Your average rank is 4.2. Is that good?
You cannot answer that, and neither can any geo-grid tool that reports the number on its own. In a thin suburban market 4.2 is poor. In a dense city centre it is close to the ceiling. The Local Visibility Index scores your grid against the businesses actually winning that grid, so the number finally means something.
The same number, two opposite conclusions.
Every geo-grid tool gives you an average position across the scan. None of them tell you whether that position is close to the best anyone is managing in that area, which is the only thing that decides what to do next.
In a quiet suburb
The best performer in this grid averages 1.4 and holds the top 3 at almost every pin. You are nowhere near the ceiling. There are easy points here and you should be taking them.
In a dense city centre
The best performer averages 3.6 because 40 competitors are packed into 2 miles. You are within touching distance of the best anyone achieves. Spending more here has almost nothing left to win.
Budget decisions
Identical raw number, opposite answers. Without a benchmark a brand routinely invests in the market that is already maxed out and ignores the one with room, because both reported 4.2.
Your grid, against the grid’s best.
One scan, run for you and for the top performers in the same area, on the same keyword, at the same pins. The index is your share of what that scan proves is achievable.
A 7 by 7 grid. Green is top 3, amber is 4 to 6, grey is not competing.
- Top 3 at 14 of 49
- Coverage 29%
- Best pin 1st
- Worst pin 18th
- Top 3 at 38 of 49
- Coverage 78%
- Best pin 1st
- Worst pin 9th
Coverage and depth, yours and theirs.
Two measurements taken twice. Once for your location and once for the businesses winning the same grid, then divided.
Coverage
At how many pins do you appear in the top 3 at all. This is the single most important input, because a customer standing at a pin where you sit 9th does not see you. Coverage is the difference between competing and being invisible.
Depth
Where you sit at the pins where you do appear. First and third are both top 3, and first takes materially more of the clicks. Depth stops a location that is technically visible everywhere from scoring the same as one that is winning.
The benchmark
The same 2 numbers for the top performers in the same grid, on the same keyword, at the same pins, on the same day. Not a national average and not a target somebody invented. What is demonstrably being achieved in that specific area right now.
The index
Your coverage and depth as a share of theirs, scored out of 100. An index of 100 means you match the best performance in the grid. It does not mean perfect, because in most competitive markets nobody holds every pin.
What each band means, and what to do.
At or near the ceiling
You hold most of what anyone in this grid holds. Further investment here has very little left to win. The correct decision is usually to hold position and move budget to a location with headroom.
Competing, with room
Real visibility and a real gap. Look at the grid shape rather than the average: a location strong in the centre and weak on one edge usually has a service or category gap, not a competition problem.
Present but losing
You appear in a minority of the area while somebody else appears in most of it. This is the band with the most upside in an estate, because the ceiling is proven and you are well below it.
Not competing in this area
The grid leader is visible across most pins and you are visible at a handful near your own door. Usually a profile problem rather than a market problem, and worth checking the basics before assuming the market is hard.
Now every location is comparable.
This is what the index gives a multi-location brand. Raw grid averages cannot be compared between markets because the markets are not the same. Indexed against each grid’s own benchmark, they can.
Illustrative. Your own locations, your own keywords, your own grid benchmarks.
Downtown averages 2.4 and Airport Road averages 4.2. On raw numbers Downtown is the better location by a wide margin and Airport Road looks like the problem.
Indexed, Downtown is at 88 and has almost nothing left to win. Airport Road is at 37 in a grid where somebody holds 38 of 49 pins. The headroom is at Airport Road, and a brand reading raw averages would have spent the money in the wrong place.
Read the grid shape, not just the number.
The index tells you which locations to work on. The grid underneath tells you what is wrong, and the shape is usually diagnostic on its own.
Strong centre, fades fast
Normal. Proximity is a real ranking factor, since Google weighs relevance, distance and prominence for every search, so every business fades with distance. The question is whether you fade faster than the benchmark does, which is exactly what the index measures.
Weak on one side only
Almost never a competition problem. Usually a category or service gap, or a stronger rival sitting in that direction. Check what the businesses ranking on that edge offer that you do not list.
Weak everywhere, including at your door
A profile problem, not a market one. Wrong primary category, unverified listing, a duplicate competing with itself, or a suspended profile nobody noticed. Run the audit before anything else.
Benchmark has far more reviews
Frequently the whole gap. Review volume and recency carry weight in local ranking, and a leader with 400 recent reviews against your 60 explains a lot. Request automation closes it over a quarter, not a week.
Index flat despite profile work
Check whether the benchmark moved too. If the leader improved while you improved, the index stays flat and your raw average still went up. That is not failure, and only a benchmarked number shows it.
