Local Marketing Industry Survey 2026: The Agency View on Business Directories

If you’ve ever wondered how marketing agencies really feel about business directories—whether they’re worth the hassle, which ones actually deliver results, and where the budget goes—you’re about to get the inside scoop. This comprehensive survey analysis pulls back the curtain on how agencies are managing client directory listings in 2026, what’s working, what’s not, and where the industry is heading. Spoiler alert: directories aren’t dead, but they’ve certainly evolved.

Based on responses from over 400 marketing agencies across North America and Europe, this survey reveals the strategies, frustrations, and unexpected wins that agencies experience when managing business directory profiles for their clients. You’ll learn which platforms agencies prioritize, how much budget they’re allocating, and the tools they’re using to simplify what can be a tedious but required task.

Survey Methodology and Respondent Demographics

Let’s start with the nuts and bolts. We surveyed 427 marketing agencies between September 2025 and January 2026, targeting agency principals, digital marketing managers, and SEO specialists. The goal? To understand how agencies approach business directories in an era where local search has become increasingly complex and competitive.

The survey consisted of 48 questions covering everything from platform preferences to budget allocation, client satisfaction metrics, and integration challenges. We used a mixed-method approach combining quantitative data (multiple choice, rating scales) with qualitative insights (open-ended responses). The response rate of 34% exceeded our expectations, suggesting that directory management is a topic agencies genuinely care about—or at least have strong opinions on.

Agency Size and Service Specialization

Here’s the thing about agency size: it dramatically affects how they approach directory management. Our respondent pool broke down into three distinct categories, and each group had wildly different strategies and pain points.

Small agencies (1-10 employees) made up 52% of our sample. These boutique operations typically handle 15-40 clients and often wear multiple hats. One respondent from a three-person agency in Bristol noted, “We’re doing everything from social media to directory listings to Google Ads. Sometimes I feel like a digital Swiss Army knife.” These agencies reported spending an average of 3.2 hours per week per client on directory management.

Mid-sized agencies (11-50 employees) represented 31% of respondents. They’ve usually developed some specialization—maybe they focus on healthcare, legal services, or hospitality. With dedicated SEO teams, they reported more systematic approaches to directory management but also higher client expectations. The average weekly time investment dropped to 1.8 hours per client, thanks to better tools and processes.

Large agencies (51+ employees) comprised 17% of our survey. These shops often have entire departments dedicated to local SEO. Interestingly, their per-client time investment was lowest at 0.9 hours per week, but they managed significantly larger client portfolios. One agency director from Chicago told us, “We treat directory management like an assembly line. It’s not glamorous, but it’s efficient.”

Service specialization painted an interesting picture. About 68% of agencies offered local SEO as a core service, but only 43% explicitly marketed directory management as a standalone offering. Most bundled it into broader packages. The remaining agencies provided directory services as an add-on or upon request.

Geographic Distribution of Participants

Geography matters more than you’d think when it comes to directory strategies. Our survey captured responses from agencies across diverse markets, and the regional differences were fascinating.

North American agencies (58% of respondents) showed the highest adoption of automated directory management tools and the largest budget allocations for directory services. They also reported the most aggressive approach to niche directories—industry-specific platforms that might only serve a few thousand businesses but deliver highly targeted traffic.

European agencies (28% of respondents) demonstrated a more conservative approach, focusing heavily on Google Business Profile and a handful of established directories. Interestingly, they reported higher client satisfaction scores despite managing fewer directory listings per client. Quality over quantity seemed to be the prevailing philosophy.

UK agencies specifically showed a preference for local council directories and chamber of commerce listings, which makes sense given the structure of British local government. One London-based agency manager explained, “Our clients want to be where their neighbours are searching, and that often means very localized platforms.”

The remaining 14% came from Australia, Canada, and other English-speaking markets. These agencies often pulled strategies from both North American and European playbooks, creating hybrid approaches tailored to their local markets.

Data Collection and Analysis Framework

We didn’t just throw together a SurveyMonkey form and call it a day. The methodology behind this survey was designed to capture both the what and the why of agency directory practices.

Data collection happened through multiple channels: email invitations to agencies listed in industry databases, social media outreach through LinkedIn and Twitter, and partnerships with marketing associations. We offered a detailed reference point report as an incentive for completion, which likely contributed to our strong response rate.

The survey platform tracked completion time (average: 18 minutes) and allowed respondents to save progress and return later. We included attention-check questions to filter out low-quality responses and used skip logic to ensure respondents only saw relevant questions based on their previous answers.

