Audience research
Part of Planning ecommerce SEO audience research without the guesswork
Ecommerce SEO competitor research: capture and sort the gaps
Ecommerce SEO competitor research for UK stores: capture rivals the same way, sort the gaps into four types and rank them by effort against return.
What to take away
Ecommerce SEO competitor research pays off when captures become a ranked list of gaps. Each gap gets an effort, a likely return and an owner, so the review ends in a decision rather than a folder of screenshots.
- Keep direct, aspirational and trade rivals apart, so a gap is only counted between comparable stores.
- Capture the same facts for every rival, with the source and date beside each one.
- Sort what you find into markup, category coverage, content depth and page speed.
- Rank gaps by effort against likely return, then check them against your own search data.
- Handle personal data lawfully and repeat the review on a fixed rhythm.
Compare like with like
A gap only matters between stores that compete for the same buyer. Write down three to six direct rivals, plus two or three aspirational ones, and keep trade rivals in a list of their own.
Scope your rival set
- 3-6 direct rivals
- 2-3 aspirational rivals
- Same categories in England
- Google Search, Shopping, images
- Note trade buyers separately
A direct rival targets the same product categories and roughly the same customer in England. For example, a UK homeware store might inspect John Lewis & Partners and Argos as candidate sites; treat them as direct rivals only where the products and audience overlap.
If you sell to trade buyers, note that audience separately, with its own rivals and its own queries. Measuring your own results against reference points is a different job, covered in defensible benchmark research.
Capture the same facts for every rival
Gaps can only be ranked if every rival is captured in the same way. Work through these six steps in order for each rival, and record the source and date beside each finding.
- Record the review date, market, search surfaces and agreed query set.
- List the rival domains and the category or product pages to inspect.
- Capture each rival's ranking and landing page for each query; record the query, URL and date.
- Check relevant Product and Offer structured data, including review and rating properties, against Google's documentation.
- Compare category coverage, page types and content depth.
- Record the source and capture date for each finding, distinguishing visible evidence from estimates or inference.
Data collection checklist
- Export top 20 organic landing pages
- List category and subcategory pages
- Note Product, Review, Breadcrumb markup
- Capture top page format
- Record observable page speed issues
- Date every capture
Google's Search Gallery and its documentation for Product snippets and Merchant listings are the references for step four. Check Product and Offer structured data, including review and aggregateRating properties where relevant. If a rival marks up reviews and you do not, that gap is worth reporting.
Step six matters because the gap list will be argued over later. A ranking page seen in the results is visible evidence, while anything inferred about a rival's traffic or intentions is not, and the record should show which is which.
Sort the gaps into four types
Group what the captures show into four gap types: markup, category coverage, content depth and page speed. Each type asks a different question and leads to a different kind of work.
| Gap type | Question to ask | Evidence to record | Kind of work |
|---|---|---|---|
| Markup | Does a rival mark up Product and Offer data, including review and rating properties, where you do not? | Page URL, properties seen, capture date | A template change across many pages |
| Category coverage | Does a rival have category pages where you have none? | Category URL and the ranking page for each query | New or merged category pages |
| Content depth | Do rivals publish buying guides where you publish none? | Guide URLs and the query each one serves | A content decision, not a technical one |
| Page speed | Does a rival's comparable page load faster than yours? | Page type, load time measured in PageSpeed Insights, capture date | Technical work on the slower page |
Google's Rich Results Test reads a page's Product markup for the first row, and PageSpeed Insights measures a page for the last. Use the same tool and the same date for every rival, so the rows compare.
Keep the table narrow: four columns is easier to act on than a dashboard nobody reads. It should answer one question: where is the biggest, most fixable gap?
Rank by effort against return
Rank each gap by effort against likely return, and start where the effort is lowest. A missing Product markup rule is usually a quick win across many pages. A new buying guide programme takes months.
Mark effort and return each as low, medium or high, then take low-effort, high-return gaps first. That difference decides the order. Template fixes go first because one change reaches many pages, while content programmes need an owner, a calendar and patience. Neither is wrong, but they should not compete for the same week.
Do not rewrite strategy on one month of movement. A single change in a rival's ranking tells you where to look next, not what to build.
Checking gaps against your own audience data
Use Google Search Console for your own search queries and landing pages, Google Analytics 4 for on-site behaviour, and Google Trends for relative search interest. That helps you avoid chasing a query your buyers never use.
Keep the research lawful and repeatable
Where research includes personal data, handle it under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Collect only data you can lawfully hold and reuse, including business contact details, and document the lawful basis and a retention period.
PECR may also apply if you later contact people electronically for marketing. The ICO's business-to-business marketing guidance says the PECR marketing rules in general apply equally to corporate and individual subscribers. Follow it before contacting trade audiences.
Set a review rhythm: quarterly for category coverage and content depth, monthly for rankings. Rebuild the whole table once a year, and date every version.
Common questions
Which gap should come first?
The one with the lowest effort and a plausible return. A missing Product markup rule is usually a quick win across many pages, while a buying guide programme takes months.
How do I separate evidence from an estimate?
Record the source and capture date for each finding, and mark whether it is visible evidence or an estimate or inference. A ranking page seen in the results is evidence.
What if a rival outranks us on every term?
Pick one category and study it closely. A single category with a clear content or markup difference gives you a testable starting point.
