Tumgik
#how were they able to get customized phones that matched their appearance and aesthetic while on a tight budget?
haliaiii · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
These are some in-universe weapon/tech concepts for Retrograde, I actually had a lot of fun drawing these! Most of them are used for as references for when drawing the actual comic. The in universe lore is that the weapons that Sam and Val use are actually weapons commonly used by soldiers in the military but were modified by Eli (their friend who runs a mechanic shop, she also fixes Val's bike and any random things that comes by). In Retrograde, many weapons are made using lasers and laser blades as they're more powerful than your average steel/metal. However, they take up a ton of energy and have really low battery life. They are great for cutting down robots and droids though.
Last image is just what their phones look like. In this universe, after the giant cataclysm that destroyed the previous era, the world kinda overwent a giant technological set back. Basically most things never really made it out of the analog systems and so a lot of the tech is similar to most tech from the 90s and early 00s. Sam and Val's phones don't have a touch screen, they use a joycon and buttons to navigate around the screen and a pull out keyboard to type messages (like an handheld game console, the inspo was mostly from flip phones and the DS lol). The computer on top is probably the closest you'll get to a laptop, it's pretty clunky and is mainly used by field researchers for analyzing data. Sam and Val do end up doing a bounty for a group of researchers so I was trying to figure out what they'd use for data and stuff.
15 notes · View notes
dokifluffs · 4 years
Text
Baby Halloween | Konoha, Sakusa
Pairing: Konoha X Reader (female), Sakusa X Reader (female) 
Genre: the fluffiest of halloween fluffs with haikyuu dads you’ll ever read 🥺 
Author’s Note: I know it’s november- Gifs from @rivaillerose​ 💛💛
Baby Halloween | Kenma and Kuroo // Baby Halloween | Kita, Tsukishima // Baby Halloween | Suna, Osamu 
Warnings! Haikyuu dads with kids, post time skip
Tumblr media
Konoha: 
“Is this thing on?” Konoha’s face was blurry right in front of the camera as he set the camera propped up on the staircase
“Yes, ‘Nori,” you laughed as you sipped your warm drink, filling your body with a nice fuzzy feeling despite being on the side side of the globe, away from your world
Your baby girl and your husband on her second halloween
The early years of her life were so precious and they were flying by so fast, you wished it could slow down just a bit but alas, time didn’t wait for anyone
“Alright,” he stepped back from the camera he propped up, flashily, the cape from his costume spreading and whooshing around him, revealing a special, galaxy themed box with cut out stars and a crescent moon
“Behold!” your husband called excitedly as he raised his arms, pulling a fake bouquet of flowers from his sleeve, pretending to give it to you
Despite you being on the other side of the world
“Wow, I loveee it,” you said painfully sarcastically as you broke into a fit of laughter seeing konoha make a face at you through the screen
Oh you just knew that if you were there, he would be tackling and tickling you, teasing you, asking you if he still loved it
But anyways
He tossed the fake bouquet to the side as he pulled a magic wand
“And now for my second and final trick, I will make the cutest little bunny appear,” he smiled, clearly mouthing a few words you couldn’t make out or hear you assumed to be your daughter in the box
“Alright, 1, 2, and 3! Abracadabra!” Konoha called
And as he said, the absolute cutest bunny of your daughter slowly sprung up in a little white bunny onesie with a pink headband
“What do we say to mommy?” Konoha knelt down, lifting her out of the box and set her down before him with her arms still raised
“D/N,” he turned her a little, his hand on her belly as he pointed to his phone on the stairs. “What do you say to mommy?”
She looked at him momentarily, placing her fingers slowly to her chin, her faint freckles matching his
He mouthed something to her once again before pulling her carefully close, whispering into her ear
“Peeboo!” She called somewhat hesitantly, her chubby cheeks rosy 
“No,” Konoha laughed as he sat back on his heels, “it’s peekaboo but close enough,” he snaked his arms around her and smothered kisses to her cheek, blowing raspberries and making her laugh 
your cheeks were tired from all the smiling you were doing, god it just made you want to hop on the next flight home 
he swept her off her feet in his arms and brought her to the stairs, sitting on them as she sat in his lap, leaning close to see you as much as possible 
though she may not have fully understood what you were doing or why you weren’t here at home at the moment, she just knew that seeing you, you were still here even though you were hundreds to thousands of kilometers away 
“mama, peeboo!” she called as she giggled her sweet angelic voice sounding into the tall staircase 
“we worked on that all morning,” Konoha sighed as he psuhed off her headband to play with her hair 
“but we’ll for sure nail it by the time you come back,” konoha smiled 
Tumblr media
Sakusa: 
“Pumpum, are you ready?” Sakusa called out to his little girl as he heard the clutter of toys from her play room probably being spread all over the wooden floors
He slipped into his own shoes, tying them as he stayed knelt on the ground, a smile spreading to his face as he saw his little girl bounce towards him, skipping excitedly in her plush little pumpkin costume
“Yes!” She squealed, her raven hair that matched Sakusa’s, tied into little pigtails beside her head with a little pumpkin headband
The little headband that also matched Sakusa’s to which he used to push back his hair
“Alright, step in,” he undid the velcro straps to her light up shoes, securing them in
“Too tight?” He was able to sort of stick his finger into the side of the shoe entrance but that was fine
As soon as her shoes were on, she stomped around, playing with her shoes, using her hands to push her costume in so she could see
“Com here, pumpum,” Sakusa pat his thigh to which she hopped over and sat herself in
He pulled out the final touch, bringing out the annual custom mask and gloves he had prepared for her and himself to match the costumes since it was a tradition now for the three of you all to match
Though this year, business called and you were over seas
He secured the elastic band to the pumpkin mask on her face as well as his own
“Smile for mommy,” how own voice slightly muffled, though his practically had double the layers, as he took a mirror picture of him and his little pumpkin
Though his costume wasn’t really a costume but black pants and an ash gray turtleneck
He took the picture as well as multiple others with her orange jack-o-lantern that matched her costume, capturing aesthetically pleasing pictures of her to cherish forever
“Let’s go trick or treating.” He held her hand walking out the door, shutting the porch light off since one of you would usually be home to give out candy, mainly you since Sakusa didn’t want to interact with others
But alas, it was just the two of them this year
She bounced and ran about through the familiar neighborhood, seeing friends from her elementary school with their own parents following
The neighborhood was friendly as a gentle breeze blew through the streets every now and then, making all the various decorations of witches and spiders hanging on porches or in trees sway
“Daddy look!” he carried her as it was time to go home after almost an hour and a half of trick her treating
He followed her finger to a pile of pumpkins, all carved with funny faces on a neighbor’s lawn
“it’s us!” she giggled as she wrapped her arms around his neck, resting her head on his shoulder, her pigtail tickling his ear
But he didn’t mind as he carried the plastic container pretty full with candy
Sakusa could tell her energy was depleted as her bubbliness was no longer there as he set her down on the bench upon entering, slipping her out of her shoes and taking off her mask and gloves to be sterilized under a UV lamp
“Bath time,” he ushered her toward the bathroom, as she undressed herself while Sakusa sneaked away, hiding her jack-o-lantern of candy beneath the sink counter
And instead, replacing it with a special jack o-lantern he had always done every year so she would eat candy he was comfortable with and knew that it was clean and not handled by anyone else but him
She was his little pumpum after all and he wasn’t going to let any germs get to her
~~~~~ Thanks for reading! Masterlist for more! Please do not repost anywhere else!
Tags (let me know if you wanna be tagged for all my haikyuu posts): @yams046  @mazey-chan  @sunboikyo00  @kara-grayson04​  @fortheloveofbakugo​ @tsumtsumsemi​ @1-800-wholesome@yamagucci​ @realityisoftendisapointing @plantisnotplant @pink-panda-pancakes​ @differentballooncollection​ @osamusamusamu@therainroguefanfiction​ @euphorihan@turquoiselace​ @macaronnv​  @oxmaddy​​ @mrkoala4prsdnt​​ @curiouslilbeast​ @plantisnotplant@therestless101​ @abcdaichi​ @oyasenpai​ @kaaidalupita​ @lovinnoya​ @wisepandaslimeland​ @killuaking​ @bbymilkbread​ @tsumtsumland​​​ @suunikimchi @woah-there-cowboy-or-cowgirl​ @amandahh626​ @nabisonyeo94​ @wntrmn​ @dai-tsukki-desu​ @peteunderoos​ @ohyoumakemelive​ @aka-a-shii​ @shinhiromi​ @wompwomphq​ @lollypop-lam​ @isentsworld​ @blue-melody​ @u-wakatoshii​ @moondriplets​ @lovinnoya​​ @yuueisteria​ @humanitysbiggestsimp​ @cjphoenix135​ @inarizaki-captain​ @closetfurrytsukishima​ @chibichab​ @kageyama-i-want-tobiors @kuroosbixh​ @lavearchives​ @sweet-sour-devil-ish​ @daichis-kitty​
932 notes · View notes
chimchimchoo · 7 years
Text
The Chocolatier
Genre: Fluff/Angst
Word Count: 6,160
Pair: Jin x Reader
Tumblr media
You’ve always admired this small and quaint chocolate shop on the corner of a busy street in the city while growing up. It had a large window near the entrance for children and adults to admire the chocolatier making sweets and greeting the audience with a friendly smile. The warm aroma of cocoa beans and vanilla seeped out of the shop when you walked by it.
During winter was their busiest time of the year, as chocolate was a perfect gift to give to a loved one, or to warm up your soul with a cup of homemade hot chocolate. The line would go out the door, but people who left the small shop had the biggest smile on their face with a small, golden box adorned with a deep red ribbon in their hands.
This winter was particularly crowded as the line went around the block. You overheard a friend boast that there was a new, handsome chocolatier in the shop who was stealing every girl’s heart that walks in. As you expected, her heart was snatched as well.
“Did you want to go inside?” You snapped out of your thoughts as you turned toward the figure beside you with a curious smile across his face. “You’ve been staring at the shop for the past five minutes.”
