Digital Presence Audit
Prepared and presented by Aaron Petrosky, ProAm Creative Solutions
About this sample: This is a real digital presence audit prepared for an actual client, a tattoo shop in Pittsburgh's east suburbs. Business names, personal details, competitor names, addresses, and identifying links have been removed to protect privacy, and a few counts are rounded so the shop cannot be identified. The findings, structure, and analysis are unchanged.
The one-paragraph summary
This is a much stronger starting position than the rest of the presence suggested, and it changes the strategy. The shop already has 70+ Google reviews at 4.6 stars. That is not a shop that needs to build reviews from zero; it is a shop whose review base is already competitive with the Monroeville leader (~90 reviews) and whose real problem is that the broken website, the NAP conflicts pointing at a competitor, and the total absence of structured data are preventing that strong Google profile from translating into search visibility. The social following (roughly 4,700 IG) and the review base (70+ at 4.6) are both genuine assets. The gap is entirely in the website, the citations, and the technical/AI-visibility layer. Fix those and the shop should climb fast, because the two hardest things to build (audience and reviews) are already there.
What is broken, and what it is worth
The gap everywhere is infrastructure, not talent or reputation. With 70+ reviews at 4.6 and roughly 4,700 IG followers, [Client Name] has the reputation and audience. It loses on the broken site, the NAP pointing at a competitor, and zero structured data. Those are all fixable in the build. The realistic 90-day target: appear in the Monroeville / east-suburb top-10 on Google and Yelp, and get cited by at least one AI engine for "tattoo near their actual location / Monroeville," by claiming the Google profile, fixing NAP, and launching the schema-rich site.
The most urgent findings
Old address and phone now belong to a competitor
The old [Client Name] address and phone (the old address, the old phone number) is now occupied and used by a separate, active competing tattoo shop. [Client Name]'s own Facebook page and multiple directories still show this address and phone as [Client Name].
See the NAP findings → CriticalGoogle Business Profile likely unclaimed, verify urgently
The public panel shows an "Own this business?" prompt, which typically means no owner has claimed the profile. If unclaimed, claim it immediately: it is the highest-value free asset the shop has and it is currently uncontrolled. It holds the 70+ reviews at 4.6.
See the GBP teardown → CriticalSite brands itself "Pittsburgh" instead of the small borough it actually operates in
The home title tag, meta descriptions, and body copy all say Pittsburgh. Their small borough is where they can actually rank; competing head-on for "Pittsburgh" means fighting shops with hundreds of reviews.
See the website audit → CriticalURL migration is the highest-risk moment in the project
Artist pages live at /copy-of-[owner-name] and /copy-of-[artist-b]. When the domain moves to WordPress, every old URL that dies without a 301 redirect throws away ranking equity. No page is allowed to go dark without a mapped destination.
See the migration map →How to read the priority tags
Every finding is tagged so you know the order of operations:
Actively costing customers or rankings right now, or will break during the migration. Do first.
Large impact on ranking and trust. Do during the build.
Real gains, not urgent.
Polish once the above is done.
How this audit was verified
Every finding was checked live on July 21, 2026 by fetching the actual pages and pulling the actual third-party listings, unless it is explicitly flagged as an assumption. Where a source blocked automated access (Google Business Profile, Yelp, Threads behind login), that is stated plainly and worked around using indexed data and third-party mirrors. No guess is presented as a verified fact.
Step Zero: answers that shaped this audit
Before writing findings, five questions were answered by the shop. These changed the recommendations, so they are recorded here:
1. The third listed address is an even OLDER former location. Not a second shop. This makes it a citation-cleanup problem, not a two-location build. Confirmed live: it still appears as the current shop on the former artist's personal site.
2. Stack is leaning WordPress + Elementor, not locked. Recommendations are written for that stack, with one important performance caveat (see Technical in the Findings page).
3. The shop's social manager runs social, the website, and most tasks. One person. Cadence recommendations are deliberately low-effort and sustainable, with ProAm positioned to absorb overflow.
4. No Google Search Console or Analytics today. The baseline is externally observable only. Standing up GSC + GA4 is the first build task so the 90-day re-measure has real data.
5. No locked-in priority styles yet. The owner flagged this as something to focus on. Target styles are inferred from what the artists actually tattoo (their core tattoo styles) and marked as an assumption for the owner and the shop's social manager to confirm.
One more thing surfaced during the audit that needs the shop's input: the roster on the website does not match the roster on Instagram. The site lists the owner, Artist B, and Artist C. The Instagram bio says "Home of [artist handle] [artist handle] [artist handle] [artist handle]" and does not list the owner's handle. Before the new site is built, confirm the exact current artist list and each person's correct Instagram handle. This is flagged again in the Content section of the Findings page.
Where to go next
Start with the Baseline Metrics to see the measured starting point, then walk the Findings in order. The Action Plan sequences everything by urgency, and the Checklists split the work between the shop and the build team.