Multi-Location Local SEO for WordPress: The Complete Playbook

Search a phrase like "multi-location SEO checklist" and you get the same list on every result: keep your NAP consistent, claim your Google Business Profile, get reviews. All true, none of it wrong, and none of it tells you what to actually build. The advice is written by agencies describing outcomes, not by anyone who has had to decide whether a location is a custom post type or a hand-coded page, or how a hundred LocalBusiness entities should relate to one brand in schema. If you run a WordPress site for a business with more than one address, whether that is three clinics, a twelve-store retail chain, or a franchise network pushing past a hundred locations, the fundamentals matter but they are the easy 20%. The hard 80% is architecture.

Multi-location SEO fails in WordPress in a specific, predictable way. Someone builds the first location page by hand, it looks good, it ranks. A second location gets added the same way. By location six or seven, the pages have quietly diverged: different heading structure, one page has a map embed and three don't, the phone number format is inconsistent, and nobody remembers which page has the schema markup and which one never got it. Nobody planned for this. Each page was reasonable in isolation. The problem is that "just add more location pages" is not a strategy, it is the absence of one, and it compounds with every location you add. By the time you notice, you are not looking at a content problem, you are looking at a rebuild.

This guide is built around a single premise: a multi-location site is a system, not a collection of pages. Every decision, from the custom post type structure through schema, sitemaps, and even how you write the local paragraph, should be made once, at the system level, so that adding location 47 costs you the same effort as adding location 2. We will walk through the standard local SEO fundamentals because they still matter, but the center of gravity here is the WordPress-specific architecture decisions that most guides skip entirely: how to structure the content type, how to generate schema per location without hand-writing JSON-LD fifty times, how to keep a sitemap sane at scale, and how to write location content that doesn't read as the same paragraph with the city name swapped.

What multi-location SEO actually requires that single-location SEO does not

Single-location local SEO has one job: make one entity, at one address, rank well for searches near that address. You optimize one Google Business Profile, one set of on-page signals, one LocalBusiness schema block, and you are done. Multi-location SEO has to solve a problem that does not exist at all in the single-location case: each location needs to rank independently in its own geography, competing on its own local relevance and proximity signals, while the brand as a whole needs to read as one coherent entity to both users and search engines. Those two goals pull in different directions, and most of the hard decisions in this space come from resolving that tension.

Independence means a search for "[service] near [suburb]" needs to surface the specific branch closest to that searcher, with that branch's actual address, actual hours, and actual phone number, not a generic company page that happens to mention the city once. Coherence means that when a user or a search engine looks at the brand across all its locations, the name is spelled the same way everywhere, the logo and description match, and there is a clear signal that the Downtown branch and the Riverside branch are part of the same organization rather than two unrelated businesses that happen to share a name. Get the independence part wrong and none of your locations rank locally, they all get treated as thin duplicates of a head office page. Get the coherence part wrong and you dilute your own brand entity, confuse review attribution, and make it harder for Google to trust any single location because the overall picture is inconsistent.

This is why the standard local SEO checklist, useful as it is, undersells the problem. NAP consistency and Google Business Profile optimization are necessary conditions, not sufficient ones. The sufficient condition is a content and data architecture where every location has genuinely unique, geographically specific signals (its own reviews, its own local content, its own schema entity) that all point back to one verifiably real, structurally connected parent organization. That is an information architecture problem before it is a content problem, which is why the next section is about the actual page structure, not about writing tips.

There is a second, quieter cost to getting this wrong that rarely shows up in the checklist-style guides: attribution confusion. When a business's online presence is inconsistent across locations, customers themselves start making mistakes, calling the wrong branch, showing up at an address that's actually the old location, leaving a review meant for one branch on another branch's listing. Search engines pick up on these same confusions indirectly, through inconsistent click behavior, through citation data that disagrees with itself, through review platforms that can't cleanly separate one location's reputation from another's. None of this is fixed by writing better copy. It's fixed by an architecture where the facts about each location live in exactly one place and propagate cleanly to every surface that needs them, which is the throughline for the rest of this guide.

One location page each: custom post type, hand-built pages, or hybrid?

There are three ways to structure location pages in WordPress, and the choice you make here determines almost everything downstream: how consistent your schema is, how fast you can add a location, and whether your NAP data stays accurate as branches open, close, and move.