Chuckling, you buried your pink nose into the thick, checkered scarf and shook your head. “No, I don’t. I was just lost in thought.”
“You say this every time we pass this place. Have you ever gone inside?”
“We should go...it’s cold outside.” You stood up from the bench, taking your boyfriend’s warm hand. The two of you merged your way into the city crowd, turning your head to take a final glimpse of it. There was only one time you had their chocolate, just one.
Tears dripped down onto your hands as a hiccup erupted from your throat. You sat on a bench in the crowded streets of the city; blurred bodies passed you left and right, showing no remorse of an abandoned young child
.
“What’s an angel like you crying about?”
You lifted your head up at the sudden voice, a young boy standing in front of you, his large, brown eyes looking right into yours, some chocolate smeared across his cheek.
“My mommy and daddy got in a car crash…I won’t ever see them again and I don’t have any friends.” You sniffled loudly, more tears rolling down your cheeks. “And now I’m all alone!”
“You’re not alone…I’ll be your friend! Please don’t cry.” He frowned. “My mom always said a person is most beautiful when they smile.”
“I don’t feel like smiling.” You whined, wiping the snot on the sweater of your sleeve.
“Here, have this then.” You saw his hand extend toward you, a small piece of chocolate in clear wrapping. “My daddy owns the chocolate shop next to you, he let me help him make sweets today. Will you be the first one to try my chocolate? Chocolate makes the tears go away.”
You eyed it with hesitation, but with a strong sweet tooth, you couldn’t help but pick it off of his palm and unwrap it, tossing the small cube into your mouth. It melted instantly, revealing the sweet, vanilla cream that was in the center. You could feel the tears slowly halt as you ate the chocolate in surprise. It was so rich and it tasted like home.
“My mom was right, people do become more beautiful.” The boy beside you stated with a gentle, warming smile. “You have a lovely smile.”
You never saw him after that day. You even went into the small chocolate shop every day and asked for the boy, or even the owner. One of the chocolatiers said they went abroad not long after, but they had no knowing of when they would come back. Years passed as you grew into an adult and you eventually gave up hope. You assumed he wouldn’t have remembered you anymore anyway.
The chocolate shop became very popular as time passed, but you never went into it or never had their chocolate. That one piece of chocolate became a precious, dear memory of yours; you knew no sweet in that shop would ever be the same. You only wanted that boy’s. But whether you would ever get to have it again or not, the outcome was uncertain.
----------
You sipped the hot coffee that warmed up your palms, wincing when it burnt your tongue. You never quite mastered the skill of drinking hot drinks and coffee wasn’t your thing, but a friend of yours had been begging to take you out to coffee for weeks now. After another hour or two of her pleads, you eventually gave in. You hadn’t been social much these days besides spending some evenings with your boyfriend but you decided it wouldn’t have hurt to see your friend for once.
“You’re so quiet these days...tell me something exciting!” You shrugged at your friend’s hopefulness, setting the mug back on the small dish.
“I’m the least exciting in the world Jiwoo, you know that.” You watched her sigh and roll her eyes. You took in her appearance as she sipped her coffee. It never failed to surprise you how you two were best friends yet complete opposites. She was extremely feminine and high class with her aesthetic wardrobe. Never had she had a day where her hair and makeup wasn’t on point. She obviously put hours into planning her look every morning.
You on the other hand, you preferred to dress in comfort. It wasn’t all dresses and galore for you, but rather a simple skirt or high waist shorts with a sweater. Makeup wasn’t a priority and you preferred your hair in a braid, out of your face. Nothing too over the top, nothing too fancy.
“Well what about you and Youngsoo? You’ve been going on pretty strong now, haven’t you? Almost a year!”
“I don’t really know, he won’t talk to me much these days. He avoids my phone calls and keeps changing his plans last minute.” You bit your lip and leaned forward. “Do you think I’m doing something wrong?”
Jiwoo shook her head, her curls bouncing back and forth. “Other than you being the most boring person alive, I think he just wants some space.”
You sighed and tilted your head down, your fingers playing with a loose strand sticking out of your sweater. “No, no, no.” You heard Jiwoo mutter. “No, we will not be having any of that sorrow hanging around us. Look, I have an idea; let’s go to that chocolate shop around the block. The new guy there is honestly so cute. You need to see him for yourself.”
You shook your head at her offer. “I don’t want any chocolate, but thank you though.” You jerked as Jiwoo suddenly slammed her hand onto the table, causing your mugs to rattle. She may have looked like the most elegant, put-together girl out there, but she had one fiery personality that terrified many.
“Look, just because you had some sort of little fantasy moment where you tried some boys chocolate and it was the best thing you’ve ever had but he disappeared after that and went god knows where doesn’t mean you need to avoid other sweets for the rest of your life. ‘Oh, but he was so kind and comforted me.’ ‘Oh but no chocolate will ever taste like his.’” Jiwoo waved her arms dramatically in the air as she mocked you. “Look, you had a cute little first love for like 5 minutes, but he may not ever come back and all chocolate in the world is the same. It’s just milk, sugar and cocoa. Get over it. Now, finish your coffee and put on your jacket.” Jiwoo abruptly stood from the table with fire in her eyes.
“You’re coming to the chocolate shop with me whether you like it or not.”
You didn’t know whether to laugh or be mad at her sudden rant. You understood that she was right, but you still had the smallest glimmer of hope tucked deep inside of you. You never forgot the young boy, but you knew he might have forgotten you.
You followed beside Jiwoo on the cold streets of the city, shuddering at the wind that blew through you. You almost wished that you asked for another hot drink to go, but it was far too late by then. You were already outside of the shop in minutes.
It was the middle of the week, the shop wasn’t particularly crowded during those times, just the weekends where the tourists came and locals had their days off. Before you entered the small shop, you were already able to smell the welcoming scent of chocolate seeping out of the door.
“Come on, come on.” Jiwoo grabbed your hand and pulled you in. The atmosphere of the shop was so warm and inviting. Fairy lights hung along the ceiling, emitting a soft, amber glow. The displays in front of you were lined with all sorts of chocolates in different shapes. They were decorated so elegantly and carefully, making them look too beautiful for anyone to eat.
To your left was a small arrangement of chairs and tables for the customers and a small love seat in the back, while to your right was a bar with the open bakery behind it for anyone to watch. Several chocolatiers were busy piping and decorating small truffles scattered across the long table while one was at the register, taking another customer’s order.
You felt quick tucks and Jiwoo lean over, whispering in your ear. “It’s him, it’s him. Look at how swooned those girls are. The one on the left is practically drooling.”
You took in his appearance, dark brown hair swept over his forehead with deep brown eyes to match. His full lips were pulled to a smile and you heard him tell a short joke, the girls in front of you giggling loudly. He was handsome, indeed, but there was something about him that already irked you. But one shouldn’t judge at first sight.
“Welcome ladies, what can I interest you two in today?” The man smiled as Jiwoo pulled you toward her.
“This one is being a bit of a downer today. Nothing treats a gloomy mood better than chocolate, no?” She giggled. “Also, I’ll take a few of your dark chocolate truffles. They’re my favorite!”
“Of course, dark chocolate for a fine young lady like you. One moment.” You rolled your eyes as he left the register toward the display, putting a few of the decorated truffles into a small, red box. Your gut instinct was right about him, a lady-killer. You couldn’t stand those kinds of men.
“As for you, just about any kind of chocolate can cure a little gloominess. But I did make a special today I haven’t released yet.” The man finished tying the gold ribbon onto the box before handing it to Jiwoo, giving you another smile and leaned over. “It may just be one of the best chocolates out there. Would you ladies care to try a sample?”
“No, I don’t want any chocolate. I told her plenty of times I have no interest in trying your sweets. Like she said, it’s just milk, sugar and cocoa.” You watch the man’s expression grow hurt and confused as Jiwoo gave you a slight shove. “Sorry, I’m not interested. I’ll be going home now. Thanks for the coffee.”
You turned around and exit out of the shop into the cold, windy city, your nose growing numb.
----------
“But we had this planned for while Youngsoo, what do you mean you can’t do it?” You sat in your chair, running your fingers along the wood grains of the desk.
“I’m sorry honey, something came up. I’ll make it up to you any way I can. I have to go back the meeting now, I’ll talk to you later.”
You set your cell phone on the desk with a defeated sigh, scribbling out the small date night mark written on your calendar. You two had planned to go up to Namsan tower and then take a drive out of the city to relax at a hot spring for the night. But now that Youngsoo had completely dropped it last minute, you had nothing to do.
Your phone lit up following with a ringtone of some obnoxious song Jiwoo secretly changed it to. Speak of the devil.
“Hello?”
“Good morning dear! Getting ready for the big adventure?” Jiwoo’s voice piped through the line as you slumped over, your head landing on the desk a little too hard.
“Not anymore.”
“Huh? Didn’t you have this planned for a month now?” Her voice rose. “What an absolute idiot, do I need to say a word or two to him?”
“No! No, it’s okay. I’ll get over it.”
“Why don’t you come over? We can be the most cliché friends and watch a chick flick while whining over how dumb boys can be. Does that sound good?”
You gave Jiwoo a smile although you knew she couldn’t see it. “I’d love that, I’ll be over soon.” Just as you were about to put the phone down, you heard Jiwoo’s voice yelling for you to wait. Curiously, you put the device back to your ear.
“Could you be a dear and get me a box of truffles from the chocolate shop? I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the ones we got a few days ago!”
You rolled your eyes and took in a deep breath. “Fine. Be there soon.” You hung up the phone and grabbed a thick jacket from the hook before exiting your bedroom.
----------
The bell chimed lightly as you stepped into the empty shop, your eyes searching for one of the chocolatiers. The kitchen was vacant and there were no customers. It was an unusual sight, but you shrugged it off. Approaching the display of chocolates, you hunched over, admiring the different swirls and designs adorned on each piece. Some had a sprinkle of glitter; others were decorated with edible pearls.
“Can I help you with anything?”
You jerked up suddenly, facing the handsome man before you. How long was he standing there?
“Ah, the girl who wouldn’t try my chocolates. Are you here to get some today?”
