If Pirate Sites Ranked at #2 to #6, How Much Could They Take?
We launched two client-authorized brand-protection domains for an Australian B2C business. After about three months, they began appearing for high-intent branded searches. Over the next 61 days, the two sites generated more than 1,200 organic clicks. First-party reporting attributed 30+ first-time customers and about $12,000 in net revenue to that traffic. No piracy occurred because both properties belonged to the client. Their measured performance shows the customer and revenue value that pirate sites at comparable positions could divert.
A #1 ranking does not guarantee the official site gets every click
The official site ranked first, yet the authorized protection domains still earned clicks below it. If pirate sites had occupied those same positions, comparable search visibility could have diverted customers away from the official route.
That matters most on action-led searches such as “[brand] login,” “[brand] app,” “[brand] download,” or a market-specific query. These users are not researching the category; they are trying to reach the brand.
What we mean by a pirate domain in this case
In this article, a pirate domain is an unofficial site that captures branded search demand and sends visitors into a route the business does not control. It may imitate the brand, present a misleading access page, or redirect users somewhere else.
What two authorized domains reveal about pirate-site exposure
Both domains were owned and authorized by the client. We matched their Search Console traffic with first-party customer and revenue records. The results below are measured and rounded. They are not traffic stolen by real pirate sites. They show the customer value that unauthorized sites at comparable visibility could potentially take from the official route.
The client controlled both domains, so the traffic and attributed revenue remained within its own ecosystem.
This is the commercial exposure the proxy reveals. It is a counterfactual, not a measured pirate-site loss.
Most clicks came from people trying to act, not browse
Almost all clicks came from Australia, and roughly 98% were on mobile. The largest query groups paired the brand name with a task:
What pirate sites could have captured at positions #2 to #6
Together, the two authorized domains acquired about 16 first-time customers per 30 days, or roughly eight per domain. Their strongest secondary queries ranked around #2. We use that observed performance as a proxy for a pirate site with comparable visibility. The #2 figure is a measured proxy, not a result from an actual pirate site.
For positions #3 to #6, we apply a declining curve to the #2 proxy. These are exposure scenarios, not observed pirate-site customer counts. Query intent, device, snippet, market, and the other results on the page can all change the outcome.
Position #2 uses observed performance from an authorized domain as a proxy. Positions #3 to #6 are modelled pirate-site scenarios.
Which domains are worth acting on first?
We can review the domains visible in your branded results, estimate the customer value each one may be intercepting, and separate strong removal candidates from cases that need more evidence.
At this customer value, three diverted customers equal the fee for one removal
The authorized proxy domains produced an observed average of about $380 in attributed net revenue per first-time customer. If a pirate site diverted three comparable customers, the exposed value would be roughly $1,150, which is more than the current fee for removing one domain. This compares potential exposure with the fee. It does not prove that removal will recover those customers or create profit. Quotes are scoped to each case, so the payback point can vary.
| Average position | Potential customers diverted / month | Potential net revenue diverted / month | Time to divert 3 customers at the scenario pace |
|---|---|---|---|
| #2 | ≈ 7 to 8 | ≈ $3,000 | ≈ 12 days |
| #3 | ≈ 4 | ≈ $1,600 | ≈ 3 weeks |
| #4 | ≈ 3 | ≈ $1,200 | ≈ 1 month |
| #5 | ≈ 2 | ≈ $800 | ≈ 6 weeks |
| #6 | ≈ 2 | ≈ $700 | ≈ 7 weeks |
Rounded USD scenarios. The #2 row uses observed authorized-domain performance as a proxy. Rows #3 to #6 are modelled. The final column estimates how quickly a pirate site could divert three customers at that pace. It is not a recovery timeline after removal.
What five pirate sites could take from the official customer route
If pirate sites occupied positions #2 to #6 and performed in line with this proxy model, they could collectively divert a monthly pool of about 19 first-time customers and roughly $7,300 in attributed net revenue. This is potential value exposed across the cluster. It is not measured pirate-site revenue, and it is not a promise that every customer or dollar will return after removal.
Acting on several domains can close more paths into the same unofficial route. Whether a cluster removal is worthwhile still depends on the evidence, the available enforcement route, and the share of traffic likely to return to the official site.
Which figures are measured and which are estimates
The traffic, customer, and revenue results were measured on authorized domains. Pirate-site diversion at #2 uses that performance as a proxy. Positions #3 to #6 are modelled from the same baseline.
Measured on authorized proxy domains
- The client-owned domains started ranking after roughly three months.
- They produced 1,200+ organic clicks in the next 61 days.
- First-party reporting recorded 30+ first-time customers and about $12,000 in attributed net revenue.
- The average attributed value was approximately $380 per customer.
- Traffic was almost entirely Australian and mobile.
Translated into pirate-site exposure
- The #2 scenario applies measured authorized-domain performance to a pirate site with comparable visibility.
- Positions #3 to #6 use a declining curve from that measured proxy.
- The three-customer comparison uses the observed customer value and the current single-domain fee.
- The time bands show how quickly a pirate site could divert that value at the scenario pace, not a guaranteed recovery date.
- Actual recovery depends on the query mix, the remaining results, and replacement-domain activity.
Methodology note. Search Console average position is calculated across impressions, so it is not one fixed rank for every user. Google also omits some anonymized queries from the query table. That is why we use property totals for traffic and treat the position model as a range. See Google’s position methodology and query-table guidance.
How we prioritise a removal plan
Capture the live results
Record the official site, pirate domains, position, market, device, and query intent across more than one check.
Estimate value at each position
Use first-party conversion and customer-value data where available. Otherwise, work with a clearly labelled range.
Start with the strongest case
Prioritise the domains and clusters with the clearest value and a viable route. Our takedown versus UDRP guide explains why similar-looking cases may need different action.
Verify and keep watching
Confirm the domain removal, track traffic to the official site, and use SERP domain monitoring to spot replacements entering the same searches.