Google’s own definition of the third local ranking factor is not a search technique. It is reputation.

“Prominence means how well-known a business is. Prominent places are more likely to show up in search results. This factor’s also based on info like how many websites link to your business and how many reviews you have.”

Read against the usual local search checklist, that sentence reorders everything. Two of the three named factors are largely outside your control on any given day: distance is where the searcher happens to be, and prominence is how well known you already are. The one you can act on directly, relevance, is described as a matter of providing “complete and detailed business info”.

Google also closes the shortcut explicitly: “There’s no way to request or pay for a better local ranking on Google.”

The three published local ranking factors sorted by how far a business controls each oneThe three local ranking factors published by Google, sorted by how far a local business actually controls each one. Google states that local results are mainly based on relevance, distance and popularity, and that together these factors help Google find the best match for a customer’s search. Relevance is defined as how well a Business Profile matches what someone is searching for, and Google’s stated advice for improving it is to provide complete and detailed business information, which makes it the one factor a business can act on directly and immediately at no cost. Distance is defined as how far each business is from the customer who is searching, adding that where a customer does not share their location Google uses what it knows about that location, which makes it a property of where the searcher happens to be standing rather than anything the business can change short of moving premises. Prominence is defined as how well known a business is, with Google adding that prominent places are more likely to show up in search results and that the factor is based on information such as how many websites link to the business and how many reviews it has, and that more reviews and positive ratings can help local ranking. Prominence is therefore a description of accumulated reputation rather than of any on page technique, and it moves over months and years rather than in response to a configuration change. Google also states explicitly that there is no way to request or pay for a better local ranking and that it keeps the details of the search algorithm confidential to make the ranking system as fair as possible for everyone. Google publishes no weighting between the three factors, no distance figure, and no review count or rating threshold.What you can act on, and what you cannotRelevance”how well a Business Profile matches what someone is searching for”Actionable today, at no cost: complete and detailed business info.Distance”how far each business is from the customer who’s searching”A property of where the searcher is standing. Not yours to change.Prominence”how well-known a business is”, based partly on links and review countAccumulated reputation. Moves over years, not in a settings panel.No weighting published between the three. No distance figure. No review threshold.
Two of the three are largely outside your control on any given day. The third is a matter of filling in your listing. Source : Google Business Profile Help, Tips to improve your local ranking on Google (2026)

So the question for a storefront is not paid against organic in the abstract. It is which of the two can buy something the other cannot, given that the ranking factor most people are chasing is a description of being known.

What advertising actually bought, in the one experiment that tested it

There is a randomized field experiment on exactly this population, and its results are more useful than any benchmark.

Researchers gave the standard advertising package of a local review platform, free of charge, to 7,209 restaurants randomly selected from 18,294, for three months. Randomization was at restaurant level within subsamples, with a mean treated share of 2.3 percent per postal code so that local markets were not saturated.

The measured effects:

  • Platform page views: plus 19 percent
  • Direction requests: plus 14 percent
  • Telephone calls: plus 7 percent
  • Clicks through to the restaurant’s own site: plus 7 percent
  • Customer reviews: plus 5 percent

Three findings alongside the headline matter more for a decision.

Independents gained more than chains. National chains gained less than independent restaurants and local chains with comparable attributes. Advertising informs people who did not already know you, and a chain is already known.

Effects stopped the day the advertising stopped. There was no measured carryover. What you rent, you rent.

And paid views converted worse than organic ones, by 46 percent. The traffic is real and it is of lower quality than the traffic you already had.

The honest limit is the one the authors state themselves. Effects on takeout orders and reservations were not statistically significant, and they say they were underpowered on those outcomes. The return figure that circulates from this study comes from an appendix exercise on pre-experiment tax data matched to 13 percent of the sample, which the authors describe as “a back-of-the-envelope calculation rather than as an accurate or precise estimate of the returns to advertising.”

So: measured effects on attention and intent, no measured effect on revenue, and a clear signal that the gain is largest for whoever is least known.