“Of course not!” You said too suddenly and cleared your throat. “No, I’m getting truffles for a friend. She’s obsessed with them.”
“The one that dragged you here, I assume?”
“That’d be the one.” You sighed.
“Give me just a moment.” He pulled out a small box and slipped on latex gloves before sliding the door of the display open. You watched him pick out the same truffles your friend ordered a while back and carefully wrap them before setting them into the golden box.
“How do you do it?” The man glanced up, taking a pause from tying the red ribbons.
“Do what?”
“Don’t you get hundreds of customers a day? How could you have remembered me? Or more specifically what my friend ordered days ago. It’s creepy.”
“Well…” He let out a light chuckle, resuming his careful work to make the perfect bow on the box. “You’re the first person to reject my chocolates. That’s something I can’t forget easily.”
“Ah-“ You crossed your arms, raising an eyebrow. “I see, you’re still holding a grudge over that?”
He finished the bow and slid the box in my direction. “Are you sure I can’t offer you any of my chocolates?”
Shaking your head, you set the cash on the counter and grabbed the box, quickly leaving the small shop. You heard him calling out to come visit again soon, but you ignored it and headed in the direction of your friend’s place.
---------
On a cold, Sunday morning, you waited on the street for the arrival of your boyfriend. After days of talking him into doing something, he finally asked you to join him for a cup of coffee. You checked the time on your phone. Ten minutes passed as you waited on the bench, your patience was growing thin.
Your phone suddenly made chiming noises, a picture of your boyfriend’s face appearing on the screen. Swiping the answer button, you put the phone against your ear.
“Youngsoo, where are you?”
“I’m sorry, I can’t make it today. I have a project proposal to do for work, it’s important that I get it done as soon as possible. We’ll get coffee later this week.”
“But Youngsoo-“ The line went dead and you let out a frustrated sigh. Day after day, he did this to you. You grew tired and annoyed. Was it so hard to take one hour of his life to get coffee? Just one hour? At this point, you couldn’t figure out when the last time you saw him was.
With no plans for the rest of the day, you shoved your phone into the pocket of your jacket and got up from the bench, heading in the direction of your apartment. But before you crossed the street, the sweet smell of chocolate wafted in the air and you peered toward the small chocolate shop.
In moments, you found yourself entering the empty shop, staring into curious expression of the tall, handsome man that stood behind the counter.
“You’re back again.” He said. “Does your friend need more chocolate?”
You opened your mouth, trying to find a perfectly good excuse of why the hell you walked into the chocolate shop. “Honestly…I don’t really know why I’m-uh, I was supposed to get drinks with my boyfriend. Um, but now I’m here, I’m not sure-“
“My break starts in a minute. I don’t know about something sweet, but could I assist you with a cup of tea? It’s been a little quiet all day, I could use some company.” He gave you a pleading smile
You hesitated for a moment, but then replied with a nod. With Youngsoo ditching your plans for the day, you had nothing better to do. Watching the man disappear into the back, you pulled out a chair from one of the small tables and took a seat. You glanced around the small shop, fidgeting with your fingers. It was strange to you that, again, there were no customers. But you enjoyed how peaceful it was, the chocolate shop was far too hectic when it was full of customers. You were able to take in all the small details of the shop you never noticed before. Little paisley patterns carved into the wood grains on the counter, small gold flecks scattered along the walls, and the fairy lights hanging along the ceiling had little wings attached to them.
“Here you are.” The man returned with two cups of tea, setting one carefully in your hands. It smelled like jasmine with a faint hint of honey. You watched as he sat beside you, examining his features as he dropped some sugar cubes into his tea, mixing it carefully. This was the closest you’ve been to this man and you couldn’t help but take in his beauty.
His eyes were as dark as the city’s night sky but with more stars in them than you probably have seen in your life. His lips were pink and plump and his dark hair was perfectly trimmed and styled to accent his tanned face. He really was quite beautiful.
“So, care to share about this drama you’re experiencing with your boyfriend?”
“Well,” You bit your lip and set the cup on the table, your finger still wrapped around the warm, ceramic mug. “I mean today, I was supposed to meet him for coffee, but he was late and called to cancel it.”
You sipped some tea before continuing. “But this isn’t just a one time thing, he does this every time we plan something now. We were supposed to go on a weekend trip a while back and I’ve been planning it for months, but he cancelled it last minute because work came up.” You explained. “And it takes me days to convince him to even do something! He won’t return my calls or texts often anymore. I’m not even that clingy of a person! I don’t know if his work is just really throwing projects at him or if it’s me. I’m not sure, but I’m loosing my patience for this. I-Am I blabbing too much?”
“Not at all.” He chuckled. “But it sounds like he doesn’t seem to be trying hard to impress you these days. How long have you been with him?”
“Almost a year now, I don’t know...these days, it doesn’t really feel like we have anything.” You huffed quietly.
“Well, I don’t think you deserve to be treated like this, after a year together too...” He said but you weren’t listening. You stared into space, reliving the memories with your boyfriend over the past year, trying to nitpick what went wrong.      
“Hello?” He waved a hand across your face. “Hey, listen, how do you make a Kleenex dance?”
Your eyebrows rose as your attention adverted toward him, taking a sip of your tea. “What?”
“You put a little boogie in it.”
You stared at him for a moment before snorting, nearly spitting out the hot drink. You choked and broke into the loudest laugh. Tears of laughter blurred your vision as you wiped them away. “That was…the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”
You watched as he gave you the biggest grin, a squeaky laugh emitting from him. You couldn’t help but get the faintest fluttery feeling in your stomach when you saw his smile, warm and genuine, it wasn’t like the smile he usually gave his customers. No, this was a certain smile you felt like only you were allowed to see.
“Oh-“ You set down your tea. “I feel so rude, I never got your name?”
“Jin,” He replied, still giggling over how great his joke was. “It’s Seokjin. And what is yours?”
You introduced yourself to him and eventually sat quietly at the small table, sipping on the tea and exchanging nothing but small smiles. The silence was comfortable. You didn’t feel like this with Youngsoo before. Whenever it became quiet between the two of you, you always felt like you had to quickly save the situation from becoming awkward. But with Seokjin, it felt natural. There was no need to say anything, it was just a matter of enjoying each other’s presence. “You know, if you’re not too busy, you’re welcome to come visit again. Having company is so nice, this place has been so dead these days.”
“I don’t know how this place could possibly slow down, everyone loves the chocolates here.”
“It’s just the calm before the storm. It's pretty empty after the weekend ends, but then when the holidays come around, you don’t have any time to breathe.” He shared, waving his hands dramatically. “No time to sleep, no time to do anything! By the end of the day, my sanity is out the window!”
You laughed, rolling your eyes but began to think of the little boy that comforted you. The warm taste of the chocolate that melted in your mouth, the sweet smile the boy gave you. “So, tell me about yourself.” Seokjin asked, pulling you out of your thoughts once again.
“Well...there’s really not much to share.”
“That’s not true! You’re an entire person who lived a whole life I don’t know about, I’m sure there’s a thing or two fascinating about yourself.” You let out a sigh and chuckled as he gave you a smug shrug. After taking a few seconds to think over it, you began sharing the little things about your life as he leaned over, resting his head in his hands, listening with utmost interest. The minutes ticked by and turned into hours, you and Seokjin drowned yourselves into the deepest, intimate conversations. Just the two of you in a small, secluded chocolate shop, it felt like all the secrets could be shared in this space and no one will ever know about any of it.
At that moment, you began to question why you believed he was such a playboy in the beginning, or why this man even irked you so much. Just getting to know him the past few hours, you learned that he was such a kind, gentle man who told really bad jokes. Someone that you can share all of your deepest thoughts with.
When it fell silent between the two of you again, you glanced out the window, your eyes widening. You looked at the time on your phone, not realizing how late it had gotten. Thanking Seokin for the tea and declining his offer to walk you home because you were only a few blocks away, the two of you exchanged your goodbyes and parted ways. Walking home along the street, you smiled to yourself as you replayed the conversations from earlier. Despite how cold and bitter it was outside, you felt so warm and happy.
As the weeks passed and eventually turned into months, you grew more and more frustrated with your boyfriend constantly turning down your plans. But instead of moping about, you always found yourself sitting at the small table in the chocolate shop, sipping on a hot cup of tea, laughing over Seokjin’s terrible dad jokes. It eventually became a daily routine to stop by and join him for tea, talking for hours until long after the sun set behind the sparkling buildings of the city. As Christmas and New Years were nearing, the small shop was bustling with customers again. Some days, it was more difficult to find the time to converse with Seokjin, but you didn’t mind.
On those days, you bought a book with you and sat on the loveseat, reading for hours while listening to his soft voice in the background, chatting with the customers. When his short break came around, Seokjin would join you on the couch. Sometimes you two would exchange words, other times, it was just a peaceful silence as you both did your own thing. You eventually found comfort not just in Seokjin, but the small, sweet shop as well with its homey decorations and warm atmosphere.
Every laugh that emitted from Seokjin, or the gentle smile that he gave you across the shop when you both made eye contact left a feeling that stirred in your stomach. You didn’t understand why you felt this way at first. With your boyfriend, you never experienced those tickles, or the giddy feeling that washed over you moments before you saw him, or laughed so hard together that tears formed in your eyes.
No, you were just together, existing, doing the generic things boyfriends and girlfriends would do, and you began to realize that you didn’t like it, and it confused you.
You wanted to spend more time with Seokjin than your boyfriend, you woke up every morning, excited to spend another day there, talking and loosing track of time until the sun set, leaving you two no choice but to part ways until the next day.
You weren’t sure if that made you a terrible person or not. Your heart was yearning for another person while you were with Youngsoo, but growing weary of all the failed attempts you made to see him again, you weren’t feeling things anymore. You were ready to move on. In the back of your mind though, somewhere in that space, your heart still beat for the young boy you hoped to meet again.
But despite all that time you’ve spent visiting Seokjin in the small, sweet shop, you never once had a piece of chocolate.
