Two Brands One Site (Duplicate Content Issues)

[crvw]

Say your client has a national product, that's known by different brand names in different parts of the country.

Unilever owns a mayonnaise sold East of the Rockies as "Hellmanns" and West of the Rockies as "Best Foods".  It's marketed the same way, same slogan, graphics, etc... only the logo/brand is different.

The websites are near identical with different logos, especially the interior pages.  The Hellmanns version of the site has earned slightly more domain authority. Here is an example recipe page for some "WALDORF SALAD WRAPS by Bobby Flay Recipe"

http://www.bestfoods.com/recipe_detail.aspx?RecipeID=12497&version=1

http://www.hellmanns.us/recipe_detail.aspx?RecipeID=12497&version=1

Both recipie pages are identical except for one logo.  Neither pages ranks very well, neither has earned any backlinks, etc... Oddly the bestfood version does rank better (even though everything is the same, same backlinks, and hellmanns.us having more authority).

If you were advising the client, what would you do.  You would ideally like the Hellmann version to rank well for East Coast searches, and the Best Foods version for West Coast searches.

So do you:

1. Keep both versions with duplicate content, and focus on earning location relevant links.  I.E.  Earn Yelp reviews from east coast users for Hellmanns and West Coast users for Best foods?
2. Cross Domain Canonical to give more of the link juice to only one brand so that only one of the pages ranks well for non-branded keywords?  (but both sites would still rank for their branded keyworkds).
3. No Index one of the brands so that only one version gets in the index and ranks at all.  The other brand wouldn't even rank for it's branded keywords.

Assume it's not practical to create unique content for each brand (the obvious answer).

Note:  I don't work for Unilver, but I have a client in a similar position.  I lean towards #2, but the social media firm on the account wants to do #1.  (obviously some functionally based bias in both our opinions, but we both just want to do what will work best for client).

Any thoughts?

[RyanKent]

I was born and raised in Florida where most people used Hellmann's mayo. When I moved to California I couldn't understand why no one carried Hellmenn's mayo, then I noticed the Best Food's product had the same logo. I read the container and it said "known as Hellmenn's east of the Rockies".

I would recommend the same idea for the site. Present one site which shows either a rotating logo or other means to inform visitors it is the identical site but known as Hellman's in half the country, and Best Foods in the other half. This would allow your client to consolidate their DA which would benefit overall ranking. Additionally it is easier and cheaper to maintain one website instead of several. I noticed there are 4 separate sites: bestfoods.us, bestfoods.com, hellmanns.us and hellmanns.com. All sites have the same IP.

The BestFoods site ranking better for the given search is not really odd. The Hellmann's site has a page ranked at #7 and #19 for the given term, so it's strength is divided in the results.

There are odd anomolies such as neither page has a page title other then the site name. Google decided to help the BestFoods page by giving it's page a title of "Waldorf Salad Wraps - Best Foods". The difference of a clear page title is definitely helpful in rankings. It's odd the identical page from the other site wasn't helped with a page title in a similar manner.

[ShaMenz]

I would agree with Ryan's approach and take it a step further ... in this case the company is missing out by just trying to be different things to different people!

I see some great opportunities to create new content that can interest and engage people, not to mention help retain customers they are in danger of losing because of a simple geographic relocation.

Some suggestions:

• Tell the Story

Create a page that cleverly explains how your product came to have two identities. Did it assume another as part of some global mayonnaise espionage effort....? or was it the result of a company merger? Make it interesting. write it as an example for other companies, create a "dueling logos" video presentation ...the list goes on.

• Create answer pages designed to help out the people who are missing their favorite product because they don't know it is there.

• The "can't find Hellmanns" page

• The "where to buy bestfoods mayo" page etc

There are lots of ways you can turn the potential disadvantage into a marketing advantage and all the while creating new content which could provide good opportunities for links and traffic.

BTW - Great to hear that you are all working together to get the best result for your client.

[KeriMorgret]

Another company in a similar situation (and maybe this is the company in question) is Dreyer's/Edy's. In case it's not your company, you can look and see if you can gain any insights into how they do their social media. Their websites look to be identical in code, and I don't see any canonical tags. I haven't examined how they have done their social media, but it's a thought of another place to look.

Thanks for your great answers Ryan and Sha!

[crvw]

While I like Ryan and Sha's approach, it is like selling ice to eskamo's in terms of convincing the brand managers who are convienced that they have too much equity in their existing brands to dillute/consolidate.

When a  browser does a branded keyword search, the brand managers aren't going to want a "http://story_of_Best_Foods_and_Hellmanns.com" url to be the top hit.  They are going to want the branded URL that already has mindshare with the consumer.  And of course if you do a search on Hellmanns Recipeis and get a hit like "http://hellmanns.com/recipie/bobbyflay.html" it's going to have much higher click through than "http://mayonnaise.com/recipie/bobbyfly.html" would get.  The branded keyword in the URL just imply's relavance.

[RyanKent]

it is like selling ice to eskimos in terms of convincing the brand managers who are convienced that they have too much equity in their existing brands to dillute/consolidate

I understand your situation as I have been there myself on more then one occasion. Having worked with eskimos I have learned they like money, so perhaps speak to them in financial terms. I would request a meeting with those who have the authority and ability to make a change and share the following ideas:

• combining the two brands into one would be a significant cost savings. Product labels, designs, two websites, all aspects of branding from commercials, ads, promotional material, etc. can be condensed into one yielding savings.

• sales can be increased. Why does a mayo company maintain a website? They probably aren't selling their product online so they recognize supporting their customer based with recipes and other information is helpful. By combining their sites their rankings in SERPs should noticeably improve. Rather then having the #5 and #7 results perhaps they could be closer to #1.

• as Sha suggested, they can wrap a promotion around the name change. Engage your customer base in a tweet-fest and otherwise ask them for input. Ask your customers to vote for their favorite brand name.

• if they established a single brand name their advertising dollars should work more effectively. Creating a single commercial/ad that runs nationwide is going to be more effective then splitting the country up. From personal experience I had never heard of "Best Foods" until I moved to California. When I watch tv and see a "Best Foods" ad because I am seeing a West Coast feed, the "Best Foods" ad is wasted on me. With a single brand, it would be more effective.

Almost every piece of logic involved indicates a brand merger. The only legitimate concern is how to handle the transition, and that is a management/marketing decision. A label can be produced with both the Hellman's and Best Food's logo on it then after ?a year one logo can be dropped.

We live in a time where we have seen industry giants well known throughout the country fail and close their doors forever. In most cases, these companies developed a successful strategy but failed to adjust. New businesses who weren't held down by past thinking flew past the old companies. It's up to your client whether that analogy applies to their situation.

As an SEO, your role isn't to force them into making a change they don't want to make. Instead I would recommend educating the client on the benefits of making the change, and ensuring they are aware of the negative issues and costs of not following your advice. If the client understands and makes the decision, you've done your part and can move on to other tactics to improve their SEO.