Local SEO case with two physical locations
-
I hope someone can help me make some decisions. I did read a lot about Local SEO lately but I’m not sure what way to go with this client.
Client:
- Service provider with two physical locations (service is provided on the physical location).
- In the coming 12 month there will open 1-2 new physical locations in other cities.
- Has only one phone number. I will try to advise them to get a local phone number for both locations. But they prefer one (mobile) number to keep things simple.
- Clients are willing to travel for the service, since it’s a one day course they take. Current clients do come from a lot of different locations.
- The competition for around 5-6 big cities is pretty low since there aren’t a lot of service providers who deliver these courses.
Questions:
- Should I put both addresses in the footer? It’s a best practice with only one location. I think it’s handy for users with two locations as well but I’m worried about how Google sees this. Also this will get confusing when the client passes 3-4 locations.
- If the client sticks with one mobile phone number, should I make a Google + local page for both physical locations? The Google guidelines clearly state they prefer a local number as much as possible.
- If I add “Our service areas “ to the top navigation and make a unique place page for every city (to rank organic aswell) is it wise to link those local Google + pages to the unique page about this service? Normaly I would go for yes, but I want to add places with and without a physical location under the same navigation.
With just one location I would just focus on that city and add unique pages for the other pages. I’m getting a bit stuck between best practices since the client got opportunities with multiple strategies.
I hope you guys (and girls ) can help!
-
So glad that was helpful, Bob! Good luck!
-
Great! Glad you got it straightened out.
-
Ryan, my final thanks to you for taking the time to respond! I got what I need to make my decisions.
-
Thanks a lot Miriam! This definitly helps!
-
Hi Bob,
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Let's look at your other questions now.
What’s your take on putting up two (or in the future 3 locations) in the footer?
There is no official rule about this. Personally, I have drawn the line at 8 locations in the footer and have never seen any issue from that many, so you should be okay with 3.
Besides that, how would you combine for example 3 pages about the physical locations with unique pages for a other 10 city’s that are in the service area of your business
Your description of the business model does not seem to me to be a service area business (like a plumber). You are a brick and mortar business - you do not travel to customers in a service area and the fact that customers come to you from other towns is not really enough reason to optimize for these town terms. If, however, you have a legitimate connection to these other towns, like you teach classes in them, host events in them, sponsor events in them or other connections along these lines, then there may be opportunities for content publication. If there are not connections, then you should focus on your 3 physical location cities and, perhaps, their hyperlocal neighborhoods. More on this:
http://moz.com/blog/local-landing-pages-guide
http://moz.com/blog/mastering-serving-the-user-as-centroid
Last but not least, would you say a part time entrepreneur with a physical location that’s only open for 3-4 days a week could claim a local google + page?
Google's only guideline about this is:
In order to qualify for a local Google+ page, a business must make in-person contact with customers during its stated hours.
There is no guideline stating that you have to be open 7 days a week, so if you have set hours of business during which someone walking up to your door is going to find a staffed business to receive them, you should be good to go. Just be sure you are accurately listing your hours of operation when you create the Google+ Local pages for your 3 locations.
Hope this helps!
-
It are day courses and we are the only one that does rents the place.
-
If we want we could place a huge billboard outside
-
It does have our company name on the door
-
We are there around 3 days a week fulltime.
I would definitely say we have the authority to represent this building since it's just a normal office building we rent and we turned it into a classroom, a place to lunch and a small place to do some administration.
So yes, it are classes. But we aren't part of a larger facility and it's our permanent location.
-
-
Hey Bob!
I'll look forward to replying in detail to each of your good questions, but first want to ask for clarification on one really important point. You write, "classes are only given with enough signups."
I should have caught this earlier in the thread. Are you saying these are not businesses, but classes, like an instructor teaching yoga classes a few times a week inside of a larger facility like a gym? If so, this is very important to know, as Google does not authorize creating Google+ Local pages in this scenario:
An ongoing service, class, or meeting at a location that you don't own or have the authority to represent. Please coordinate with your host to have your information displayed on the page for their business within their "Introduction" field. (from https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=en)
Please, let me know if the above describes the business model, because the scenario is quite different if it does.
-
Hello Miriam,
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I learned a lot from your previous posts on Moz.
What’s your take on putting up two (or in the future 3 locations) in the footer?
I know it’s a best practice with one location but I’m not sure what will happen when we put two addresses in the footer (especially when we can only claim one local Google + page). We really want to communicate those locations to our clients since it’s really important information for anyone who takes our classes.
Besides that, how would you combine for example 3 pages about the physical locations with unique pages for a other 10 city’s that are in the service area of your business.
