Local Pack Ads v. Organic Business Listings
-
Hey everyone,
So I'm noticing lately that Google is showing ads via AdWords for my locations in the local pack. I am fine with that, but unfortunately it is now driving me a little bit insane wondering how much Google really cares about NAP, distance from centroid and or user, links to domain, completed business profile and so on.
They will pull an ad into the top of the local pack for my location, yet, my actual organic business listing in some cases will not even show up until I hit the second page of business results.
I get that it's Adwords, it's pay-to-play, but from most accounts, the differences in ranking for traditional listings results compared to business results on both desktop and mobile are pretty different. For example, by doing my traditional SEO best practices, I can rank high in traditional listing results even when my business does not show in the local listings. I have done this time and time again.
I am able to accept that since we have 100 locations in the US and our lists were an absolute mess before I got here, that some of our NAP across multiple directories and listing sites are not exactly up to snuff which I have been working on.
So I guess the thing is, if my location in Google's eyes is not good enough to be shown organically for the user even at the bottom of page of one of business results, why is it good enough to show an ad for my business location for that query as the absolute first result? Again, I know its Ad Words which basically allows you to cut in line like that special pass you can buy at a roller coaster park, but still. Isn't their goal to provide the best possible experience for their user? If they feel something is worth holding back my organic listing from the user, why is it fine with them to show the user that same location with the top possible local pack spot in an ad?
I guess this is more of a rant than anything but I wanted to know if anyone else is dealing with this or anyone has any info they have found that could help shed light on this? It kind of just kicked everything I thought about trust, authority, links in order to rank in the local pack organically out the window.
Thanks!
-Ben
-
That would be a good outcome! Thanks for starting an interesting discussion.
-
Hi again Miriam,
I love the answer. I am hoping as the evolve that and like you said, would have to guarantee work, that this would weed out more of the scammers along with rewarding the companies doing it the right way as well.
-
Hey Ben,
I happen to love philosophical Local SEO discussions - they are too few and far between, IMO.
You've pretty much answered your good question by understanding that paying for placement allows you to "cut in line" (I like that analogy). Traditional Adwords have never had anything to do with organic authority, which is why Adwords can be used by scammers to fool consumers (want a great but scary read: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16309752/google-rehabs-near-me-search-adwords-crackdown). So, it's not just that businesses with low organic rankings can dominate PPC, but that totally unethical business models can use it to scam the consumer public. This is in no way confined to Google's program, but they do get the lion's share of visibility.
Now, here's what I'm finding interesting. Google's growing Local Service Ads (formerly Home Service Ads) is a bit different, in that it has a quite serious vetting process AND that Google is obliging itself to guarantee work being done up to $2,000. This means that if Google allows a scammer to slip past them into the program, Google will end up paying for it.
While this doesn't directly relate to organic rankings, there is an indirect tie. I would theorize that a local business which has the credentials to pass Google's vetting process for LSA inclusion will also be working hard at building the real-world reputation that can lead to organic authority and high organic rankings. They will be earning good press, good links. So, in a way, LSA could reduce the disconnect between ads and business quality. Interesting to think about, right?
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
-
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 -
What is the best SEO practice for listing multiple locations from the same business online?
Hello! The church I work for is launching its third location and we are needing to figure out what the best SEO practice would be when it comes to to listing all three of our locations online. Currently, we are listing the two locations we have as "Church Name - South Campus" and "Church Name - West Campus." Going forward, would it be better to list our 3 location names as: James River Church - South Campus, James River Church - West Campus, James River Church - North Campus or James River Church South Campus, James River Church West Campus, James River Church North Campus or list all three locations as "James River Church" Thank you for any advice you can give me!
Local Listings | | chris.oursbourn0 -
Google “My Business” Map Listing
We are Heritage Printing & Graphics, serving 2 areas (DC & Charlotte, NC) with Commercial Printing (books, magazines, catalogs) and Event Signage (banners, backdrops, custom displays) Our current location in NC is 2739 Interstate St. and we will soon also occupy 2731 Interstate St. (next door) which we would like to promote as Heritage Custom Signs & Displays. Do you think this is a good idea as far as Google “My Business” map listing? Thx, Kevin Smith
Local Listings | | KevnJr
Marketing Manager
Heritage Printing0 -
Should I disavow local citation page links?
Hello Moz Community, I am worried about my link profile. I feel like there are so many low domain authority links coming from citation pages, or business listings. www.futuresolutionsmedia.com Would you recommend that I try to get rid of them, or just leave them be? Disavow them? MgircmN
Local Listings | | FutureSolutionsMedia0 -
Google My Business - More than 1 business under same roof?
