Franchise Content Spinning

[dwayne.jones26]

Hey Guys,  Thanks for taking the time out to read my question, I appreciate it.

I know Google doesn't treat all duplicate content the same, but what about this scenario.

We have a garage door company franchise that services Seattle, San Diego, & Salt Lake City. It is the same brand, but each area has a different website, catering to their own county.

Say I write & post a blog about "how to maintain your garage door" to the Seattle site. This is certainly useful for the other locations as well. So would I get penalized for posting the same article to San Diego & Salt Lake City without massively changing the content to avoid duplication?   Or should I dedicate the extra time to revamp the content and avoid duplication?

Does Google care about this type of duplication?

Thanks in advance!!

[EGOL]

I agree with Miriam.  Make the franchisee write the content for the site.  Make unique, substantive, website content part of the franchise agreement.

[MiriamEllis]

Excellent discussion going on here and thanks, David Brooks, for popping in to add more context to this.

This seems to be distilling down to a question of the amount of control the brand desires. If the company determines that the multi-site approach is one it's essential to retain, then my best advice here would be to hand the keys over to the 6 franchise owners to each of their websites and task them with creating their own content that in no way duplicates corporate content or the content of any other site in the franchise. This is the only authentic approach to this that I can see because:

• If the various sites genuinely represent totally separate entities, then the owner of a location should be made 100% responsible for his own marketing and SEO, apart from adhering to corporate guidelines. In this scenario, you relinquish corporate control and hope for the best.

• If the various sites do not genuinely represent totally separate entities and are, in fact, being controlled by the corporate body behind the scenes, then the corporate body needs to come up with the funding to employ its own content development department capable of marketing all of the sites appropriately, without recourse to spinning or other such ideas. If this is the case, then the franchise owners' feelings or wishes don't really enter the picture, because total control is being maintained by the corporate body.

I continue to believe that a single site approach would be preferable in most cases, but, barring the possibility of that, the above two options represent paths that could be taken.

[ChrisAshton]

It's a very common approach for franchises to take. As a matter of fact, we recently stopped work for a franchisee client because the franchisor decided to do exactly this and consolidate.

In terms of how to approach the topic with them, there are so many reasons why this is a great idea for everyone involved so taking the educational route can make a very clear business case as to why they should.

The biggest complication is that if the individual sites are locked into contracts with their respective SEO providers. Since it would take a little time there would be no issue with running a landing page on your main site and their satellite site simultaneously for that time with an understanding that they take their site down at a certain point.

[ChrisAshton]

This thought process is heading down a path I recommend against, so my initial response still stands. What you're talking about doing here is essentially just SERP manipulation rather than providing a good website that ranks because it deserves to.

Your idea will probably work if done correctly, the trouble is that doing it correctly takes as much (if not more) effort than quality tactics that are above board.

The biggest issue I see is that to have each of these sites and content pieces ranking of their own accord, you need search engines to see them as different entities. To rank for your own branded terms in their respective locations, you also need search engines to understand that each of these sites is your brand. Basically, you need to show that the sites are both different and the same brand simultaneously.

Making them appear separate will take the same black hat stuff as running a PBN these days - host them on different servers, have the registration info either obscured or different on each site, don't inter-link between them etc. Your aim is to make them all appear to be different sites, owned and run by different people.

As for having the content unique enough to actually appear unique, having the same person write multiple versions of the same article isn't going to go very well unless they're well trained in doing this stuff. The writer is going to use similar sentence structures and phrasing no matter how much effort they put into it and this combined with the same branding and identical topic are probably more than enough flags to highlight what you're doing.

If you want it to work, do as much as you can to make them look completely different, including different writers. Just plan it out beforehand and consider the time investment here and whether or not that time could be used more effectively.

[EGOL]

When I see the words "spinning" and "rewriting", shortcuts and duplicate content immediately come to mind.

Google is very familiar with spinning and rewriting and can filter these duplicates from the SERPs.  If you have any doubts about each piece of content being unique and substantive then they might not be different enough to please Google.

[gravityim]

I work with the guy who asked the original question.  The issue is more nuanced then originally framed, but did represent one  line of our thinking.  In practice we have been writing a blog post and then rewriting them as best we can from the perspective of another writer.  Our thinking is, within a large franchise a certain % of these will employ content marketing, and a certain % will logically come up with the same blog topics.  The answers given to these topics will largely be the same e.g., "How much longer does synthetic oil last compared to conventional oil?"  The answer will be the same, the writing will be different.

Assuming we do a good job on the rewrites, does anyone see why this wouldn't work?  Can someone suggest a good way to test whether this is working i.e., Google respects these rewrites and gives them a chance to rank?

Thanks.

[dwayne.jones26]

Thank you for your response and your perspective. The 1 site approach does seem like a good idea. However, the problem with making 1 site for our scenario, is that we are dealing with about 6 different franchise owners over about 12 different websites. All having a different SEO engagement with our company. It would be hard to convince all the owners it's in their own best interest to consolidate with each other.

[MiriamEllis]

Hey Dwayne!

Thanks for starting a good discussion. I agree with Chris here, in that the scenario you're describing is the main reason why most Local SEOs would urge you to go with a single site with landing pages for each company location on it, as opposed to a multi-site approach. You can look at it like this:

1. With a single site approach, everything you do on that site (publishing content, earning links, earning testimonials, accruing age, etc.) goes to benefit all of of your locations at once. Your brand gets maximum 'juice' out of everything you do and grows in strength over time.

2. With a multi-site approach, you are responsible for creating unique content for X number of sites instead of just one. Unless you've got the funding/creativity to keep up a steady stream of unique, helpful content on all of the sites, you will end up in a conundrum like this one, wondering if you should spin the same piece across multiple sites (not a good idea) because you just don't have the time to be writing 3, 6, 9, 12 different unique and awesome blog posts every week or even every month. Imagine writing just one really awesome piece that builds your brand and supports all of your locations. So much easier and appealing, right?

So, the above is kind of the long answer. The short answer is, no, it's not a good strategy to spin content. If you can't write something unique for each website, better to leave it alone. If you feel it's imperative to keep 3 websites instead of consolidating into one, you might try a relay approach in which you focus on Site 1 in February, Site 2 in March, site 3 in April and then back to site 1 in in May, etc. Not ideal, but might make it possible for you to focus on creating something really strong for 1 of the 3 sites, and then move onto the next one.

Good discussion!

[EGOL]

You get what you earn.   If you write the content, you will earn better visibility.

[ChrisAshton]

In theory, putting this same post on each of the sites won't be a problem, it just won't be of any real benefit to more than 1 site. I say in theory because Google is smart enough to understand what's going on here.

In practice, I'd still steer clear of it all together. A better way to structure it is a single site with sub-pages for each location for this very reason (and some others). Changing this structure now probably isn't an option, so my suggestions would be to either:

1) Come up with different topics for each site so no 2 blogs are the same; or

**2) **Get multiple writers involved and have them each write their own version of this topic so they really are unique. If they can't see what the other is writing, they have no choice but to offer technically unique content.

For us, "technically unique" still isn't enough and I definitely don't recommend it but it is an option.