Local Listing Conundrum

[mbochic]

Hello Mozzers, I have a client with a unique situation that I am hoping I can get some feedback on.

One of our service industry clients has a location that is claimed on all major sites (Google, Bing, etc., etc.) - so all is good there. They are experiencing an issue, however, because their check-in building is actually located at their conference center across the street, which has a different address. The issue is mainly that it is confusing and a pain point for customers as they get to the destination without realizing they need to actually be at the building across the street first for check-in.

The client is considering changing their primary address to the conference center address across the street, which was previously not a separate / claimed entity. They would still maintain the main business listing and just adjust the name. Their thought process is that Google would bring people to the conference center / check-in building first rather than to the main business building.

I personally have major concerns about making the switch. I feel like this would be potentially confusing to both users and search engines. And, the main business listing has already acquired a ton of reviews that we would be starting from scratch with.

My immediate recommendation would be to better communicate the check-in process to guests and not go through the change of address process, but I figured I would throw it out to the community for feedback.

Thoughts?

[MiriamEllis]

So glad it helped! Good luck to you!

[mbochic]

Thanks so much for the clarification and recommendations, that is very helpful!

[MiriamEllis]

Hi Meisha,

Thanks so much for replying to my questions. That definitely helps me better visualize the client scenario. Okay, so bearing in mind that if this were my client I would advise them to physically change the location of the check-in from the conference center to the hotel, as this is clearly not a comfortable/natural layout for guests, if the company is unable to make this structural change, here's what they are up against:

1. If this business were in a different industry (not a hotel) there would be some wiggle room for them having 3 different GMB listings, as Google does permit multi-department listings. That works well for car dealerships (parts department, sales department, repairs department) and for hospitals (x-ray, emergency, billing). But for a hotel - no. Google is not going to have a category which represents hotel check-in, so despite this entity of the business having a separate entrance and phone number, I would not advise creating a 3rd GMB listing for the check-in. I don't believe it would fit in with Google's conception of a department and it could get the business into trouble.

2. So, since we don't want to do that, what we're left with is having the 2 GMB listings (one for the hotel and one for the conference center). But, we can't alter their names, as that would also violate Google's guidelines. Google can read street level signage, so unless the real-world name of the conference center is Green Tree Conference Center & Waldorf Hotel Check-In you cannot put those words in the business title of the GMB listing.

3. Because of this, what you are left with is listing the hotel and listing the conference center exactly as they appear in the real world, in terms of their names, addresses and phone numbers, with no additions. And that leaves guests being confused and discomfited.

4. So, if we can't move the check-in desk to the hotel, what the client is left with as options would include:

• Making it abundantly clear on the hotel site that check-in is across the street
• Instructing all phone staff who take reservations to verbally signal this to guests
• Including this also in any emails, print mail or other forms of confirmation guests receive when booking
• Hiring a staff member who manages the parking lot to greet guests as they arrive by car and personally instructs them to check in across the street.
• Anything else the business can think of to alert guests about the location of the check-in to lessen inconvenience to them.

What I'm describing here, based on my understanding of your client, would be the only safe options I can think of. Hope they help!

[mbochic]

Thanks for your response.

To answer your questions:

1.) Hotel

2.) The hotel has several numbers so I imagine check-in does have a unique number

3.) I also do believe that check-in has a separate entrance than the other conference center facilities

4.) Check-in building is just the same address as the general conference center building

5.) The main / primary building hosts all of the rooms, hotel amenities, etc.

They were going to keep both addresses on the hotel website and specify check-in building versus hotel building. They were also going to change the name on the current / main Google local page to something more generic and then have the name for the new Google local page be hotel name +check-in or something similar, which I was not a huge fan of. I feel like having multiple local pages with the hotel name in the title could potentially cause issues, as will having multiple addresses on the website. I'm also sure that they cannot move the check-in across the street, for whatever reason, so that is an issue they will have to overcome.

Thoughts?

[MiriamEllis]

Hi Meisha,

Wow, that is a conundrum!

I'm going to start with some outside-the-box thinking here. If this were my client, I would tell them that (much like a grocery store floor plan) their current floor plan has highlighted a customer pain point. They are causing consumers frustration by making them go across the street to check in, which feels unnatural to the consumer. If it felt right, it wouldn't be a pain point. So, my first piece of marketing advice to this client would be to make a physical adaptation to put the check-in center in Building A, where consumers believe it should be. Problem solved. I realize this would be a hassle for the business, but when you consider that what they are currently risking now is getting off on the wrong foot with all of their customers at the very start of the 'relationship', what you have is negative sentiment>leads to negative reviews>leads to negative reputation>leads to negative impacts on revenue. That is not a path any business would want, so if at all possible, making a physical accommodation to the obvious needs of customers would be the smartest thing the client could do.

If it is totally impossible to move the check-in into building A, I have some questions:

1. What is the industry?

2. Does the check-in have its own phone number, or is the number shared with any other part of the business?

3. Does the check-in have its own entrance door, or is it shared by the conference center in building B?

4. Does the check-in have its own street address, or is it just the address of building B?

5. What, exactly, is in building A right now?

The answers to these (if you can share them) may help us puzzle out the second-best solution if the check-in can't be moved.

[BlueCorona]

Great question!

You may want to consider providing two separate sets of NAP information for these two separate locations.

So you would have:

#1 - Business Name - Existing Address - Existing Phone Number

#2 - Business Name: Conference Center - Conference Center Address - Conference Center Phone Number

As long as you're able to go through the Google verification process with this conference center (receiving the postcard and phone call to verify that the NAP information for this new location is correct), you should be fine from a Local SEO perspective, and this should also improve user experience (since users will be directed to the proper location!)

I would also recommend listing these two addresses separately on the Contact Us page of your client's website, along with specific details about which location the user should plan to visit based on their needs.

Hope this helps!