.co.uk domain for US market??

[driansmith]

I have a client in the UK with a very successful .co.uk domain.

He has also chosen to enter other markets by translating the website into different languages and acquiring the appropriate domains. So he has a .fr and a .de for example.

He wants a larger presence in the US market. The question is - Does he acquire the .com and ensure all pages are very different to the UK variant ( a lot of work) or is it more appropriate to use the .co.uk domain and (for example) acquire more US links to the site in order to increase its universal/US appeal in the eyes of Google?

[RobertFisher]

Dr. Ian

Great question. The first hurdle I see with a desire to be in the US using a .co.uk site is one of perception from the searcher/customer more than one of ranking with Google. While it is talked about more with some other countries, people here still look at the .uk and ponder it. I will tell you I have quite a multi cultural family(Syrian wife, son born in Paris, etc.) and when searching personally for a product, the idea of purchasing from a .uk vs a .us site is part of the decision. Not from a quality/etc pov, but what about the shipping? (I think that before digging into the site.)

Now, when you say, "acquire the .com and insure all the pages are very different to the UK site (a lot of work)...", I would ask why does it need to be "very different" and why does it need to be a "lot" of work? What if instead, you acquire the .com or other gTLD, 301 redirect from the .co.uk to the .com, and have a single English language site that is out of the UK? Then, for pages that are more US with US $, etc. you could use rel=alternate hreflang="x" to distinguish for Google. Because all are used to the generic TLD, you do not have the perception issue. (You would need to do a 301 redirect to the new domain to maintain link juice, etc.). This would also allow you to use same for Australia, etc. as the site grows.

In this way, you could have duplicate or near duplicate pages, have a single site, and grow rankings on both sides of the pond.

Hope this helps,

Robert

edit to add GWMT link

[driansmith]

Very interesting Robert. The link you provided has a section that talks about "Annotating pages as substantially similar content" - the aspect particularly pertinent to my dilemma/question. Unfortunately that section has been crossed out. Does your recommendation/suggestion remain the same?

Regards

Ian

[RobertFisher]

Yes, It was crossed out by Google WMT, the rel=alternate hreflang="x" replaced the use of canonicalization to fix the problem. Some say it was because people were having too much problem with the canonical. Not matter, this is an easy solution IMO.

Best,

[driansmith]

Thats really helpful - thanks Robert.

Can I make a few points?

1. I understand totally your initial point about the desire of Americans NOT to purchase from a .co.uk site.

2. "What if instead, you acquire the .com ......, 301 redirect from the .co.uk to the .com" Interesting question. Would I take the risk of recommending this to a client? Would HE take the risk? It feels like throwing away years of work. Plus, there would be a loss of 'link-juice' via a 301. Makes me very nervous with a 7 year-old domain.

3. Unclear on the usage of the "rel=alternate hreflang="x" " coding. Am I correct in saying that (if we went with the .com) we could have sub-domains for each of the US, Australia, etc - and that the content could be identical? But this tagging would avoid any Google penalty?

Thanks

[eyepaq]

One add-on point: if you 301 redirect the co.uk to dot com your client might lose on CTR in the UK as english folks like anywhere else (well maybe France is making an exceptions as tehy only buy from Fr domains  are feeling more friendly towards regional domains (on most of the verticals).

[driansmith]

Good point eyepaq. Ta

[RobertFisher]

Sorry, but had to take care of clients.

1. Again, not that they don't want to purchase from, just there would seem to be a hesitation to click on it vs a .com.

2. What risk is there in a 301? First, you mention throwing away years of work, how? The loss of link juice for a 301 is generally said to be 1 to 10%. However, my experience is and I have done more than a few on sites from 25 page professional practices to 800+ page ecommerce sites (I have not done a massive ecommerce site but would without worry as long as I was clear as to what I was doing and why.) With the sites I have done I have NEVER lost even 2% of the link juice. It usually takes a couple of months for all to transfer and that could present a problem if the site is going to dip for a month and lose some revenue. (Remember, all alternatives have costs so you have to measure each and look at modifications - e.g. if you are going to fall a bit in rankings as 301 works, you might increase PPC). As to domain age, the last one I did was 10 year old domain and the client is quite happy to be getting more customers.

3. You would not need subdomains. The best thing I can do for you is to direct you to an expert with a recent blog here on the moz. Gianluca Fiorelli lays it out brilliantly in International SEO: Dropping the Dust. 

Understand, with any of what you are doing, experience will help and you might consider getting assistance and working with someone while looking over their shoulder.

Hope this helps,

Robert

[RobertFisher]

Eyepaq,

You do have a point (and thanks for pointing out how it's CTR that is affected and not buying behavior). That said, I do not think the drop would be anywhere close to even 20% given you are switching to a .com. The world is used to .com's. What would be affecting it initially would be the movement of link juice, but he is not going to drop right away with the old domain even with the 301. So, organically he will see some diminution likely, but I doubt a lot.

Again, all of this MUST be weighed. There will be trade-offs. He must decide with the client what the tradeoffs are they want to achieve their goals.

Best,