Branding and paraSites - does a "brand" always deserve top spots?

[Pass the Dutchie]

One observation I have noticed over the past few months is that sites which have larger, parent sites are leeching SERP power from their mother ship.

This may also have something to do with branding but it seems to have gone one step further. Let’s take any major .com player in the US who has #1 position for a #1KW. This organisation has multiple .com satellites sites and various international sites on different domains. They all link together.

Unless these satellite sites are already well established and have been historically well promoted they would have, in the past, lagged behind thier local rivals.

Now these same satellite sites seem to be getting a steroid giddy up. I have recently seen certain international sites go from oblivion to #1 with a domain that’s only a few years old and 60-70% less quality links than 3 pages of SERP results below them. This is especially prominent for single KWds.

What I want to know what’s the point? Why are these sites treated any differently than their local rivals?

These said companies have little qualm with splashing out on Adwords and most of their satellite, international sites are about as web savvy and useful as an out of date magazine.

Advise to plex: Check user bounce rates, rank on quality not on brand awareness!

[aristotle]

Are you saying that these secondary sites are getting an extra artificial rankings boost from their association with the main site?

Would they rank lower if they were evaluated as stand-alone sites with rankings based on their own merits?

[Pass the Dutchie]

in a nutshell - yes.

[aristotle]

Maybe these secondary sites gain extra trustrank from their association with the main site. Or maybe the backlinks from the main site gives them a big PR boost. In these ways the branding could be spread to all the sites, even those that don't deserve it. Possibly a defect in Google's algo.