----------
One chilly evening, you walked along the streets of the crowded city, your eyes focused on the small device in your hands, sending texts to Jiwoo, making plans to go out and get some dessert. The chocolate shop was closing early today, you wanted Seokjin to get some rest for once and besides, you hadn’t seen Jiwoo in weeks. It was about time you relayed all your feelings and asked for her opinion on it, being a love guru and all.
You finished the messages and slipped the phone in your pocket as you turned a corner and froze in your tracks. Just a few feet away from you stood Youngsoo, locked in an embrace with an unfamiliar girl just a few inches shorter.
“Youngsoo?” You called out quietly as he turned his head, eyeballing you in surprise as he let go of the girl.
“Honey, who is this? Do you know her?” The young girl beside him asked, taking her hands into his, giving you a dirty look. Her dark hair was long and straight, her v-shaped face was perfectly proportional with a little button nose. She looked like a baby doll.
“Honey? Youngsoo, what’s going on?” Your heart raced at the sight in front of you, slowly connecting the pieces together.
“I can explain-“ He began.
“How long has this been going on?” You interrupted as you stared him down.
“Give me a minute,” Youngsoo sighed and left the girl, pulling you aside. ���Listen to me, okay? It’s not that I just recently started seeing her, it’s us.” He stared you down, emotionless. “Do you remember how I said a year ago my company was doing a huge experiment?”
You nodded, unsure of where he was going with this. “Well, I’ve been meaning to get around to this for a while. But this was the experiment.”
“What do you mean?”
“The experiment was an undercover project…of what relationships were like when the feelings were mutual. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to put you in the situation, but it just ended up working out for me.” He apologized, but there was no guilt in his eyes, no regret, nothing. “I was going to say something eventually, but I never found the time.”
“Time? Time? You avoided me for weeks!” Your voice rose. “We had an entire year together and you couldn’t say one thing? Instead, you just led me on to believe that we actually had something?”
He opened his mouth as you took a step back. “No, I heard enough. Congratulations, glad I could be a little project of yours.” You said bitterly and backed away. You spun around and fled from the two, wishing everything you heard was just a dream.
You ran along the streets as the sun set behind the buildings, the sky being covered with little bright dots. Before you knew it, there was small ding as you opened a door, standing in the warm building.
“I’m sorry, we’re closed now.” The tall man in front of you murmured as he turned around, his mouth opening in surprise. “Oh, I thought you were visiting you friend today?” His smile faded as he saw your expression. “Did something happen?”
You bit your lip as you stood in the empty shop, staring into his eyes washed with concern. You didn’t know why you came here, you didn’t understand why your feet led you to this place, all you knew is that your chest hurt and your eyes brimmed with tears, letting out choked sobs.
Seokjin ran over, wrapping his arms tightly around your shoulders, pulling you into his chest. He gently stroked your hair, as your sobs grew louder. “I’m an idiot.” You whined. “I’m such an idiot!”
“No, no you’re not.” He whispered gently, pulling your chin up to look into his dark, solemn eyes. “Don’t ever say that about yourself.”
“But it’s true!” You choked. “A year…a whole damn year wasted! I was just an experiment, just a project for his work. Nothing was real!” You buried your face into your hands. You weren’t heartbroken over the fact that Youngsoo never loved you; you weren’t heartbroken that you caught him with his real girlfriend because you lost that liking for him a long time ago. All you wished was that things had been a little different.
“I wish it was you I would have met instead of him, I wish I would have realized this mistake a long time ago and broke it off with him…and asked to be with you instead.” You sniffled, your honest feelings pouring out like a waterfall.
“You just make me so much happier than he does, and your jokes are so dumb that I can’t help but to just roll my eyes at them. And just being in this shop with you, whether you’re busy or not, gives me so much comfort and I-”
But you finally felt free to express your feelings, to let those emotions out, instead of restricting it in you. You were just never able to say anything about it because all this time you felt something; you were trying to understand what was happening between you and Youngsoo.
“I’m sorry I’m saying these things so suddenly…I understand if you don’t feel the same, I just had to tell you this.” You wiped your damp cheeks, your eyes on the ground, your heart pounding.
The little boy you met years ago may have been a happy, sweet memory you held onto, waiting for his return. But you accepted that it was just a memory to embrace and the person right in front of you was real, a comforting presence, someone you grew to like so much more than you thought.
Your chest squeezed in pain as you saw the figure quietly turned around and walk away, realizing that the feelings you just poured out had been rejected. But you understood, to grow so fond of someone in such a short period of time, while having a ‘boyfriend’ and then dumping out all your feelings to him, it did sound too sudden.
As you were about to turn around and leave, you heard him return as he grabbed your hand. You lifted your head, glancing in his eyes with your blurred vision. He carefully pulled you over to the small couch against the wall and sat closely, brushing the tears away from your cheeks with his thumb. “An angel like you shouldn’t be crying.”
“What’s an angel like you crying about?”
He lifted up your hand, placing a small piece of chocolate in a clear wrapping into your palm. “Please eat this, I know you’ve been rejecting them, but this is a special one I made. Besides, chocolate helps with the tears.”
“Chocolate makes the tears go away.”
You bit your lip, staring at the small truffle in your hand. A sense of déjà vu washed over you as you slowly unwrapped the candy and popped it into your mouth.
There it was.
You tasted that same sweet vanilla cream as the chocolate melted in your mouth, that euphoric feeling of sitting on the bench years ago returning. It was a painfully bittersweet day. You found out about the death of your parents, but a small angel came down and left an impression on you that stayed day after day, growing into your first love.
You turned toward him suddenly, observing his features. How could you have not seen it all this time? He was the same exact kid, only his chubby cheeks were now more defined, his tan skin glowing, his hair trimmed and more styled and obviously a couple of feet was added to his height.
Your chest pounded. He wasn’t just a memory anymore. You actually found him this whole time. “You remembered me?” You asked curiously as your tears dried in streaks down your cheeks, your eyes, puffy. Suddenly, you felt a bit ashamed about your appearance.
“I never once forgot.” He gave you smile.
“Why didn’t you say anything before?” You stammered, eyebrows rose in surprise. “Where have you been all this time? What made you come back?” Questioned spilled out as you watched him chuckle, taking one of your hands in his.
“I was afraid you wouldn’t remember.” He replied. “I had to study abroad with my father, but I came back after I finished, hoping I could find you again, even if it took me years. It seems that fate had the same idea though.”
You returned a smile, a warm, bubbling feeling growing in your stomach. All the emotions you experienced in just a few hours, you couldn’t help but laugh at the absurdity of today’s situation. “You really do become more beautiful,” Seokjin suddenly said. “When you smile.”
You stared into his chocolate brown eyes, your fingers tangled with his, embracing that comforting silence between the two of you. “I’m happy I found you again.” He said quietly.
Although Seokjin’s chocolate was sweet, there was still nothing sweeter than the gentlest kiss he left on your lips that night.
81 notes · View notes
glendowen · 7 years
Text
A Different Kind of Magic
Summary: At Kevin’s insistence, Allison and Thea visit the tea shop his boyfriend works at, and find themselves enchanted by the two witches that run it. The girls are oblivious, Matt is frustrated, and Kevin doesn’t understand why everything has to be such a big deal.
Author’s Note: Here’s my fic for @polyhymina for the @tfcfemslashnet exchange! She asked for a fantasy au, and so I ended up with a modern witch au! It’s not a fantasy filled as I had hoped it would be, but I hope you still like it! 
Word count: 2362
Pairings: Allison/Renee, Dan/Thea, Matt/Kevin (a new ship for me. I hope you don’t mind me including it!)
Warnings: None! 
Ao3
As Allison opened the door to the quaint little shop in front of her she could hear a gorgeous chiming sound from somewhere in the shop, but there was no bell above the door.
“You know, when Kevin said that the shop was owned by witches I didn’t think he was being serious.”
Allison shot Thea a look of shock before saying, “Is Kevin ever not serious about something? He laughed the other day when he was talking to Matt on the phone and I thought something was wrong.”
“I heard the name Matt, can I help you, ladies?”
Allison and Thea had never actually met Matt before, Kevin tended to keep anyone that he even remotely enjoyed the company of away from them, but he definitely looked like the kind of guy that could pull a laugh out of “actual grumpy old man” Kevin Day. He was tall, a little bit taller than Kevin, and extremely built. He and Kevin met in college when they were both on the soccer team, and despite their contrasting personalities, it didn’t take very long for them to get together after Kevin and Thea broke up.
“Hi, I’m Thea, and this is Allison,” Thea said with a smile, sticking her hand out to shake Matt’s, “Kevin has been telling us for weeks that we’d love it here, and so we figured we would check it out.”
“It’s nice to finally meet you two, I have a better idea of the faces behind the names besides ‘the blonde one’ and ‘the brunette one.’ Can I get you some tea?”
“That would be wonderful, thank you.”
Matt scurried off somewhere to make their tea, and Allison and Thea sat down and pulled out the work they were planning on doing while in the shop. They had just finished setting everything up on the table when Matt came back with their drinks.
“Here you go. Renee and Dan should be down at some point, they’re probably upstairs messing around with plants for a new tea or something. If you need anything else, just call my name. Enjoy.”
His smile was bright and easy in a way that only came when you worked for it; Allison knew that Matt had a rocky past with drugs and partying from Kevin, but it was harder to connect that past with the carefree person she had just met.
Allison worked on designs for her newest collection, and Thea gave her input on the pieces and helped in whatever ways she could. Allison and Thea had met in college as well, playing for the girl's soccer team; while Thea had gone on to become a professional player and joined the US Olympic team, Allison had packed up her cleats and shinguards and joined the bustling world of fashion.
Allison could find aspects of the room they were in scattered within her pieces when she took a step back and truly observed them; there was a vine branching down across a dress like the ones in front of the window and the shade of pink of the shirt she had just drawn matched the flowers on the counter perfectly. The tea shop was exactly what she needed to bring her next collection together; she loved it here.
Dammit—this meant that she was going to have to admit to Kevin that he was right about something.
They had just finished up their second cups of tea when there were footsteps on the stairs that were far too light to belong to Matt. They were quickly followed by another set, and then suddenly the most attractive girls in the world had appeared.