Option 1: a dedicated locations custom post type with one template

Each location is an entry in a custom post type (call it Locations) with structured custom fields: address, phone, geo coordinates, hours, manager name, whatever your business needs. A single page template pulls those fields and renders every location the same way. Adding a location means filling out a form, not building a page. This is the pattern behind Rankwyn's local SEO feature, which ships a dedicated locations post type with a business info source of truth and a `[rankwyn_locations]` shortcode that renders a searchable directory of every location automatically, no per-location template work required.

The advantage compounds with scale. Every location automatically has identical heading structure, identical schema generation logic, and identical sitemap inclusion, because they are all instances of the same template. Change the template once (add a new field, tweak the schema, fix a formatting bug) and every location updates. This is also what keeps NAP consistency achievable: the address field lives in one place per location, and every surface that displays it, the page, the schema, the directory listing, reads from that same field.

The disadvantage is flexibility. If one location genuinely needs a different layout, say a flagship store with a different story to tell, a strict template fights you. That is a real cost, but it is usually a smaller cost than the alternative.

Option 2: a full custom page per location

Each location gets its own hand-built page, full design freedom, page builder blocks, whatever the team wants. This works fine for two locations. It works adequately for three or four if one person owns all of them and is disciplined about keeping them aligned. Past that, it drifts. Someone updates hours on one page and forgets three others. A new team member builds the fifteenth location page from a template they found in the trash, not the current one. Schema gets added inconsistently because it is copy-pasted JSON-LD rather than generated. There is no mechanism forcing consistency, only discipline, and discipline does not scale linearly with headcount and location count.

The advantage is real for genuinely different location types. A business with three locations that are meaningfully different in what they offer, one is a full-service store, one is a small kiosk, one is by-appointment-only, might reasonably want that flexibility. But most multi-location businesses do not have that kind of variance between locations. They have variance in address, hours, and staff, not in fundamental structure, and a template handles that variance fine through custom fields.

Option 3: hybrid, custom post type with template overrides

The pragmatic middle ground: use the custom post type and shared template for the baseline (schema, NAP fields, hours, the directory listing), but allow specific locations to override a content block or two, an intro paragraph, a hero image, a callout, without breaking out of the template entirely. This gets you consistency where it matters (data, schema, structure) and flexibility where it is genuinely useful (the parts of the page that are actually about differentiation, like local content).

Our recommendation: for anything beyond three or four locations, default to a locations custom post type with a consistent template, and treat true one-off exceptions as the rare case that earns a manual override, not the default pattern. The reasoning is not aesthetic, it is operational. A CPT scales because adding location 40 costs the same as adding location 4. Hand-built pages drift out of sync as a mathematical certainty, not a possibility, because every additional page is another surface that has to be manually kept in sync with every other one, and that maintenance burden grows faster than the team maintaining it usually does. If you are below three locations, the overhead of setting up a custom post type and template may genuinely not be worth it yet, and hand-built pages are a reasonable starting point. The moment you are planning a fourth location, that calculus flips.

One more practical point on the CPT approach worth spelling out: custom fields for a location should be structured, not free text, wherever the field maps to something schema or an external system needs to consume. Address should be broken into street, city, region, postal code, and country as separate fields rather than one text box, because that's what LocalBusiness schema's PostalAddress type expects and it's what lets you generate a clean, valid geo lookup rather than parsing a blob of text. Hours should use a structured repeater (day, open time, close time, with support for split shifts and holiday overrides) rather than a paragraph describing hours in prose. This upfront structuring cost is exactly what makes the schema generation in the next section close to automatic instead of a manual authoring task per location.

LocalBusiness schema per location, and why the parent organization link matters

Every location needs its own LocalBusiness (or a relevant subtype, like Restaurant, Store, or MedicalClinic) JSON-LD entity with its own name, address, geo coordinates, phone number, and opening hours. This is not optional at scale: without it, a search engine has no structured way to tell that the Riverside branch and the Downtown branch are different physical places with different hours, and it will fall back to whatever it can infer from unstructured page content, which is unreliable at best.

The detail most guides skip is the `parentOrganization` (or `branchOf`, depending on which direction you're linking) property. Without it, you have generated fifty disconnected LocalBusiness entities that happen to share a similar name. With it, you have explicitly told search engines that these fifty entities are branches of one organization, which does several useful things at once: it consolidates entity trust so that the brand's overall authority (from reviews, links, and citations across all locations) reinforces each individual branch rather than each branch starting from zero, it reduces the risk of a search engine treating near-duplicate business names as spam or as unrelated competing businesses, and it gives you a clean way to represent brand-level information (a company description, a logo, a founding date) once, on the parent Organization entity, instead of repeating it fifty times with fifty chances to get it slightly wrong.