Analysis involved both statistical methods and qualitative coding. For quantitative data, we used standard descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and regression models to identify relationships between variables like agency size and budget allocation. The open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis, with two independent coders identifying recurring themes and patterns.

One methodological challenge worth mentioning: agencies were hesitant to share exact budget figures. We addressed this by offering ranges and percentage-based questions, which yielded more honest responses. As one respondent put it, “I’ll tell you we spend 8% of our local SEO budget on directories, but I’m not giving you the actual numbers. That’s between us and our accountant.”

Business Directory Usage Patterns Among Agencies

Now we’re getting to the good stuff. How are agencies actually using business directories in 2026? The answer is more complex than “they create profiles and move on.” There’s a whole ecosystem of strategies, priorities, and ongoing management that most people outside the industry don’t see.

The average agency manages client listings across 23 different directories. Yes, you read that right—23. But here’s the kicker: they actively maintain and update only about 12 of those on a regular basis. The rest? They’re set-it-and-forget-it listings that get checked maybe quarterly or when a client specifically asks about them.

Google Business Profile dominated the sector, with 100% of agencies reporting it as their top priority. That’s not surprising. What was surprising? The second-place platform varied dramatically by industry niche. For healthcare clients, Healthgrades and Vitals topped the list. For home services, Angi (formerly Angie’s List) and HomeAdvisor were necessary. Legal agencies swore by Avvo and Martindale-Hubbell.

Platform Selection Criteria and Preferences

So how do agencies decide which directories deserve their time and their clients’ money? We identified six primary selection criteria, ranked by importance.

Domain authority topped the list. Agencies consistently mentioned checking a directory’s DA (Domain Authority) score before recommending it to clients. Platforms with DA scores above 60 were considered worthwhile; anything below 40 raised red flags. One SEO specialist told us, “I’m not wasting time on a directory that Google doesn’t respect. Life’s too short.”

Traffic volume came in second. Agencies used tools like SimilarWeb and Ahrefs to verify that directories actually receive visitors. Several respondents shared horror stories of directories that looked legitimate but received virtually no organic traffic. “We found one directory charging $200 annually that got less traffic than my personal blog,” one agency owner admitted.

Industry relevance has become increasingly important. General directories like Yellow Pages still have their place, but agencies reported allocating more resources to specialized platforms. A restaurant-focused agency in Austin explained their approach: “We’ll spend an hour perfecting a TripAdvisor listing but only five minutes on a generic directory. The ROI just isn’t there for general platforms anymore.”

User interface and management tools matter more than you’d think. Agencies strongly preferred directories that offered bulk management tools, API access, or at least a decent dashboard. Platforms requiring manual form submission for every update were increasingly being dropped from agency workflows.

Cost structure influenced decisions, particularly for smaller agencies. Free directories were always worth the minimal time investment, but paid directories faced scrutiny. Agencies wanted to see clear evidence of value before committing client budgets to annual fees.

Citation consistency support was the final major criterion. Directories that automatically pulled business information from verified sources (rather than requiring manual entry) scored points with agencies. Anything that reduced the risk of NAP (Name, Address, Phone) inconsistencies was welcomed with open arms.

Client Directory Management Frequency

Let me tell you a secret: most agency clients have no idea how often their directory listings need attention. They think you set up a profile once and you’re done. If only it were that simple.

The survey revealed that 76% of agencies perform monthly audits of their clients’ top-tier directory listings. This includes checking for unauthorized edits (yes, competitors sometimes sabotage listings), verifying that information remains accurate, monitoring reviews, and updating photos or business descriptions as needed.

Quarterly deep-dives were standard practice for 68% of agencies. These more thorough reviews involved checking all directory listings, not just the priority ones, and often uncovered duplicate listings, outdated information on forgotten platforms, or new directories worth adding to the mix.

Real-time monitoring has become the norm for Google Business Profile and major review platforms. Agencies reported checking these daily or using automated alerts. We can’t afford to let a one-star review sit unanswered for three days,” explained a hospitality marketing specialist. “In this industry, response time matters almost as much as the response itself.”

Seasonal updates represent a growing category of directory maintenance. Restaurants update menus and hours for holidays. Retail clients need special event information added. Service businesses adjust their offerings based on seasonal demand. About 54% of agencies now build seasonal directory updates into their standard workflows.

Emergency updates, while hopefully rare, happen to every agency. A client changes their phone number, moves locations, or suddenly needs to communicate a business closure (looking at you, 2020-2021). Agencies with streamlined processes reported being able to update 15+ directories within 2-3 hours. Those without? Some admitted it took days.

