Map-pack results for multiple locations in the same city
-
We just started working with a local business with several offices across Virginia. All of their locations have G+ local pages, and all rank pretty well in map-pack results for their respective cities....except for one location.
Two of their offices happen to be in the same city. One ranks well in the local pack, and the other one is totally buried. This is the only location that doesn't rank in the map-pack for its target local queries.
This company still has a TON of work to do to clean-up their citations and improve their G+ local pages across all the locations, but I'm wondering if there are any best practices for handling two locations within the same city...we obviously want both offices to rank in the map-pack, and don't want to do anything that might hurt the one that is currently ranking well.
I'm confident that generally cleaning up their profile across the board, and adding new citations for all locations would be beneficial, but would appreciate any suggestions or best practices for getting both locations in this one city to perform well.
Thanks!
-
Incredibly smart answer Miriam. I'm going to steal this line: "In general, inclusion of more than one result in a single pack for the same brand is the result of tremendous dominance or lack of competition."
Miriam covered it all, I'll just say that things are somewhat different post-Pigeon. In the past it was very difficult to get more than one listing in the pack. But now with Pigeon I've seen packs where ALL 7 were for the same business. Example: one medical practice and 6 Drs at the same practice. That never used to happen before. And it's not really fair if there are 30 other businesses in that city that one locks everyone else out.
But Pigeon has not settled in yet and it appears they are still testing and training it. So I would not count on that continuing and I've only seen it happen in some smaller less competitive markets.
So all you can really do is follow Miriam's advice and continue working on all the best practice stuff you can. Consumers searching via phone that are located closer to location B will more likely see that one.
-
Hi Djreich!
Good topic! In general, inclusion of more than one result in a single pack for the same brand is the result of tremendous dominance or lack of competition. You don't mention the industry your client is in, so I can't really guess at their competition, but rule of thumb would be that if your pack is a 7-pack and you've got 7 or more competitors in that city offering the same service, getting Google to grant a single business more than 1 spot is going to be uphill work on desktop devices. You may have a bit of an easier time on mobile, depending on the proximity of the two businesses to the customer performing the search. If it's only a 3-pack (more common since Pigeon), getting more than one spot in it is going to be a real long shot, unless you are the only game in town. And remember, what you see is not necessarily what this company's customers see, on desktop or mobile devices.
It's good that you are going get the citations clean and consistent for the second location. That's vital! From a content perspective, each of the 2 locations should have its own, strong page on the website, linked to from a top level menu, including Schema-encoded NAP and good text content about the respective locations. If the company has a blog, continuing to build out content for each location would be smart, too. Working on social for both locations would be a good idea, and don't ignore video marketing as a way to get a very visual result for a second location, even if you can't make it into the pack. Review acquisition, particularly of Google-based reviews, could help. I would also think that doing a competitive analysis of who is coming up in the pack would be very important, enabling you to see if there are any weak competitors in there who might be bumped down by specific positive actions on your client's part.
I wish I had a tried-and-true formula for you on this, but the variables of pack size, user location, authority of the brand and level of competition make it pretty impossible to predict whether getting 2 spots in one pack is a reasonable goal or pie-in-the-sky. You will be doing a complete analysis of all of this, and may find weak spots or the competition may just be too stiff to reasonably be overmastered, in which case, diversifying keywords goals for the 2 businesses and/or going after organic rather than local visibility may be a better strategy.
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
-
What city to use for citations?
Hey everyone, I have a question about what city to use for citations in this case. My client is a service-area business in the Seattle area. The business is home-based, in Everett, WA, which if you’re not familiar is in the northern part of the Seattle metro area. They only serve clients outside the home. For their GBP that’s no problem, as of course their address isn’t shown. For all the citations we’ll be building though, I’m not entirely sure what we should do. The client does not want their street address anywhere online. So, since their city won't be listed on their GBP, should we still use Everett as the city for all the citations, or should we use Seattle? I'm unsure here because with some citations you have to list a full address, and then you're able to hide the street address later. And since they don't technically have a Seattle address, I'm not if that would be the way to go. But I’m wondering because no one will be searching for “[service] in Everett”, they would search for “[service] in Seattle”. What do you think?
Local Listings | | SamB470 -
Fighting spam on Google Maps
"Suggest an edit" on Google Maps works occasionally and so does Google's Redressal Form. Sending a DM to @GoogleMyBiz on Twitter does too. But it seems like the vast majority of spammy businesses that I report, go unnoticed by Google. I'd really appreciate hearing from some other SEOs on how they remove crap from the map, with better results. Thanks.