Normally I would add those service area pages to the main navigation, but would it make sense to use the same format for service area’s as for places with a physical location? With format I mean the combination of information and unique content based on the interests of those local searchers.
Last but not least, would you say a part time entrepreneur with a physical location that’s only open for 3-4 days a week could claim a local google + page?
I ask this because I want to know the borderline. Since our second location really feels like.. uhmm a legit physical location. We are there every week, are the only business that does rent this place (we pay for the whole month), serve our customers there and we communicate the address very frequently (that’s really needed since there are a few competitors located in the same area). So the only reason why it shouldn’t be a local Google + page is because we are not open the full 5 days a week (besides the phone number which can easily be fixed and I already did recommend to the client since the branding/trust benefits are already enough to switch).
It feels like the Google guidelines are written specific for classic retail companies. In our (niche) industry there are maybe one or two competitors who are open 5 days a week since classes are only given with enough signups.
I hope you can share your view on this case!
-
Good feedback from Ryan on this.
As he's mentioned, Google+ Local pages relate to staffed physical locations rather than service cities, so your client can have 1 Google+ Local page per staffed physical location he operates. Do not create Google+ Local pages for any service city where the client doesn't have a physical location.
He should definitely have a unique phone number for each location.
-
Currently your client is at a disadvantage due to not having physical, staffed, testing centers and thus doesn't qualify for Google Local in the same way as competitors that do. Even if your competitors have one receptionist staffing the building during non-testing hours but is open to receive inquiries and appointments that puts them ahead of your client. If the outlay isn't there for an additional phone number then I would compete on service and service area, not trying to outstrip the competition with fictitious locations. If you're successful at that then perhaps growing to the point of having fully leased centers makes sense. Cheers!
-
Hmm I find it hard to make a decision on this point. I fear that treating this as a brand isn’t optimal for the local SEO and will put the company in a disadvantage over competitors which are “based” in that city. Although the guideline does state “staffed during normal business hours”.
Normally I would say that’s the way to go but in this industry it’s very common to only be staffed when there are courses. And 50% staffed feels like the same as an entrepreneur who has a part time job as well (let’s say a coffee corner which is only open in the weekends). In that case I would say having a local page is just fine.
Decisions, decisions…
What is your view on point 1 and 3?
-
Hmm... This is kind of borderline with the physical location requirements outlined by Google, "If your business rents a temporary, "virtual" office at a different address from your primary business, do not create a page for that location unless it is staffed during your normal business hours." Even though it's staffed for testing it's not staffed when you'd expect people to contact you or 'visit'. That only happens with your online interactions. It'd probably be most accurate to do the business as a brand, with addresses for the testing centers. They likely don't need separate phone numbers as they're not staffed locations. Anyone visiting outside of testing hours would find an empty building.
-
Thanks for your response Ryan. The client rents this place full time but it isn't always staffed. There are 2-3 courses every week at the location (these take the whole day).
-
I'd definitely invest the minimum $$ required to get a phone number per location. These could all be setup to forward to the one mobile number--still keeping things simple that way while also allowing for each location to have a number.
Some questions though, are these physical locations client owned/leased and operated? Like is a permanent establishment with regular office hours and such? Or is this a testing service that is renting space just in time to deliver the course?
Cheers!
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 are SEO best practices for Java Language Redirections?
We would like to get some insight on what is the best practice of setting up canonical URLs in the below scenario. CMS used: Liferay – we believe they are using java. The URL structure at this stage can not be changed to best practices (/en/ and /ar/). Currently the language redirections works like this: English: https://www.website.com/page1?AF_language=en Arabic: https://www.website.com/page1?AF_language=ar Depending how you entered the website last time the root URL will show English or Arabic content without the ‘sufix’: https://www.website.com/page1 All 3 different URL’s are being indexed on Google - which is causing duplication and confusion. We have a few ideas: Have 2 main URLS: https://www.website.com/page1?AF_language=en and have the canonical set to https://www.website.com/page1?AF_language=en https://www.website.com/page1?AF_language=ar and have canonical set to https://www.website.com/page1?AF_language=ar However, how would you handle the root page which does not have a specific language attached. If we need to make a choice we would go with Arabic, as mainly Arabic pages are indexed on Google with the root domain. This way we would (hopefully) retain the rankings for this. Question: did anybody had to deal with a similar situation? What would you do in a similar situation and why? Thanks for all your input.
Local Website Optimization | | skrauss0 -
What is the best way to display local landing pages in the site nav?
