SOURCE

The Low Competition Ranking Method

Properties1
tagslocal-seo, caleb-ulku, course, three-step-method, gbp, gbp-alignment, super-citations, leadsnap
AUTHOR
Caleb Ulku
ORIGINAL
view original

5 min read

The Low Competition Ranking Method

Author: Caleb Ulku | Published: unknown | Source: transcript

Summary

Caleb defines the three-step / low-competition ranking method as the package that, he claims, gets 70–80% of local businesses “ranked reasonably well” — specifically in markets under 500,000 people where competition is not intense (plumbers, roofers, dentists). It is not enough for personal-injury lawyers in Manhattan. This lesson is the framework; he says the over-the-shoulder implementations come in “module two.”

Step 1 — GBP audit. Categories and services have to be exact. Most businesses pick one category and stop; Google allows up to 10 categories and “dozens and dozens of services,” and each is another chance to be shown. The primary category is the one you rank for first. HVAC example (especially in the South): use air conditioning repair, not “HVAC contractor” or “air conditioning replacement,” because that is what users search. Do not change a primary category that is already ranking well — it is a big deal and can disrupt rankings. Only change it if it is clearly wrong for the main service or rankings are terrible. Add only relevant, accurate categories; most locals still under-list.

Step 2 — GBP landing-page audit (the URL the profile links to, usually the homepage). He flags a subset of a longer checklist: local-business Schema Markup (Structured Data) that matches the GBP; phone match; address match exactly (inconsistency “confuses Google about whether these represent the same business”); GBP/Maps embed as a visual connection; title tag and H1 include primary category + city.

Step 3 — Super Citations. Manual is free; his agency uses LeadSnap (paid) to copy the GBP across 51 locations that typically require business verification, skipping that verification via the tool. These are not random directories: verification is the difference. He names Apple Maps and Bing Places as examples of platforms that require proof you are legitimate. LeadSnap, he says, handles verification automatically.

For 70–80% of businesses, the three steps are enough if you are not trying to dominate the most competitive keywords in the most competitive cities. The “beauty” is simplicity: while other agencies spend weeks on complicated strategies, this handles fundamentals most businesses ignore — fix the GBP, align the website, establish verified citations.

Key Claims

  • Three-step method works for 70–80% of local businesses in markets under 500k; fails for ultra-competitive verticals (Manhattan PI).
  • GBP: up to 10 categories + many services; under-listing is the default miss.
  • Primary category should match what users search (HVAC → air conditioning repair), but do not change a working primary.
  • Landing page must have LocalBusiness schema, exact NAP match, Maps embed, and title/H1 = primary category + city.
  • Super-citations = verified profiles (Apple Maps, Bing Places, etc.), not 2017 directory dumps.
  • LeadSnap pushes the GBP to 51 such places and “skips” manual verification.
  • Doing the unglamorous three steps beats “complicated strategies” for low/medium markets.

Notable quotes

“The three-step method I’m going to break down for you works for 70 to 80 percent of local businesses. These are businesses in markets under 500,000 people where competition is not intense. If you’re dealing with personal injury lawyers in Manhattan, this isn’t going to be enough.”

Why citable: Full statement of the course’s scope rule — the percentage and the population cutoff and the vertical exception in one place.

“The difference between regular citations and super citations is this verification. Anyone can submit their business to most directories. But platforms like Apple Maps, Bing Places, and others require verification that you’re a legitimate business.”

Why citable: Canonical course definition of Super Citations, with named publishers. Use this over the YouTube “10× more powerful” line when defining the term.

Connections

Entities mentioned: Caleb Ulku, Google, Google Business Profile, LeadSnap Concepts referenced: Local SEO, GBP–Website Alignment (Consistency Signals), Schema Markup (Structured Data), Super Citations, Local Ranking Factors (Relevance, Proximity, Prominence/Authority), Core 30

Contradictions / Tensions

  • 70–80% / under 500k is the load-bearing quantitative claim of the course and is never evidenced (no n, no operational definition of “ranked reasonably well”). Many sub-500k markets (state capitals, tourist towns, licensed trades) are not “not intense.” Treat as packaging for a simple SKU, not a measured win rate.
  • “Google allows up to 10 primary categories” — Google allows one primary and additional secondary categories (historically ~9 secondaries, i.e. 10 total). His wording flattens primary vs. secondary. Correct this on Google Business Profile / GBP–Website Alignment (Consistency Signals) rather than repeating “10 primaries.”
  • LeadSnap “skips the verification process” vs. the definition of super-citations as verification. If the tool skips verification, they may not be the thing he just defined. Same tension as the citations lesson’s Submitted-never-goes-Live dashboard.
  • “Don’t change a ranking primary” matches the Wichita breakdown and conflicts with a naive reading of “always use air conditioning repair.” The exception is the rule when there is already green at the pin.
  • Overnight-result marketing elsewhere vs. this lesson’s modest “ranked reasonably well” / “foundation Google needs to trust you.”

Notes

Best single source for the three-step-method / low-competition ranking method definition. New entity to flag: bing-places (named). Filename “Lesson 5” vs. spoken “module two will implement this” — Skool classroom order ≠ spoken module numbers. Transcript duplicates the 10-categories sentence and the primary-category-change warning (Whisper overlap).