Showing a preferred Google location in branded search for a multi-location business?

[mirabile]

Background: A business has 5 brick and mortar locations, in 5 different states, with 5 separate Google+ profiles. The corporate headquarters are in Michigan. The Michigan Google+ Local profile is the one that should be most closely associated with the brand.

Problem: We want the Michigan Google + Local page to show up for branded searches nationwide: right now, it only shows up on geolocated searches in Michigan.

Of course, it totally makes sense that the other 4 Google+ local pages will appear for users searching with IP locations (or logged in locations) near those states.  But for other states - is there a way to help Google understand or give preference to the main corporate location?

What we're trying to prevent is someone in New York City searching for "company name", and then seeing a lesser location appear in SERPs associated with the brand, instead of our favored Michican location.

Ideas so far:

• Continue to enhance out the Michigan location's Google+ page (check categories, photos, description, share content frequently, expand circles, get reviews, yada yada yada - we've already done much of this). _Maybe give this page more attention and content than other locations if we have to? _

• Build links into Michigan Google+ page?

• Ensure general citations are up to date - use localeze/moz local etc.

• Website - We have a page for each location. While Michigan is featured, we also do promote our other offices as well - all kinda promoted equally on site in terms of metadata, content, etc.

---

Any other brainstorming advice or out-of-the-box (oh no, did I just say "out-of-the-box"?) ideas to help Google associate the Michigan location as our "primary" one we want shown on more generic branded searches, even though of course the other 4 are impt too?  Tricky...

[LauraSultan]

You seem to be referring to local search results (with the local pack and map) rather than organic results. Local search results for Michigan will not show up for someone searching in New York unless they specifically add a geographic modifier. Otherwise, they'll get local pack results for their own location or they may not get local results at all.

Are you trying to get the Michigan G+ page to show up higher than others in organic results? If so, why would this be preferable to having your website show up first for branding searches?

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the question. If so, can  you clarify?

[mirabile]

Thanks Laura - sure, happy to clarify.

We're actually referring to what appear to be Google+ Local results that currently display in a box to the right of organic listings.  Included are highlights from the company's Google+ local page (address, phone, hours, photos from Google+ page, map).

When people search in New York for "_company name only" _(or for "company name" searches in other states where the business doesn't actually have a brick-and-mortar location anywhere nearby)  it always defaults to showing Google Maps results for a minor location (actually, a location in Indiana), instead of Michigan where the company's main corporate headquarters are.

We'd almost rather NO local results show up for those types of searches, than the minor Indiana location.  On that note - maybe adding more schema / knowledge graph markup to the home page around the brand in general (logo, social profiles, etc) could help with that....

What we want to do is tip the scales in favor of the Michigan location, helping that to display in Google+ local results for broad, brand-name searches in geographic areas further away from where our primary locations are.  It's important from a branding perspective to have the Michigan location be most closely associated with general, less geo-specific branded searches, if that makes sense... ?

[LauraSultan]

Okay, I see. That's often referred to as the "Authoritative Onebox."  The searcher's location may be influencing results the most in this case, so you'll definitely need to build up the other local signals for the Michigan location. Unfortunately, I don't really have anything to add to what you've already mentioned.

[mirabile]

Thanks - we suspected as much but just thought we'd ask on Moz in case anyone had other ideas or we were missing something.

[MiriamEllis]

Hi Mirabile,

I actually have a specific recommendation for this tough scenario. You might try getting in touch with Andrew Shotland over at LocalSEOGuide.com. I know he has dealt with a similar issue in which a wrong location was showing up in sitelinks, so he might be able to give you some pointers for dealing with your scenario. Could be a case of weak or bad data causing this, and deserves further investigation in an environment in which you'd be comfortable disclosing the search in question. Things like this can be really hard to pinpoint without knowing the actual search. Hope this helps!

[mirabile]

Thank you for the tips Miriam!

I will definitely keep all that that in mind, and if we still can't seem to get things fixed after taking these basic steps (some of which we indeed do need to follow up on), will consider reaching out to Andrew as I'm sure he's also an amazing source of knowledge.