The document analyzes the competitive local digital marketing performance of Forever 21 and H&M, focusing on metrics such as data quality, reviews, engagement, and local advertising. It highlights that Forever 21 had better ranking locations, while H&M excelled in overall listings presence and engagement on social media. Recommendations include both brands enhancing their local pages to improve search rankings and user experience.

1. OVERALL SCORE CARD
COMPETITORSCOMPETITORS
LOCALSEOLOCALSEO
LOCALADVERTISING
ENGAGEMENTENGAGEMENT
REVIEWS
LOCAL DIGITAL MARKETINGLOCAL DIGITAL MARKETING
A HEAD TO HEAD SHOWDOWN
k.o.
brand score
DATAQUALITY
REVIEWS
77 %
60
k.o.
Brand
BattleBattle
Brand
A HEAD TO HEAD SHOWDOWN
in
Forever 21 vs H&M
SATISFACTION RATING
4-STAR AND ABOVE RATING
ADDRESS PRECISION
PHONE# PRECISION
FOUND LOCATIONS
DATAQUALITY
brand score
NAP ANALYSIS & LISTING PRESENCE
ACROSS THE “BIG 6” ENGINES AND LOCAL DIRECTORIES
KO
3
wrong number, bro
bring it on
%
OVERALL SCORE CARD
LOCALSEO
114
REVIEWS
90 95
ENGAGEMENT
108 113
DATAQUALITY
114 118
FIGHT FOR THE TOP
USING KEYWORDS Clothing Store, Womens Clothing, Dresses
40% of Forever 21's
locations showed up at position 1.
NON-RANKING LOCATIONSSEARCH RANK
Supermarket
1.
2.
3.
4.
Discount Store
1.
2.
3.
4.
Forever 21's locations ranked
in the first position 27% more often
than H&M’s locations.
LOCALADVERTISING GENERATING BRAND AWARENESS
AND DRIVING LOCAL CONVERSIONS
H&M CLOTHING
H&M DRESSES
THIGH-HIGHBOOTS
H&M KIDS
H&M MATERNITY
2.
1.
3.
4.
4.
80% of Keywords rank
IN POSITION 1-3
34%
BUSINESS LOCATOR LOCAL PAGES
STORE HOURS
ADDRESS
PHONE
FLAVORS IN STORE
Due to more claimed locations and the
increase in address precision, H&M
managed to have an overall stronger
listings presence.
43%
71%
15%
10%
2%
UNCLAIMED LOCATIONS LISTING STRENGTH
COMPETITORS
90 93
LOCALADVERTISING
83 90
LOCAL AMPLIFICATION
FANS
23,135,365 42,981,637
HIGHER ENGAGEMENT
Likes, Shares, Comments,
& Consumer Brand Hashtags
SENTIMENT ANALYSIS
KEYWORD ANALYSIS
Forever 21 customers were most likely
to experience:
Both brands should incorporate local
pages to help boost their page ranks
on Google and Bing.
KEY LOCATOR FACTORS KEY LOCAL PAGE FACTORS
DOMINATEDDOMINATED
Architecture & Usability
NUMBER OF COMPETITORS:
4, including each other
HAS HIGHER
LOCAL OCCURANCES
3840% %
Quality clothing!
Helpful staff!
Great selection!
Helpful
AN ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER
ACTIONS AND INTERACTIONS
%38
MISSING LOCATIONS
@GoBrandify
91 %
84%
Neither Forever 21 nor H&M has
branded local pages.
Price
KO
KO
KO
599
winner
H&M's locator has a map view as well
as integrated directions on mobile
providing an overall greater user
experience.
What is your Brand Score?
Brandify's real-time algorithms continuously
evaluate the online footprint of multi-location
brands across the six pillars: Data Quality, Local
SEO, Reviews, Engagement, Local Advertising, and
Competitors. Improve organic search, business
listings, competitiveness and social media
engagement with Brandify.
We evaluate over 250+ variables representing
the following categories:
Local
SEO
Competitors
1
2
3
Local
Advertising
Reviews
Measuring your Brand’s Digital Footprint.
En gagement
Data Quality
Brand Score
DATA COLLECTED: AUGUST 2015 - OCTOBER 2015
Quality
FOR THE KEYWORDS: Women's Clothing
Top competition is each other, with
Charlotte Russe, The Gap, Aeropostale
623
H&M MEN
H AND M CLOTHING
H&M SHOES
BODY SUITS
BIKER JEANS
DIVIDED
714.660.4870 | hello@brandify.com | www.brandify.com
39% 70%
18%
H&M HOME
114
Across the board we noticed that H&M had
more social fans that were more engaged
on its social channels.
44%
THIGH-HIGHLACEUPBOOTS
Charlotte Russe, H&M, Aeropostale
The Gap, Forever 21, Zara