Measured effects of a randomized advertising experiment on small local restaurantsMeasured effects of a randomized field experiment in which the standard advertising package of a local review platform was given free of charge to seven thousand two hundred and nine restaurants randomly selected from a population of eighteen thousand two hundred and ninety four, for a period of three months. Randomization took place at restaurant level within four subsamples, with a mean treated share of two point three percent per postal code and a median of one point four percent, so that no local market was saturated with treated businesses. The measured effects were an increase of nineteen percent in platform page views, fourteen percent in direction requests, seven percent in telephone calls, seven percent in clicks through to the restaurant’s own website, and five percent in customer reviews. Three findings alongside those headline numbers matter more for a business decision. First, national chains gained less than independent restaurants and local chains with comparable attributes, consistent with the interpretation that advertising informs people who did not already know the business, and that a chain is already known. Second, the effects disappeared immediately when the advertising stopped, with no measured carryover. Third, paid views converted worse than organic views, with a forty six percent lower conversion rate, so the additional traffic was real but of lower quality than the traffic the business already had. The honest limit is stated by the authors themselves: the effects on takeout orders and reservations were not statistically significant and they report being underpowered on those outcomes, with a minimum detectable effect of about zero point zero four six standard deviations across five thousand eight hundred and sixty seven restaurants. The return on investment figure that circulates from this study comes from an appendix exercise correlating revenue with page views on pre experiment state tax data matched to only thirteen percent of the sample, which the authors describe as a back of the envelope calculation rather than an accurate or precise estimate of the returns to advertising.Three months of free advertising, measuredPage views+19%Direction requests+14%Telephone calls+7%Customer reviews+5%Takeout orders and reservationsnot significantThree findings that decide how to use thisNational chains gained less than independents. Effects stopped the day the advertising stopped.Paid views converted 46 percent worse than organic ones.The return figure quoted from this study is an appendix estimate on 13 percent of the sample.
Attention and intent moved. Orders did not measurably. And the least known businesses gained the most. Source : Dai, Kim and Luca, Frontiers: Which Firms Gain from Digital Advertising?, Marketing Science 42(3), 2023 (2023)

The reviews route to prominence, and the rules almost everyone breaks

If prominence is partly “how many reviews you have”, the obvious move is to ask for more. Google’s published policy is considerably stricter than most storefronts realize, and three ordinary practices are named as violations.

The relevant section is on rating manipulation:

“We do not allow merchants to: Offer incentives, such as payment, discounts, free goods and/or services, in exchange for posting any review or revision or removal of a negative review. Discourage or prohibit negative reviews, or selectively solicit positive reviews from customers. When soliciting reviews, merchants should not require or pressure users to leave ratings or write reviews while on the premises, nor should they request that specific content be included. This includes: Merchants requesting that staff solicit a certain number of reviews. Merchants requesting that staff solicit reviews that include specific content, including content that identifies a staff member.”

So the tablet on the counter is out. Review targets for staff are out. And asking a customer to mention the technician by name is out.

The single permitted line is narrow: “We do allow merchants to: Solicit or encourage the posting of content that does represent a genuine experience, without offering incentives to do so or attempting to influence the rating or the contents of the review.”

Employee and family reviews are handled under conflicts of interest, and the wording is broader than people assume: a conflict “may include current or former employment, a contractual or consultory relationship, or other professional or personal affiliations”, with no time limit stated on the word former.

Review solicitation practices prohibited by Google’s published policy and the single permitted practiceReview solicitation practices prohibited by Google’s published content policy for a merchant, and the single practice the policy permits. Under the heading of rating manipulation, Google states that merchants may not offer incentives such as payment, discounts, or free goods and services in exchange for posting any review, revising a review or removing a negative review. It states that merchants may not discourage or prohibit negative reviews, nor selectively solicit positive reviews from customers, which is the practice commonly called review gating. It states that when soliciting reviews merchants should not require or pressure users to leave ratings or write reviews while on the premises, which rules out the tablet on the counter. It states that merchants may not request that specific content be included in a review. And it names two specific consequences of that rule: merchants may not request that staff solicit a certain number of reviews, which rules out review targets for employees, and may not request that staff solicit reviews including specific content such as content identifying a staff member, which rules out asking a customer to mention the technician by name. The single permitted line is narrow: Google allows merchants to solicit or encourage the posting of content that does represent a genuine experience, without offering incentives to do so and without attempting to influence the rating or the contents of the review. Reviews written by employees and family members are handled separately under conflict of interest, where Google states that a conflict of interest may include current or former employment, a contractual or consultory relationship, or other professional or personal affiliations, with no time limit stated on the word former. At profile level, Google states that when user contributions to a profile are consistently unhelpful, harmful, off topic or in violation of its policies, it may limit or suspend user generated content for that profile entirely.Named in the policy as not allowedAsking on the premises”should not require or pressure users to leave ratingsor write reviews while on the premises”Review targets for staff”Merchants requesting that staff solicit a certainnumber of reviews”Asking for the technician’s name”reviews that include specific content, includingcontent that identifies a staff member”Asking only the happy ones”Discourage or prohibit negative reviews, orselectively solicit positive reviews from customers”The one permitted lineEncourage genuine experiences, with no incentive and no attempt to influence the rating or the content.
Three of these are standard practice in retail. All three are named in the policy text. Source : Google Maps User Generated Content Policy, Prohibited and restricted content, Rating manipulation; Google Business Profile Help, Tips to get more reviews (2026)

And the federal rule that sits alongside it

Two corrections to what circulates, both from primary text.

