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
-
Basic SERP report does really gives me useful information?
Hi There! Ive seen so many times in the Basic SERP report, that pages/domains with low values are at the TOP of the SERP report, and i dont really understand that why can this be? I also have the same low values but i cant move higher for a keyword and i thought there is no question, i should improve my content/site, etc... But still dont understand why i see so many times that other domain/pages with lower values are at the top? On the attached screenshot, i am in the 12th position... Thx E. serp_report.jpg
Technical SEO | | Neckermann0 -
Using a Colo Load Balancer to serve content
So this is a little complicated (at least for me...) We have a client who is having us rebuild and optimize about 350 pages of their website in our CMS. However, the rest of the website will not be on our CMS. We wanted to build these pages on a sub-domain that is pointed to our IPs so it could remain on our CMS--which the client wants. However, they want the content on a sub-directory. This would be fine but they will not point the main domain to us and for whatever reason this becomes impossible per their Dev team. They have proposed using a Colo Load Balancer to deliver the content from our system (which will be on the sub domain) to their sub directory. This seems very sketchy to me. Possible duplicate content? Would this be a sort of URL masking? How would Google see this? Has anyone ever even heard of doing anything like this?
Technical SEO | | Vizergy0 -
When to use mod rewrite / canonical / 301 redirect
Hello, I have taken over the management of a site which has a big problem with duplicate content. The duplicate content is caused by two things: Upper and lower case urls e.g: www.mysite.com/blog and www.mysite.com/Blog The other reason is the use of product filters / pagination which mean you can get to the same 'page' via different filters. The filters generate separate URLs. http://www.mysite.com/casestudy
Technical SEO | | Barques-Design
http://www.mysite.com/casestudy/filter?page=1
http://www.mysite.com/casestudy/filter?solution=0&page=1
http://www.mysite.com/casestudy?page=1
http://www.cpio.co.uk/casestudy/filter?solution=0" Am I right to assume that for the case sensitive URLs I should use a 301 redirect because I only want the lower page to be shown? For the issue with dynamic URLs should we implement a mod-rewrite and 301 to one page? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Mat0 -
Using Rel Nofollow on Duplicate Pages
Hi there, I have a rather large site that has duplicate content on many pages due to how it's being spidered by google. I was hoping I could set the internal link to this page as "nofollow." My question is that I have hundreds of other sites with backlinks to these duplicate content pages.. will this affect me negatively if I tell google not to index the duplicated pages?
Technical SEO | | trialminecraftserverfinder0 -
Client error 404
I have got a lot (100+) of 404´s. I got more the last time, so I rearranged the whole site. I even changed it from .php to .html. I have went to the web hotel to delete all of the .php files from the main server. Still, I got after yesterdays crawl 404´s on my (deleted) .php sites. There is also other links that has an error, but aren't there. Maybe those pages were there before the sites remodelling, but I don't think so because .html sites is also affected. How can this be happening?
Technical SEO | | mato0 -
Should I be using use rel=author in this case?
We have a large blog, which it appears one of our regional blogs (managed separately) is simply scraping content off of our blog and adding it to theirs. Would adding rel=author (for all of our guest bloggers) help eliminate google seeing the regional blog content as scraped or duplicate? Is rel=author the best solution here?
Technical SEO | | VistageSEO0 -
How to use Schema.org for product listings
Hi Guys, Maybe a weird question but how would you advise using Schema.org for product listings or if you prefer a sub category page with products listed in it. Thanks, Walid
Technical SEO | | walidalsaqqaf0 -
What are the SEO implications of using Interstitials?
Hi, I want to implement an interstitial similar to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/defaultinterstitial.cms. Within few seconds it gets redirected to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/. What are the SEO implications of having this sort of arrangement? Regards
Technical SEO | | IM_Learner0