Best Approach for GMB/Local Optimization for Central Office with Multiple Locations
-
Hello,
Our site is designed to place people in different locations or houses. We have six locations total; each one has its own name, physical address and landing page. We also have a central office for the brand with its own NAP.
All addresses fall under the guidelines of Google My Business (i.e. people visit each location and our office...etc.).
Unless it’s ideal, we most likely wouldn’t be running a full-scale local campaign for each location due to restrictions on resources and wouldn’t want to spread ourselves too thin.
Our question is; would it be best to set up a GMB listing for each location including our central office, only use the central office or just the 6 locations? – We know multiple locations is not an issue for GMB but we weren’t sure if that’s the ideal way to approach it in this case.
Essentially, would it be better to focus on our central office for GMB/local efforts and just make sure that our other location landing pages are the highest quality possible or better to use GMB for every location (including the main office) and over time start local work on all of the above.
Also, if we do only use just the central office; should we be avoiding listing the other addresses on each landing page to avoid confusing Google as to where we are located?
Any help or insight on how to approach this would be very much appreciated.
Looking forward to hearing from all of you!
Thank you.
Best,
-
Hi Ben,
You're welcome! Good follow-up question.
If your company (XYZ) places patients in facilities you don't own (Sunshine), then you aren't authorized to create GMB listings for Sunshine. Nor would any other service that places patients in those facilities. Sunshine would need to market themselves as the owner of that location.
Hope that makes sense.
-
Thank you very much for your fantastic answer. Regarding number 2; if the homes ‘don’t belong to the brand’ would each one need to be marketed independently and just not associated with our brand name? – Curious on what it would change.
I’m assuming from a practical standpoint it would be a similar answer though (i.e. budget providing, starting with the central office and then moving on to the next ones, just in this case separate from mentioning the brand).
Thanks again for the help!
Best,
-
Hi Ben,
Thank you for the additional details. So, I'm seeing a couple of factors at play here that are important to your ultimate decision making.
-
If your resources are too spare right now to market 6 locations + home office, then, yes, just go with the home office and then begin marketing your other locations as budget becomes available.
-
But, ideally, you would want to market all of your locations - if - and this is an important "if" - each of these locations genuinely belongs to the business. So if you are XYZ Rehabilitation Center, these locations must also be XYZ Rehabilitation Center. This cannot be your XYZ brand placing people at Sunshine Rehabilitation Center and then marketing Sunshine as if it were your own. So, provided all locations are branded with your brand, then yes, you'd want to market them all.
You're right that you want to strive for brand recognition and want people searching for "XYZ" to find and recognize your brand on the web. But, many people won't be searching for your brand. They'll be searching for something like "drug addiction treatment center San Diego". If one of your facilities (not your home office) is located in San Diego, you want these customers to find it. And, so, you need to market it. That's the basic rationale behind all this.
So, if you have the budget, market everything. If your budget is tight, do it one location at a time. Good luck!
-
-
Go with local locations. You can append or prepend brand name to the locations names. "Pete's Place - Brand Name". Because folks would want to go to the closest place, not to the central office.
-
Thank you both for the help; it’s very much appreciated.
It might be a similar principle as a real estate firm, but our business helps place people with addictions into different treatment homes in the area. While each home has its own name, address and landing page, we have a central office for the brand.
Our thought was because it’s less likely for people to search for the individual addresses and people would be more inclined to recognize the brand it might make more sense to just use the central office. But we weren’t sure if that’s the best approach or if it is, how best to handle mentioning the address on each landing page.
If there are any other details we could provide that might help just let us know.
Thanks again!
-
Hi Ben!
May I ask for a little more clarity regarding your business description "Our site is designed to place people in different locations or houses".
Are you a real estate firm? Something else?
-
Hi there.
Think of it from the user's perspective. Does your product/service "require" brick and mortar location? Would people be more likely to buy from you if they can visit (or even just see online) local physical location? Or does it all just kinda forwards to central office and those local offices are more for show?
If having local offices are beneficial to users, therefore it will be beneficial to your business, therefore go ahead and have GMB for all of them. If not, then just GMB for central location.
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
-
Anyone notice a change in local search traffic between May 9th to May 12th or it was it just me?
