A sketch of a multi-location business that ranks in one city and is hard to find in the others, with location pages that differ only by the town name. Not a client. This is not a published client result.
These labels are the measures that would be checked. No figure is published, because no client result is on this page.
How client-reported, platform-measured and modelled figures are told apart — and what this page will not claim — is set out in the case study standards.
This page is not a client result. It describes a network where one location is visible in local search and the newer locations depend on the brand already being known.
Location pages that swap the town name, and Google profiles that drift as staff change, are the usual shape of that problem.
Whether each profile names the right category, services, hours, and photos, and whether the name, address, and phone match the website.
Whether visibility drops a short distance from the branch. A grid of searches can show that. No grid from a client is published here.
A profile pass for every location, then citations where the major directories disagree.
A location page that says what is different at that branch: the services offered there, how to get there, and who works there. A town name in the title is not enough.
No calls, direction requests, or bookings are published. No branch is named. The labels above are what would be measured if a client agreed to it.
The method this sketch follows is written up in local SEO across multiple locations.
A sketch of a product business that people find by its name and miss when they search the problem. Not a client.
A sketch of a shop found by its brand name, with a catalogue that has outgrown the way the site is organised. Not a client.
Tell me where search stands for the business. I will say which part of the work matters first, and what it would take.
Replies usually go out within one working day.
