Multi-Location Report
Roll performance up across locations while keeping the per-location detail underneath.
A multi-location report compares locations against each other, which only produces a meaningful ranking if every location was measured on the same frame — otherwise the comparison is arithmetic performed on incompatible units.
What it does
The purpose of a multi-location report is comparison. Which sites are performing, which are not, and where attention should go next quarter. That purpose imposes a requirement most reports quietly fail: every location has to have been measured the same way, or the ranking is describing measurement differences rather than performance differences.
This failure is easy to produce and hard to see. One location measured on a tighter grid looks stronger. One measured on a broader keyword set looks weaker. One checked from the premises looks best of all. Assemble those into a table, sort it, and the resulting order is partly real and partly an artefact, with no way to tell which parts are which.
The requirement is therefore a common frame — the same grid geometry, the same keyword set, the same cadence, applied everywhere. It is less convenient than letting each site be measured however was easiest, and it is the only condition under which the comparison means anything at all.
The second requirement is stating the frame in the document. A report that shows a ranking without saying what produced it invites the reader to assume comparability. If the frame differed anywhere, that has to be visible, or the report is making a claim it cannot support.
Everything Multi-Location Report gives you
Common frame enforcement
The same grid, keywords and cadence applied to every location in the report.
Frame stated in the document
What was measured and how, so comparability is visible rather than assumed.
Ranking with variation shown
Positions ordered, with the ordinary variation band drawn so close calls read as close.
Outlier identification
Locations materially above or below the estate, separated from ordinary spread.
Like-for-like grouping
Sites grouped by market size or maturity, since raw ranking flatters easy markets.
Per-location detail behind the summary
The estate view first, with each site’s own measurement underneath.
Consistent metric set
The same measures each period, so period comparison is valid.
Exception flagging
Any location measured differently marked explicitly rather than blended in.
White-label output
Your branding, no platform marks.
From setup to first result
- 1
Define one frame for the estate
Grid geometry, keyword set and cadence, agreed before anything is measured.
- 2
Apply it everywhere
Including the locations where a different frame would be more convenient.
- 3
State the frame in the report
Comparability that is not stated will be assumed, correctly or otherwise.
- 4
Group before ranking
A site in a dense city and one in a small town are not comparable on raw position.
- 5
Show the variation band
So that a two-place difference is not read as a meaningful gap.
- 6
Flag any exception
A location measured differently belongs marked, not blended.
- 7
Keep the metric set fixed
Changing what is measured invalidates every period comparison silently.
What changes with Multi-Location Report
- Measuring locations on different frames
- Publishing a ranking with no method statement
- Ranking dense and thin markets together
- Presenting small gaps as findings
- Changing metric definitions between periods
- Comparison requires common units
- The artefact is invisible
- Raw ranking flatters easy markets
- Small differences are usually noise
- Stated frames can be challenged
Comparison requires common units
Locations measured differently produce a ranking that partly describes the measurement.
The artefact is invisible
A sorted table looks equally authoritative whether or not the inputs were comparable.
Raw ranking flatters easy markets
A strong position in a thin market is not the same achievement as a mid position in a dense one.
Small differences are usually noise
Without a variation band, two places apart reads as a gap when it is ordinary spread.
Stated frames can be challenged
A report that describes its own method can be checked, which is what makes it evidence.
Fixed metric sets protect history
A redefined measure breaks every prior comparison and announces nothing.
What it measures
- Locations measured on the common frame
- Locations flagged as exceptions
- Estate spread
- Outliers identified
- Metric definitions changed
- Periods comparable
What you get out of it
Comparisons that hold
Common frame everywhere.
Artefacts prevented
Method stated.
Fair ranking
Grouped by market.
Close calls read as close
Variation shown.
Real outliers isolated
Not ordinary spread.
Valid period comparison
Fixed metric set.
What Multi-Location Report produces
Every output is exportable and white-label, with your branding and none of ours.
Estate ranking
Every location, on one frame.
Method statement
What was measured and how.
Variation band
Ordinary spread across the estate.
Outlier list
Sites materially above or below.
Peer groups
Locations compared with like.
Per-location detail
Each site’s own measurement.
Who uses Multi-Location Report
Send branded reports on a schedule and stop assembling decks by hand.
Give leadership the rollup and operators their own detail from one report.
Report per franchisee and across the network without duplicating work.
See plainly whether the last three months moved anything.
Get more out of it
- Define one frame for the whole estate before measuring anything, including the awkward locations.