My ranking tool didn't show this but GoogleMyBusiness Insights did show traffic has dropped between those dates. Please see screenshot below. URL: https://www.screencast.com/t/FSD1jvFlHl Has this been caused by local algorithm update? Please help!
Local Listings | | jasondumana0 -
For Google's Structured Data, should I change my listings from Product schema to Local Business schema?
I was reading Google's Structured Data spec, and I'm considering changing the schema of our listing pages from the Product schema to the Local Business schema. Is this a good idea? To give you a little more info, the pages that I'm classifying are listings for physical spaces that our website rents out for activities, such as meetings. Here's an example of a listing: https://www.peerspace.com/pages/listings/550ddcde2f352d0800fc186b Our goal is to add the proper schema.org tags to the page so that our spaces show up in local searches, such as "meeting space in San Francisco." The problem is that when we add location microdata (addressLocality, addressRegion, etc.) to our current "Product" schema, Google tells us that "Products" can't have a location. However, we aren't quite a "Local Business" either, since we don't publicly share our space's street addresses—only the space's neighborhood/city/state for privacy reasons. As a result, we get an error from Google's Structured Data Tool as a "Local Business" page because "streetAddress" is required for Local Businesses. Should we switch to the Local Business schema anyway, even though we get structured data errors for streetAddress? Or is it better not to include the location information in the microdata so that we don't have errors? Does Google penalize you for incomplete tags? Any input is appreciated!
Local Listings | | stuartstein0 -
Google Local Result- Competitor Ranks without an Address. Why is this happening?
My client is in a fairly competitive local market and there is a competitor who has ranked locally for around 2 years, but they have no actual address on their Google business listing. Just city and state. The listing is always top three and it does have their website listed, but directions aren't even available as there is actual no address. The listing is extremely keyword dense (basically spam but they actually created a business with the spam name). Citation Example: Keyword dense business name, phone number, city and state only Have you seen this? Can you explain why this is happening? Is this against the rules/anything I can do? Thanks!
Local Listings | | mgordon0 -
Placement of products in URL-structure for best category page rankings
Hi! I have some questions regarding the optimal URL-hierarchy placement of products in a marketplace setting where the end goal is to attract traffic to category pages. Let me start off with some background, thanks in advance for the help. TLDR Goal: Increase category page rankings. Alternative 1 - Products and category pages separated, flat product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/listing-1 Alternative 2 - Products and category pages separated, hierarchal product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/product/category/subcat/listing Alternative 3 - Products placed directly under category page. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/category/subcategory/listing I run a commercial real estate marketplace, which means that our potential search traffic is _extremely _geographic. For example, some common searches are (not originally in english): Office space for lease {City X} Office space for lease {Neighborhood Y} Retail space {Neighborhood Z} And so on... These terms are already quite competitive, where the top results are our competitors geographic and type category pages. For example: _competitor.com/type/city/neighborhood , _is a top result, where the user reaches a landing page that shows all the {type} spaces for lease in {neighborhood}. These users are out to find which spaces are available for lease in these geographical areas, and not individual spaces. I.e. users do not search in the same extent for an individual product, in this case a specific empty space. Our approach has been to place an extreme bias towards a heavy geographical hierarchy. This means that basically any search, resulting in a category page, on our site results in a well structured URL like the following: _oursite.com/type/state/city/district/street, _since we are using Google Maps API's, this is easy and relevant for the user. Our geographical categorization beats our competitors both on extensiveness and usability, especially in long-tail search phrases where our competitors don't care to categorize where we are seeing real search volumes. The hierarchy only extends as far down as the user has searched, for example a lot of our searched just end up being _oursite.com/type/state/city/district. _ Now we are wondering how we should place our products, the empty spaces, in this URL structure. Our original hypothesis was that we should include the products in the original hierarchy, resulting in: oursite.com/category/subcategory/product. Our thinking was that we would both be serving the user with an understandable and relevant URL, and also provide search bots with a logical structure for our site and most importantly content for our category pages. Our landing pages are very dynamic, providing information by relaying graphical information on a map instead of in an SEO-friendly manner. I would however go as far as to say that these dynamic pages provide a ton of value for the user, much more so than our competitors, by describing relevant information about the neighborhood kind of like Trulia, just not in a bot-readable manner. This results in trying to rank them on their own merits being a challenge, whereas we were hoping we could create relevancy by placing products / listings and maybe even blog posts on the topic within the same URL-hierarchy. As of right now our current structure is oursite.com/products/category/subcategory/product. In other words, they are categorized in the same geographical fashion but under a separate URL-path. Our results so far is that we basically only rank for the product pages, and rank extremely poorly for our category pages, which is our ultimate goal to enhance. This is why we developed the above hypothesis. However, what we learned when we did some initial research is that very few e-commerce stores place their products directly below their categories. Most of the major websites we studied, and we looked at quite a few, just go for **alternative 1 **from above. The crux is that most of them choose alternative 1 but simultaneously implement bread crumbs that emulate alternative 3, just without the actual URL's. So, what I'm asking is, what are the actual benefits or downsides of the three alternatives? I feel as if I have a pretty firm grasp on how this could be done, I just need to better understand why most seem to choose to flatline their products or listings in the alternative 1 fashion. Thanks, Viktor
Local Listings | | Viktorsodd0 -
How to get Google to choose office location pages and not the homepage. Tips and Suggestions?
