Client bought out shop but used existing phone number
-
We have a client in Nashville who opened his first location on Spring St., then later bought out PAC Auto to open a second location on Dickerson St. Lately, we noticed that the Dickerson location wasn't ranking. I found that the previous business owner at Pac Auto had already built up a good web presence and that sigh our client was using their old number.
Basic NAP violation, ok, got it. But what to do next?
I decided to update PACs citations with The Car People's business name and website. Where I was unable to edit or where listings were already claimed, I just reported PAC auto as closed.
But yesterday I noticed not only was the Dickerson location still not ranking, but the Spring street location had indeed dropped several places too! (edit: I'm referring to local search results here as we don't own the site)
What kind of beast have I stirred?!
What kind of signals am I sending to Google that are devaluing the Spring st. location? Will things get worse before they get better? What can I do to make some progress on one without hurting the other?
Is it worth trying to get the previous business owners logins (not likey)? Talk to The Car People about getting a new number (not impossible)? Is it worth trying to get the site in order to build separate landing pages for each location?
Thanks in advance!
-
Hi Nick,
I would say you need to accomplish:
a) Getting the company to get a new phone number
b) Getting the developers to put a landing page for each location on the site
c) Building new citation for the new location, not piggy-backing onto citations for the old company. After all, despite the fact that The Car People occupy a building that was previously occupied by another business, there is no relationship between the two (or, at least, there shouldn't have been, if not for that decision to keep the other company's phone number)
d) Tell the client that some of the decisions that have been made are going to make it essential to have a lot of patience here while you try to create a data cluster out there on the web that Google can trust. Right now, it's unlikely that they have this. It's going to have be created over time with a lot of care.
-
I thought you claimed the old competitor page and tried to input your client's info for their Google+ page.
If that's not the case and you've already set up a Google+ page, there's nothing that needs to be done in my opinion.
I'm not sure that I would have had them change their number prior to reading this story, so as much as I would like to say yes and sound smart, I would have probably played it the same way. Especially when you think of the benefits of old customers of the competitor calling your client looking for the same services.
-
First off, thanks for your careful analysis, and to answer your questions
-
The Car People have the same name at both locations. PAC Auto (closed) was the previous shop at the Dickerson location.
-
We do the off-site stuff and our competitor does the on-site SEO (don't ask), so creating landing pages means a little push-back. So by "getting the site" I mean that if they won't take our recommendation to add landing pages (not to mention additional issues with NAP in html markup) then we'll push for a sale.
Otherwise we'll talk about a new number and start building again from the ground up.
Too bad about my goof on modifying PAC Auto's citations. Guess I'll go back and close those now.
Tough indeed. Time to call in the dream team.
-
-
Hi Nick,
Whoa - yes, this is messy. You are right about that. The business should have gotten a brand new phone number and I'd suggest that they do so and edit all existent citations to reflect the new number. If your client's company is The Car People at both locations, and their competitor is PAC, (I think this is what you're saying) you should not have attempted to edit or claim PACs citations, beyond reporting them as closed. You should have built new citations for the new business. My guess is that Google is now confused about which business is located on this street as it is seeing not only 2 business names hooked into it, but an identical phone number. Basically, it sounds like a citation confusion catastrophe
I'm not sure what you mean by:
"Is it worth trying to get the site in order to build separate landing pages for each location?"
Which site? Do you mean buy out the competitors' website? Something else? Your client should be in control of their own website, and have a separate landing page for each location on this website.
Whether what is going on with the one location is affecting the older location, I can't say. It is possible for Google to be mistrusting of an overall profile if something wonky is going on with part of it, but there is also a big shakeup going on in the Local results that could be the cause of what you're seeing with the older location.
You may need to get a professional audit of the situation, Nick. There's a good chance I'm not understanding certain nuances of the situation (such as whether both companies are named The Car People or whether one is PAC, and what you mean about 'getting the website'). Sounds like you've got a really tough client who did not go about things in an optimal way, and it's my best guess that a high level Local SEO would need to do a sort of case history to get all of the details sorted out on something like this. Tough one!
-
Great feedback--thanks! On your suggestion I think we're going to push for their website.
Are you suggesting closing the existing Google+ page for Dickerson and verifying a new page, or was I just not clear about having already opened one? And for conversations sake would you have done something differently to start? For example, having them change their phone number?
-
You're probably not looking at a quick fix any way you slice it but here's what I would do:
- Create a new Google Plus Local page for the Dickerson address.