My client has multiple local landing pages and it looks a bit spammy opening up the top nav of e.g."Plumbers" to a long list of "plumbers Melbourne", "plumbers Knoxfield", "plumbers Wantirna" etc etc What is the best way of incorporating local landing pages into the site's overall architecture? Thank you.
Local Website Optimization | | Crystal.w0 -
Do I need to change my country og:locale to en_AE
Hi MOZ, I have a site that is aimed at the English speaking market of the United Arab Emirates. The language tag is currently set to lang="en-GB" and the og:locale also set to en_GB. The domain is a .com and aimed at the whole world. Should I be trying to target en-AE and en_AE for these tags instead of GB?
Local Website Optimization | | SeoSheikh0 -
Weird: Local Landing Page Not Showing In "City + Brand" Search Query
Hi Mozzers, I've noticed something strange that I can't quite wrap my head around. I'm hoping it's an easy fix and I'm just overlooking something. Backstory: I'm managing all things digital for a local flooring retailer that has 6 showrooms in the region. I've done basic local SEO - local landing pages with proper markup, GMB set up and verification, Moz Local scores are in the 80% range for each location and improving steadily, etc. However, one of my locations is way behind all of the others in both organic searches and the map. Recently, I did a search for "city + brand" for this particular location in an incognito window and the page came up on the 4th page. When I perform the same search for any of the other locations, the respective landing page come up 1st or 2nd along with the homepage. I even searched using the title tag as well as a few more specific searches and still nothing on the first page. This is weird, right? Has anyone experienced this before? Search Console came back perfect, so no penalties and it's definitely being indexed. For reference, the page I am referring to is http://www.nextdayfloors.net/locations/columbia/ and the location query I am using is "Columbia, MD" Any help is much appreciated! Thanks! Tim
Local Website Optimization | | AinsleyAgency0 -
Ideas on creating location based service pages for SEO value while not worrying about local SEO?
Hello and thanks for reading! We have a bit of a rare issue, where we are a nationwide distributor but have a local side that handles all tristate area requests, the sales that happen via local basically don't impact the online side, so we're trying to not focus on local SEO but in a sense worry about abroad local SEO. We want to try the location based service pages, but not for every state, at most 5 states and inside those pages target 2 to 3 big cities. Is this a waste of time to even think about or is this something that can be done with a careful touch?
Local Website Optimization | | Deacyde0 -
Local SEO - Adding the location to the URL
Hi there, My client has a product URL: www.company.com/product. They are only serving one state in the US. The existing URL is ranking in a position between 8-15 at the moment for local searches. Would it be interesting to add the location to the URL in order to get a higher position or is it dangerous as we have our rankings at the moment. Is it really giving you an advantage that is worth the risk? Thank you for your opinions!
Local Website Optimization | | WeAreDigital_BE
Sander0 -
Collapsing Location-Specific Subdomains
My client has 24 separate subdomains for its nationwide business, one for each specific location. Much of the content is very similar, as the site serves as a lead-generator for rental reservations. After years of suggesting the approach of using one domain, we have finally gotten the client onboard to eliminating the subdomains and maintaining a subdirectory/page approach for location-specific content and allowing universal content to live at the root domain. I've been looking for any case studies that have any watch-outs or demonstrated benefits when collapsing domestic subdomains (phoenix.client.com; albuquerque.client.com, etc.) into the root, and have been fairly unsuccessful so far. We will be setting up a rigorous 301 redirect tree to ensure we retain as much link juice as possible from any existing subdomain-specific inbound links. Any advice/guidance to help set expectations of what will shake down from this change? It feels like we should see increased domain authority and less cannibalization, as the client ranks nationally for important broad-level keywords, with significantly higher DA at the root level than any tracked competitors, but I'm a little nervous about how localized search results will be affected. Thank you!
Local Website Optimization | | ClassicPartyRentals1 -
Separate Domains for Different Locations (in Different Cities)
We are in the process of building a new website for a client with locations in Tucson and Phoenix. Currently, they have one website that encompasses all locations, however, we are going to build them location specific websites (as many of the services are different between locations). Now my question is, as far as SEO goes, which one of these options would be the best? Option 1: Have separate domain names for each location. For example, StevesPetTucson.com and StevesPetPhoenix.com. _Pros: Easy to target specific, local keywords. Better looking domains. _ _Cons: Splits backlinks between two domains. _ Option 2: Setup StevesPet.com/Phoenix and StevesPet.com/Tucson. Pros: Keeps all backlinks pointing to one root domain. Note: We are going to use seperate WordPress installs for both websites, regardless of how we setup the domains. As we will be using different templates, menus and so on, we found this to be the best option. Thanks for any advice!
Local Website Optimization | | McFaddenGavender1