The multi-location workflow: one fixed grid per site, compared honestly.

The design problem

A multi-location brand runs N local experiments at once. Each location faces different competitors, different distances to demand and a different prominence baseline, so each needs its own measurement design: a grid centred on its market, sized to its real service area. Averaging across locations destroys exactly the information head office needs — which sites are failing.

The workflow, as method

1. One fixed grid per location, sized to its market — dense in urban cores, wider in suburbs.
2. A shared keyword set, so locations remain comparable.
3. A common cadence, per the pipeline in how local rank tracking works.
4. Comparison and triage — rank locations against each other on coverage, then direct review and profile work to the weakest.

Comparability caveats

Comparisons across locations are valid only within the frozen design: same keywords, same cadence, same scan windows. Grid geometry may differ per market — that is intended — but grid stability may not. The attribution caveat also applies: coverage change corroborates work; it does not prove causation. Both caveats are detailed under geo-grid rank tracking.

Tool requirements

Per-location grids, uniform reporting across sites, and pricing that scales with location count. LocalRank's entry plans from $29 per month address the scaling economics, per localrank.so; alternatives are mapped on the comparison page. The delegated variant of this workflow is the agency use case.

Return to the site home.

FAQ