Showing a preferred Google location in branded search for a multi-location business?
-
Background: A business has 5 brick and mortar locations, in 5 different states, with 5 separate Google+ profiles. The corporate headquarters are in Michigan. The Michigan Google+ Local profile is the one that should be most closely associated with the brand.
Problem: We want the Michigan Google + Local page to show up for branded searches nationwide: right now, it only shows up on geolocated searches in Michigan.
Of course, it totally makes sense that the other 4 Google+ local pages will appear for users searching with IP locations (or logged in locations) near those states. But for other states - is there a way to help Google understand or give preference to the main corporate location?
What we're trying to prevent is someone in New York City searching for "company name", and then seeing a lesser location appear in SERPs associated with the brand, instead of our favored Michican location.
Ideas so far:
-
Continue to enhance out the Michigan location's Google+ page (check categories, photos, description, share content frequently, expand circles, get reviews, yada yada yada - we've already done much of this). _Maybe give this page more attention and content than other locations if we have to? _
-
Build links into Michigan Google+ page?
-
Ensure general citations are up to date - use localeze/moz local etc.
-
Website - We have a page for each location. While Michigan is featured, we also do promote our other offices as well - all kinda promoted equally on site in terms of metadata, content, etc.
Any other brainstorming advice or out-of-the-box (oh no, did I just say "out-of-the-box"?) ideas to help Google associate the Michigan location as our "primary" one we want shown on more generic branded searches, even though of course the other 4 are impt too? Tricky...
-
-
Thank you for the tips Miriam!
I will definitely keep all that that in mind, and if we still can't seem to get things fixed after taking these basic steps (some of which we indeed do need to follow up on), will consider reaching out to Andrew as I'm sure he's also an amazing source of knowledge.
-
Hi Mirabile,
I actually have a specific recommendation for this tough scenario. You might try getting in touch with Andrew Shotland over at LocalSEOGuide.com. I know he has dealt with a similar issue in which a wrong location was showing up in sitelinks, so he might be able to give you some pointers for dealing with your scenario. Could be a case of weak or bad data causing this, and deserves further investigation in an environment in which you'd be comfortable disclosing the search in question. Things like this can be really hard to pinpoint without knowing the actual search. Hope this helps!
-
Thanks - we suspected as much but just thought we'd ask on Moz in case anyone had other ideas or we were missing something.
-
Okay, I see. That's often referred to as the "Authoritative Onebox." The searcher's location may be influencing results the most in this case, so you'll definitely need to build up the other local signals for the Michigan location. Unfortunately, I don't really have anything to add to what you've already mentioned.
-
Thanks Laura - sure, happy to clarify.
We're actually referring to what appear to be Google+ Local results that currently display in a box to the right of organic listings. Included are highlights from the company's Google+ local page (address, phone, hours, photos from Google+ page, map).
When people search in New York for "_company name only" _(or for "company name" searches in other states where the business doesn't actually have a brick-and-mortar location anywhere nearby) it always defaults to showing Google Maps results for a minor location (actually, a location in Indiana), instead of Michigan where the company's main corporate headquarters are.
We'd almost rather NO local results show up for those types of searches, than the minor Indiana location. On that note - maybe adding more schema / knowledge graph markup to the home page around the brand in general (logo, social profiles, etc) could help with that....
What we want to do is tip the scales in favor of the Michigan location, helping that to display in Google+ local results for broad, brand-name searches in geographic areas further away from where our primary locations are. It's important from a branding perspective to have the Michigan location be most closely associated with general, less geo-specific branded searches, if that makes sense... ?
-
You seem to be referring to local search results (with the local pack and map) rather than organic results. Local search results for Michigan will not show up for someone searching in New York unless they specifically add a geographic modifier. Otherwise, they'll get local pack results for their own location or they may not get local results at all.
Are you trying to get the Michigan G+ page to show up higher than others in organic results? If so, why would this be preferable to having your website show up first for branding searches?
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the question. If so, can you clarify?
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 Should We Do to Fix Crawled but Not Indexed Pages for Multi-location Service Pages?
Hey guys! I work as a content creator for Zavza Seal, a contractor out of New York, and we're targeting 36+ cities in the Brooklyn and Queens areas with several services for home improvement. We got about 340 pages into our multi-location strategy targeting our target cities with each service we offer, when we noticed that 200+ of our pages were "Crawled but not indexed" in Google Search Console. Here's what I think we may have done wrong. Let me know what you think... We used the same page template for all pages. (we changed the content and sections, formatting, targeted keywords, and entire page strategy for areas with unique problems trying to keep the user experience as unique as possible to avoid duplicate content or looking like we didn't care about our visitors.) We used the same featured image for all pages. (I know this is bad and wouldn't have done it myself, but hey, I'm not the publisher.) We didn't use rel canonicals to tell search engines that these pages were special made for the areas. We didn't use alt tags until about halfway through. A lot of the urls don't use the target keyword exactly. The NAP info and Google Maps embed is in the footer, so we didn't use it on the pages. We didn't use any content about the history or the city or anything like that. (some pages we did use content about historic buildings, low water table, flood prone areas, etc if they were known for that) We were thinking of redoing the pages, starting from scratch and building unique experiences around each city, with testimonials, case studies, and content about problems that are common for property owners in the area, but I think they may be able to be fixed with a rel canonical, the city specific content added, and unique featured images on each page. What do you think is causing the problem? What would be the easiest way to fix it? I knew the pages had to be unique for each page, so I switched up the page strategy every 5-10 pages out of fear that duplicate content would start happening, because you can only say so much about for example, "basement crack repair". Please let me know your thoughts. Here is one of the pages that are indexed as an example: https://zavzaseal.com/cp-v1/premier-spray-foam-insulation-contractors-in-jamaica-ny/ Here is one like it that is crawled but not indexed: https://zavzaseal.com/cp-v1/premier-spray-foam-insulation-contractors-in-jamaica-ny/ I appreciate your time and concern. Have a great weekend!