Local Listings | | Jason_Taylor0 -
GMB images not appearing on SERP results?
Hi Guys, we uploaded images in our GMB dashboard but they are not appearing on the SERP results example: Any ideas on how to get them to show on search result page? See example: https://cl.ly/8c5694604d17
Local Listings | | brandonegroup2 -
Unlinking Google Local Listing from your GMB Account with other locations you have
I have listings that I need disconnected from my main Google My Business account. I can close, or remove which is similar as closing, but the goal is not to close the listings, just to remove the association to my google account, and im not transferring the listing as well. Anyone know how to accomplish this? Goal is to clean up old listings that are exist but I dont manage Thanks for all the help
Local Listings | | vmialik0 -
Getting Google Local Pack Results
Does anyone know of a good article that lists all the things needed to get good Google local pack results? That would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance!
Local Listings | | Gavo0 -
Local Rankings for Second Business Location in the SAME City
I have an issue regarding local rankings for multiple locations within the SAME city, and I'm hoping to start a productive discussion about the various options for helping a second location gain visibility in the local pack. Here's the context…My business is an electronic cigarette shop in New Orleans, called Crescent City Vape. Our first location (Uptown) opened up a year ago and ranks very well in the local-pack as well as organic results for target keywords, as well as brand terms. Our second location opened up 2 months ago, also in New Orleans (Lower Garden District), about 3 miles away from the first shop. This shop, however, is not visible locally or organically, unless we get extremely specific with a branded search query like "Crescent City Vape Lower Garden District" or "Crescent City Vape St. Charles Ave." It does not rank locally for "Crescent City Vape" or "Crescent City Vape New Orleans" We have one website: crescentcityvape.com -- and both shops have a location landing page on the main site: crescentcityvape.com/uptown
Local Listings | | djreich
crescentcityvape.com/lower-garden However, when we launched our local SEO work for the first shop, we used the homepage as the URL in Google+ Local, as well as all of our citations. When we launched the second shop, we used the location landing page as the URL for G+ and all of our citations. We also added a location modifier to the business name on G+ Local: Crescent City Vape - Lower Garden District Both shops have 5+ reviews on Google+ Local, and both shops have citation profiles that are better than any other competitor. I'm confident that the local SEO basics are covered…and this is evident from the solid local and organic rankings for the original shop. My concern isn't that the second shop is ranking worse than the first. I expected this. But I am very concerned that the second shop doesn't even rank for a branded search like "Crescent City Vape." You have to get unrealistically specific with local descriptors to see the G+ local result for the second shop. e.g. "Crescent City Vape Lower Garden District". Here are some of the options and questions I've been pondering. Would love anyone's thoughts on what's worth trying and what might be too risky…since obviously I do not want to sacrifice rankings for the original shop. Changing the G+ URL of the second shop to the homepage (rather than that local landing page). In this case, G+ pages for both locations would link to the homepage. Then updating Moz Local and other citations accordingly with the URL as the homepage. My concern is that this will end up hurting rankings for the original shop more than helping rankings for the second shop. Removing the location modifier from the second shop's Google+ Local business name. When you google "Starbucks" or "McDonalds" you get a local-pack that usually includes 3 of their locations in the pack, and none have location modifiers. I'm wondering if the modifier is sending the wrong signal, because right now, when you Google "Crescent City Vape" only the original location shows up with a local result. Changing the modifier for the second shop's Google+ Local business name to something like "Crescent City Vape: New Orleans E-Cigs". Some of our competitors have added keywords to their G+ names and it's been effective for them. I know this is not aligned with Google guidelines, and may be a risky play. We don't have anything to lose with the second location if we try this…However, is there any chance this would negatively affect our original shop's rankings (since it's the same domain)? If we went in this direction, should I update our citations accordingly? And build new ones with this new "name"? Does page authority of the business URL have an impact on G+ Local rankings? i.e. would building quality links to the local landing page have much of an impact? i.e. is that a productive use of time and resources, as opposed to promoting the homepage and other more important landing pages? Appreciate your thoughts and feedback! Hopefully this discussion will be helpful for other businesses trying to rank for more than one location in the same city. Thanks!0 -
Question about tools for closing a location and erasing it from existence.
I have a client that is a bank that is closing a location. I have worked with moves, but not full closes. Is there an easy tool or method in Moz Local to close a location everywhere?
Local Listings | | jeremyskillings0