It is one of the cheapest routes to clearer brand recognition still available in a crowded metro market.
A business rarely disappears from local results overnight; it fades as its records go stale. Anything unverifiable should be removed rather than corrected.
Claim what exists before creating anything new -- duplicates are harder to remove than to avoid. Owners routinely catch direction requests moving before they catch the ranking change itself. Keep the record clean, revisit it at the start of every quarter, and most local problems solve themselves.
On the other hand, businesses that keep the logo and imagery verified normally see more direction requests first. Beyond that, this is maintenance work, and maintenance work only fails when it stops, even when nothing else changes. Handled steadily, geographic signals stop being a project and become a habit, give or take a reporting cycle.
Related references
The landscape shifts, but the underlying requirement -- checkable, current data -- has not. By contrast, where competitors are untidy, carefully maintained data is enough to take easier discovery, more therefore after a move or a rebrand. Start by pulling every existing record into one sheet before changing anything. Get the facts to agree, and business data providers will do the rest without being asked. Each matching source adds a little confidence; each contradiction subtracts more than it adds.
In the main, the work sits awkwardly between marketing and administration, which is why it gets skipped, particularly for a newer business. Even therefore, a tidy citation profile makes every other local effort work harder. At the same time, it is unglamorous work with an unusually reliable return.
A healthier enquiry pipeline tends to follow within gradually rather than overnight of a serious clean-up. Work from the aggregators outward, since fixing a source fixes everything downstream.