Local SEO | | everysecond0 -
Rankings preferring English URL above local URL
We've recently had a redesign for our website and it has influenced our rankings a little bit. However, what I mainly noticed is that for some keywords in MOZ the English URL is looked at in terms of ranking, instead of the local URL. It used to be just the local URL ranking, even for keywords that are more English oriented, and I'm wondering if that might be hurting our rankings. And more importantly, why it's happening. An example of a page where it's happening is: https://www.bluebillywig.com/online-video-platform/
Local SEO | | Billywig0 -
Brand Name Importance in SERPS
I have a client who we will call "A&Ahomes.com" who has a competitor moving into their area who we will call "ArnoldHomes.com." My client's actual business name includes Arnold and the concern is when "Arnold" is googled that their competition is at the top of the SERP'S. Would it be beneficial from an SEO standpoint to adjust their current domain name to include their full brand name?
Local SEO | | moliver10220 -
Google for Jobs, Dublin, Ireland market
Hi Moz fans, I face an issue with Google for Jobs, Dublin, Ireland market.
Local SEO | | Mª Verónica B.
My client, a local job agency lose rank, his posts appear mediated by other big job companies who have high DA, over 60, client has less than 30 DA.
Any ideas?
Thanks in advance. Mª Verónica1 -
What markup/schema is "responsible" for location pin in mobile rich snippets?
Howdy, Saw this new(?) feature in mobile rich snippets (attached here). Anyone knows what part of schema (or whatever else) is making this appear? P.S. From all responses, and some thinking, it looks like the answer would be "who knows", as usual with Google. But most likely it would be related to usual LocalBusiness addressLocality itemprop. 0739Z5v
Local SEO | | DmitriiK0 -
302 redirection from .com to .in. Google is indexing both urls
Hello Fellow members, I am sharing the problem what I am facing from client which is another division of my company ( taking as a client). Please recommend me a full proof solution. My client runs a fashion e-commerce site by .com domain in India but after 2 years they took decision that in India, only .in domain site would run with INR prices & outside in "$" prices. Now when If someone is searching with .com domain in India site is 302 redirecting into the .in domain. In India only .in site is working & outside .com but Google is indexing pages of both sites. With .com domain 5 lakhs + pages are indexed & from .in domain only 2600 pages. Content of both sites almost 95% same. I already recommended to put rel=canonical tag on both sites but this is not the permanent solution. They have started .in domain to show prices in "$" & "INR" only. Can you recommend me the best possible answer to solve this issue.
Local SEO | | sourabhrana0 -
Multi location strategy - tracking keywords
I have very recently taken on a local business to manage and quite new to all of this. Your posts on the subject of multi-location SEO have been incredibly useful and the original blogpost on Local landing pages by Miriam Ellis is in my reading list and I am sure will be revisited regularly. I have another question on this obviously complex subject, what to do about tracking your keywords in MOZ Pro? I have subscribed and set up my main keywords and linked each to the 40 different service locations for our business, which is based in a single location but services a wide area, however this now gives me 400 keywords to track, which seems way too much and unmanageable. Can you give me some advice on how to make this much more effective? Many thanks, Sarah
Local SEO | | Mutatio_Digital0 -
Google's Geo Search Setting Gone Cuckoo!
Hey Everybody! I thought I'd post about this because pretty much all of our members who do Local SEO are bound to run into this. Last week, when I was in the middle of training someone, I ran into something bizarre. Using Google's search settings to set my location to a remote locale, the local packs were returning me results for the correct city, but the organic results accompanying the pack were showing me results that appeared to be based on my own IP address instead ... in other words, Google was overriding my designated geolocation in favor of where it knows I'm actually located. I was relieved to see Mike Blumenthal post on this (helped me realize I wasn't going crazy - haha) and I recommend that everyone who does Local for a living take a look: http://blumenthals.com/blog/2015/05/24/google-location-results-still-screwy/ I also recommend checking out this G+ convo going on between John Mueller and others: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TerrySimmonds/posts/1BZ6guvy9mE John's initial thought was that nothing has changed ... but something has definitely changed. Do some of your own searches and see what you come up with. Main takeaway here is that if you are trying to approximate clients' rankings in cities not your own, the results you are seeing may be very weird right now. Not sure if this is a temporary glitch or the forerunner to some change coming our way. This is a story to stay on top of, for sure. What do you you all see?
Local SEO | | Moz.HelpTeam0