06 — Map-Pack Visibility
Where they actually show up on Google Maps
We ran our own 5×5 ranking grid (5-mile radius) around every one of their 350 locations for the search “fitness workouts” (hand-picked) on 2026-07-08 — 8,750 live Google Maps rank checks.
2.3%
brand-wide Share of Local Voice for “fitness workouts” — the share of all 8,750 measured points where a location ranked in the top 3
195 of 350 locations never appeared in the map pack anywhere on their grid. Median location SoLV: 0%.
How often the brand appears at a measured point
Top 20 (found at all)7.8%
Locations by map-pack visibility
0% (invisible)195 locations
Real ranking grids
Each cell is one live rank check on the grid around the location — the number is the actual Google Maps position at that point.
Strongest market
Mebane, NC
18.2% map-pack share on this grid
Weakest market
New York, NY
0% map-pack share on this grid
Rank 1–3 (map pack)Rank 4–10Rank 11–20Not in the top 20 resultsNo map results at this point (excluded)
Strongest markets — “fitness workouts” (map-pack share)
Gloucester Point, VA14.3% Zero & weakest markets — “fitness workouts”
195 of 350 locations never appear in the map pack anywhere on their grid for “fitness workouts” — 0% share.
Weakest markets that still have some visibility:
Keyword comparison — separate full grid sweeps
For each row we ran that exact search on Google Maps thousands of times — from different neighborhoods around every single location — and counted how often the brand showed up in the top 3. “At zero” = share of locations that never appeared in the top 3 anywhere in their area.
Search termSourceBrand SoLVInvisible locsSearches run
“fitness workouts”hand-picked2.3%55.7% at zero8,750 searches
“gym”auto-derived from their GBP category1.6%63.1% at zero8,747 searches
Regional breakdown — “fitness workouts”
A WI location is, on average, 4.6× more visible on the map than one in AZ — with similar review counts and star ratings on both ends.
Reviews aren’t what’s holding these locations back. Across the 340 locations with a Google rating, ratings sit between 2.8 and 5.0 stars — and the locations with the most reviews rank no better on the map than the ones with the fewest. The visibility gap comes from somewhere else, which means it can be fixed without waiting on more reviews.
StateMap-pack shareLocationsAvg reviewsAvg rating
WI5.5%20 locations98 reviews4.96 ★ MD3.8%5 locations67 reviews5.00 ★ KY3.4%7 locations84 reviews4.91 ★ VA3.2%38 locations101 reviews4.88 ★ NC3.1%44 locations109 reviews4.85 ★ NV2.9%5 locations50 reviews4.78 ★ OH2.7%14 locations86 reviews4.93 ★ NY2.5%8 locations77 reviews4.87 ★ TN2.3%17 locations65 reviews4.92 ★ AR2.2%5 locations53 reviews4.94 ★ FL2.1%44 locations114 reviews4.90 ★ GA2.1%41 locations113 reviews4.91 ★ UT1.9%13 locations113 reviews4.85 ★ MO1.6%8 locations200 reviews5.00 ★ SC1.4%18 locations108 reviews4.89 ★ CA1.3%10 locations69 reviews4.91 ★ TX1.2%25 locations90 reviews4.85 ★ AZ1.2%10 locations59 reviews4.86 ★ States with at least 5 scanned locations. Map-pack share averages the per-location results shown above — same grid scan, same search term (“fitness workouts”). Statistical check: correlation between a location’s map-pack share and its review count is -0.03 (340 locations), and 0.09 against its star rating (340 locations); values near zero mean no relationship.
Method: DataForSEO Google Maps rank checks, 5×5 points per location at 5-mile radius, top-20 depth, matched by Google place ID. Share of Local Voice (SoLV) = the share of pack-bearing points where the location appears in the top 3 (“map pack”) results. 8,750 points measured across 350 locations on 2026-07-08. At 908 points Google returned no map results at all for this search — there is no pack to win there, so those points are excluded from every SoLV denominator (disclosed, never counted as a miss). Nothing on this panel is modeled or estimated.