Here is what that looks like in practice, for one branch location linked back to a parent Organization entity:

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "LocalBusiness",
  "@id": "https://example.com/locations/riverside/#business",
  "name": "Example Coffee Co. - Riverside",
  "image": "https://example.com/images/riverside-storefront.jpg",
  "address": {
    "@type": "PostalAddress",
    "streetAddress": "482 Riverside Ave",
    "addressLocality": "Springfield",
    "addressRegion": "IL",
    "postalCode": "62704",
    "addressCountry": "US"
  },
  "geo": {
    "@type": "GeoCoordinates",
    "latitude": 39.7817,
    "longitude": -89.6501
  },
  "telephone": "+1-217-555-0142",
  "openingHoursSpecification": [
    {
      "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification",
      "dayOfWeek": ["Monday", "Tuesday", "Wednesday", "Thursday", "Friday"],
      "opens": "07:00",
      "closes": "18:00"
    },
    {
      "@type": "OpeningHoursSpecification",
      "dayOfWeek": ["Saturday", "Sunday"],
      "opens": "08:00",
      "closes": "16:00"
    }
  ],
  "parentOrganization": {
    "@type": "Organization",
    "@id": "https://example.com/#organization",
    "name": "Example Coffee Co.",
    "url": "https://example.com"
  }
}

Notice the `@id` fields: giving both the location and the parent organization a stable, unique `@id` lets you reference the same entities consistently across the location page, the schema on the homepage, and the directory listing, instead of generating a fresh anonymous entity every time. This is exactly the pattern a locations custom post type makes trivial: since address, phone, hours, and coordinates already live in structured fields per location, the schema is generated from those fields rather than hand-written per page, which is the only realistic way to keep fifty-plus schema blocks accurate as hours and addresses change. Rankwyn's local SEO feature works this way, generating LocalBusiness schema directly from your business info and hours fields so the JSON-LD updates automatically the moment you change a location's hours, rather than requiring someone to remember to edit raw markup. For the broader mechanics of how structured data works across a WordPress site beyond local business entities, the schema markup guide covers the full picture.

A common question at this point is whether every location needs the full Review and AggregateRating properties nested directly into its LocalBusiness block, or whether a simpler entity referencing an external profile is enough. In practice, a minimal, accurate LocalBusiness entity with correct address, geo, hours, and phone number is far more valuable than a maximal one padded with aspirational or unverified properties. Search engines validate structured data against what they can independently confirm, an address that doesn't match Google's own map data, or hours that contradict what the Google Business Profile says, undermines trust in the entire schema block rather than just the one incorrect field. Accuracy in the fields you do include beats completeness across every optional field schema.org allows.

NAP consistency: why small mismatches actively hurt rankings

NAP, name, address, phone number, consistency means every place your business is listed, your own website, Google Business Profile, Yelp, Apple Maps, industry directories, chamber of commerce listings, old citations you forgot existed, states the same information in the same format. "123 Main St, Suite 4" and "123 Main Street Ste. 4" are the same address to a human and, often, close enough to a search engine, but inconsistency compounds. A phone number that's correct on the website but wrong on three directories, an address that changed when a location moved but is still listed at the old spot on a citation site nobody has touched in four years, a business name that says "Example Coffee Co." on the website and "Example Coffee" on Google Business Profile: each one is a small signal of unreliability, and search engines use exactly these kinds of signals to judge whether a business's identity can be trusted enough to rank confidently in local results. It is not that one mismatch tanks a location. It is that the aggregate pattern of a business that cannot keep its own basic facts straight across the web reads as lower trust, and lower trust shows up as weaker local rankings and a higher bar for the engine to include you in the local pack at all.

For a single location, keeping NAP consistent is a one-time cleanup and an occasional check. For multiple locations, it is an ongoing process problem, because you have N times the data points to keep synchronized, and locations change: a branch moves, a phone number is reassigned, a location closes, a new one opens. The practical way to keep this manageable is the same principle as the information architecture decision above: have one source of truth per location's data (the custom field values on that location's post) and treat every other surface, the page display, the schema, the Google Business Profile listing, third-party citations, as something that reads from or is manually synced against that source, never as an independent place to edit the same fact. When a location's address changes, there should be exactly one field to update on your WordPress site, and a short checklist of external listings (GBP, primary directories, any citation aggregator service you use) to update alongside it, rather than a scavenger hunt through pages, schema blocks, and profiles to find every place the old address might still be sitting.

