The earlier articles in this series have argued, from several directions, toward a single practical conclusion: that the value of a directory listing depends almost entirely on the directory, and that listing well means listing selectively. This final article takes that conclusion seriously and treats it as a question in its own right. How does a business actually tell a directory worth being in from one that is not? It sets out what makes a directory worth a business’s presence, a method for assessing one before committing, the common myths that lead businesses to choose badly, and the signs that a directory should simply be walked away from.
As throughout this series, claims drawn from peer-reviewed research are cited by author and year and listed at the end; observations about current directory practice rest on industry reporting and are identified where they occur.
Why the choice matters
It is worth stating plainly why this decision carries the weight this article gives it. The first article in this series established that what a listing buys a business is not the entry itself, which is trivial, but access to whatever audience the directory has gathered, and that a listing’s credibility, examined in the fifth article, is borrowed from the directory’s own standing. Both of the things a business wants from a listing — visibility and trust — are therefore properties of the directory rather than of the listing. It follows that the choice of directory is not a preliminary to getting value from a listing; it is very nearly the whole of getting value from a listing. A meticulous profile in the wrong directory returns little or nothing, because there is no audience to see it and no standing to lend it; an ordinary profile in the right directory can do real work. A business that spends its effort on polishing listings and little on choosing directories has, in effect, optimized the cheap part of the problem and neglected the expensive one. This article is about the expensive one.
There is a further reason the choice deserves real attention, beyond the arithmetic of audience and standing. A directory listing is, for most businesses, not a large expense, and it is precisely small, individually minor decisions that tend to be made carelessly — waved through on the reasoning that the cost is low and the downside small. But the costs of careless directory choices are not really the listing fees; they are the cumulative waste of attention spread across listings that do nothing, the slow accumulation of inconsistent records as a business is entered into directory after directory without thought, and the occasional real harm of being associated with a directory that buyers recognize as disreputable. A decision that is individually small can be collectively expensive when it is made many times without judgement. Treating the choice of a directory as a decision worth a few minutes of genuine assessment is not over-thinking a minor matter; it is declining to let a minor matter, repeated, quietly become a major one.
What makes a directory worth being in
A directory worth a business’s presence tends to have four properties, and it is useful to take them in order of importance, because they are not equally weighted and a business pressed for time should check the first before troubling with the rest.
A real, relevant audience
The first property is decisive and the others are, in a sense, secondary to it: the directory must be consulted by a real audience that genuinely includes the business’s buyers. This follows directly from the first article’s argument that a listing’s value is the directory’s audience. A directory with no meaningful audience offers a business nothing, however well made the directory is in other respects, because a share of no attention is no attention. And an audience that is real but irrelevant is almost as useless: a directory heavily used by buyers who would never want what this particular business sells is, for this business, an empty room with a crowd in the next building. The first question, and the one that can end the assessment early if answered badly, is therefore not whether a directory is good in the abstract but whether the specific buyers this business needs actually use it.
Editorial discipline and verification
The second property is editorial discipline: the directory should verify what it lists and exercise some judgement about what it admits. The fifth article in this series established why this matters — a listing’s credibility is borrowed from the directory’s, and a directory that admits anyone who pays and verifies nothing has no credibility to lend. A directory with genuine discipline, which confirms that its businesses are real and reachable and which removes or polices what does not belong, makes each of its listings mean something to a buyer. A business should want to be in a directory that was, in some measure, difficult to get into, because the difficulty is exactly what makes the resulting listing a signal rather than mere noise. A directory that would admit anyone has, by that very openness, made its admission worthless.
Accurate, current, and well-organized
The third property is craftsmanship: the directory should be accurate, kept current, and sensibly organized. A directory whose listings are riddled with dead links and outdated details is one that is not being maintained, and an unmaintained directory loses its audience over time, which collapses the first and most important property. Sensible organization matters too — categories that reflect how buyers actually think, a structure that can be navigated — because a directory a buyer cannot use easily is a directory a buyer stops using. This property is, in a way, evidence for the others: a directory that is visibly well kept is one whose operators are investing in it, and that investment is what sustains the audience and the discipline that the first two properties require.
A transparent and aligned business model
The fourth property concerns how the directory makes its money, and whether it is honest about it. Every directory must fund itself somehow, and there is nothing wrong with a directory charging for listings; the question is whether its model is transparent and whether its incentives are tolerably aligned with the buyer’s interest. A directory that clearly distinguishes paid promotion from ordinary listings, and whose ranking or prominence is not simply for sale in ways hidden from the buyer, can be trusted to a reasonable degree. A directory whose order is entirely determined by payment, while presenting itself as though it were not, is misleading its buyers, and a business should be wary both of the deception and of being associated with it. A transparent model is not a guarantee of quality, but an opaque or deceptive one is a reliable warning.
How to assess a directory before committing
The four properties can be turned into a short assessment that a business can carry out before committing any money, and the assessment is mostly a matter of asking direct questions and looking rather than taking anything on trust. The first and most important check addresses the audience, and it cannot be skipped: a business should look for concrete evidence that real, relevant buyers use the directory, and should be sceptical of claims of audience size that are asserted but not substantiated. The most reliable evidence is often indirect — whether the business has itself encountered the directory as a buyer, whether its customers mention it, whether it appears where its buyers are looking — and a business that cannot find any such evidence should treat the absence as an answer.