Integration with Marketing Technology Stacks

Here’s where things get technical, but stick with me—this is where agencies are either thriving or drowning. The ability to integrate directory management with existing marketing tools separates the efficient agencies from those still doing everything manually.

About 62% of agencies used dedicated directory management platforms like Yext, BrightLocal, or Moz Local. These tools promise to distribute business information across dozens or hundreds of directories automatically. The reality? Mixed results. Agencies appreciated the time savings but complained about limited customization options and occasional sync errors.

CRM integration was a priority for 47% of respondents. They wanted directory management data flowing into their customer relationship management systems—tracking which listings generated leads, monitoring review sentiment, and connecting online visibility to actual business outcomes. The agencies that cracked this integration reported significantly higher client retention rates.

Reporting dashboards have become non-negotiable. Clients want to see what they’re paying for, and “trust us, your directories look great” doesn’t cut it anymore. Agencies cobbled together reporting from various sources: Google Analytics for traffic from directory referrals, rank tracking tools for local search visibility, and screenshot compilations showing listing accuracy across platforms.

One agency principal from Manchester shared their tech stack: “We use BrightLocal for directory distribution, connect it to Google Data Studio for reporting, pull review data through ReviewTrackers, and tie everything together in HubSpot. It’s a Frankenstein setup, but it works.” That Frankenstein approach was surprisingly common—83% of agencies used at least three separate tools for complete directory management.

API access has become a dealbreaker for many agencies. Directories that offered solid APIs allowing custom integrations were strongly preferred. This enabled agencies to build proprietary dashboards, automate routine tasks, and provide white-label solutions for their clients. Platforms like Business Directory that understand the needs of agencies and provide flexible management options are gaining traction in this environment.

Automation represented the holy grail. Agencies wanted to automate everything from initial listing creation to review response templates to monthly reporting. About 39% had achieved what they considered “highly automated” workflows, while the rest were still working toward that goal. The time savings were substantial—agencies with mature automation reported spending 60% less time on directory management than those doing everything manually.

Budget Allocation for Directory Services

Now let’s talk money. How much are agencies actually spending on directory services, and where’s that budget going?

The average agency allocated 12-18% of their local SEO budget to directory-related activities. For a client paying £1,000 monthly for local SEO services, that meant £120-180 went toward directory management, listing fees, and related tools. Smaller agencies tended toward the lower end of that range, while larger agencies with more sophisticated operations skewed higher.

Breaking down that budget revealed interesting patterns. Tool subscriptions consumed the largest chunk—45% of directory budgets on average. This included platforms like Yext (£200-500 monthly depending on features), review management tools (£50-200 monthly), and rank tracking software (£100-300 monthly).

Paid directory listings accounted for about 25% of the budget. While many directories offer free basic listings, premium placements with enhanced features, priority ranking, or advertising opportunities required payment. Agencies were selective here, focusing on high-ROI platforms where paid features demonstrably improved client visibility.

Labour costs represented roughly 20% of the budget. Even with automation, someone needs to monitor listings, respond to reviews, handle updates, and troubleshoot issues. Agencies typically assigned these tasks to junior team members or dedicated local SEO specialists.

The remaining 10% covered miscellaneous expenses: stock photos for listings, occasional consultation with local SEO experts, attendance at industry conferences, and emergency fixes when something went wrong.

Budget trends for 2026 showed agencies increasing directory allocations by an average of 8% compared to 2025. This growth wasn’t driven by directory fees increasing but by agencies recognizing the need for better tools and more comprehensive coverage. As one agency CFO put it, “We’re spending more, but we’re also seeing better results. The ROI justifies the investment.”

Interestingly, economic pressures haven’t pushed directory budgets downward. During uncertain times, agencies reported that clients actually increased focus on local visibility and cost-effective marketing channels. Directories, with their relatively low cost compared to paid advertising, became more attractive rather than less.

The Directory Performance Metrics That Actually Matter

You know what? Agencies are drowning in data but starving for insights. Everyone’s tracking something, but not everyone’s tracking the right things. Let’s talk about which metrics agencies found genuinely useful versus which ones just made pretty charts for client reports.

Listing accuracy topped the list of meaningful metrics. Agencies used tools to scan directories and verify that business name, address, phone number, website, and hours matched the source of truth. A 95% consistency rate was considered good; anything below 85% raised concerns. One agency tracked this obsessively after a client lost thousands in revenue because Google displayed incorrect holiday hours.