Build a quarterly audit into your process regardless of how careful the initial setup was. Search your own business name and address combinations, check your top local citation sources, and confirm Google Business Profile still matches the website. This is tedious at ten locations and genuinely unmanageable by hand past thirty or forty, which is part of why the next section on Google Business Profile management at scale matters as much as it does.

Citations, the mentions of your business's NAP data on third-party directories and platforms, deserve a specific note because they're the part of NAP consistency most likely to be outside your direct control. A location listed on an industry directory, a chamber of commerce site, or a data aggregator years ago doesn't stop existing just because you've since moved on to managing everything through your own website and Google Business Profile. These old citations persist, they get scraped by other directories, and they can actively contradict your current, correct information. Running an initial citation audit (searching your business name plus each location's city, checking the major generalist directories and any industry-specific ones relevant to your business) is worth doing once thoroughly during setup, correcting or requesting removal of anything stale, rather than treating it as background noise that doesn't affect rankings.

Google Business Profile management at scale

A single Google Business Profile is manageable by anyone with an afternoon. Fifty of them are a distinct operational problem. Google's bulk location management, available through Business Profile Manager for verified organizations with multiple locations, lets you manage listings from one dashboard rather than fifty separate logins, which is close to mandatory once you're past a handful of branches. Set this up through an organization account rather than individual owner accounts per location; individual accounts are how businesses lose access to a listing when the one employee who set it up leaves the company.

Verification is the part that catches multi-location businesses off guard. Google generally requires each individual location to be verified separately, and at volume this can mean postcards, phone verification, or video verification for dozens of addresses in sequence, plus the ongoing risk of a listing getting suspended for a policy violation (often something as mundane as a mismatched address format) and having to go through re-verification while that location effectively disappears from local search in the meantime. Budget real time for this when opening several locations at once rather than assuming it is instant.

The recurring failure mode once profiles are live is hours drift: a location's hours change on the website (a holiday closure, a seasonal adjustment, a permanent schedule change) and someone updates the site but not the Google Business Profile, or vice versa, and now a customer shows up to a closed location because the two sources disagree. This is exactly the kind of drift that a single connected hours source is meant to prevent, hours entered once, in one structured field per location, feeding both the on-site schema and (through whatever sync or manual process you have to GBP) the profile listing, rather than two teams or two tools maintaining the same fact independently and inevitably falling out of sync.

One more scale consideration for Google Business Profile: assign ownership deliberately rather than by accident. For a business with regional managers or franchisees, decide up front whether a location manager gets direct owner or manager access on their specific profile through the organization account, or whether all updates route through a central marketing or operations team. Direct access is faster for keeping hours and posts current at the individual location level, but it also means more people who can make a mistake that gets a listing suspended. A centralized model is slower but easier to keep consistent. Neither is universally correct, but leaving it undecided, where access gets granted ad hoc as people ask for it, is how businesses end up with orphaned profiles nobody remembers the login for.

The locations index page: a central directory of every branch

Beyond individual location pages, multi-location sites need one central page that lists every location, usually with search or filtering by city, region, or service type, and links out to each individual location page. This page serves two audiences at once: users trying to find their nearest branch, and search engines trying to understand the full scope and structure of the business, which reinforces the parentOrganization relationship established in schema by demonstrating it structurally, in actual internal links, not just in JSON-LD.

In WordPress terms, the standard implementation is a shortcode-driven directory pattern that pulls from the locations custom post type and renders automatically, rather than a manually maintained list of links that someone has to remember to update every time a location opens or closes. This is precisely what a `[rankwyn_locations]` style shortcode is built for: drop it into any page and it lists every published location, pulling live from the CPT, so the directory page never falls out of sync with the actual set of locations the way a hand-maintained bullet list of links inevitably would. Search and filtering (by city, by service, by region) on top of that directory becomes a matter of exposing the CPT's taxonomy fields to a simple filter UI rather than building a custom search system from scratch.