Hello Mozzers The issue I have is a client with a number of office locations (six) across the south of England and they want each to rank well for each location + the qualifier solicitors. IE Brighton Solicitors. Work has been undertaken on the office location pages to include the services offered from each location, full postcodes and phone numbers. These location pages are linked to from the footer of the website so have good internal links. The site has a DA of 49 and the office location pages have a PA of 33. Google in its wisdom keeps ranking the home pages for the searches. The result is that the site ranks well in one location (London) but poorly in all the majority of others (2nd,3rd and 4th page). Were it does pick up/choose the location page the rankings are better than the homepage. The other locations are less competitive than London according to the Keyword difficulty tool. Any tips on to suggest to Google that it should rank the office location pages and not the homepage for each location? Thanks in advance 🙂
Local Listings | | highwayfive1 -
Concerned about cannibalization for local SEO results. Should we move some of our location pages to a subdomain?
Currently we are providing local SEO recommendations for a well known pharmacy chain. Like most major brands they enjoy multiple organic (not just 3 pack results) listings when people search for local phrases such as "Dallas pharmacy clinics'". The issue is that all these listings are coming from the same domain page. We are seeing multiple listings both branded and non-branded search queries. Our concern is that Google will someday decide to choose one listing as the most authoritative and nix the rest of the local listings which will reduce their first page search engine saturation. To maintain first page saturation we are considering recommending to the client that they move some of their location listings
Local Listings | | RosemaryB
to a subdomain (different IP address) to avoid a Google "clean up". Please note that our client is certainly not using any "doorway" pages but some of these are very scarce on content. They do not have an issue with duplicate content either. By using subdomains could we help maintain our client's first page saturation? Any links to articles would be much appreciated.0 -
What is the best address format to display for a buissness for SEO?
There is a new location opening soon and would like to set up local pages for it. What is the best/most SEO friendly way to write out the physical address? I looked on USPS and they show: 7227 W GRAND PKWY S
Local Listings | | nat88han
RICHMOND TX 77407 But local businesses seem to have the West and South written out: 7301 West Grand Parkway SouthRichmond, TX 77407Is there a best practice for this, or does it not make much of a difference as long as the website/local listings all match exactly? Not sure about writing out "West" or using "S." for the cardinal direction.0 -
How is a competitor franchise ranking all for all 3 Local results with unclaimed G+ pages in a search for the national corporation?
My company is an individual franchise of a national corporation - every franchise is operates as [National Corporate Brand Name] + a chosen descriptor such as "Premiere" or the names of the owners such as "Smith Jones". A logged-out Google search for just the national brand name returns the corporate website first, followed by the website of a competing local franchise and 3 Local listings for their offices. These listings are all unclaimed and unverified on Google+ and have no reviews or posts. The corporate Twitter is next, followed by my franchise's website. The corporate Facebook is the last result on the page. How can this competing franchise rank for all 3 Local listings with unclaimed pages? My company operates several more offices than the competitor in the same area and I regularly post to their G+ pages which I verified several months ago. Is it because the competitor's website just holds significantly more weight in Google than our own? A search for the brand name + the town where our offices are in does usually return our Local listing pages, but that limits our reach to those specific towns. Anyone have any insight on this?
Local Listings | | WGW0