Most industrial companies need one website, and separate ones only where a distinct audience, proposition or operating model cannot be served from the same platform. The common problem in this sector is an estate that has accumulated rather than a portfolio that is too small.
Every additional property carries its own content, hosting, security patching, analytics, consent configuration and search authority. Splitting a brand across several domains divides the authority that would otherwise concentrate in one. The decision should follow product architecture, markets, buying journeys and ownership, and it is worth revisiting after any acquisition or rebrand.
The pattern is familiar: a corporate site, a product microsite built for a launch, a trade-fair landing page on its own domain, a market-specific site set up by a regional distributor, an acquired company’s site left running, and a careers page unchanged since it went live.
None of those decisions was unreasonable on its own. Together they produce an estate with unclear ownership, inconsistent product information and several properties running software that has not been updated in years.
A distinct buyer with a distinct task is the strongest case: a distributor portal behind authentication, a recruitment destination aimed at a different audience entirely, or a business unit selling an unrelated proposition to unrelated customers.
A separate legal entity with its own brand equity, particularly after an acquisition where the acquired name carries recognition with specifiers, is the second reasonable case. Convenience, an internal reorganisation or a campaign that needed its own launch date are not.
Consolidation concentrates search authority on one domain instead of dividing it, gives buyers one place to find the whole range, and reduces the maintenance and security surface to a single platform with a single update routine.
It also makes governance possible. One site with defined content owners and an approval route is materially easier to keep accurate than six with none, and it removes the situation where two properties state different specifications for the same product.
Before deciding anything, establish what exists: every domain and subdomain the organisation has registered, who holds the registrar account, where each is hosted, what software it runs, what traffic it receives, whether it collects personal data and who last updated it.
The registrar and DNS records are usually the fastest route to a complete list, because they surface properties that no longer appear in anyone’s plan. Expect to find several that no current employee can account for.
For every item on the inventory, choose one of four outcomes: retain with a named owner, consolidate into the main site with mapped redirects, redirect the domain and retire the content, or shut it down and release the domain. Recording the decision matters as much as making it.
An orphaned property is a live risk rather than a neutral leftover: outdated performance claims, unpatched software and forms collecting personal data into an unmonitored inbox all sit on sites with no active owner.
Merging sites can affect rankings temporarily where redirects and content mapping are handled loosely, and done carefully it usually improves visibility by concentrating authority onto fewer, stronger pages. The risk sits in the execution rather than in the decision.
Map every URL that has traffic or inbound links to a specific destination, keep the redirects permanently, and monitor coverage afterwards. Our website migration page sets out how that is run.
Usually one, plus a separate property only where a distinct audience, proposition or operating model requires it. A distributor portal behind authentication or an acquired brand with its own recognition among specifiers are reasonable exceptions. Campaigns, product launches and internal reorganisations are not, and each additional site adds permanent maintenance and divides search authority.
Only where a distinct buyer journey, technical proposition or content model requires separation. Defaulting to a dedicated site per range produces an estate that becomes difficult to govern, and it splits the authority that would help every range rank. A structured product section with a catalogue and a product finder usually serves buyers better.
Audit them and give each an explicit outcome: retain with an owner, consolidate, redirect or retire. An orphaned microsite is a live risk rather than a neutral leftover, since outdated claims, unpatched software and forms collecting data into an unmonitored inbox can sit unnoticed for years. Where the domain has inbound links, redirect rather than delete.
Start from the registrar and DNS records rather than from memory, since those surface domains no current plan mentions. Cross-check against analytics accounts, hosting invoices, SSL certificate inventories and search results for the brand. Record owner, host, software version, traffic and whether personal data is collected before any consolidation decision is taken.
It can cause temporary movement, and handled properly it more often improves visibility by concentrating authority onto fewer, stronger pages. The risk comes from skipping URL mapping rather than from consolidation itself. Map every URL carrying traffic or links to a specific destination, keep redirects permanently, and monitor index coverage for several months afterwards.
Assess whether the acquired name still carries recognition with specifiers and distributors in its market. Where it does, a transition period with both properties and clear cross-linking is reasonable, followed by a planned migration. Where it does not, consolidate early: maintaining a second platform to preserve a name the market has moved past adds cost without commercial return.
Tell us what you think you have and we will help you establish what exists.