Two structural details matter here beyond the basic listing. First, the index page should link to every location page with real, crawlable anchor text, ideally including the location name and city, not just "View location" repeated fifty times, since that anchor text is itself a relevance signal. Second, the index page benefits from being reachable in the site's primary navigation, not buried three clicks deep, both for users and because a page's position in the internal link structure is one of the signals search engines use to judge its importance relative to the rest of the site.

It's also worth deciding early whether the index page should be organized flat (every location in one list, sorted alphabetically or by proximity if you support geolocation) or grouped by region or state for businesses with a wide geographic footprint. A flat list of six locations is fine. A flat list of two hundred locations across a dozen states is not usable, and grouping by region both helps users navigate and creates a natural secondary layer of internal linking, a regional hub page linking to every location within that region, which gives search engines an additional structural signal about geographic scope beyond what the single top-level directory page provides on its own.

Local sitemap strategy once you have many locations

Once a site has more than a handful of locations, lumping location pages into the same general sitemap as blog posts, product pages, and everything else on the site makes them harder to monitor and slower to diagnose when something goes wrong. A dedicated local sitemap, a separate `local-sitemap.xml` containing only location pages, keeps this content isolated and easier to reason about: if you notice indexing issues specific to locations (a batch of newly opened branches not getting picked up, or a subset of pages dropping out of the index after a template change), you can check exactly one sitemap covering exactly the content in question, rather than searching for the signal inside a general sitemap covering everything the site publishes.

This separation also matters for freshness signals at scale. Location pages update on a different rhythm than blog content, hours change seasonally, a location closes, a new one opens mid-quarter, and a sitemap dedicated to locations can reflect that update cadence accurately without diluting the crawl priority signals of your regular content pages. Rankwyn's sitemap and indexing feature supports exactly this kind of structure, either through its hosted sitemap for simpler setups or its self-generated local sitemap mode with a dedicated `local-sitemap.xml`, so a locations post type gets its own sitemap file automatically as part of the same system that handles the rest of the site's XML sitemap and IndexNow submissions, rather than needing a separate plugin or manual sitemap generation just for locations.

At real scale, dozens or hundreds of locations, pagination inside the local sitemap (a sitemap index pointing to paginated sub-sitemaps rather than one enormous file) becomes necessary for the same reason any large sitemap needs pagination: search engines have practical limits on sitemap file size and URL count, and a single monolithic file both risks hitting those limits and makes partial re-crawls slower and harder to target.

Writing local content that doesn't read as duplicated across branches

This is the hardest problem in multi-location SEO, harder than the architecture, harder than the schema, because it cannot be solved with a template or a plugin. It has to be solved with actual, specific content, and it is also the place where the CPT-and-template approach recommended earlier creates its own risk if you are not careful: a page structure that makes fifty locations consistent also makes it dangerously easy to produce fifty locations whose only real difference is the city name swapped into an otherwise identical paragraph. That pattern, thin, templated location content differentiated only by a find-and-replace of the location name, is a well-documented risk. Search engines are reasonably good at detecting near-duplicate content across a site's own pages, and at best these pages simply don't rank because they offer no unique signal to rank on, at worst a large cluster of them can contribute to a broader quality assessment that suppresses the site's local visibility more generally. Do not underestimate this. "We serve [city] with the same great service" repeated fifty times with the city swapped is not a location page, it is the same page fifty times.

The fix is concrete, specific, location-true content, and it is achievable even inside a strict template if the template has fields built for it rather than one generic body paragraph. Four tactics do most of the work:

• Mention actual local landmarks and neighborhoods by name, not just the city. "Two blocks from Riverside Park" or "in the Old Mill district" is a real, verifiable local signal a generic "serving Springfield" sentence is not, and it reads as genuinely useful to a local searcher rather than as SEO filler.
• Note location-specific service availability or specialties. If the Riverside branch has a drive-through and the Downtown branch doesn't, if one location carries a product line the others don't, if one clinic has a specialist on staff the others don't, say so explicitly. This is real information a customer needs, and it is also the single most reliable way to make a location page structurally different from its siblings rather than superficially different.
• Use real photos taken at that specific location, not stock photography or a single hero shot reused across every branch. Beyond the trust signal to users, unique images give each page unique alt text and unique visual content, both of which reinforce that the page describes a real, specific place rather than a templated stand-in.
• Reference local staff, community involvement, or local press where genuine. A manager's name, a sponsorship of a local youth team, a mention in a local paper, these are small details but they are exactly the kind of specific, unfakeable detail that separates a page written about a real place from a page generated from a template with the blanks filled in.

