From your example, I can see where Google targeting the visitor via IP address can be a problem. I believe this is similar to when people log on in the US via AOL IP addresses.

The most accurate targeting is where the user is actually telling you where they are located (FB profile info).

When I help with Google Adwords targeting for local businesses, I always recommend running two campaigns.

The first campaign uses Google’s geotargeting with just the product/service keywords (ex. “plumbing”). The second campaign (non-geotargeted) uses product/service keywords with location keywords attached (ex. “plumbing Hyannis Massachusetts”). This way you can cover the area more efficiently and get to users that may not be reached via the IP geotargeting.

Thanks for the comment!

So what’s the difference? Huge… for some small cities / towns with not as developed infrastructure.

Take my city for example. My local service business is targeting customers ONLY from my geographical location. (Mind you, I also live in a capital city of Australia, not up in the hills in east-asia somewhere..)

The thing is… MOST internet users in our city are actually connected via a VPN megalink network to an ISP on the other side of the country. So therefore 95% of users consequently have an IP address from the other side of the country. So obviously, this means that if you only target Internet users from my state/county, you will most likely miss 95% of your online customers.

I have written to google and they have advised that the only way around this is for me to use keyword targeting. Fair enough…

This is where facebook has been a revelation, because I am actually able to geotarget using facebook’s user-profiling system.

I’m sure facebook’s user-profile geotargeting will become more of a small city/town online marketing feature of the future (where IP addresses are ineffective due to tunnelling megalinks)