LOCAL

Multi-location page differentiation audit

Use when you run several branch pages that are near-identical and need each one to stand on its own.

multi-location-differentiation.md

Download .md

You are auditing a set of location pages that are too similar to each other.

Business: {{BUSINESS_NAME}}
Locations: {{LOCATION_LIST}}
Current page content, per location: {{CURRENT_CONTENT}}
Genuine differences between the branches (staff, opening hours, services offered, equipment, parking, transport, catchment, specialisms, history): {{REAL_DIFFERENCES}}

Step 1. Overlap report. For each location page, estimate what proportion of the content is shared with the others, and list the sentences or sections that appear across multiple pages in near-identical form.

Step 2. Differentiation table with columns: Location, Genuine difference to lead on, Content that must be unique, Content that can stay shared, What we still need to gather.

Step 3. For each location, a rewritten opening of 60 to 90 words built on its actual difference.

Rules:
- Shared boilerplate is fine for policies, guarantees and company background. Say so rather than forcing every word to be unique.
- Do not manufacture differences. If two branches are genuinely the same in every way I gave you, say that the pages should be merged or that one should be a short profile rather than a full page.
- Do not differentiate by swapping the town name into the same sentences.
- No em dashes. No opener that describes the town before mentioning the business.

End with one sentence per location: keep, rewrite, or merge.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{BUSINESS_NAME}}
{{LOCATION_LIST}}
{{CURRENT_CONTENT}}
{{REAL_DIFFERENCES}}

Getting a better result

Staff names, photos and specific opening hours differentiate a branch page faster than any amount of rewritten body copy.
Take the merge recommendations seriously - four strong branch pages beat eleven thin ones.
Give each branch its own reviews and its own embedded map rather than a shared block.

Questions about this prompt

When should I run this rather than the service area page prompt?

When the branch pages already exist and read the same. This audits live content, so it needs {{CURRENT_CONTENT}} for each location rather than a plan for pages you have not built. If you are creating a first page for a new area, the service area brief is the right starting point.

What do I need to hand?

The current copy per location and a genuine list of {{REAL_DIFFERENCES}}: staff, opening hours, services, equipment, parking, transport, catchment, specialisms, history. It will not manufacture a difference. Where two branches really are identical on everything you gave it, it says so and recommends a merge, which is a finding rather than a failure.

What does it give me?

An overlap report naming the near identical sentences, a differentiation table, a rewritten opening of 60 to 90 words per location, and a one word verdict each: keep, rewrite or merge. The overlap report is what wins the internal argument, because a list of the repeated sentences is more persuasive than a percentage.

What is the costly mistake?

Rewriting every word to satisfy the audit. Shared boilerplate for policies, guarantees and company background is fine and the prompt says so. The expensive mistake is ignoring the merge verdicts. Four strong branch pages beat eleven thin ones, and staff names, real hours and photos differentiate faster than rewritten body copy.