37% of Toronto GBPs violate Google's TOS

[keyserholiday]

I looked at 5,734 GBPs across 35 categories in and around Toronto, Canada. I discovered that 37% are violating the address requirements.

One data point that surprised me is that only 8% of GBPs use UTM URLs.

 

[LadyGrapeAlliance23]

Over the last year I've been flagging, + submitting to the business redressal form, a particular brand that has about 20+ spam listings in and around Toronto; most of their locations are at residential addresses but some of their locations are using the same address as their billboards, where there is no discernable way for customers to access/enter the property, much less a business-front - one spot is legitimately an empty lot with nothing but a billboard

Somehow we were even able to get it escalated it to where we had a Google support rep. actually responding but at the end of the email chain they said they had reviewed/escalated it as high as it can go but they did not find any violations for any of the locations we submitted - that was even with several pages/screenshots/links of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Since then, we've found several more brands using the same tactic but not at the same volume just yet - I know most high-density population areas have some level of listing spam but I haven't been able to find a clear answer as to why Toronto in particular seems to be such a hot-zone.

 

[JS Girard]

Over the last year I've been flagging, + submitting to the business redressal form, a particular brand that has about 20+ spam listings in and around Toronto; most of their locations are at residential addresses but some of their locations are using the same address as their billboards, where there is no discernable way for customers to access/enter the property, much less a business-front - one spot is legitimately an empty lot with nothing but a billboard

Somehow we were even able to get it escalated it to where we had a Google support rep. actually responding but at the end of the email chain they said they had reviewed/escalated it as high as it can go but they did not find any violations for any of the locations we submitted - that was even with several pages/screenshots/links of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Since then, we've found several more brands using the same tactic but not at the same volume just yet - I know most high-density population areas have some level of listing spam but I haven't been able to find a clear answer as to why Toronto in particular seems to be such a hot-zone.

I've used @Phil Rozek 's "throw everything at the wall once a week" and have had good success with it in the past for networkds of spam listings. It's a little tedious, but when it works, it works.

 

[keyserholiday]

Over the last year I've been flagging, + submitting to the business redressal form, a particular brand that has about 20+ spam listings in and around Toronto; most of their locations are at residential addresses but some of their locations are using the same address as their billboards, where there is no discernable way for customers to access/enter the property, much less a business-front - one spot is legitimately an empty lot with nothing but a billboard

Somehow we were even able to get it escalated it to where we had a Google support rep. actually responding but at the end of the email chain they said they had reviewed/escalated it as high as it can go but they did not find any violations for any of the locations we submitted - that was even with several pages/screenshots/links of evidence suggesting otherwise.

Since then, we've found several more brands using the same tactic but not at the same volume just yet - I know most high-density population areas have some level of listing spam but I haven't been able to find a clear answer as to why Toronto in particular seems to be such a hot-zone.

Please feel free to send me the listings. I might have the on my list.

 

[JS Girard]

I looked at 5,734 GBPs across 35 categories in and around Toronto, Canada. I discovered that 37% are violating the address requirements.

One data point that surprised me is that only 8% of GBPs use UTM URLs.

Comin back to this, I realize I have a pretty important question: where you looking only at verified profiles? If not, was the proportion different between verified vs. unverified profile?

 

[keyserholiday]

I was looking at both verified and unverified GBPs. I checked AC repair, and 97% are verified.

 

[ElizabethRule]

I discovered that 37% are violating the address requirements.

Not surprising, Google is so bad at enforcing it's own policies

 

[fisicx]

Google makes money by selling advertising and data (plus cloudy and other non-search engine services).

They don't make money from local profile listings or the organic results. These are freebies they provide to trap you into using and becoming reliant on their services.

Google doesn't really care if the profiles are fake or the SERPs manipulated. They might make lots of noise but as it doesn't affect shareholder dividends they aren't going to throw a huge number of resources at fixing the problem.

As a customer I can do a search and find someone to fix my leaky roof. If Google has got it right I will have clicked on a sponsored listing.

As a customer I don't care if Bob the Builder has broken the Google TOS.

Whilst all the above is a simplification of how it all works until the junk affects shareholder dividends Google is unlikely to fix the problem.

 

[keyserholiday]

Google makes money by selling advertising and data (plus cloudy and other non-search engine services).

They don't make money from local profile listings or the organic results. These are freebies they provide to trap you into using and becoming reliant on their services.

Google doesn't really care if the profiles are fake or the SERPs manipulated. They might make lots of noise but as it doesn't affect shareholder dividends they aren't going to throw a huge number of resources at fixing the problem.

As a customer I can do a search and find someone to fix my leaky roof. If Google has got it right I will have clicked on a sponsored listing.

As a customer I don't care if Bob the Builder has broken the Google TOS.

Whilst all the above is a simplification of how it all works until the junk affects shareholder dividends Google is unlikely to fix the problem.

I conducted this audit due to the high volume of complaints I have seen and/or received regarding spam and abuse in and around Toronto. For businesses playing by the rules, these GBPs take away business and customers. According to a study @JoyHawkins shared last month, calls from GBP are declining. If you take a category like Locksmith, which has a 58% in address violations. More than half of the GBPs are not playing by the rules. They also have to compete with the key duplication kiosks. A small market share becomes even smaller.

SABs account for 16% of the GBPs I reviewed. So 86% are showing their address. When you combine this with studies showing that displaying the address increases rankings, it tends to prompt businesses to display their address. For this study, I didn't verify addresses associated with virtual offices. It's too hard to verify if the business is there. The majority of address violations involve displaying the address at their residential address.

One surprising fact I discovered is that the use of UTMs is at 8%. Personal injury ranked first with 23%. SEO had 12%. I strongly suspect that many SEOs don't fully grasp SEO and are too focused on rankings, building a name for themselves, or selling their services.

This is a microcosm of the GBP as a whole in the US and Canada. I am currently reviewing data for other cities in the US. It will take me some time to review all the data.

 

[fisicx]

This is a microcosm of the GBP as a whole in the US and Canada. I am currently reviewing data for other cities in the US. It will take me some time to review all the data.

I agree that it's all wrong. But until it affect the shareholders dividends there is no real incentive for Google to do anything. Google makes no money from providing the GBP service other than from the data it sells.

 

[keyserholiday]

I agree that it's all wrong. But until it affect the shareholders dividends there is no real incentive for Google to do anything. Google makes no money from providing the GBP service other than from the data it sells.

This is not correct. The Wall Street Journal article on lead generation spam forced the GBP team to make changes. The same thing happened after the New York Times article on the extortion review attacks. The media does force Google to clean up the abuse. I was on the inside and so I know first hand.