The federal review rule does not cover gating. In its own statement of basis and purpose, the Federal Trade Commission writes that “although Sec. 465.4 does not cover ‘review gating,’ review gating can nonetheless violate section 5 of the FTC Act.” Gating is handled in the Endorsement Guides instead.

And there the test is the effect, not the intention. The Guides’ worked example describes gating precisely, then says it “may be an unfair or deceptive practice if it results in the posted reviews being substantially more positive than if the marketer had not engaged in the practice.” And the safe alternative is stated in the same paragraph: “If, in the alternative, the marketer had simply invited all recent purchasers to provide feedback on third-party websites, the solicitation would not have been unfair or deceptive, even if it had expressed its hope for positive reviews.”

You are allowed to hope. You are not allowed to filter.

Two further points worth having. On incentives, Google is stricter than federal law: the federal rule bans an incentive only where it is conditioned on a particular sentiment, while Google’s policy bans incentives outright. And on suppression, the federal provision at section 465.7 reaches “anyone” who uses “an unfounded or groundless legal threat” or “a public false accusation” to get a review removed, which covers flagging honest reviews as fake without a reasonable basis.

Division of responsibility between the federal consumer review rule and the endorsement guidesDivision of responsibility between the federal trade regulation rule on consumer reviews and testimonials, effective the twenty first of October twenty twenty four, and the separate endorsement guides. In its statement of basis and purpose published in the Federal Register on the twenty second of August twenty twenty four, the Federal Trade Commission states that although section four sixty five point four does not cover review gating, review gating can nonetheless violate section five of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Commission’s own definition of gating, given in a footnote citing its earlier notice of proposed rulemaking, is that review gating occurs when a business asks past purchasers to provide feedback on a product and then invites only those who provide positive feedback to post online reviews on one or more websites. Gating is therefore handled through the endorsement guides, where section two fifty five point two subsection d provides that in procuring, suppressing, boosting, organizing, publishing, upvoting, downvoting, reporting or editing consumer reviews of their products, advertisers should not take actions that have the effect of distorting or otherwise misrepresenting what consumers think of their products. The guides’ worked example eleven describes gating precisely and states that such a practice may be an unfair or deceptive practice if it results in the posted reviews being substantially more positive than if the marketer had not engaged in the practice, while adding that if the marketer had simply invited all recent purchasers to provide feedback on third party websites the solicitation would not have been unfair or deceptive even if it had expressed its hope for positive reviews. The test is therefore the effect on the distribution of posted reviews rather than the intention behind the solicitation. Two further points follow. On incentives, Google’s own policy is stricter than federal law, since the federal rule bans an incentive only where it is conditioned expressly or by implication on a particular sentiment while Google’s policy bans incentives outright. On suppression, the federal provision at section four sixty five point seven reaches anyone who uses an unfounded or groundless legal threat, a physical threat, intimidation or a public false accusation to prevent a review being written or to cause it to be removed, which covers flagging honest reviews as fake without a reasonable basis for believing them fake.Two instruments, one practiceThe rule, since October 2024Covers fake reviews, bought reviews,insider reviews, controlled review sites,suppression, fake influence indicators.Does not cover gating.The Endorsement GuidesAdvertisers “should not take actions thathave the effect of distorting or otherwisemisrepresenting what consumers think”This is where gating lives.The test, from the worked exampleDeceptive “if it results in the posted reviews being substantially more positive than if the marketer hadnot engaged in the practice.”Inviting all recent purchasers is fine, “even if it had expressed its hope for positive reviews.”
Gating is not in the rule. It is in the Guides, where the test is whether the posted reviews end up substantially more positive. Source : 16 C.F.R. Part 465, effective 21 October 2024; FTC statement of basis and purpose, 89 FR, 22 August 2024; 16 C.F.R. 255.2(d) and Example 11 (2024)

How crowded the field actually is

One number reframes the competitive question, and it is free and official.

In reference year 2023, the United States had 8,361,342 establishments with employees and 30,427,808 businesses with none. That is 78.4 percent of all businesses operating without a single employee.