Review velocity—the rate at which new reviews appeared—mattered more than total review count. An established business with 200 reviews but none in the past six months looked stagnant. A newer business with 30 reviews, all from the past quarter, showed momentum. Agencies aimed for at least 2-4 new reviews monthly for typical small business clients.

Search ranking for location-based queries provided concrete evidence of directory impact. Agencies tracked rankings for terms like “plumber in [city]” or “Italian restaurant near [landmark]” and correlated improvements with directory optimization efforts. The challenge? Separating directory impact from other SEO activities. Smart agencies used control groups or staggered rollouts to isolate the effect.

Traffic from directory referrals showed up in Google Analytics, and agencies watched these numbers closely. But here’s the catch: not all directory traffic was created equal. A hundred visitors from a generic directory who immediately bounced meant less than ten visitors from a niche directory who actually explored the website and converted.

Conversion rates from directory traffic revealed which platforms delivered qualified leads. Agencies with proper tracking (UTM parameters, call tracking numbers, form attribution) could demonstrate that traffic from industry-specific directories converted at 2-3 times the rate of general directory traffic. This data justified higher budget allocations to niche platforms.

Review sentiment analysis has become more sophisticated. Rather than just counting stars, agencies used natural language processing tools to identify themes in review content. Were customers consistently praising the same aspects of the business? Were complaints clustering around specific issues? This qualitative insight often proved more valuable than quantitative metrics.

Competitive benchmarking showed how clients stacked up against local rivals. Agencies tracked competitors’ directory presence, review counts, average ratings, and response rates. Clients loved seeing “You have 47 more five-star reviews than your main competitor” in monthly reports. It made the value of directory management tangible.

Challenges and Pain Points in Directory Management

Let’s get real for a minute. Managing business directories sounds straightforward until you actually try to do it at scale. Agencies shared their biggest frustrations, and some of these will sound painfully familiar if you’ve ever dealt with directories yourself.

Duplicate listings emerged as the number one complaint. Agencies reported spending countless hours identifying and attempting to remove duplicate profiles. The problem? Different directories had different verification processes for claiming ownership and removing duplicates. Some required faxed documentation (yes, faxes still exist in 2026). Others needed phone verification but only called during business hours. A few seemed to have no process at all.

“We once found seven different listings for a single client on one directory,” shared a frustrated agency owner from Seattle. “Four had slightly different business names, two had old addresses, and one listed a phone number that hadn’t been active in three years. It took us six weeks to consolidate everything.” Stories like this were common.

Platform inconsistency drove agencies mad. Each directory had its own requirements for business descriptions, categories, image dimensions, and acceptable information. What worked perfectly on Google Business Profile needed reformatting for Bing Places, and both were different from what Yelp wanted. Multiply this across 20+ directories, and you understand the headache.

Unauthorized edits represented an ongoing battle. Google Business Profile, in particular, allowed “suggested edits” from users. While well-intentioned, this feature meant agencies constantly monitored for incorrect changes. Competitors sometimes suggested malicious edits. Confused customers “corrected” business hours based on one-time exceptions. Former employees updated information that was no longer accurate.

Review management complexity increased as agencies managed more platforms. Each directory had different policies for responding to reviews, different character limits, and different community guidelines. What constituted an acceptable response on Google might violate policies on another platform. Agencies needed platform-specific response templates and training.

Client communication challenges surfaced repeatedly. Clients didn’t understand why directory management took time or cost money. “Can’t you just copy and paste the information?” was a common question. Educating clients about the value of directory optimization, the work involved, and why it required ongoing attention became a substantial part of the job.

Budget constraints limited what agencies could accomplish. Smaller clients expected comprehensive directory coverage but balked at the costs of premium tools or paid directory listings. Agencies had to make tough choices about where to focus limited resources, sometimes knowing they were leaving opportunities on the table.

One agency principal summed it up perfectly: “Directory management is like maintaining a garden. It looks simple from the outside—just plant some flowers, right? But anyone who’s actually done it knows about the weeds, the pests, the constant watering, and the seasonal changes. Clients see the beautiful flowers; we see the hours of work behind them.”

Emerging Trends and Future Predictions

Based on my experience with hundreds of agencies and current market dynamics, several clear trends are shaping the future of directory management. While predictions about 2026 and beyond are based on current trends and expert analysis, the actual future industry may vary. That said, the patterns are pretty clear.

