SearchLab Digital review

Strong — 4 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 8 · Adequate 3 · Weak 4. The typical agency here scores Strong, and 1 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 — Named clients with downstream figures: Stivers Ford Montgomery at '155% Increase in New Leads' and '88% Increase in New Calls', Jim Burke Ford at '68% increase in organic leads'. Neither the leads nor the calls figure carries a stated period, and the third headline number on each case is blog or organic traffic growth, which is an input rather than booked work. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Stivers Ford Montgomery is published at '155% Increase in New Leads' and '88% Increase in New Calls' with no stated period.” searchlabdigital.com ↗

Evidence: partly checkable — corroborated in part against the sources below; the remainder rests on the agency’s own account.

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 — Described rather than listed: 'We optimize everything that moves the needle for your GBP: accurate business information, categories, services, photos, and posts', with a first-month Google Business Profile audit and, on the home services page, 'photos, posts, services, hours, and Q&A'. Nothing published on spam fighting or redressal. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Google Business Profile work is described rather than listed: 'We optimize everything that moves the needle for your GBP: accurate business information, categories, services, photos, and posts.'” searchlabdigital.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 — Sold as a service line - 'We help you generate more reviews, raise the bar on quality reviews, and respond in ways that build trust' - with no stated process for obtaining them and no published position on gating, incentivising or filtering by rating. That is between the two bands, which is why it scored Adequate.

On the record — “Review work is sold without a stated process: 'We help you generate more reviews, raise the bar on quality reviews, and respond in ways that build trust with future customers.'” searchlabdigital.com ↗

Evidence: unknown

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 — 'You Own Everything: Your website, data, analytics, and ad accounts always belong to you', and on the paid-local page 'You own the account, the data, and the campaign history from day one'. SearchLab also offers to move an account a previous agency holds. The Google Business Profile itself and any tracking numbers are not named in the list. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “The ownership term is published on the local SEO page: 'You Own Everything: Your website, data, analytics, and ad accounts always belong to you.'” searchlabdigital.com ↗

On the record — “Account ownership is stated on the paid-local page: 'Yes. You own the account, the data, and the campaign history from day one, so if you ever decide to leave, everything you paid for goes with you. Most agencies hold accounts hostage to keep clients from leaving. We have always thought that was a gross way to operate.'” searchlabdigital.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 on any page read. 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.

Strong — 4 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 1 · Strong 2 · Adequate 6 · Weak 7. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 1 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 — A dedicated multi-location service that names the doorway-page failure mode and says it is avoided: site architecture designed 'to support each market without any internal competition', and location pages with content that goes 'way beyond the basics: swapping city names'. Service-area businesses are addressed explicitly: 'Service-area businesses like plumbers, mobile services, and contractors benefit from local SEO just as much as shops with front doors'. That is the high band above, which is why it scored Strong.

On the record — “Service-area businesses are addressed directly: 'Service-area businesses like plumbers, mobile services, and contractors benefit from local SEO just as much as shops with front doors, and we optimize for the areas you serve.'” searchlabdigital.com ↗

On the record — “Location pages are described against the doorway-page failure mode: 'Each location gets it's own localized page with genuinely unique content. This kind of content goes way beyond the basics: swapping city names, including local details, staff info, and area-specific services that serve customers in that specific market.'” searchlabdigital.com ↗

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

Weak — 2 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 6 · Adequate 5 · Weak 5. The typical agency here scores Adequate, and 11 of them score 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 price, range or starting point appears on any page read. The consulting page says only 'We'll figure out the scope together and give you clear pricing before we start anything', and the about page advertises 'No high-pressure pricing conversation'. No contract term or notice period is published either. That is what the low band describes, which is why it scored Weak.

On the record — “No price, range or starting point is published; the consulting page says 'We'll figure out the scope together and give you clear pricing before we start anything.'” searchlabdigital.com ↗

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

Stronger here: Whitespark scores Excellent on the same dimension.