None of this requires abandoning the shared template. It requires the template to have dedicated fields for local landmarks, specific services, and location-specific photos, so that filling out a new location page is a matter of actually gathering that specific information, not an afterthought squeezed into a generic body field. If a business genuinely cannot produce this level of specificity for a location, meaning the location has literally nothing distinguishing it from its siblings beyond the address, that is worth treating as a signal worth sitting with, not solving by writing more filler. A thin page that honestly says less is a smaller risk than a padded page that says the same thing with more words.

Review generation and Review or AggregateRating schema per location

Reviews are one of the few signals that are naturally location-specific by default, a review of the Riverside branch is genuinely about the Riverside branch, which makes them one of the most valuable trust signals available in multi-location SEO precisely because they cannot be faked into consistency across locations the way a copy-pasted paragraph can. The practical goal is steady review velocity at every location, not just the flagship one: a process for asking customers to leave a review tied to the specific location they visited (a QR code at checkout linking to that location's specific Google Business Profile review link, for instance, rather than one generic company-wide review link that doesn't distinguish which branch the review is about), and enough consistency in that process across all locations that no branch is quietly starved of reviews while another accumulates hundreds.

On the schema side, AggregateRating (a summary of a location's overall rating and review count) nested inside that location's LocalBusiness entity gives search engines a structured signal of that location's specific reputation, separate from the brand's reputation as a whole. This is worth generating per location rather than only at the brand level, for the same reason the LocalBusiness entity itself is per location: a searcher near the Riverside branch cares about the Riverside branch's rating, not an average across fifty locations they'll never visit. Individual Review markup for specific reviews is lower priority and, done poorly (fabricated or unverifiable reviews marked up as structured data), is a real risk rather than a benefit, since search engines actively police review schema for authenticity. AggregateRating populated from genuine, verifiable review counts and averages is the safer and more useful piece to prioritize.

A six-pillar self-audit for an existing multi-location site

If you're auditing a multi-location WordPress site rather than building one from scratch, these six areas cover the pillars this guide has walked through, and each one has a fast status check you can run today without any specialized tooling.

Run this quarterly, not just once. Locations open, close, and move, staff managing GBP profiles change, and a system that was consistent at launch drifts exactly the way a hand-built page architecture does, just more slowly, unless something is actively re-checking it on a schedule.

Why structured local data matters more with AI-driven search

That statistic is not specific to local SEO, but it is a useful data point on how AI systems choose what to cite in general: comprehensive, well-structured, definitive content earns a disproportionate share of citations compared to thin or narrowly scoped pages. The same logic applies at the location level. A location page with genuine, specific local detail and clean structured data is more citeable, by both traditional search and AI-driven answer generation, than a thin templated page differentiated only by a city name.

Putting it together on WordPress

None of the individual pieces here are exotic. A custom post type, structured fields, a shared template, generated schema, a dedicated sitemap, a shortcode-driven directory: this is all standard WordPress capability, not a specialized platform requirement. What makes multi-location SEO hard in practice is not any single piece, it's making all of the pieces read from the same source of truth so that the business's identity, name, address, hours, phone number, stays consistent across the page, the schema, the sitemap, and the Google Business Profile listing without someone manually reconciling five different places every time a fact changes.

Rankwyn's local SEO feature is built around exactly that principle: one source of truth for business info per location, LocalBusiness schema generated from that data rather than hand-written, a dedicated local sitemap that stays current automatically, and the `[rankwyn_locations]` shortcode for the directory page, all working from the same underlying locations custom post type rather than as separate disconnected tools. For agencies managing multiple location editors across a client's team with different permission levels, access control is worth setting up alongside this so that a location manager can update their branch's hours and details without also being able to edit brand-level settings or other locations' data. Pricing for the plans that include multi-location mode is on the pricing page.

If you're starting from scratch, the order of operations that avoids the most rework is: set up the locations custom post type and template first, migrate or enter your existing location data into it, verify schema is generating correctly for a handful of locations, then build the directory page and sitemap on top of that already-consistent data, and only then invest heavily in the local content differentiation work, since content is far easier to write well once the underlying architecture isn't fighting you. Businesses that try to solve content quality before architecture usually end up rewriting that content anyway once the page structure changes underneath it.