- State the frame inside the report. Unstated comparability is assumed comparability.
- Group locations by market before ranking them, or the table rewards thin markets.
- Draw the variation band so a two-place difference is not read as a finding.
- Flag any location measured differently rather than quietly including it.
- Keep the metric definitions fixed across periods, since a redefinition invalidates history silently.
Measuring locations on different frames
The ranking then describes the measurement as much as the performance, and nothing in the table shows which.
Publishing a ranking with no method statement
The reader assumes comparability, which is precisely the assumption the report has not earned.
Ranking dense and thin markets together
It flatters the easy sites and makes strong performance in a competitive market look like failure.
Presenting small gaps as findings
Two places apart is usually ordinary spread, and treating it as a result produces work with no basis.
Changing metric definitions between periods
Every historical comparison becomes invalid and there is no symptom to notice.
Manually vs with Multi-Location Report
| Doing it manually | With Multi-Location Report |
|---|---|
| Locations measured however was easiest | One frame across the estate |
| Method unstated | Frame described in the report |
| All locations ranked together | Grouped by market before ranking |
| Bare positions | Positions with a variation band |
| Exceptions blended in | Exceptions flagged explicitly |
| Metrics redefined as needed | A fixed metric set |
- Define one frame for the whole estate
- Apply it to every location without exception
- State the method inside the report
- Group locations by market before ranking
- Show the ordinary variation band
- Flag any location measured differently
- Freeze the metric definitions
Multi-Location Report is 1 of 42 tools you get
Every tool below is on the same plan at the same price. Nothing here is an add-on, an upgrade, or a separate subscription.
Rank & Visibility
Manage Profiles
Posts & Automation
Reviews & Reputation
Reports & White-Label
Others vs Local Rank Checker
How the usual pricing and packaging in this category compares with ours.
“Other tools” describes the common pattern across the category, not any one named product.
Multi-Location Report is included on every plan
One flat price per location covers all 42 tools. There is no higher tier, no add-on, and no per-seat charge.
- All 42 tools on every plan
- No per-seat charges
- No setup fee and no contract
- Cancel or change locations any time
Multi-Location Report questions
Why does the measurement frame matter so much here?
Because the report exists to compare locations. If they were measured differently, the ranking partly describes the measurement rather than the performance.
What is a common frame?
The same grid geometry, keyword set and cadence applied to every location, so the numbers are in comparable units.
Why state the method in the report?
Because a reader shown a ranking assumes it is comparable. If it is not, the report has made a claim it cannot support.
Should all locations be ranked together?
Only within peer groups. A mid position in a dense city can be a better result than a top position in a thin market.
What is the variation band for?
So a two-place difference is read as ordinary spread rather than as a finding that justifies work.
What if one location genuinely cannot use the same frame?
Flag it explicitly. An exception marked is fine; an exception blended into the table is not.
How often should the report run?
Monthly for reporting and quarterly for decisions. Estate-level change is slow enough that monthly decisions mostly chase noise.
Can metric definitions change?
They can, and every prior comparison stops being valid the moment they do. If it has to happen, restate the history.
How is this different from a portfolio report?
This compares locations within one business. A portfolio report compares clients across an agency’s whole book.
Should the report include per-location detail?
Yes, underneath the estate view. The summary answers where to look and the detail answers what to do.
What is a real outlier?
A location materially outside the estate’s ordinary spread, sustained across periods rather than in a single reading.
Can it be white-labelled?
Yes, entirely — your branding with no platform marks in the document.
How many locations before this is worth doing?
Around five. Below that the comparison can be held in someone’s head; above it, it cannot.
What if locations were set up at different times?
Group by maturity as well as market. A site measured from launch is not comparable with one measured after three years.
Does the report say what to do?
It says where to look. What to do comes from the per-location detail behind the ranking.
Should closed locations stay in the report?
Remove them and note the removal. Leaving them distorts the estate spread and the averages built on it.
How do I present a location that is genuinely failing?
With its own measurement and its peer group beside it, so the reader can see whether it is the site or the market.
What is the most common error?
Assembling a ranking from measurements that were never comparable. It is invisible in the output and it invalidates the whole document.
Can I compare against last year?
Only if the frame and the metric definitions have not changed. If they have, say so rather than showing the comparison.
What single practice improves the report most?
Stating the frame inside the document. It forces the comparability question to be answered before publication rather than after.
Every tool. One price. No add-ons.
$5.33 per location per month gets you Multi-Location Report and the other 41 tools.