Footbridge Media review

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 20% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 9 · Adequate 2 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Named clients with described local outcomes — calls, booked jobs, form fills, store visits — and a stated period. Treat any conversion or revenue figure as vendor-stated unless a client is named or a third-party review corroborates it.

Scores high — A named business with a described engagement and a real number scores 4-5.

Scores low — Ranking screenshots, 'page 1' claims and traffic charts with no downstream metric score 2-3, because a map-pack position is an input the buyer cannot bank. Anonymised case studies score 2.

What we found — Ten named clients are published as case studies - Payne's Pressure Washing, 32 Below Inc, Anytime Electric, RePaint Florida, Texas Air Doctors among them - and not one carries a figure. Named work with no number attached. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Ten clients are named on the case studies page and none carries a quantified outcome.” footbridgemedia.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 18% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 4 · Adequate 5 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Published, specific method for the surface that decides local visibility: profile optimisation, categories and services, posts, Q&A, spam fighting and redressal, multi-location management at stated scale.

Scores high — Concrete described practice scores 4-5.

Scores low — A page that lists 'GBP optimisation' as a service line and says nothing about how scores 2-3. An agency that never mentions the profile at all, while selling local SEO, scores 1-2 — that is the core asset of this discipline.

What we found — States an ongoing commitment rather than a service line: 'We optimize, manage, and monitor your Google listing to help you show up in the local 3-pack.' The method behind it is not described. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Google listing work is stated as ongoing: 'We optimize, manage, and monitor your Google listing to help you show up in the local 3-pack.'” footbridgemedia.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 2 · Adequate 6 · Weak 8. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Reviews are the heaviest local ranking and conversion factor, and the ways of getting them include practices that violate Google's policies and, in regulated trades, the law. Look for a stated review process and an explicit position against gating, incentivising or writing reviews. Any published offer to write, buy, filter by rating, or suppress negative reviews is a 1 and a red flag on the record, not a score to be averaged away.

Scores high — A published policy scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence scores 2-3.

What we found — A stated process - 'Automatically request and track reviews from happy customers' - but it selects on sentiment, and no position against gating or incentivising is published. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Review process selects on sentiment: 'Automatically request and track reviews from happy customers'.” footbridgemedia.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Strong — 4 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 15% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 5 · Adequate 2 · Weak 8 · Poor 1. The typical agency here scores Weak, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Who owns the Google Business Profile, the website, the tracking numbers, the review history and the ad accounts when the engagement ends. Local SEO concentrates value in assets a client can lose entirely: a profile owned by the agency, or a call-tracking number that stops routing, takes the accrued ranking and history with it.

Scores high — A written ownership and transfer term scores 4-5.

Scores low — Silence scores 2 — a measured absence of disclosure, not a finding about the work. An agency that retains the profile or the primary number by default scores 1.

What we found — Ownership is in the terms, not only the marketing: 'you are the owner of the website we have created provided it has been more than 90 days since signing up for the Service', and on cancellation the company will 'zip up all files and provide a link for download'. Silent on the Google Business Profile. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “On cancellation the company will 'zip up all files and provide a link for download'.” footbridgemedia.com ↗

On the record — “The terms state 'you are the owner of the website we have created provided it has been more than 90 days since signing up for the Service'.” footbridgemedia.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Adequate — 3 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 12% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Strong 2 · Adequate 12 · Weak 2. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 2 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: Where LSA or local paid search is sold, the checkable questions are budget transparency, who holds the account, dispute handling for bad leads, and whether Google Screened or Guaranteed status is managed or merely claimed. Not offering LSA at all is not a penalty — score this only where it is sold, and say so in the note.

Scores high — Described process with stated ownership scores 4-5.

Scores low — 'We manage LSA' with no further detail scores 2-3.

What we found — Local Services Ads are not sold and are not mentioned. Scored neutral rather than penalised - the rubric scores this dimension only where LSA is offered. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.

Not disclosed — 2 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). Nothing was published about this, so it scores at the bottom of the scale — that is a finding about what the agency discloses, not about the quality of its work. This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 1 · Strong 3 · Adequate 6 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 10 of them score higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: How the agency handles more than one location or a service area without a storefront: location page structure, avoiding doorway pages, service-area business rules, and citation and NAP consistency at scale.

Scores high — A described approach, with stated limits, scores 4-5.

Scores low — Mass-generated city pages presented as strategy score 1-2 — that is the failure mode of the discipline and Google names it.

What we found — Service-area, multi-location and city-page practice is not addressed on the homepage, the case studies or the terms. That is what the low band describes, and nothing published resolves it.

On the record — “Ten clients are named on the case studies page and none carries a quantified outcome.” footbridgemedia.com ↗

Evidence: unknown

Stronger here: Whitespark scores Excellent on the same dimension.

Excellent — 5 of 5 on this rubric’s scale, from Poor (1) to Excellent (5). This dimension carries 10% of the total score.

Benchmark — across the 16 other agencies evaluated in this discipline, this dimension runs Excellent 5 · Adequate 5 · Weak 6. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and none scores higher than this one.

What this dimension measures: A published price, range or starting point, plus contract term and notice. A figure recoverable from an independent profile but not the agency's own site scores 3, and the note must say where it came from. Long minimum terms are not automatically a low score, but an undisclosed one is.

Scores high — A published figure scores 4-5.

Scores low — Nothing published anywhere scores 2.

What we found — 'No Contracts. No Hidden Fees. Just $249/Month', month-to-month - 'No long-term contracts here. We work month-to-month.' - plus a 90-day refund: 'simply cancel your services within the first 90 days and get a refund.' That is the high band above, which is why it scored Excellent.

On the record — “Published price and term: 'No Contracts. No Hidden Fees. Just $249/Month' and 'No long-term contracts here. We work month-to-month.'” footbridgemedia.com ↗

Evidence: verified — checked against a named source you can open; the links under Sources below are where to check it yourself.