Good morning Mozzers from London, England, I have been having some issues around local SERPs and getting our businesses to rank. The issue I have is we run GYMS, however within our gyms certain locations we run additional businesses like CHILDREN'S NURSERIES or PHYSIOTHERAPY CLINICS etc. Now these are run affectively as different businesses, and you don't need to be a gym member to use these services. However Google only lets you have 1 primary category per business address. And all of our locations are rightly registered as GYMS. So I can't then produce a secondary business listing at the same address.....can I? Has anyone else experienced this problem, or know of a solution? Kindest regards Ben
Local Listings | | Bendall0 -
Hotel Local Listings Greatly Varying With Date
Searching for accommodation in a local region brings up a local listing block (e.g. http://puu.sh/irEoJ/635140594d.png). When clicking through to the block and changing dates, the order of the listings vary greatly. See attachments for 4 samples. How is Google deciding to order these listing blocks? I initially speculated they are pulling availability rates from Online Travel Agents like Expedia or Booking.com, but doubt this to be the case given a lot of those listings do not have Google Hotel Ads and smaller operators do not have their distribution system hooked up to Google Hotel. tVX816P,8U6RbcP,N6xGEdx,YC4K344#0 tVX816P,8U6RbcP,N6xGEdx,YC4K344#1 tVX816P,8U6RbcP,N6xGEdx,YC4K344#2 tVX816P,8U6RbcP,N6xGEdx,YC4K344#3
Local Listings | | fastrack0 -
Local Rankings for Second Business Location in the SAME City
I have an issue regarding local rankings for multiple locations within the SAME city, and I'm hoping to start a productive discussion about the various options for helping a second location gain visibility in the local pack. Here's the context…My business is an electronic cigarette shop in New Orleans, called Crescent City Vape. Our first location (Uptown) opened up a year ago and ranks very well in the local-pack as well as organic results for target keywords, as well as brand terms. Our second location opened up 2 months ago, also in New Orleans (Lower Garden District), about 3 miles away from the first shop. This shop, however, is not visible locally or organically, unless we get extremely specific with a branded search query like "Crescent City Vape Lower Garden District" or "Crescent City Vape St. Charles Ave." It does not rank locally for "Crescent City Vape" or "Crescent City Vape New Orleans" We have one website: crescentcityvape.com -- and both shops have a location landing page on the main site: crescentcityvape.com/uptown
Local Listings | | djreich
crescentcityvape.com/lower-garden However, when we launched our local SEO work for the first shop, we used the homepage as the URL in Google+ Local, as well as all of our citations. When we launched the second shop, we used the location landing page as the URL for G+ and all of our citations. We also added a location modifier to the business name on G+ Local: Crescent City Vape - Lower Garden District Both shops have 5+ reviews on Google+ Local, and both shops have citation profiles that are better than any other competitor. I'm confident that the local SEO basics are covered…and this is evident from the solid local and organic rankings for the original shop. My concern isn't that the second shop is ranking worse than the first. I expected this. But I am very concerned that the second shop doesn't even rank for a branded search like "Crescent City Vape." You have to get unrealistically specific with local descriptors to see the G+ local result for the second shop. e.g. "Crescent City Vape Lower Garden District". Here are some of the options and questions I've been pondering. Would love anyone's thoughts on what's worth trying and what might be too risky…since obviously I do not want to sacrifice rankings for the original shop. Changing the G+ URL of the second shop to the homepage (rather than that local landing page). In this case, G+ pages for both locations would link to the homepage. Then updating Moz Local and other citations accordingly with the URL as the homepage. My concern is that this will end up hurting rankings for the original shop more than helping rankings for the second shop. Removing the location modifier from the second shop's Google+ Local business name. When you google "Starbucks" or "McDonalds" you get a local-pack that usually includes 3 of their locations in the pack, and none have location modifiers. I'm wondering if the modifier is sending the wrong signal, because right now, when you Google "Crescent City Vape" only the original location shows up with a local result. Changing the modifier for the second shop's Google+ Local business name to something like "Crescent City Vape: New Orleans E-Cigs". Some of our competitors have added keywords to their G+ names and it's been effective for them. I know this is not aligned with Google guidelines, and may be a risky play. We don't have anything to lose with the second location if we try this…However, is there any chance this would negatively affect our original shop's rankings (since it's the same domain)? If we went in this direction, should I update our citations accordingly? And build new ones with this new "name"? Does page authority of the business URL have an impact on G+ Local rankings? i.e. would building quality links to the local landing page have much of an impact? i.e. is that a productive use of time and resources, as opposed to promoting the homepage and other more important landing pages? Appreciate your thoughts and feedback! Hopefully this discussion will be helpful for other businesses trying to rank for more than one location in the same city. Thanks!0 -
Why does it take so long for citations to get listed?
I understand that several citation places take over a month to get listed, but I just don't understand why. Granted, there's nothing I can do about it, but I'm just curious what the hold up is based on. Thanks, Ruben
Local Listings | | KempRugeLawGroup0