Two of your own branches in one grid
In dense markets your locations appear in the same grid and split coverage between them. Worth knowing before you treat it as a ranking failure, because combined they may hold the area perfectly well.
The limits, stated up front.
A number people are asked to manage against has to survive being questioned. Here is where this one does not hold.
It is keyword specific
An index is calculated for a grid on a keyword. A location can index 80 on its main service and 20 on a secondary one. There is no single index for a location without naming which search it refers to.
It is not comparable outside your own account
No industry standard exists for this. The number is for comparing your locations against each other and against their own history, not against a figure from another vendor calculating something different.
It measures visibility, not revenue
It says how findable a location is in its area. A branch can index 90 and trade badly for reasons no ranking tool can see, and the index should never be presented as a proxy for performance.
The benchmark moves
If the grid leader improves, your index falls even though nothing about your location changed. That is the metric working correctly, and it needs explaining before somebody reads a drop as a failure.
The Local Visibility Index, answered.
What is the Local Visibility Index?
The Local Visibility Index scores how a location ranks across its geo-grid against the businesses actually winning that same grid. A raw grid average tells you your position but not whether it is close to the best anyone is achieving in that area. The index divides your coverage and depth by the grid leader’s, scored out of 100, so 37 means you hold 37 percent of the visibility that grid proves is achievable.
Why is an average grid position not enough?
Because it has no reference point. An average of 4.2 in a quiet suburb where the leader averages 1.4 means there are easy points on the table. The same 4.2 in a dense city centre where the leader averages 3.6 means you are close to the ceiling and further spend has almost nothing left to win. Identical number, opposite decisions, and no geo-grid tool that reports the average alone can tell you which you are looking at.
How is the index calculated?
From 2 measurements taken twice. Coverage is how many grid pins you appear in the top 3 at. Depth is where you sit at the pins where you do appear. Both are then measured for the top performers in the same grid, on the same keyword, at the same pins, on the same day. Your figures as a share of theirs produce the index.
What does an index of 100 mean?
That you match the best performance in that grid. It does not mean perfect, because in most competitive markets nobody holds every pin. The benchmark is what is demonstrably being achieved in that area right now, not a theoretical maximum, which is what makes it a realistic target rather than an aspirational one.
What is a good Local Visibility Index score?
Above 80 means you are at or near the ceiling for that area and the sensible move is usually to hold and spend elsewhere. 55 to 79 means real visibility with real room. 30 to 54 is where the most upside in an estate usually sits, because the ceiling is proven and you are well below it. Below 30 usually indicates a profile problem rather than a hard market.
Who is the benchmark measured against?
The top performers appearing in your grid for that keyword. Not a national average, not an industry figure and not a target anyone invented. It is whoever is actually winning that specific area on that specific search, which is the only honest reference point for a local ranking.
Can I compare the index between my locations?
Yes, and that is the main reason it exists. Raw grid averages cannot be compared between markets because the markets are not the same. A 2.4 in a competitive city and a 2.4 in a quiet town are different achievements. Indexed against each grid’s own benchmark, every location in an estate becomes comparable on one scale.
Does a high index mean I should keep investing there?
Usually the opposite. A location above 80 is holding most of what anyone in that grid holds, so further spend has little left to win. Brands rarely stop investing in a location that looks successful, because a rising rank feels like progress. The index is the argument for moving that budget to a market with headroom.
Is this the same as Share of Local Voice?
Coverage is close to it, and several geo-grid tools already report Share of Local Voice. The difference here is benchmarking it against the grid leader rather than reporting it raw, and calculating it per location across an estate so branches become comparable. That is a framing advantage rather than a new measurement, and it is worth being accurate about.
How often is the index recalculated?
It updates with each scheduled grid scan, for you and for the benchmark together. Both sides have to be measured on the same day, because a benchmark taken last month against a scan taken today would produce a number that means nothing. The useful view is the trend per location rather than a single reading.
Does the index work for service area businesses?
Yes, using the service area rank tracker rather than a storefront grid. The principle is the same: measure coverage and depth across the territory, measure the same for whoever is winning it, and divide. A business with no storefront still has an area it is trying to be visible across.
What do I do if a location scores badly?
Look at the grid shape before assuming the market is hard. A location strong in the centre and weak on one edge usually has a category or service gap rather than a competition problem. A location weak everywhere, including at its own door, almost always has a profile problem worth checking first. The grid tells you which of those you are dealing with.
Find out how much of your area is actually winnable.
Run a grid scan on 1 location and see your coverage against the businesses holding that area. It takes a few minutes and needs no account.