- Claim/Create as many listings as possible for the Dickerson address
- Create a landing page on the client's site for both addresses
- Link each Google Plus Local page to the location specific landing page you created
I think you do those four things, you'll be fine.
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
-
Use Internal Search pages as Landing Pages?
Hi all Just a general discussion question about Internal Search pages and using them for SEO. I've been looking to "noindexing / follow" them, but a lot of the Search pages are actually driving significant traffic & revenue. I've over 9,000 search pages indexed that I was going to remove, but after reading this article (https://www.oncrawl.com/technical-seo/seo-internal-search-results/) I was wondering if any of you guys have had success using these pages for SEO, like with using auto-generated content. Or any success stories about using the "noindexing / follow"" too. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Frankie-BTDublin0 -
How to deal with URLs when changing shopping cart software to ensure SEO
NSFW ALERT (LINK BELOW) We are changing the shopping section of our website. Currently the products sit on our own website and when a user goes to checkout they are taken to Mals (a shopping cart site). This means our URL’s look like this. NSFWhttps://www.aprilnites.com.au/mascara_vibe.htmlThe new software is Ecwid and we are using this with a site created in RapidWeaver so the URLs will not be clean and will have all ? And # parameters. I’m wondering if this will hurt the SEO of our whole site or just the product pages. I’m also unsure of how best to deal with the current URLs. Should I use a 301 redirect on all of them to take the user back to the home page of the shop. For us the shop is more of a catalogue. Our main website is the most important part but I want to make sure we are following best practice when making this change. Hope someone can help.Many thanks
Technical SEO | | AprilN0 -
Should I use canonical tag in these cases?
Should I use canonical tag in these cases? On the page itself (with the tag pointing to itself) On pages that doesn't have duplicate versions
Technical SEO | | GoMentor0 -
Excessive use of KeyWord?
Hey I have an Immigration website in South Africa
Technical SEO | | NikitaG
MigrationLawyers.co.za and the website used to be divided in to two categories:
1st part - South African Immigration
2nd part - United Kingdom Immigration Because of that we made all the pages include the word "South Africa" in the titles. eg.
...ers.co.za/work-permit-south-africa
...ers.co.za/spousal-visa-south-africa
...ers.co.za/retirement-permit-south-africa
...ers.co.za/permanent-residence-south-africa I'm sure you get the idea.
we since, removed the UK part of the website and now are left only with the SA part. Now my question is: Is it bad? will google see this as spammy, as I'm targeting "South Africa" in almost every link of the website. Should I stick to the structure for new pages, or try to avoid any more use of "South Africa". Perhaps I can change something as it currently stands? Kind Regards
Nikita0 -
When do you use 'Fetch as a Google'' on Google Webmaster?
Hi, I was wondering when and how often do you use 'Fetch as a Google'' on Google Webmaster and do you submit individual pages or main URL only? I've googled it but i got confused more. I appreciate if you could help. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Rubix1 -
How to handle large numbers of comments?
First the good news. One site that I've been working on has seen an increase in traffic from 2k/month to 80k! As well as lots of visitors, the site is also getting lots of comments with one page getting more than 70 comments/day and showing no sign of a slow down! Approximately 3000 comments in total and growing! What is the best approach for handling this? I'm not talking about the review/approval/response but just in the way these comments are presented on the website taking both seo and usability into account. Does anyone have any particular recommendations? Options I've considered are: Just show the most recent x comments and ignore the rest. (Nobody is going to read 3000 comments!) Paginate comments (risk of duplicate content? Using Ajax could hide long-tail phrases in comments?) Show all comments (page load speed is suffering and this is likely to be causing problems for mobile visitors) How do active comments on a page contribute to an article's freshness? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Technical SEO | | DougRoberts2 -
Cross-Domain Canonical - Should I use it under the following circumstances?
I have a number of hyper local directories, where businesses get a page dedicated to them. They can add images and text, plus contact info, etc. Some businesses list on more than one of these directory sites, but use exactly the same description. I've tried asking businesses to use unique text when listing on more than one site to avoid duplication issues, but this is proving to be too much work for the business owner! Can I use a cross-domain canonical and point Google towards the strongest domain from the group of directories? What effects will this have? And is there an alternative way to deal with the duplicate content? Thanks - I look forward to hearing your ideas!
Technical SEO | | cmaddison0 -
Use of + in url good or bad?
Hi, I am working on a SEO project for a client.
Technical SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
Some of the urls have a + between the keyword.
like www.example.com/make+me+happy/ Is this good or bad for seo?
Or is it maybe better to use - ? Thanks!0