The second check addresses discipline: a business should look at how a listing is obtained, and a directory that states its verification process and its standards for inclusion is telling a business something good, while a directory that will evidently list anything that pays is telling it something else. The third check addresses craftsmanship: a business should simply use the directory as a buyer would, follow a few listings, and see whether the information is current and the structure usable — a directory full of dead ends fails this check immediately. The fourth check addresses the business model: a business should establish how the directory earns its money and whether paid placement is clearly marked, and should be wary of any directory that is evasive about either. This assessment overlaps deliberately with the method offered, for web directories, in the companion series on this blog, because the underlying logic is the same: a directory should be judged on observable facts about its audience, its discipline, its upkeep, and its honesty, rather than on its own description of itself. The questions are simple, and a business that asks them will rarely be badly surprised.
One caution applies to the whole of this assessment, and it is worth stating before the myths are addressed. A directory will always present itself favourably — that is what its own description is for — and so the assessment is reliable only to the extent that it rests on evidence the directory does not control. A claimed audience figure is the directory’s own account; a customer of the business mentioning the directory unprompted is not. A statement that listings are verified is the directory’s own account; the actual experience of following its listings and finding them current is not. The discipline, throughout, is to weight what can be observed independently above what is merely asserted, and to treat a directory’s reluctance to substantiate a claim as itself a finding. A business that assesses directories on their own marketing will be told only that every directory is excellent; a business that assesses them on observable evidence will be able to tell them apart.
Myths worth ignoring
A business choosing directories is choosing against a background of received ideas, several of which are wrong and lead reliably to poor decisions. It is worth examining the most damaging of them directly.
The first is the belief that more listings are always better — that a business should be in as many directories as possible. This is false, and the first article in this series explained why: a listing’s value is the directory’s audience, and a listing in a directory with no relevant audience is worth nothing, so listing everywhere is not a maximizing strategy but a way of spending effort and money on a great many entries worth nothing each. A few listings in the right directories beat many listings in the wrong ones, every time.
The second myth is the opposite error: that directories are obsolete, that search engines and other channels have made them pointless. This is also false, though less straightforwardly. The second and the companion series of articles have shown that the general directory of the whole web declined for real reasons, but that directories with a defined audience — local and niche directories in particular — continue to do genuine work, and continue to be where certain buyers look. “Directories are dead” is a myth that costs a business the buyers who do, in fact, still use them.
The third myth is that a directory listing guarantees traffic, enquiries, or a better position in search results. It guarantees none of these. A listing makes a business findable; whether buyers then find it depends on the directory’s audience and on the quality of the profile, and the idea that a listing mechanically produces traffic, or that directory listings reliably lift search rankings, is a holdover from the era of link-driven directories that the first article described and that search engines have long since discounted. The fourth myth is that free directories are worthless and paid ones are better, or the reverse — that paying is a waste. Both are wrong, because price is not the variable that matters. A free listing in a directory with a real audience is valuable; an expensive listing in a directory with none is not; the fee tells a business almost nothing, and the audience and discipline tell it almost everything. The fifth and last myth worth naming is that a listing, once created, can be left alone. The fourth article in this series treated this at length: a listing is a maintained record, and the belief that it can be set up once and forgotten is the belief that quietly turns an asset into a liability. These myths share a common shape — each substitutes an easy proxy, such as quantity, or price, or novelty, for the harder judgement this article actually requires — and recognizing that shape is itself a defence against the next myth not listed here.
Reputation by association
A consideration that the four properties do not quite capture, and that deserves its own treatment, is that a listing places a business in company. A directory is not only a channel to an audience; it is also a set of other listings, a general standing, a character — and a business listed in it is, to some degree, associated with all of that. This associative effect runs in both directions, and a business choosing directories should have both in view.
The favourable direction is the one the fifth article of this series described as borrowed credibility: a listing in a directory known for its discipline, its verification, and its care is lent some of that directory’s standing, and the business benefits from the company it keeps. The unfavourable direction is the mirror image, and it is the one more often overlooked. A directory that is undiscriminating, that is thick with low-quality or dubious listings, that buyers have learned to regard with suspicion, lends that character too. A perfectly reputable business with an immaculate profile, listed in a directory whose general reputation is poor, does not escape that reputation by the quality of its own entry; to the buyer who recognizes the directory, the careful profile sits among careless ones and is discounted along with them. This is why the assessment in this article cannot be reduced to whether the listing is well made — a well-made listing in disreputable surroundings is still in disreputable surroundings.
The practical instruction that follows is a small extension of the article’s main one. When assessing a directory, a business should look not only at the directory’s audience, discipline, upkeep, and funding, but at its listings — the other businesses it contains. A directory whose listings are, on inspection, mostly real, reasonable, and well kept is one whose company is worth joining; a directory whose listings are mostly thin, dubious, or evidently placed by anyone willing to pay is one whose company will be a quiet liability, however good a business’s own entry. This check costs only a few minutes of looking, and it answers a question the other four properties only approach indirectly: not whether the directory is well run, but whether this is the company a business wishes to be seen in. The answer is usually plain to anyone who actually looks.
