Your company and your own name are two different problems

Two records, not one

A person and a company are separate records as far as a search engine is concerned. They can be joined, and joining them properly is useful, but work on one does not do the other's job.

That matters commercially because the instinct is usually to start with the founder. It feels like the easier half and it is the half that is personally interesting. On a company problem it is frequently the wrong first move.

The left hand side is where a second Business Profile gets merged or suspended and takes the reviews with it. The right hand side is where a dissolved company outranks the live one. Advice that does not distinguish them produces confident work on the wrong half.

The case where strengthening the founder makes it worse

This is the recurring business case and it is counter-intuitive enough to be worth stating plainly.

A founder who has run more than one company is a shared point between them, one step off the public register. Whatever attaches to the earlier company reaches the newer one through that person, because the register publishes the link and anybody can follow it.

Building a stronger personal record makes that connection denser, not weaker. It is the one case where our own flagship product is the wrong answer.

The fix is to make the company stand on its own attributes: its own number, its own address, its own description, its own sources. When an old company follows you to a new one is the whole case.

What we keep finding

Across the company audits run in 2026, four things come up repeatedly:

• The register result on page one is the wrong company. Usually a dissolved predecessor, sometimes a namesake.
• There are two Google Business Profiles where there should be one, often sharing a telephone number.
• The company's own site does not state its company number, so nothing joins it to the register entry.
• Social profiles exist and the company believes they are findable, and a search engine has not indexed them.

None of those is exotic and none needs a strategy. They need somebody to look, which is what a company audit is.

A name made of ordinary words is a different job

We ran this on our own parent company, which is called Domain Farm, and the result was worse than expected in a way that is useful to publish.

An indexed search across sixteen platforms reported nine of them carrying the company. Reading the actual results, not one of them named it. They were agricultural technology profiles, privacy notices and a terms page, all of which simply contain the words domain and farm.

A tally is not evidence until somebody reads the titles, and a company whose name is two common nouns has a problem that a distinctively named one does not. When your company name is made of ordinary words is what to do about it.

Which problem are you buying

Worth settling before anybody quotes, because the two jobs have different prices and different timescales.

Rough test:

• If what bothers you is what comes up when somebody searches YOUR NAME, that is the personal job, and your name in search covers it.
• If what bothers you is what comes up for the COMPANY, start here. The personal work may still help, and it is not the first move.
• If you have changed company, closed one, or share a director with something you would rather not be read alongside, that is the third case and it is the one where order matters most.

We will not quote a company engagement without looking first, and the looking is free. That is not generosity: on the evidence above, roughly half the time the obvious diagnosis is wrong.

What we will not claim

We cannot have another company removed from your results for sharing a word with you, and we will not pretend a generic name behaves like a distinctive one.

We also do not promise what Google will show for your company name. We aim for a record that is unmistakably yours and we put money behind that aim, which is what the refund is for.