While working on a furniture ecommerce client, we ran a full audit and optimization of their Google Shopping product titles, nearly 10,000 products across dozens of categories.
Here is a breakdown of what we found, what we fixed, and what the data revealed.
How we approached the audit
Before touching anything, we compared the existing titles against what competitors were showing on the SERPs for the same product types.
The gap was clear: competitor titles were structured to match search intent, with material, room destination, and opening mechanism front and center.
Our client's titles were structured around internal naming conventions, useful for the warehouse, invisible to Google.
Another gap from competitors was about shortened titles, so we formulated titles with more specs than the competitors.
That analysis drove every decision below.
What we changed
Model names removed
This client had a proper name appended at the end of every title "- Albiano", "- Gravere", "- Priverno". These names are meaningful internally. On Google Shopping, they occupy 10–15 characters that could hold a material, a color, or a room keyword.
We removed them from nearly 10,000 products.
Before: Blue double sofa bed 285x160cm - Priverno
After: Blue double sofa bed 285x160 cm
Dimension formatting normalized
Dimensions were written with "h" attached directly to the height value, a format that is non-standard and inconsistent across the catalog. We normalized everything to the correct format.
Before: Oak sideboard 90x40x110h cm 2 doors
After: Oak sideboard 90x40x110 cm 2 doors
Seat count added to sofa beds
Many sofa bed titles were missing the number of seats, a key purchase filter for users.
Where the information was reliably available in the feed, we added it.
Before: Compact grey sofa bed 180x95cm
After: Compact 2-seater grey sofa bed 180x95 cm
Before: White and green wooden sofa bed 220x84cm
After: White and green wooden 3-seater sofa bed 220x84 cm
Language correction on descriptive terms
Outdoor wardrobes were labeled with the English word "outdoor" on a catalog selling to Italian users. We corrected it to the local equivalent.
Before: Tall sand outdoor wardrobe 80x182h cm
After: Tall sand outdoor wardrobe 80x182 cm
What the data revealed
After the optimization, a title-length audit revealed a clear structural gap across the catalog.
These categories had the highest share of titles still too short to be competitive:
- Poufs - 98% short, material, and mechanism are missing on almost all
- TV stands - 98% short, material, and mechanism missing
- Armchairs - 81% short, color, dimensions, and mechanism missing
- Chest of drawers - 75% short
- Bedside tables - 73% short
- Wardrobes - 70% short
The categories with the highest volume and a significant gap:
- Sofa beds - 893 products, 55% short, material missing on 85%
- Sideboards - 613 products, 60% short, material missing on 99%
- Sofas - 440 products, 60% short, material missing on 98%
The most interesting finding: material is missing almost everywhere.
Across sofas, sofa beds, sideboards, wardrobes, and bedside tables, the material attribute is absent in the vast majority of titles, often over 95% of the category.
This matters because material is a primary search filter.
Users search for "velvet sofa", "oak sideboard", "metal bed frame".
Without it, you are matching on fewer queries and competing on weaker signals.
If there is one attribute worth sourcing from your data team before the next feed update, it is this one.
We communicated these data to the client and internal team.
So, I've shown you a preview of a typical analysis I do for my clients.
I like to be precise because the details can make a real difference in the client's wallet.
If you work in a competitive landscape, these details can save you.
Many SEOs and decision makers focus on the wrong things, like "We're optimising for AI only!!" or something similar.
For this reason, I don't work with every client; I work with a few clients at a time, and only with clients who understand the value of SEO.
Managing a Shopping feed with similar gaps? Reply to this email, and I'd be happy to take a look.