The first girl was a few inches smaller than Allison kept her dark hair cut short. Her brown eyes sparkled with the promise of adventures and her smile reminded Allison of a lion stalking its prey. She appeared sportier than the girls that Allison usually went for, and, looking at Thea’s face, it seemed as though wouldn’t matter if Allison thought she was perfect because there was no way she was getting her.
The second girl had to be an actual angel. She had bleached white hair that ended at her shoulders, fading into pastel pinks and greens and blues that surrounded her face with a rainbow. She was tall and lean, a button-up shirt tucked into a black skirt with a cross necklace resting on her chest. She was warm and soft and Allison wanted to stare at nothing but her for the rest of time.
“Hello, I’m Dan, and this is Renee. We own this tea shop and we just wanted to come down and say hi, spend some time with our new customers. Do you mind if we sit with you while you work?”
Thea was apparently able to process the world around her despite the two goddesses/witches/angels in front of them and shot them a bright smile.
“We would love that! You seem like people that we would get along quite well with.”
The two girls joined them at their table, and soon Allison’s plans were entirely forgotten as they discussed their lives and their dreams and their favorite songs. After an hour or so the girls had divided themselves, and while Dan and Thea discussed soccer and the world of sports (Dan had also and played in college, and coached the local high school team alongside running the tea shop), Allison realized that she could find nothing wrong about Renee.
Renee had turned towards Allison’s designs and was looking over a few pieces when she said, “I really like what you did with this vine here, how it travels around the dress in cute, little-crooked corkscrews instead of spiraling around perfectly. And this pink and blue combination is incredible. Am I going to be able to wear them anytime soon?”
Renee had a soft voice that reminded Allison of a summer meadow filled with wildflowers, the colors gently flowing in the breeze, and she really wanted to hear more of it. There was a faint blush on her cheeks as if she were unsure about whether or not Allison appreciated her comments, and it made her freckles pop out.
“Thanks, I’m planning on featuring them next season, and I’ll make sure to send you one of each piece for free, on one condition.”
Renee had scooted further forward in her seat, and she was leaning so close to Allison that their knees were touching; Allison was no stranger to touch or to intimacy, but no amount of practice would have prepared her for the butterflies that came with the strange witch in front of her.
“And what would that be?”
The were whispering now as if there were more than two other people in the room and they had to keep this exchange secret.
“You have to let me see you in them, of course. What good is designing clothes if you never get to see people outside of models wearing them?”
Renee opened her mouth to respond to Allison when the bell went off again, and she and Dan snapped up.
“It’s been lovely talking to you both, and I hope you don’t mind our abrupt departure, but it’s time to close up shop, and if we stay open too late the plants aren’t happy. I hope we’ll see you again?”
Allison and Thea shared a look before Allison responded, “It’s no problem, really, we should be going anyway. It’s been great getting to know you, and your shop is absolutely adorable, so expect to see us here quite often.”
They swapped numbers just in case they couldn’t make it back to the shop soon enough and sped back home to tell Kevin everything. He wouldn’t care, and wouldn’t understand why they had to make such a big fuss about it, but they needed someone to talk to, and their pool of close friends happened to be ridiculously small.
Allison had texted Kevin to come over before they had left the tea shop, and so she pushed open the door to reveal Kevin swiping through his phone on their couch, his key to their place sitting next to him.
“So, how was the place?”
“Look, I’m not going to say this to you ever again, but you were right; I absolutely loved it there. The atmosphere, the decor, the witches, everything was perfect.”
He looked pleased with himself at Allison’s confession, and she almost regretted telling him, but Thea dove into the story of their day before either of them could process the interaction.
“And I think I may actually be in love,” Thea concluded, “They’re both incredible human beings, and Dan is the most attractive person I’ve ever met, no offense to the two of you. She’s just perfect, all fire and spirit without being cold or overbearing.”
Kevin raised his eyebrows at Allison as if he was expecting an explanation or a sign of solidarity, but she had no such thing for him. Instead, she decided that if Thea could gush about Dan, she could gush about Renee.
“Renee is so soft and warm, but it's not too childish or unrealistic. She’s kind and strong, and it’s quite possible that she is actually a goddess or an angel as well as a witch.”
“So ask them out.”
Kevin said it like it was the simplest thing in the world; like there was no other option for the two of them besides that.
“We can’t do that! What if they don’t like us back? I mean, they are actual goddesses who run the most aesthetically pleasing tea shop and can make flowers bloom at will, why would they want us?”
Kevin let out a sigh like he couldn’t believe that he was still friends with these two before shoving his keys back in his pocket and standing up.
“Look, there’s no harm in asking, and from what I’ve been hearing from Matt they are in love with the two of you as well. Now, I’d love to hear you gush about your soulmates, but I’m having dinner with Neil to discuss a new setup for practice and I need to leave now to be on time. See you.”
The door shut behind him with a final click, and the two girls fell onto their couch with a squee of delight, talking about their crushes like they were middle schoolers again.
Allison and Thea visited the tea shop and their newly found true loves every day for the rest of the week, and every day Kevin would ask them if they had actually asked them out yet, only to be frustrated and confused by their adamant ‘no’s.’
Kevin had off of practices on Saturday afternoons when he didn’t have a game, and so he decided to join the girls on their daily outing so he could pick up some new herbs and not so secretly make out with Matt in the back room like they were teenagers again.
The girls sit down in their usual seats, Allison laying out her designs while Thea pulled out a book, and Kevin headed towards where Matt usually hid out baking when there weren’t any proper customers.
Dan and Renee came down a few minutes after they had entered with new teas for them to try, and their conversations started up as they did like any other day.
Everything was going just like the six before it until Matt and Kevin walked through. They stopped their conversation when they noticed the four girls in front of them, and shared a look of mischief that Allison is unused to seeing on Kevin’s face.
“You know, Kevin, I think it’s ridiculous that they aren’t together already. They obviously like each other, and they’re already around each other all the time. It just makes sense,” Matt said as he passed by.
Dan and Renee pushed them out the door with some vines and slammed it behind them for good measure, before turning back to their previous conversations.
They heard the door creak open, and quickly, Kevin’s head appeared in the doorway.
“I’m leaving, but you all should just get together. Really.”
He shut the door behind him, and the girls were all left staring at the table, trying to find the nerve to ask the other girl out without embarrassing themselves.
Dan and Renee smiled at each other before forming a bouquet of flowers (shades of pink for Allison and white with accents of dark blue for Thea) and turning to face their respective crushes.
Allison couldn’t quite hear what Dan was saying to Thea, but as she went to tuck one of the flowers behind her ear, Thea had pulled Dan in for a kiss.
She was a bit more preoccupied with the blushing goddess in front of her who was attempting to hide behind the gorgeous bouquet in front of her.
Renee pushed them out in front of her with a timid smile before speaking.
“I was wondering if you’d like to go out with me. Like, on a date that isn’t in this tea shop for once. We can go out and watch classic movies since I know that they’re your favorites, and you can dress me up and I’ll model some of the clothes that you’ve designed, and we can spend time together without the pretense of working.”
Allison beamed at the soft, warm, strong girl in front of her and pulled her in for a kiss.
“I’d love to spend an evening with you, Renee, and many more after that.”
Renee’s smile could have fueled cities it was so bright, and with that, she pulled her in for another kiss, as Thea did the same to Dan.
The flowers around them all blossomed, growing as big, and as bright, and as beautiful as possible; the room was a plethora of colors and smells that all ran parallel to the emotions running around inside the four girls in the tea shop.
They all send Matt and Kevin thank you cards. The boys try their hardest to avoid I told you so’s. (They don’t do a very good job.)
13 notes · View notes
unixcommerce · 5 years
Text
Toast Offers A Game-Changing Management Experience For Restaurants
Sponsored Post
Toast combines point of sale, digital ordering, reporting, and employee management to offer a single platform to power your restaurant. Interested in seeing all that Toast has to offer? Schedule a demo here.
How Toast Can Help Your Restaurant
Many POS systems weren’t designed with restaurants in mind. Legacy POS systems can be bulky, slow, and confusing to operate. Toast is different.
Toast was created specifically for restaurants, so everything from the Android software to the intuitive user experience were carefully selected to give restaurants the best experience possible — and, in turn, delight restaurant guests.
Here are all the unique features that make Toast your restaurant’s best friend.
Software
Toast’s Android-based software is designed from the ground up for the restaurant industry, and no one else. It’s user friendly, which makes training new staff a breeze. Toast uses cloud based reporting that gives managers, owners, and operators access to reporting from anywhere.
Point of Sale
A point of sale platform powerful enough to run your entire restaurant. The Android-based software makes for a highly customizable experience capable of fitting any restaurant, and secure payment processing is a breeze, especially with offline mode capabilities.
Online Ordering & Delivery
Toast offers a modern online ordering system to capture guest orders on any device. Many third-party online ordering and delivery systems charge obscene commission amounts and updating your menu requires accessing the third-party website as well as your own. With Toast, you can update any menu, including your online ordering menu, instantly all on the same platform.
Menu Management
Easily update your menu based on stock instantly, all from one central system. Manage availability of items with countdowns, and automatically update your online menu when changes are made.
Loyalty
Bring your guests back in the door with a simple, integrated rewards program. Loyalty programs increase a customer’s lifetime value by 30% or more through increased visit frequency and spend per visit, so ensuring your loyalty program runs without a hitch is essential. Using an intuitive opt-in process, guests are able to provide you with their emails during payment to sign up for your loyalty program. From there, you are able to customize your program as much or as little as you want — include birthday coupons, anniversary discounts, or other promotional offers. Customers are able to track their loyalty progress online, eliminating the need for physical punch cards.
Gift Cards
Delight your guests with modern gift cards that fit their busy lives. Digital gift cards make it even easier for your guests to dine at your restaurant, and they can track their amount online as well.
Payroll & Team Management
Enable your HR staff to focus on people, not paperwork. Toast offers a robust team of payroll and HR professionals to do the dirty work for you. Have an employee dispute? Need to make a payroll adjustment on the fly? Toast can help. With tiered offerings, you can select the right options for your restaurant.
