Google Tackles Outdated Branding in Search

Google’s John Mueller recently addressed a peculiar situation where search results continued to show outdated branding for a site that had rebranded over a decade ago. Despite the website updating all its content to reflect the new brand, Google’s search listings were still displaying the old name, causing confusion for users and raising questions about how the search engine handles site rebrands.

The issue was highlighted by a user on Bluesky, who noted that Treatwell still appeared as “Wahanda” in Google results, even though the company officially rebranded in 2015. The user asked whether a “legacy” signal might be overriding the current structured data for the site’s name in a single country, as all on-page references had been updated to the new branding.

Mueller admitted that the situation was unusual and didn’t have a clear explanation. He suggested it could be a rare indexing bug where certain elements in Google’s search index fail to update properly. As a practical workaround, he recommended using the domain name as an alternate site name, referencing Google’s guidance on preferred site names for webmasters. He also said he would forward the issue to the relevant team at Google for further investigation.

A closer look at the site revealed that there were no remaining on-page references to the old brand. The previous domain correctly 301-redirected to the new domain, which should have resolved any lingering indexing issues. However, there were a few residual factors that may have contributed to the inconsistency: some footer links still included referral codes with the old branding, and the sitemap contained links to 404 pages referencing the former brand. While these elements may not directly explain why the old branding appeared in search results, they illustrate the importance of maintaining a clean and up-to-date sitemap as part of overall SEO best practices.

This case is a rare but informative example of how Google’s indexing works behind the scenes. Typically, search engines are effective at recognising site-wide updates, including rebrands, but occasional anomalies like this show that even small inconsistencies or hidden elements can influence what appears in search results. For webmasters, it’s a reminder that regular audits of structured data, sitemaps, and internal links are crucial to maintaining accurate search listings.

From an SEO perspective, there are several takeaways. First, it’s important to ensure that all visible site content reflects the current branding. Second, hidden elements such as legacy links, outdated referral codes, or broken sitemap URLs should be cleaned up to avoid confusion in indexing. Finally, using domain names as alternate site names can help provide a fallback in cases where Google struggles to select the preferred branding.

Situations like this also offer a unique look into Google’s indexing process. They highlight how anomalies can surface, even in well-maintained sites, and underline the importance of proactive measures to maintain brand consistency across search results. While the issue with Treatwell is unusual, it serves as a valuable lesson for webmasters and SEOs about the complexities involved in managing a site’s presence in search over the long term.

In conclusion, although Google generally handles rebrands efficiently, rare glitches can occur, leading to outdated branding appearing in SERPs. By following best practices—updating on-page content, auditing sitemaps, and using alternate site names—webmasters can minimise the chances of such issues and ensure that their brand is accurately represented in search results. Keeping search listings consistent not only supports brand recognition but also enhances the user experience for anyone looking for your site online.