Yext vs Localeze vs UBL for Local SEO
-
Which of these services is the best? Does anyone have experience with all three?
-
We've used all of these. I must say....YEXT scares me sometimes....I'm not sure why...but kinda like how YP.com scares me. We are a partner with YEXT and Localeze....and I worry about dupes/overlaps between the two trying to figure out which content to use. Anyone else use the two together and have any concerns?
I think WhiteSpark is also a great tool....
Thanks for the insight! Great stuff.
-
Hello everyone at Moz! I wanted to add some new information that I found.
Yesterday I commented here that you should not use a service like Yext because it seems overpriced, for something you can do on your own. Some sites like foursquare.com do charge a fee. Other sites like local.com, make it very hard to add your business. Local.com continues to redirect me to Yext. I will say that Yext does provide you a good report showing what directories have your site listed. From there you can go on your own and work to add your site to all the directories.
I still think Yext is overpriced and it is better to do the service on your own. Hire one of your marketers to spend a few days working on this. At least this way you can be sure that all descriptions and information is unique.
-
I just found out that to get listed with CitySearch, you must go through this link. http://www.expressupdate.com
It is still free.
CitySearch partners with InfoUSA and they offer this free expressupdate to get added to CitySearch.
-
I've used all three. Here is my opinion.
Yext is over priced but does give you nice control over you listings. You just need need to weigh if the cost is worth the eyeballs that will ultimately find you on these secondary sites. That answer will be different for everyone.
Localeze is the #1 data distributor in the U.S. and they can help you build a solid core of citations. But to get an enhanced listing with categories, logo, description, etc. it will cost you $300/yr. unless you're part of their partner program. ($3500/yr. entry fee) Definitely worth it if you are doing a large volume of client submissions. NOTE: Localeze along with Yelp provides data to Apple Maps which will be important in the future. If you have a lot of locations, manually claiming on Yelp is going to be a lot of work. With Localeze they'll distribute your information much more efficiently. It will just take longer.
UBL. I've tried this service and honestly I was not impressed. It took forever and a lot of the work they did was half assed. If you're taking local optimization seriously I wouldn't trust them to do this right -- especially for the priority citations and other important accounts. If you don't really care and just want to get something out there then this is an affordable service. I wouldn't do it again though.
Axciom. Acxiom listings are now free for up to 5 locations. Do this yourself and do it right. Don't let UBL do it. Same thing for other data distributors like InfoGroup which is also free and easy to do yourself.
If you don't have time to do this yourself, find a reputable company (like mine) that will do it right for you. Especially the priority citations like Google, Yahoo, Bing, Yelp and others.
-
Doesn't Yext provide you with 30 featured listings rather than regular free listings?
-
Hi Michelleh,
You will find differing opinions on this. Most of the Local SEOs I know use Localeze over UBL these days. I have seen doubts expressed regarding the current value of UBL. I have not used Yext, personally, but recommend you read Mike Blumenthal's recent review of their product:http://blumenthals.com/blog/2012/03/01/yext-local-seo/
I'll quote from Mike's post here:
"Pluses:
-From a management and process point of view for the local SEO the service makes sense. Its fast and efficient and provides some tracking. What would take 6 or 7 hours is done in 15 minutes. If outsourced it would cost in the range of a $100 but the quality and consistency would not be as good.
-It seems to generate between 5 and 6 additional citations that Google thinks are important. Why that should be the case with listings that have already been claimed is not clear.
-The service allows for specials to be easily created and disseminated quickly and things like hours to be changed in a timely fashion.
-There is some reporting and there is decent multilevel management so an SEO can allow clients to access their own reports.
-If a business were to move or change phone numbers it provides a very efficient way of grappling with that issue.
-Whether you use the service or not, Yext’s Local Search Scorecard is a great way to assess NAP consistency across a wide range of sites.
Negatives:
-The reporting is lame. Although in conversations with Yext’s Howard Lerman, they will be adding additional features and color. One of particular interest will be review tracking.
-The cost in and off itself is expensive and it is an annual recurring cost. There is a small reseller discount that starts at only 5% and with enough volume goes up.
- Web traffic from these sites is small compared to Google and even comparing to Bing or Yahoo. But that isn’t Yext’s issue."
I think the main concern with Yext's product is its cost. If you can afford it, it might be a good choice, but as I've said, most of the Local SEOs I know appear to continue to favor Localeze.
And, there is the alternative, as pointed out well by ITRogers, of doing this manually and making your own spreadsheet to keep track of your work. I don't consider this inferior to any product being offered because you have total control over exactly what you are doing. In many cases, manual submission might be the best choice, and if you do it yourself, it is certainly the most affordable!