Inventory Tracking
Get the data you need to control costs and drive menu profitability. Decrease waste in your restaurant and increase your bottom line by understanding the value of the goods on your shelves. Compare actual and theoretical performance to analyze your food cost percentage,
Reporting and Analytics
Dig into performance metrics to access business insights you crave. See year over year sales data to accurately schedule staff, decide your hours, and monitor revenue expectations — all of which is accessible from anywhere you are.
Partner Integrations
Toast’s robust list of integration partners makes it even easier to manage your restaurant. From employee scheduling tools to talent management solutions, Toast has you covered.
Hardware
Toast’s commercial-grade hardware ensures you’re always running at restaurant speed, but is thoughtfully-designed to match your restaurant’s aesthetics. Point of sale terminals are available in three different size models, while Toast also has handheld devices, called ToastGo handhelds, as well as kitchen display systems to streamline ordering and back of house operations.
Here’s a deeper dive into each of the hardware options.
Terminals
A modern POS terminal that can handle the hustle and bustle of the restaurant. Durable enough to outlast spills and heat, yet sleek enough to match any restaurant aesthetic, Toast terminals are the whole package. Available in white or black in 10”, 15”, and 22” models.
ToastGo®
A fully integrated handheld POS that allows for server and guest ease. With an integrated EMV credit card reader and 40% longer battery life than iPad systems, your handheld will last through your restaurant’s rush. ToastGo fits in an apron pocket, weighs less than a pound, and is designed to be spill-proof and drop-resistant.
Kiosk
An intuitive self-service ordering platform for guests in your restaurant. Bust your lines and allow guests to order faster, as well as improve the productivity of your staff. Toast’s kiosk includes the ability to text guests when their order is ready, and a scanner integration for grab ‘n’ go items.
ToastTap
A 3-in-1 NFC, EMV, & MSR enabled credit card reader, designed to make payment even easier. A customer can simply tap their credit card on the ToastTap, and voila! Payment processed. ToastTap also includes mobile pay, which allows guests to pay using only their phone.
Guest Facing Display
A display screen that puts your guests first. Simplify the checkout experience in your restaurant with an integrated credit card reader and a mountable guest facing display that allows for seamless transactions.
Kitchen Display System
Seamlessly connect your front of house and kitchen staff so they can deliver unforgettable meals. Eliminate the need for paper tickets that just cause chaos, streamline your back of house efficiency, and simplify the preparation and cooking process. Kitchen display systems can integrate with any and all Toast hardware.
Additional Accessories
From ticket printers to wall mounts, Toast has thought of everything. Customize your hardware package with additional accessories to make your restaurant run as smoothly as possible.
Other Offerings
Services
Running a restaurant is hard. That’s why we’re dedicated to supporting you every step of the way with a team committed to your success. From installation to troubleshooting, Toast is always there to assist you. Installs can be done remote or in-person, there’s someone available every hour of the day to help you with any questions you may have, and Toast has an online database with unlimited training available at the click of a button. Additionally, Toast has 0% interest, 36-month financing available.
Capital
Access to fast, flexible funding for any restaurant need. Toast Capital offers eligible Toast customers access to loans from $5,000 to $250,000, so you can take what you need to accomplish your goals. With restaurants receiving funding in as little as one business day, Toast Capital offers a painless way to achieve your objectives.
Toast is more than just a POS system — it’s a restaurant game-changer. If you’re interested in making your establishment as efficient as possible, or would like to learn more about any of Toast’s offerings, click here.
Image: pos.toasttab.com
This article, “Toast Offers A Game-Changing Management Experience For Restaurants” was first published on Small Business Trends
https://smallbiztrends.com/
The post Toast Offers A Game-Changing Management Experience For Restaurants appeared first on Unix Commerce.
from WordPress https://ift.tt/2xAw5sM via IFTTT
0 notes
ormlacom · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Something every woman should know - WHY MEN LIE!
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
Reverse Phone - People Search - Email Search - Public Records - Criminal Records. Best Data, Conversions, And Customer Suppor
0 notes
ericsburden-blog · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
0 notes
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
from The Moz Blog http://tracking.feedpress.it/link/9375/11283717
0 notes
toothextract · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” – Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews – so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!
from https://dentistry01.wordpress.com/2019/04/23/restaurant-local-seo-the-google-characteristics-of-americas-top-ranked-eateries/
0 notes
theinjectlikes2 · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
from The Moz Blog http://bit.ly/2XBUtlk via IFTTT
0 notes
seocompanysurrey · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
from The Moz Blog http://tracking.feedpress.it/link/9375/11283717
0 notes
howardkuester22 · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
lawrenceseitz22 · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
http://bit.ly/2nwMjtK Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
0 notes
unixcommerce · 5 years
Text
Toast Offers A Game-Changing Management Experience For Restaurants
Sponsored Post
Toast combines point of sale, digital ordering, reporting, and employee management to offer a single platform to power your restaurant. Interested in seeing all that Toast has to offer? Schedule a demo here.
How Toast Can Help Your Restaurant
Many POS systems weren’t designed with restaurants in mind. Legacy POS systems can be bulky, slow, and confusing to operate. Toast is different.
Toast was created specifically for restaurants, so everything from the Android software to the intuitive user experience were carefully selected to give restaurants the best experience possible — and, in turn, delight restaurant guests.
Here are all the unique features that make Toast your restaurant’s best friend.
Software
Toast’s Android-based software is designed from the ground up for the restaurant industry, and no one else. It’s user friendly, which makes training new staff a breeze. Toast uses cloud based reporting that gives managers, owners, and operators access to reporting from anywhere.
Point of Sale
A point of sale platform powerful enough to run your entire restaurant. The Android-based software makes for a highly customizable experience capable of fitting any restaurant, and secure payment processing is a breeze, especially with offline mode capabilities.
Online Ordering & Delivery
Toast offers a modern online ordering system to capture guest orders on any device. Many third-party online ordering and delivery systems charge obscene commission amounts and updating your menu requires accessing the third-party website as well as your own. With Toast, you can update any menu, including your online ordering menu, instantly all on the same platform.
Menu Management
Easily update your menu based on stock instantly, all from one central system. Manage availability of items with countdowns, and automatically update your online menu when changes are made.
Loyalty
Bring your guests back in the door with a simple, integrated rewards program. Loyalty programs increase a customer’s lifetime value by 30% or more through increased visit frequency and spend per visit, so ensuring your loyalty program runs without a hitch is essential. Using an intuitive opt-in process, guests are able to provide you with their emails during payment to sign up for your loyalty program. From there, you are able to customize your program as much or as little as you want — include birthday coupons, anniversary discounts, or other promotional offers. Customers are able to track their loyalty progress online, eliminating the need for physical punch cards.
Gift Cards
Delight your guests with modern gift cards that fit their busy lives. Digital gift cards make it even easier for your guests to dine at your restaurant, and they can track their amount online as well.
Payroll & Team Management
Enable your HR staff to focus on people, not paperwork. Toast offers a robust team of payroll and HR professionals to do the dirty work for you. Have an employee dispute? Need to make a payroll adjustment on the fly? Toast can help. With tiered offerings, you can select the right options for your restaurant.
Inventory Tracking
Get the data you need to control costs and drive menu profitability. Decrease waste in your restaurant and increase your bottom line by understanding the value of the goods on your shelves. Compare actual and theoretical performance to analyze your food cost percentage,
Reporting and Analytics
Dig into performance metrics to access business insights you crave. See year over year sales data to accurately schedule staff, decide your hours, and monitor revenue expectations — all of which is accessible from anywhere you are.
Partner Integrations
Toast’s robust list of integration partners makes it even easier to manage your restaurant. From employee scheduling tools to talent management solutions, Toast has you covered.
Hardware
Toast’s commercial-grade hardware ensures you’re always running at restaurant speed, but is thoughtfully-designed to match your restaurant’s aesthetics. Point of sale terminals are available in three different size models, while Toast also has handheld devices, called ToastGo handhelds, as well as kitchen display systems to streamline ordering and back of house operations.
Here’s a deeper dive into each of the hardware options.
Terminals
A modern POS terminal that can handle the hustle and bustle of the restaurant. Durable enough to outlast spills and heat, yet sleek enough to match any restaurant aesthetic, Toast terminals are the whole package. Available in white or black in 10”, 15”, and 22” models.
ToastGo®
A fully integrated handheld POS that allows for server and guest ease. With an integrated EMV credit card reader and 40% longer battery life than iPad systems, your handheld will last through your restaurant’s rush. ToastGo fits in an apron pocket, weighs less than a pound, and is designed to be spill-proof and drop-resistant.
Kiosk
An intuitive self-service ordering platform for guests in your restaurant. Bust your lines and allow guests to order faster, as well as improve the productivity of your staff. Toast’s kiosk includes the ability to text guests when their order is ready, and a scanner integration for grab ‘n’ go items.
ToastTap
A 3-in-1 NFC, EMV, & MSR enabled credit card reader, designed to make payment even easier. A customer can simply tap their credit card on the ToastTap, and voila! Payment processed. ToastTap also includes mobile pay, which allows guests to pay using only their phone.
Guest Facing Display
A display screen that puts your guests first. Simplify the checkout experience in your restaurant with an integrated credit card reader and a mountable guest facing display that allows for seamless transactions.
Kitchen Display System
Seamlessly connect your front of house and kitchen staff so they can deliver unforgettable meals. Eliminate the need for paper tickets that just cause chaos, streamline your back of house efficiency, and simplify the preparation and cooking process. Kitchen display systems can integrate with any and all Toast hardware.
Additional Accessories
From ticket printers to wall mounts, Toast has thought of everything. Customize your hardware package with additional accessories to make your restaurant run as smoothly as possible.
Other Offerings
Services
Running a restaurant is hard. That’s why we’re dedicated to supporting you every step of the way with a team committed to your success. From installation to troubleshooting, Toast is always there to assist you. Installs can be done remote or in-person, there’s someone available every hour of the day to help you with any questions you may have, and Toast has an online database with unlimited training available at the click of a button. Additionally, Toast has 0% interest, 36-month financing available.