By sector it goes further. Among specialty trade contractors, 1,928,748 nonemployer businesses against 521,315 employer establishments, or 78.7 percent. In personal and laundry services, 2,422,475 against 272,787, or 89.9 percent. Among barber shops specifically, 94.8 percent.

Two consequences for a storefront deciding where to spend.

The directory you are benchmarking against is a fraction of the field. Most of your competition does not appear in employer statistics, does not run advertising, and competes on proximity and word of mouth. Outspending the six businesses you can see does not address the several dozen you cannot.

And most of that field is small enough to be inconsistent. Average receipts for a nonemployer business in personal services were about 34,000 dollars in 2023, which indicates a large share of part-time activity. That is where a professionally run storefront actually wins, and it is not won on a search results page.

One methodological caution if you use these figures: the employer file uses one industry classification vintage and the nonemployer file another, which is negligible at the broad sector level and not at the detailed one.

Share of United States businesses operating with no employees, overall and by local service sectorShare of United States businesses operating with no employees at all, overall and by local service sector, for reference year two thousand twenty three. Nationally there were eight million three hundred and sixty one thousand three hundred and forty two establishments with employees, employing one hundred and thirty nine million eight hundred and thirty one thousand seven hundred and forty two people with an annual payroll of nine thousand five hundred and fifty six point four billion dollars, against thirty million four hundred and twenty seven thousand eight hundred and eight businesses with no employees at all, generating one thousand seven hundred and fifty three billion dollars in receipts for an average of fifty seven thousand six hundred and eleven dollars each. That means seventy eight point four percent of all United States businesses operate without a single employee. By sector the pattern intensifies. Among specialty trade contractors, industry code two three eight, there were one million nine hundred and twenty eight thousand seven hundred and forty eight nonemployer businesses against five hundred and twenty one thousand three hundred and fifteen employer establishments, so seventy eight point seven percent have no employees. Among repair and maintenance businesses, code eight one one, five hundred and ninety seven thousand four hundred and forty five against two hundred and twenty six thousand and nine, so seventy two point six percent. Among personal and laundry services, code eight one two, two million four hundred and twenty two thousand four hundred and seventy five against two hundred and seventy two thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, so eighty nine point nine percent. Among barber shops specifically the figure reaches ninety four point eight percent, and among beauty salons ninety point nine percent. Average receipts for a nonemployer business in personal services were about thirty four thousand dollars in twenty twenty three, indicating a large share of part time activity. One methodological caution applies: the employer file uses the two thousand seventeen industry classification vintage while the nonemployer file uses the two thousand twenty two vintage, which is negligible at three digit sector level and not at six digit level.Share of businesses with no employees, 2023All United States businesses78.4%Specialty trade contractors78.7%Repair and maintenance72.6%Personal and laundry services89.9%Barber shops94.8%Why it matters for a spending decisionEmployer directories describe a fifth of the field. The rest do not advertise, and compete on proximityand word of mouth. Outspending the six competitors you can see does not address the dozens you cannot.
Employer statistics describe a fifth of the businesses operating. The rest compete on proximity and word of mouth. Source : U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2023 and Nonemployer Statistics 2023 (2025)

What follows for the budget

Treat paid as rent and prominence as ownership. The experiment is unambiguous that advertising effects stop when the spending stops, and Google’s own definition puts prominence on links and reviews accumulated over time. One is a lease, the other is an asset. Both are legitimate, and they are not substitutes.

Buy advertising when you are the unknown one. Independents gained more than chains in the experiment, and the mechanism is informational. If a customer already knows you exist, an advertisement mostly changes which line they click. That is the situation where a buy earns its budget, and our page on B2B paid acquisition sets out how a modest one is pointed at people who do not yet know the business exists.

Fix the listing before buying traffic. The one controlled study on completeness found the share judging a business reputable rose from 36 percent to 69 percent between a minimal and a complete listing. It is a perception measure in a laboratory, and it is free to act on.

Ask everyone, filter nobody. Both Google’s policy and the federal guidance converge on the same rule from different directions. Ask every customer, offer nothing, do not script the content, and do not ask on the premises.

And measure the thing you can measure. No public institution publishes a cost per click or a cost per acquisition, and neither platform publishes sector benchmarks. What you can measure is your own: calls and direction requests per week, before and after, with the advertising switched off for a fortnight. That comparison is small, crude, and more honest than any industry average, because every industry average you have seen came from an agency describing the accounts it happens to manage.