Use when a competitor consistently outranks you in the map pack and you need to find out what they have that you do not.
Compare our local presence against competitors ranking above us and find the actionable gaps.
Search term and location the comparison is based on: {{SEARCH_TERM_AND_LOCATION}}
Our profile and site details: {{OUR_DETAILS}}
Competitor one, details observed: {{COMPETITOR_1}}
Competitor two, details observed: {{COMPETITOR_2}}
Competitor three, details observed: {{COMPETITOR_3}}
Build a comparison table. Rows are factors, columns are us and each competitor. Cover: primary category, number of secondary categories, review count, average rating, review recency, review response rate, photo count, services listed, posting activity, proximity to the searcher, landing page used, page depth on that service, and named local proof on the page.
Then produce a gap list, ranked by this rule: fixable this month first, then fixable this quarter, then structural factors we cannot change. Within each group, rank by likely effect on ranking.
For each gap give: what they have, what we have, the specific action, and a realistic effort estimate.
Rules:
- Use only the details I supplied. Where a cell is unknown, write "not observed" rather than guessing.
- Name proximity and address location as structural factors if that is what the data shows, and do not suggest fake addresses, virtual offices or keyword-stuffed business names as a fix under any circumstances.
- Do not estimate ranking weights as percentages. Rank order only.
Finish with the three actions I should take first and what a realistic result looks like.
Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.