Capital
Access to fast, flexible funding for any restaurant need. Toast Capital offers eligible Toast customers access to loans from $5,000 to $250,000, so you can take what you need to accomplish your goals. With restaurants receiving funding in as little as one business day, Toast Capital offers a painless way to achieve your objectives.
Toast is more than just a POS system — it’s a restaurant game-changer. If you’re interested in making your establishment as efficient as possible, or would like to learn more about any of Toast’s offerings, click here.
Image: pos.toasttab.com
This article, “Toast Offers A Game-Changing Management Experience For Restaurants” was first published on Small Business Trends
https://smallbiztrends.com/
The post Toast Offers A Game-Changing Management Experience For Restaurants appeared first on Unix Commerce.
from WordPress https://ift.tt/2xAw5sM via IFTTT
0 notes
fhukumunpatt · 5 years
Text
Restaurant Local SEO: The Google Characteristics of America’s Top-Ranked Eateries
Posted by MiriamEllis
“A good chef has to be a manager, a businessman and a great cook. To marry all three together is sometimes difficult.” - Wolfgang Puck
I like this quote. It makes me hear phones ringing at your local search marketing agency, with aspiring chefs and restaurateurs on the other end of the line, ready to bring experts aboard in the “sometimes difficult” quest for online visibility.
Is your team ready for these clients? How comfortable do you feel talking restaurant Local SEO when such calls come in? When was the last time you took a broad survey of what’s really ranking in this specialized industry?
Allow me to be your prep cook today, and I’ll dice up “best restaurant” local packs for major cities in all 50 US states. We’ll julienne Google Posts usage, rough chop DA, make chiffonade of reviews, owner responses, categories, and a host of other ingredients to determine which characteristics are shared by establishments winning this most superlative of local search phrases.
The finished dish should make us conversant with what it takes these days to be deemed “best” by diners and by Google, empowering your agency to answer those phones with all the breezy confidence of Julia Child.
Methodology
I looked at the 3 businesses in the local pack for “best restaurants (city)” in a major city in each of the 50 states, examining 11 elements for each entry, yielding 4,950 data points. I set aside the food processor for this one and did everything manually. I wanted to avoid the influence of proximity, so I didn’t search for any city in which I was physically located. The results, then, are what a traveler would see when searching for top restaurants in destination cities.
Restaurant results
Now, let’s look at each of the 11 data points together and see what we learn. Take a seat at the table!
Categories prove no barrier to entry
Which restaurant categories make up the dominant percentage of local pack entries for our search?
You might think that a business trying to rank locally for “best restaurants” would want to choose just “restaurant” as their primary Google category as a close match. Or, you might think that since we’re looking at best restaurants, something like “fine dining restaurants” or the historically popular “French restaurants” might top the charts.
Instead, what we’ve discovered is that restaurants of every category can make it into the top 3. Fifty-one percent of the ranking restaurants hailed from highly diverse categories, including Pacific Northwest Restaurant, Pacific Rim Restaurant, Organic, Southern, Polish, Lebanese, Eclectic and just about every imaginable designation. American Restaurant is winning out in bulk with 26 percent of the take, and an additional 7 percent for New American Restaurant. I find this an interesting commentary on the nation’s present gustatory aesthetic as it may indicate a shift away from what might be deemed fancy fare to familiar, homier plates.
Overall, though, we see the celebrated American “melting pot” perfectly represented when searchers seek the best restaurant in any given city. Your client’s food niche, however specialized, should prove no barrier to entry in the local packs.
High prices don’t automatically equal “best”
Do Google’s picks for “best restaurants” share a pricing structure?
It will cost you more than $1000 per head to dine at Urasawa, the nation’s most expensive eatery, and one study estimates that the average cost of a restaurant meal in the US is $12.75. When we look at the price attribute on Google listings, we find that the designation “best” is most common for establishments with charges that fall somewhere in between the economical and the extravagant.
Fifty-eight percent of the top ranked restaurants for our search have the $$ designation and another 25 percent have the $$$. We don’t know Google’s exact monetary value behind these symbols, but for context, a Taco Bell with its $1–$2 entrees would typically be marked as $, while the fabled French Laundry gets $$$$ with its $400–$500 plates. In our study, the cheapest and the costliest restaurants make up only a small percentage of what gets deemed “best.”
There isn’t much information out there about Google’s pricing designations, but it’s generally believed that they stem at least in part from the attribute questions Google sends to searchers. So, this element of your clients’ listings is likely to be influenced by subjective public sentiment. For instance, Californians’ conceptions of priciness may be quite different from North Dakotans’. Nevertheless, on the national average, mid-priced restaurants are most likely to be deemed “best.”
Of anecdotal interest: The only locale in which all 3 top-ranked restaurants were designated at $$$$ was NYC, while in Trenton, NJ, the #1 spot in the local pack belongs to Rozmaryn, serving Polish cuisine at $ prices. It’s interesting to consider how regional economics may contribute to expectations, and your smartest restaurant clients will carefully study what their local market can bear. Meanwhile, 7 of the 150 restaurants we surveyed had no pricing information at all, indicating that Google’s lack of adequate information about this element doesn’t bar an establishment from ranking.
Less than 5 stars is no reason to despair
Is perfection a prerequisite for “best”?
Negative reviews are the stuff of indigestion for restaurateurs, and I’m sincerely hoping this study will provide some welcome relief. The average star rating of the 150 “best” restaurants we surveyed is 4.5. Read that again: 4.5. And the number of perfect 5-star joints in our study? Exactly zero. Time for your agency to spend a moment doing deep breathing with clients.
The highest rating for any restaurant in our data set is 4.8, and only three establishments rated so highly. The lowest is sitting at 4.1. Every other business falls somewhere in-between. These ratings stem from customer reviews, and the 4.5 average proves that perfection is simply not necessary to be “best.”
Breaking down a single dining spot with 73 reviews, a 4.6 star rating was achieved with fifty-six 5-star reviews, four 4-star reviews, three 3-star reviews, two 2-star reviews, and three 1-star reviews. 23 percent of diners in this small review set had a less-than-ideal experience, but the restaurant is still achieving top rankings. Practically speaking for your clients, the odd night when the pho was gummy and the paella was burnt can be tossed onto the compost heap of forgivable mistakes.
Review counts matter, but differ significantly
How many reviews do the best restaurants have?
It’s folk wisdom that any business looking to win local rankings needs to compete on native Google review counts. I agree with that, but was struck by the great variation in review counts across the nation and within given packs. Consider:
The greatest number of reviews in our study was earned by Hattie B’s Hot Chicken in Nashville, TN, coming in at a whopping 4,537!
Meanwhile, Park Heights Restaurant in Tupelo, MS is managing a 3-pack ranking with just 72 reviews, the lowest in our data set.
35 percent of “best”-ranked restaurants have between 100–499 reviews and another 31 percent have between 500–999 reviews. Taken together that’s 66 percent of contenders having yet to break 1,000 reviews.
A restaurant with less than 100 reviews has only a 1 percent chance of ranking for this type of search.
Anecdotally, I don’t know how much data you would have to analyze to be able to find a truly reliable pattern regarding winning review counts. Consider the city of Dallas, where the #1 spot has 3,365 review, but spots #2 and #3 each have just over 300. Compare that to Tallahassee, where a business with 590 reviews is coming in at #1 above a competitor with twice that many. Everybody ranking in Boise has well over 1,000 reviews, but nobody in Bangor is even breaking into the 200s.
The takeaways from this data point is that the national average review count is 893 for our “best” search, but that there is no average magic threshold you can tell a restaurant client they need to cross to get into the pack. Totals vary so much from city to city that your best plan of action is to study the client’s market and strongly urge full review management without making any promise that hitting 1,000 reviews will ensure them beating out that mysterious competitor who is sweeping up with just 400 pieces of consumer sentiment. Remember, no local ranking factor stands in isolation.
Best restaurants aren’t best at owner responses
How many of America’s top chophouses have replied to reviews in the last 60 days?
With a hat tip to Jason Brown at the Local Search Forum for this example of a memorable owner response to a negative review, I’m sorry to say I have some disappointing news. Only 29 percent of the restaurants ranked best in all 50 states had responded to their reviews in the 60 days leading up to my study. There were tributes of lavish praise, cries for understanding, and seething remarks from diners, but less than one-third of owners appeared to be paying the slightest bit of attention.
On the one hand, this indicates that review responsiveness is not a prerequisite for ranking for our desirable search term, but let’s go a step further. In my view, whatever time restaurant owners may be gaining back via unresponsiveness is utterly offset by what they stand to lose if they make a habit of overlooking complaints. Review neglect has been cited as a possible cause of business closure. As my friends David Mihm and Mike Blumenthal always say:“Your brand is its reviews” and mastering the customer service ecosystem is your surest way to build a restaurant brand that lasts.
For your clients, I would look at any local pack with neglected reviews as representative of a weakness. Algorithmically, your client’s active management of the owner response function could become a strength others lack. But I’ll even go beyond that: Restaurants ignoring how large segments of customer service have moved onto the web are showing a deficit of commitment to the long haul. It’s true that some eateries are famous for thriving despite offhand treatment of patrons, but in the average city, a superior commitment to responsiveness could increase many restaurants’ repeat business, revenue and rankings.
Critic reviews nice but not essential
I’ve always wanted to investigate critic reviews for restaurants, as Google gives them a great deal of screen space in the listings:
How many times were critic reviews cited in the Google listings of America’s best restaurants and how does an establishment earn this type of publicity?
With 57 appearances, Lonely Planet is the leading source of professional reviews for our search term, with Zagat and 10Best making strong showings, too. It’s worth noting that 70/150 businesses I investigated surfaced no critic reviews at all. They’re clearly not a requirement for being considered “best”, but most restaurants will benefit from the press. Unfortunately, there are few options for prompting a professional review. To wit:
Lonely Planet — Founded in 1972, Lonely Planet is a travel guide publisher headquartered in Australia. Critic reviews like this one are written for their website and guidebooks simultaneously. You can submit a business for review consideration via this form, but the company makes no guarantees about inclusion.
