Multiple Sites, Different Names, Same Business. Gray Hat?!

[RainmanCreative]

Hey there, Mozzers! I need your help.

I have a new client whose new site just went live. Today, I started the process of cleaning up their business listings throughout the web. To my surprise, I noticed that a lot of the directories already had a website domain included. I called my client to find out what was going on. Turns out they already have a site with another company, targeting the same keywords. I came across this site before during competitive analysis, but never put two and two together since it has a different name, phone number and branding (logo, color scheme, etc.). I asked if he was willing to change the link to his new site (the one we're doing SEO for),  and he flat out said no. He knows the site is doing well in the SERPs and doesn't want to harm its rankings. sigh

His advice? Create new listings for his 2nd location. This location has a different physical address and phone number (no toll free/shared). But I feel like this is wrong. It's the same business, but we're trying to pass as another company just to get 2 sites to the top of the SERPs. This might also confuse users.

What do I do? Plus, does that mean we should only include the 2nd location on the site we created and not the 1st? I already have a disadvantage since all the quality link juice is going to the other site. smh

I need y'alls advice, please!

-Kanya

[RainmanCreative]

You are so right, Miriam! I informed my superior of the consequences of moving forward, but it seems like they're going with Situation B anyway. Oh, well. Thanks for the advice, though - you're awesome!

[RainmanCreative]

Wonderful. Thanks, Ryan!

[MiriamEllis]

Good discussion going on here, and agree with Ryan 100% about informing the business owner of the risks he is taking and, if you choose to continue serving this business, structuring the contract so that you are not responsible for negative outcomes.

One of the major risks I would discuss with the client is this, at least the way I am understanding what you've described.

1. The business had a site and built citations for it at location A.

2. The business then had you build a second site covering locations A and B and wants you to build citations for business B.

If this is correct, the trouble is that the business now has TWO websites representing the location of Business A and this is pretty much guaranteed to cause holy heck on Google's end. Google wants to find a single authoritative website representing each physical location (each Google+ Local page). Finding 2 authoritative websites representing location A is going to cause confusion and could water down the authority this client has built for business A, decreasing the benefits he's earned. The client needs to hear this.

Ideally what should be happening here is that:

A) The customer fully separates out his two businesses, legally. He runs 2 different companies out of 2 different offices with no connection between them. He runs 2 different websites and supports them with 2 unique citation sets. This would be the above-board, risk-free approach.

B) If the customer will not do this, then I agree that he is making a poor choice in trying to make a single company seem like 2 different businesses, doubtless for SEO purposes. I see trouble ahead for the business if this is their approach to marketing. It's possible that you could continue to work on the site you built, removing ALL references to the location of business A and only building citations for location B, but without knowing all of the nuances of this, it seems pretty iffy to me.

I totally sympathize with the pickle you're in on this, not having realized what the company was doing before you developed their new website. You could choose to walk away from the contract if you are not comfortable moving forward. I'd personally be tempted to do so, if the client refused to act on my marketing advice regarding this. At the very least, the one thing you have learned from this is to structure into your initial client discovery form questions regarding all sites they currently own. This is a hard way to learn this - but an important lesson, for sure.

[RyanPurkey]

Thanks Kanya. That makes more sense. I would inform the client of the risks, restructure the contract to address those risks, then move ahead as though it is a completely different and non-client business.

In addition to the risks of some sites not wanting to list both businesses (I'm guessing that when people answer the phones from either one they say, "KM Realty") the other site would pretty much fall under the realm of competition if you're only contracted to work on the new site. From that perspective you're obviously not engaged in trying to affect it negatively, but you are trying to rank the new site as highly as possible which could in turn cause the old site to rank lower.

If the client wants you to perform a balancing act between the two, the contract should likely include both sites.  Cheers!

[RainmanCreative]

Hi Felip3,

Thanks for your response. I see where you're coming from, but, to use your example, Wal-Mart & Sams are separate entities. On our end, both sites are for the exact same business. I'm not judging in any way. I just want to make sure I don't something that'll hurt either site.

[RainmanCreative]

Hi Ryan!

The website we created is supposed to represent the business as a whole (they're a real estate brokerage company), not just one location. I'll elaborate a little (using fictitious names, of course).

Site #1: Domain is TexasRealtyForSale.com. This site has its own logo with "Texas Realty For Sale" on it. There is no physical address information, just a phone number and contact form. Ranking very well for many keywords (e.g., texas real estate for sale).

Site #2 (the one our agency created): Domain is KMrealty.com (close to actual business name). We included their actual logo, phone number and two locations (separate cities). We targeting similar keywords.

When you search for "KM realty," they pop up in several directories and other sites (e.g., YP, citysearch, etc.). The website listed in these directories is TexasRealtyForSale.com.

I asked them if I could change the link to point to our new site (for SEO purposes), but he said no. Since Site #1 is doing very well, he doesn't want to change anything. The issue is: we were contracted to do SEO, as well. I had no idea they were associated with TexasRealtyForSale.com (they never mentioned anything beforehand).

Hopefully this makes more sense!

[Felip3]

I think that's just a business decision that the owner took that has nothing to do with SEO.  He wants to business under 2 different names and build two brands, which makes sense on the business side because he can have one brand  to target public A and another brand to target public B.

There are many cases where competitors company are own by the same group or person, for example, Walt-Mart and Sam's Club. There is nothing wrong on trying to dominate the whole market that's how capitalism works.

In my opinion, you were hired to build the second brand SEO and is not your job to judge his business decisions or complain because the other brand that he owns already have good links.

[RyanPurkey]

Hi Kanya. Just to clarify, you're saying that this new site is going to represent a new store? And that the new store has a different phone, location, name and domain name? To some degree it sounds like it would fall under the franchise model when doing local listings... Yet it also sounds like they sites and stores are trying to be different enough that a customer wouldn't know that they are owned by the same person if they visited either a physical location or the site.  Ultimately it sounds like more cost and work for the owner, but if they're willing to differentiate that much between stores, it sounds that's part of their overall model. Still, a few more details would help. Cheers!