COMMENTS
So very true, but there are some significant reasons to not allow franchisee's to have separate websites.
Here is a portion of a discussion that occurred in the HubSpot forum's a long time ago:
I was in an SEO meeting in Bar Camp Tampa earlier this year.
Someone (lets just call him blackhat) suggested that there was no way that the presenters ideas were feasible for quickly dominating difficult keyword combinations with 1 url. He advicated a technique similar to yours with 150 seperate domains... it didn't go over well as a good idea. Now let me tell you why.
SEO should be considered like branding for franchise companies. If you are the franchising company your benefit is NOT for a franchise to have a strong website. Its for your parent company to have a strong website. The stronger your root domain the more value add your brand gives to its franchisees.
Google "fried chicken"... kfc/popeyes are near the top. Why? Focus on core content from a company standpoint. Give each location rights to a section in the website, but by mandating a certain form you are going to end up with better meta data. Richer links. All that good SEO stuff (to your domain). Why build a brand for a single location that could close? Brand your company at all those locations. Brand your company for locations you don't have yet and provide another negotiating chip when someone wants to get on board...
"We're already number 4 for "xyz in Panama City" search in google and you haven't even opened your franchise."
Websites should be branding and sales tools for large companies. It would be foolish to not consider taking a franchise $$$ from each location to fund content people that benefit everyone. $1,000 from 150 locations buys multiple full time content people. 3-5+ content people working on 1 site will dominate much faster (and more importantly long-term) than trying to maintain 150 seperate sites.
Most FDDs do not allow for unique websites. A good franchisor will have a solid digital marketing strategy for its locations. I agree that a Franchisee should have control to publish local content and engage in social media at a local level. Maintaining separate websites for individual locations is bad advice. The franchisor needs absolute control over the brand. A franchisor can easily build a blog off an extension of the main site and provide unique access to the location owner. Splitting authority on a national level does not help the group. Keeping it "in the family" under one roof (domain) helps build indexed page count and authority - making it easy for a new franchise location to ramp up in a major market. Would you rather buy into a franchise with the ability to generate content at a local level on top of the franchise domain (ie.
www.franchise.com/locations/Boston)with established authority or would you rather start from scratch?
This is very vital to the business world that we live in today. I feel that businesses and people in general should take use of all of the resources that are available to them. Social media is one way that you can do that. Internet marketing strategy is key and vital.This is something that all business people should learn because of its importance.
As an agency that works with franchises and their corporate bosses, we've experienced the pros and cons that go with both sides of this discussion. Our belief is that a strong corporate website, well-designed for franchisee needs, can solve local needs to.
Think of it from the customer's perspective - they are most likely choosing the local franchise because of what they like about the brand. That's corporate level. Why reinvent the wheel and confuse them?
But when it comes to the tactical side of branding, if the local franchise can't be found, nothing else matters. Corporations need to plan strategically for how all of their online tools can be founded at the corporate level and benefited at the franchise level. It can be done. One voice - many branches.
My experience with franchise web marketing is BOTH corporate and local websites are vital. My client's corporate office maintains tight control of the look and feel and has to approve all content. The franchisees can upload local photos and newsroom articles, and they pay for their own PPC campaigns, which I monitor for them.
Google especially emphasizes local these days -- the proof is first page listings for every single franchise by location, plus 60-80% of all the franchisee conversions coming from the web!
Chris, Steve, Cheryl, and Angele
Thank you for taking the time to comment on this article.
Chris and Steve- you both raise some great points- allowing franchisees to have sub-domains on a corporate website is an excellent choice as well. The bottom line is that while franchises have traditionally been built on maintaining tight controls, in order to be successful online, they need to loosen some of those restrictions and let their franchisees develop their own identities and interact with their local communities online- whether with their own websites (ie. bostonfranchiseA.com) or sub-domains that they have access to (ie.boston.franchiseA.com).
Cheryl and Angele, thank you for seeing both sides of the coin here. I like your point, "one tree--many branches", that's the image I get when I think of a franchisor-franchisee relationship. The intent is not to confuse the potential customer, but to make it easier to find the franchisees in their local markets. Sure they can simply type in their zip code and call their local franchise BUT, why not help the local franchisee get found as well via locally optimized SEO, blogging and a local social media presence?
