What was actually wrong
Nobody had ever looked at the twelve listings side by side. Individually each one looked reasonable. Together they were a mess, and the branches that were absent from the map pack for their own main service were absent quietly, because nothing tells you when you are not being shown.
The name, address and phone number appeared differently across the web and on the company's own site. Google corroborates a listing against everything else it can find about the business, so inconsistency does not just look untidy, it weakens the listing that depends on it.
Reviews were the other half. Some sites had a steady trickle, others had nothing recent, and nobody was asking. That is the ordinary picture rather than a bad one, but it leaves the weaker branches drifting while the strong ones hold.
What the work was
- Every profile audited against the others, so the inconsistencies were visible in one place
- Categories, descriptions, services, photographs and Q&A corrected site by site
- The location pages on the website audited, since each had one but the structure and content were not earning it
- Name, address and phone reconciled across the citations and directories that carry weight locally
- A review process the staff could run themselves, asking the right customer at the right moment
- Local links through chambers of commerce, local publications and industry directories
From an anonymised case study. The client is not named because I do not name clients without asking them first. I have left the numbers off this page on purpose. I will only publish a figure I can still show you the working for, and on this job I cannot. Ask me on a call and I will tell you what I can stand behind, including what did not work.