-
I have had experience with all three.
To answer your question, I think Localeze is the best for distributing your NAP, however, there is no substitute for or better value than manually claiming local citations. It also takes awhile for the listing to get distributed across of their local search platforms.
In my opinion, Yext is overpriced, but is valuable in claiming major citation sources. The number of profiles available are capped. David Mihm recently posted on this: http://www.davidmihm.com/blog/seo-industry/yext-local-marketing/
UBL is good, but I only spend the $39 core syndication annually since they have access to the Acxiom database.
In short, you can pay for all three, but don't just set it and leave it. Always claim and manage as many citations as you can manually. You can take advantage of all of the local search platform's features without overlooking anything.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can i use base64 images (URI) for better SEO performance - faster site loading?
Hi, Do you think the use of image data URI is SEO friendly? I got 20 JPG icons on each site, but use too many HTTP requests. So can i use base64 (URI) images for my small icons? Thank you for answer!
Image & Video Optimization | | Termex0 -
.png vs .jpg - Which ranks better or does it matter?
Hi Moz community, I am working on a SEO project (ecommerce) and most of the images on the website are .png and I notice they do not rank but yet the .jpg do. Do you recommend I change all the .png to .jpg? They all have alt text and keyword filenames (no spam 🙂 Here is the website www.moldear.com.ar. Notice the swimming pool coping tiles are .png and the swimming pool images are .jpg. I cannot get the coping images to rank for some reason Thanks Carla
Image & Video Optimization | | Carla_Dawson0 -
Ranking Differences for Google+ Local vs. Places Listings
I'm seeing some odd behavior with Google+ Local and Google Places listings for clients. I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing it... Here's the situation: We've recently bought on 4 new clients that all have duplicate listing issues, and, weirdly, all have both places and a Google+ local created listings. For three of those four, the Google+ local listing is outranking the Places account for a brand name search (e.g. Dr. John Doe). Weirdly, in one instance, the Google+ local account that is outranking the Places page is named in a less accurate fashion. e.g searching for "Dr. John Doe" the rankings look like this... A) John Doe Plastic Surgery, P.C. - Dr. John Doe B) Dr. John Doe, MD Anyone else seeing this sort of behavior? How are you creating local listings for clients these days - via the places dashboard, or Google+ Local?
Image & Video Optimization | | BedeFahey0 -
Google local places
I got pin via phone and verified my sites four weeks ago , after logged in google place account there is no data, status is active .can anyone help me to show data and getting result for local search.
Image & Video Optimization | | Alick3000 -
Consolidating mulitple Google+ Local pages with one Google+ Page
Hello All, I have trawled the internet, but can seem to find the answer to this question: "How will Google integrate multiple Google+ Local pages with one Google+ Page?" A bit of background to this. I work for a company that started online, but has since moved into retail stores. We currently have 14 stores around the UK. Now each of these stores has a Google+ Local page which were automatically converted over from the old style Google Places pages. I have read that these pages should be integrated with our regular Google+ account. All of the examples I have read about seem to relate to offline businesses that have moved into online, rather than online business that have moved into physical retails stores. And these examples are just one store, one Googe+ Local listing & one Google+ business page. That seems simple enough... but what about multiple locations?! Do I just need to sit on my hands and see what happens? Or are there things I can be doing now? Cheers for any help! Rich
Image & Video Optimization | | JBGlobalSEO0 -
Local SEO - our company is in 2 very different locations
Hi, Our company nlpca.com is in 2 locations. It's doing really well in San Francisco, California But we've opened a 2nd location in Salt Lake City, Utah The problem is that our site is all about San Francisco, California. Utah is just as important as San Francisco to us and we need to start tailoring to both. People from Utah say they are confused because our site is so tailored to California. Even our domain name is the keyword "NLP" combined with the state initial "CA" for California. A new domain is not an option. One thing we are thinking of doing is changing our header to say "The NLP and Coaching Institute and the NLP Institute of California". It would say both of our company names and hopefully the first would catch the Utah people. But I don't think it's just our banner. Can you take a look at our site and tell us how to tailor to both locations and keep our current working optimization for San Francisco, California? Thanks!
Image & Video Optimization | | BobGW0 -
What drives the position of the local pack in a google SERP?
I have noticed that sometimes search results appear above the local pack, and sometimes the local pack is right at the top. What causes this? is there a way to induce it?
Image & Video Optimization | | adriandg2 -
Are there SEO benefits to Flickr?
Recently I keep hearing "Flickr" and "SEO" pop up together. For example, this mashable article said it was good for seo. I don't understand since it's a no follow. Are there seo benefits to using Flickr. Thanks for your help!
Image & Video Optimization | | DevonIntl0