When to walk away
The assessment will sometimes return a clear negative, and a business should be willing to act on it and decline a directory rather than list out of a vague sense that more presence cannot hurt. Several signs, in combination, justify walking away. The plainest is the absence of any evidence of a real, relevant audience; if a business cannot find a reason to believe its buyers use the directory, no other merit compensates. A second is the directory that admits anything and verifies nothing — the pay-to-list directory with no editorial discipline — whose listing carries no signal and may, as the first article noted, mildly associate the business with indiscriminate company. A third is visible neglect: a directory thick with dead links and stale entries is one whose audience is already leaving. A fourth is an opaque or deceptive business model, particularly one that disguises paid placement as ordinary ranking.
Where these signs appear together, the directory is most likely a descendant of the link-directory pattern this series has described more than once: a directory in form, built to sell listings, rather than a directory in function, built to serve an audience. The reactivity that Espeland and Sauder (2007) identified in their study of rankings — the tendency of measured things to reshape themselves around whatever is being counted — has its echo here, in directories that have reshaped themselves entirely around the sale of listings and no longer do the work a directory exists to do. A business walking away from such a directory loses nothing of value, and the willingness to walk away is, in the end, what makes the rest of this article’s advice effective. An assessment that can only ever say yes is not an assessment. The capacity to decline is what gives the capacity to choose its meaning.
It is worth naming the feeling that most often prevents a business from walking away, because naming it weakens its hold. The reluctance to decline a directory usually comes from a vague fear of missing out — a sense that a listing, even a poor one, is at least a presence, and that declining it forfeits some chance, however small. This fear should be resisted, because it is not well founded. A listing in a directory with no relevant audience forfeits no chance, since there was no chance there to forfeit; a listing in a disreputable directory does not buy a small benefit at small cost but, as the previous section argued, imports a small liability. The decision to walk away is not the loss of an opportunity but the avoidance of a waste, and a business that sees it that way will find the decision easy. The directories worth being in are identified by the assessment this article has set out; the rest are not a set of missed opportunities but a set of correctly declined ones.
Table 1. Common myths about directory listings, and the reality
| The myth | The reality |
|---|---|
| More listings are always better | A listing’s value is its directory’s audience; listings in directories with no relevant audience are worth nothing, however many |
| Directories are obsolete | General catalogues of the whole web declined, but local and niche directories with defined audiences still do real work |
| A listing guarantees traffic or higher search rankings | A listing makes a business findable; results depend on the directory’s audience and the profile, and link-driven ranking gains are long discounted |
| Free directories are worthless / paid ones are better | Price is not the variable that matters; a real, relevant audience and editorial discipline are |
| A listing can be created once and left alone | A listing is a maintained record; left alone, it ages out of date and becomes a liability |
Concluding remarks
Choosing a business directory worth being in is the decision on which the value of every other piece of directory work depends, and it is more straightforward than the volume of marketing around directories makes it appear. A directory is worth a business’s presence when it has a real audience that includes the business’s buyers, when it verifies and disciplines what it lists, when it is accurate and well kept, and when its business model is transparent — and of these the first is decisive. Assessing a directory against these properties is a matter of asking direct questions and looking with one’s own eyes rather than trusting the directory’s account of itself. The myths that lead businesses astray — that more is better, that directories are dead, that a listing guarantees results, that price signals quality, that a listing can be forgotten — all share the same fault of substituting an easy proxy for that harder look. A business that chooses a small number of directories deliberately, on the evidence, and is willing to walk away from the rest, has done the part of directory work that actually determines the outcome. The listing is the visible effort; the choice is the one that counts.
Future developments
The task of choosing well is likely to become both more important and, in one respect, harder. It becomes more important because, as the systems that find and recommend businesses grow more automated, the directories that feed those systems with clean, verified, well-structured data will carry more weight, and a presence in a disciplined directory will matter more than a presence in a careless one — the gap between the two kinds of directory widens. It becomes harder because the careless directories are not standing still: the tools for generating plausible-looking listings and convincing-looking activity have improved, which means a directory can now appear active and substantial while being neither. This raises the value of exactly the discipline this article has urged — judging a directory on substantiated evidence of a real audience rather than on appearances, which can increasingly be manufactured. The enduring advice, then, is not a list of directories to favour, since any such list dates quickly, but the habit of assessment itself: the questions about audience, discipline, upkeep, and honest funding will identify a directory worth being in long after today’s particular directories have changed, and that habit is the one thing a business should carry forward from this series.
References
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
Armstrong, M. (2006). Competition in two-sided markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 37(3), 668–691.
Bakos, J. Y. (1997). Reducing buyer search costs: Implications for electronic marketplaces. Management Science, 43(12), 1676–1692.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
Rochet, J.-C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990–1029.
Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69(3), 213–225.