Thank you for your feedback.
@Dedric
It's not that I don't see the benefit for the franchisee. It's that I think in terms of the franchiser. Requiring sub-domains that follow a templated layout, but allows for local content and updates accomplishes the same endgame, but keeps all the SEO on the main domain.
This offers the added benefit - if a franchisee folds - you can redirect all the juice to a new local franchisee or back to your main domain. If it's on a domain the franchiser does not own... tough luck. Or worse, if they open a competing store - they redirect all their old juice to a competitor of the parent company.
The idea of distributed marketing is a reality in marketing today, but franchises are a special case. The franchise agreement can make requirements in these situations. And the combined effort of 10 people on 1 website trumps .1 person on 100 websites.
Quality x Quantity ==/== Quality + Quality
A lot can be accomplished via permissions in modern CMS systems. Sub-domains are just one approach. It's not that I don't like the idea of kfc-tampa.com. It's great for the Tampa store, but it can dilute the brand strength if not run properly.
Franchising is all about brand strength (why else would you franchise), why would you allow for a kink in the armor? Much less promote it?
Reason #4, if your franchise leaves the system - say a sandwich shop, you can redirect the old URL name to the new URL name assuming there are not some licensing issues.
I am an associate broker with national real estate company, but I learned not to have my broker affiliation be part of my URL so that if I needed or wanted to move, I can make a few necessary legal updates and continue on down the road.
Thank you.
nearly every business has a website now even just one page with contact details
Great points Dedric! I work with a number of franchisors and franchisees on solving this exact dilemma, so I'm very well familiar with the challenges around providing franchisees with proper local websites. Steven's right - most FDDs (Franchise Disclosure Documents) prohibit franchisees from creating their own websites. And I agree with this stance. Google Mr. Rooter or Fast Frame for example, open up a few of the independent local websites, and you'll see the negative repercussions that can happen (and I'm sure both companies prohibit this, but it's difficult to enforce). The brand can really become tarnished online easily, and since one of the biggest benefits of joining a franchise is the brand behind it, the franchisors have a vested interest in protecting it.
With that said I'm a huge proponent of franchisees having local websites, for all of the reasons you mentioned, and others (see <a>http://bit.ly/local-franchise-websites. However, it needs to be done strategically, and the franchisor needs to maintain a certain level of control over the sites in order to have brand consistency and compliance. There needs to be a software platform (i.e. CMS) that can allow for this dynamic level of control between franchisees and the franchisor, and it needs to be scalable and super easy to use for franchisees (emphasis on
EASY, because believe it or not, Wordpress, Joomla, etc. are way too complicated for most franchisees).
As for the topic of subdomains vs. top level domains, there are valid arguments on both sides. We have one franchise client with 350+ local websites, and all of them are top level domains; however, they're all managed through our one centralized system that gives the franchisor and franchisees the appropriate access and controls. Why? Because they've seen better local SEO results by using independent top level domains. Most franchisors do prefer the subdomain route though, because it's logistically much easier to not have tons of domains registered.
With the right system and strategy in place, local websites for franchisees is definitely a win-win. The franchisor benefits from broader brand penetration online (and it's a good selling tool to show prospective franchisees what they'll get). And the franchisees benefit from gaining more visibility and traffic online, increased lead generation, sales if applicable, and a host of other ways to help grow their businesses.
No matter which way you look at it though, franchisees not having a local web presence in 2011 is unacceptable. Franchisors that aren't proactively helping franchisees on this are short-sighted and stuck in the past, and they'll lose market share because of it.
1. There are a number of good points that people have made. However, you have to understand the features in a franchise agreement: national and local advertising requirements.
2. At the national level, it might not make good sense for the franchisees to have anything more than a page on franchisor's location subpages. (However who looks after the local placement in google places, etc. is an issue unresolved in most franchise agreements.) Chris T's points on the SEO aspect of branding are reasonable. Steve T is wrong if he means that the franchisee cannot engage in freedom of commercial speech. He is also wrong to suggest that the franchisor has to control the brand online if he means that they have to control all the conversation.
3. At the local level, a franchise operator may want a website which highlights the operators local involvement and focused less on the brand. Christopher Anderson's product might very well work for a number of large multi-unit franchisees.