Zagat — Founded in 1979, Zagat began as a vehicle for aggregating diner reviews. It was purchased by Google in 2011 and sold off to The Infatuation in 2018. Restaurants can’t request Zagat reviews. Instead, the company conducts its own surveys and selects businesses to be rated and reviewed, like this.
10Best — Owned by USA Today Travel Media Group, 10Best employs local writers/travelers to review restaurants and other destinations. Restaurants cannot request a review.
The Infatuation — Founded in 2009 and headquartered in NY, The Infatuation employs diner-writers to create reviews like this one based on multiple anonymous dining experiences that are then published via their app. The also have a SMS-based restaurant recommendation system. They do not accept request from restaurants hoping to be reviewed.
AFAR — Founded in 2009, AFAR is a travel publication with a website, magazine, and app which publishes reviews like this one. There is no form for requesting a review.
Michelin — Founded as a tire company in 1889 in France, Michelin’s subsidiary ViaMichelin is a digital mapping service that houses the reviews Google is pulling. In my study, Chicago, NYC and San Francisco were the only three cities that yielded Michelin reviews like this one and one article states that only 165 US restaurants have qualified for a coveted star rating. The company offers this guide to dining establishments.
As you can see, the surest way to earn a professional review is to become notable enough on the dining scene to gain the unsolicited notice of a critic. 
Google Posts hardly get a seat at best restaurant tables
How many picks for best restaurants are using the Google Posts microblogging feature?
As it turns out, only a meager 16 percent of America’s “best” restaurants in my survey have made any use of Google Posts. In fact, most of the usage I saw wasn’t even current. I had to click the “view previous posts on Google” link to surface past efforts. This statistic is much worse than what Ben Fisher found when he took a broader look at Google Posts utilization and found that 42 percent of local businesses had at least experimented with the feature at some point.
For whatever reason, the eateries in my study are largely neglecting this influential feature, and this knowledge could encompass a competitive advantage for your restaurant clients.
Do you have a restaurateur who is trying to move up the ranks? There is some evidence that devoting a few minutes a week to this form of microblogging could help them get a leg up on lazier competitors.
Google Posts are a natural match for restaurants because they always have something to tout, some appetizing food shot to share, some new menu item to celebrate. As the local SEO on the job, you should be recommending an embrace of this element for its valuable screen real estate in the Google Business Profile, local finder, and maybe even in local packs.
Waiter, there’s some Q&A in my soup
What is the average number of questions top restaurants are receiving on their Google Business Profiles?
Commander’s Palace in New Orleans is absolutely stealing the show in my survey with 56 questions asked via the Q&A feature of the Google Business Profile. Only four restaurants had zero questions. The average number of questions across the board was eight.
As I began looking at the data, I decided not to re-do this earlier study of mine to find out how many questions were actually receiving responses from owners, because I was winding up with the same story. Time and again, answers were being left up to the public, resulting in consumer relations like these:
Takeaway: As I mentioned in a previous post, Greg Gifford found that 40 percent of his clients’ Google Questions were leads. To leave those leads up to the vagaries of the public, including a variety of wags and jokesters, is to leave money on the table. If a potential guest is asking about dietary restrictions, dress codes, gift cards, average prices, parking availability, or ADA compliance, can your restaurant clients really afford to allow a public “maybe” to be the only answer given?
I’d suggest that a dedication to answering questions promptly could increase bookings, cumulatively build the kind of reputation that builds rankings, and possibly even directly impact rankings as a result of being a signal of activity.
A moderate PA & DA gets you into the game
What is the average Page Authority and Domain Authority of restaurants ranking as “best’?
Looking at both the landing page that Google listings are pointing to and the overall authority of each restaurant’s domain, I found that:
The average PA is 36, with a high of 56 and a low of zero being represented by one restaurant with no website link and one restaurant appearing to have no website at all.
The average DA is 41, with a high of 88, one business lacking a website link while actually having a DA of 56 and another one having no apparent website at all. The lowest linked DA I saw was 6.
PA/DA do not = rankings. Within the 50 local packs I surveyed, 32 of them exhibited the #1 restaurant having a lower DA than the establishments sitting at #2 or #3. In one extreme case, a restaurant with a DA of 7 was outranking a website with a DA of 32, and there were the two businesses with the missing website link or missing website. But, for the most part, knowing the range of PA/DA in a pack you are targeting will help you create a baseline for competing.
While pack DA/PA differs significantly from city to city, the average numbers we’ve discovered shouldn’t be out-of-reach for established businesses. If your client’s restaurant is brand new, it’s going to take some serious work to get up market averages, of course.
Local Search Ranking Factors 2019 found that DA was the 9th most important local pack ranking signal, with PA sitting at factor #20. Once you’ve established a range of DA/PA for a local SERP you are trying to move a client up into, your best bet for making improvements will include improving content so that it earns links and powering up your outreach for local links and linktations.
Google’s Local Finder “web results” show where to focus management
Which websites does Google trust enough to cite as references for restaurants?
As it turns out, that trust is limited to a handful of sources:
As the above pie chart shows:
The restaurant’s website was listed as a reference for 99 percent of the candidates in our survey. More proof that you still need a website in 2019, for the very good reason that it feeds data to Google.
Yelp is highly trusted at 76 percent and TripAdvisor is going strong at 43 percent. Your client is likely already aware of the need to manage their reviews on these two platforms. Be sure you’re also checking them for basic data accuracy.
OpenTable and Facebook are each getting a small slice of Google trust, too.
Not shown in the above chart are 13 restaurants that had a web reference from a one-off source, like the Des Moines Register or Dallas Eater. A few very famous establishments, like Brennan’s in New Orleans, surfaced their Wikipedia page, although they didn’t do so consistently. I noticed Wikipedia pages appearing one day as a reference and then disappearing the next day. I was left wondering why.
For me, the core takeaway from this factor is that if Google is highlighting your client’s listing on a given platform as a trusted web result, your agency should go over those pages with a fine-toothed comb, checking for accuracy, activity, and completeness. These are citations Google is telling you are of vital importance.
A few other random ingredients
As I was undertaking this study, there were a few things I noted down but didn’t formally analyze, so consider this as mixed tapas:
Menu implementation is all over the place. While many restaurants are linking directly to their own website via Google’s offered menu link, some are using other services like Single Platform, and far too many have no menu link at all.
Reservation platforms like Open Table are making a strong showing, but many restaurants are drawing a blank on this Google listing field, too. Many, but far from all, of the restaurants designated “best” feature Google’s “reserve a table” function which stems from partnerships with platforms like Open Table and RESY.
Order links are pointing to multiple sources including DoorDash, Postmates, GrubHub, Seamless, and in some cases, the restaurant’s own website (smart!). But, in many cases, no use is being made of this function.
Photos were present for every single best-ranked restaurant. Their quality varied, but they are clearly a “given” in this industry.
Independently-owned restaurants are the clear winners for my search term. With the notable exception of an Olive Garden branch in Parkersburg, WV, and a Cracker Barrel in Bismarck, ND, the top competitors were either single-location or small multi-location brands. For the most part, neither Google nor the dining public associate large chains with “best”.
Honorable mentions go to Bida Manda Laotian Bar & Grill for what looks like a gorgeous and unusual restaurant ranking #1 in Raleigh, NC and to Kermit’s Outlaw Kitchen of Tupelo, MS for the most memorable name in my data set. You can get a lot of creative inspiration from just spending time with restaurant data.
A final garnish to our understanding of this data
I want to note two things as we near the end of our study:
Local rankings emerge from the dynamic scenario of Google’s opinionated algorithms + public opinion and behavior. Doing Local SEO for restaurants means managing a ton of different ingredients: website SEO, link building, review management, GBP signals, etc. We can’t offer clients a generic “formula” for winning across the board. This study has helped us understand national averages so that we can walk into the restaurant space feeling conversant with the industry. In practice, we’ll need to discover the true competitors in each market to shape our strategy for each unique client. And that brings us to some good news.
As I mentioned at the outset of this survey, I specifically avoided proximity as an influence by searching as a traveler to other destinations would. I investigated one local pack for each major city I “visited”. The glad tidings are that, for many of your restaurant clients, there is going to be more than one chance to rank for a search like “best restaurants (city)”. Unless the eatery is in a very small town, Google is going to whip up a variety of local packs based on the searcher’s location. So, that’s something hopeful to share.
What have we learned about restaurant local SEO?
A brief TL;DR you can share easily with your clients:
While the US shows a predictable leaning towards American restaurants, any category can be a contender. So, be bold!
Mid-priced restaurants are considered “best” to a greater degree than the cheapest or most expensive options. Price for your market.
While you’ll likely need at least 100 native Google reviews to break into these packs, well over half of competitors have yet to break the 1,000 mark.
An average 71 percent of competitors are revealing a glaring weakness by neglecting to respond to reviews - so get in there and start embracing customer service to distinguish your restaurant!
A little over half of your competitors have earned critic reviews. If you don’t yet have any, there’s little you can do to earn them beyond becoming well enough known for anonymous professional reviewers to visit you. In the meantime, don’t sweat it.
About three-quarters of your competitors are completely ignoring Google Posts; gain the advantage by getting active.
Potential guests are asking nearly every competitor questions, and so many restaurants are leaving leads on the table by allowing random people to answer. Embrace fast responses to Q&A to stand out from the crowd.
With few exceptions, devotion to authentic link earning efforts can build up your PA/DA to competitive levels.
Pay attention to any platform Google is citing as a resource to be sure the information published there is a complete and accurate.
The current management of other Google Business Profile features like Menus, Reservations and Ordering paints a veritable smorgasbord of providers and a picture of prevalent neglect. If you need to improve visibility, explore every profile field that Google is giving you.
A question for you: Do you market restaurants? Would you be willing to share a cool local SEO tactic with our community? We’d love to hear about your special sauce in the comments below.
Wishing you bon appétit for working in the restaurant local SEO space, with delicious wins ahead!
Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read!
0 notes