Product sites should not be separate domains by default. A section of the corporate domain draws on history the domain already holds, sits inside one governance and patching framework, and links directly to the corporate evidence an industrial buyer checks. A separate domain is a deliberate exception with reasons behind it.
Those reasons do exist in industry: a brand acquired with its own installed base and distributor network, a line sold to a different audience through a different channel, a joint venture where ownership is shared, or a division being prepared for divestment. Each is a commercial argument rather than a search one.
A product section on the corporate domain inherits the history that domain has accumulated, sits under one security and governance framework, and reports through one analytics property.
It also links the product detail to the corporate evidence an industrial buyer looks for: manufacturing capability, quality certifications, references and service coverage. Specifying engineers and procurement leads check the company as well as the product.
A new domain begins without the history the corporate domain has built, so its visibility has to be established from the start. It also becomes a second property to patch, monitor, measure, govern and pay for.
Where marketing capacity is already stretched across a catalogue and several markets, splitting it across two estates is usually felt within the first year.
An acquired brand that carries its own recognition, installed base and distributor network. A line sold to a different audience through a different channel, where the corporate positioning would be a poor fit. A joint venture or licensed brand where ownership is shared.
A division being prepared for divestment is another, since separating the estate later is more expensive than starting separately.
A product line can carry its own visual identity, tone and navigation inside a section of the corporate domain. Presentation and URL structure are independent decisions, and treating them as one is the most common reason a separate domain gets proposed.
Where the requirement is that the product looks distinct, that can be met without a second estate to maintain.
The structural choice determines what the product content shares and what it has to establish for itself. It does not by itself determine how either will perform, which depends on the content, the terminology buyers use and the references pointing at it.
A separate domain with substantial content and an established distributor network can do well; a thin one usually will not, on any structure.
Whichever structure is chosen, write down the reason and revisit it when the commercial situation changes. Consolidating later is a full migration with individual URL mapping rather than a simplified version because the sites were related.
See product websites for how the content model is built either way.
Not as a default. A section of the corporate domain draws on established domain history, sits within one governance and patching framework, and connects the product detail to the corporate evidence industrial buyers check. Separate domains suit specific commercial situations: an acquired brand with its own following, a different audience and channel, a joint venture, or a planned divestment.
No. Visual identity, tone and navigation can be entirely distinct within a section of the corporate domain, since presentation and URL structure are separate decisions. Treating them as the same question is the most frequent reason a separate domain is proposed, and it usually adds an estate to maintain without addressing the underlying requirement.
This is one of the clearer cases for keeping a separate domain, at least initially. An acquired industrial brand often carries its own installed base, distributor relationships, part-number history and inbound links, and folding it into the corporate domain too early discards that. Consolidation can follow once the commercial position is settled.
Yes, and it should be planned as a full migration: a complete URL inventory including documents and part numbers, one-to-one mapping to the closest equivalent, single-hop permanent redirects retained indefinitely, and monitored indexation afterwards. A prior relationship between the sites does not simplify any of that. See multi-brand consolidation for how the sequence is planned.
A substantial part usually carries across where each old URL is mapped individually to its closest equivalent and the redirects stay in place indefinitely. Blanket rules to a category cost more of it. Some movement during the transition is normal while search engines reassess, and the external links pointing at the old domain continue to matter.
Fewer than most industrial groups have, in general, since each property carries patching, governance, measurement and content cost. See how many websites does an industrial company need for how that count is assessed against markets, brands and audiences rather than against the number of teams requesting one.
Tell us about the product and the brand position and we will set out what fits.