Client case study · 3 months Illustrative

0→+140%

Enquiries against the pre-suspension baseline, over 3 months.

Elapsed: 3 months
How it was measured: Reinstatement confirmed by Google; enquiry volume from call tracking before suspension and after recovery.
Running alongside: Paid search ran at elevated spend to cover the gap, then was reduced.
Published with permission: Anonymised at client request

The constraint

Nine weeks invisible, and nobody could say why

The listing was gone from Maps, reviews with it. Two agencies had filed appeals and both were rejected.

Google does not say why, and each rejection makes the next attempt harder.

Hard suspension, listing and reviews removed
Two rejected appeals already on record
Paid search spend doubled to cover the gap

What we found

The audit, including the unflattering parts

The cause was in the business name and had been for years.

The listing read as the firm name plus three practice areas — the most reported violation there is.

Keywords in the business name
Name inconsistent across 40+ citations
No licence documentation prepared

The plan

The 90-day roadmap as it was actually written

Fix the cause, then the evidence, then appeal once properly.

Correct the name on signage, site and every citation first
Assemble licence, lease and utility documentation
File one appeal with the evidence Google actually asks for

Month by month

What shipped, and what it moved

The line extends as you scroll. Every step below is a real month, including the one where nothing happened.

01Week 1

Inherited the problem

Hard suspension, two rejected appeals, no cause identified by anyone.

Baseline: zero visibility

02Week 2

Diagnosis

Keywords in the business name, inconsistent across forty citations.

Cause identified

03Week 4

Cause removed

Name corrected everywhere we could reach.

Evidence assembled

04Week 6

Reinstated

Second appeal filed with documentation. Live within twelve days.

Listing restored

05Week 10

Recovery

Map position climbing as review signals re-established.

+80%

06Week 12

Past baseline

Enquiries above pre-suspension level, paid spend reduced.

+140%

What went wrong

The part most case studies leave out

Our own first appeal was rejected too. We had corrected the business name but not the forty citations still carrying the old one, so the evidence contradicted itself.

Publishing our own rejected appeal matters, because it is the lesson.

We corrected the name and filed, assuming that was enough. Forty citations still carried the old keyword-stuffed version, so the evidence contradicted itself. The second appeal went in only after they matched, and succeeded in twelve days. An appeal is an evidence exercise, not a form.

The numbers

Where it landed, and how we know

Enquiries against the pre-suspension baseline: 0 → +140% over 3 months. Reinstatement confirmed by Google; enquiry volume from call tracking before suspension and after recovery.

Reinstatement confirmed by Google. Enquiries from call tracking, comparing the pre-suspension baseline with post-recovery.

Suspended nine weeks before we were engaged
Reinstated twelve days after the second appeal
Enquiries 140% above the pre-suspension baseline by week 12
Paid spend reduced once organic recovered

Results reflect this client's market, licence status and starting position. We publish the method alongside the number so you can judge whether it transfers to yours.

In hindsight

What we'd do differently next time

Fix citations before filing, not after. It cost us an appeal.
Assemble documentation during diagnosis rather than after
Say plainly that a third rejection would have been close to terminal

Before you ask us to do this for you

Does this actually apply to your situation?

This worked because of specific conditions. If yours don't match, say so on the first call and we'll tell you what would change.

Market: Any local business with a suspended or removed Business Profile.
Starting point: Willingness to change the business name if that is the cause. Most inherited failures are people who would not.
Timeline: Two to six weeks for a clean case; longer where appeals have already failed.

Start with the audit. It's free and it's specific.

Send us a URL. You'll get back the technical issues, your AI-search readiness score, what competitors are doing that you aren't, and what we'd fix in the first ninety days.

Get a free audit → WhatsApp us instead