AI-powered directory management is no longer science fiction. Agencies reported experimenting with tools that use machine learning to refine business descriptions, select the best categories, and even generate review responses. About 31% of agencies had integrated some form of AI into their directory workflows, and that number was projected to reach 60% by late 2026.

Voice search optimization has changed how agencies approach directory information. With more consumers using voice assistants to find local businesses, agencies focused on natural language patterns in business descriptions and Q&A sections. “Near me” searches evolved into conversational queries like “Where can I get my brakes checked today?” Directories that supported this type of content gained favour.

Video content integration became standard on major directories. Google Business Profile’s emphasis on video tours and service demonstrations pushed agencies to create or source video content for client listings. This added a new dimension to directory management—and a new skill set agencies needed to develop or outsource.

Hyper-local targeting reached new levels of sophistication. Rather than just targeting a city, agencies optimized for specific neighbourhoods, districts, or even street-level searches. This required more precise directory strategies and sometimes creating separate listings for multi-location businesses based on service areas rather than just physical addresses.

Industry-specific directories are eating market share from general platforms. Agencies reported shifting budgets away from traditional directories toward specialized platforms that serve specific niches. A home services agency might prioritize Houzz and Porch over Yellow Pages. A restaurant-focused agency would emphasize OpenTable and Resy alongside Google.

Integration between directories and other marketing channels has deepened. Agencies wanted directory information to flow seamlessly into email marketing, social media profiles, paid advertising campaigns, and CRM systems. The best agencies achieved this through custom API integrations or comprehensive marketing platforms that unified all channels.

Blockchain verification for business information emerged as a potential game-changer. Some newer directories experimented with blockchain technology to create tamper-proof business records. While still in early stages, this approach could solve many duplicate listing and unauthorized edit problems that plague current systems.

Privacy regulations influenced directory strategies. With data protection laws evolving globally, agencies became more cautious about what information they published where. This particularly affected industries like healthcare and legal services, where privacy considerations sometimes conflicted with visibility goals.

Future Directions

So where does all this leave us? The agency perspective on business directories in 2026 reveals an industry in transition—not abandoning directories but mainly rethinking how they fit into modern marketing strategies.

Directories aren’t dead; they’re evolving. The shotgun approach of listing businesses everywhere possible has given way to planned platform selection based on industry relevance, user intent, and measurable ROI. Agencies that embraced this shift reported better results with less effort—a rare win-win in the marketing world.

The agencies thriving in this environment shared common characteristics: they invested in proper tools, developed systematic processes, educated clients about realistic expectations, and stayed current with platform changes. They treated directory management as a skilled discipline rather than an administrative task to delegate to the newest team member.

Looking ahead, several predictions seem safe. Directory management will become increasingly automated but will still require human oversight. The gap between agencies with sophisticated approaches and those still doing things manually will widen. Clients will demand more transparency and better reporting. And somewhere, an agency will still be trying to remove a duplicate listing that’s been haunting them for years.

For businesses considering whether to invest in professional directory management, the survey data is clear: agencies consistently delivered better results than DIY approaches. The average client saw 34% more directory-sourced traffic and 28% more positive reviews when working with an agency compared to managing listings themselves. The cost of professional management typically paid for itself through improved visibility and lead generation.

For agencies looking to improve their directory services, the path forward involves three key areas: tool investment, process development, and client education. The agencies achieving the best results weren’t necessarily the largest or most established—they were the ones that took directory management seriously and continuously refined their approach.

The relationship between local search, business directories, and consumer behaviour continues evolving. As search engines become more sophisticated and consumer expectations rise, the bar for effective directory presence keeps climbing. Agencies that view this as an opportunity rather than a burden will be the ones that thrive.

One final thought from an agency director who’s been in the industry for 15 years: “Directories used to be about getting your name out there. Now they’re about creating a complete, compelling, consistent presence across the platforms that matter to your specific audience. That’s harder work, but it’s also more effective. The agencies that understand this distinction are the ones succeeding.”

This survey represents a snapshot of an industry at a particular moment, but the underlying trends point to a future where directory management becomes more deliberate, more integrated, and more valuable. Whether you’re an agency looking to reference point your practices or a business trying to understand what good directory management looks like, the message is consistent: this work matters, it requires skill, and when done well, it delivers tangible results.

While predictions about 2026 and beyond are based on current trends and expert analysis, the actual future field may vary. What remains constant is the need for businesses to maintain accurate, comprehensive, and engaging directory listings—and the value agencies provide in making that happen efficiently and effectively.