70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Lansing, Michigan
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Lansing, Michigan. Freeze-thaw repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Service-base space scarcity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
20Sources used
11Primary sources
19Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.6 points average among 5 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Lansing, Michigan
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Freeze-thaw repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 5 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average. Aire Serv was especially relationship-sensitive: removing freeze-thaw repair demand moved it from #4 to #12 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Lansing, Michigan
Recurring Lansing freeze-thaw climate supports weatherization and repair demand
This relationship affected 5 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 1991-2020 Lansing climate normals show recurring snowfall and freezing temperatures: annual snowfall inches: 50.2; days high at or below 32f: 52.6; days low at or below 32f: 142.5 inches and days per year. [7] [8]
Industrial vacancy does not translate into abundant smaller functional service-base space
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Colliers reports low overall Lansing industrial vacancy with materially different submarket vacancy: overall vacancy percent: 2.9; cbd vacancy percent: 6.7; east vacancy percent: 4.6; north vacancy percent: 1.6; south vacancy percent: 8.1; west vacancy percent: 0.1; asking rate usd per sqft nnn: 7.52; under construction sqft: 546,000; additional values omitted percent usd and square feet. [15] [12]
property-restoration
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was real estate and site feasibility. [6] [15] [8] [12] [11] [9] [7] [10] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
State-government employment and adjacent MSU create a large formal institutional account base1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Recurring Lansing freeze-thaw climate supports weatherization and repair demand1 modeled effect
Freeze-thaw repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Industrial vacancy does not translate into abundant smaller functional service-base space1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Michigan Avenue bridge work creates temporary corridor access and truck-turn restrictions1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Designated Lansing historic districts require review of covered exterior alterations1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.57 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#12
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.16 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.04 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.3 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.96 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.3 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.37 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.50 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.73 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Government Employment Is A Large Share Of Lansing Area Nonfarm Employmenttotal nonfarm employment thousands: 239.9; government employment thousands: 58.5; government share percent derived: 24.4; government year over year change percent: -5.9 thousands and percent
- Michigan State University Fall 2025 Enrollmenttotal students: 51,838; undergraduate students: 41,415
- State Of Michigan Publishes Vendor Opportunity Forecasting And Open Bids Through Sigma Vssvendor opportunity dashboard: yes; open bids via sigma vss: yes; dashboard updates weekly: yes process features
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.3 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted5 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- 1991 2020 Lansing Climate Normals Show Recurring Snowfall And Freezing Temperaturesannual snowfall inches: 50.2; days high at or below 32f: 52.6; days low at or below 32f: 142.5 inches and days per year
- Fhwa Identifies Repeated Freeze Thaw Exposure And Susceptible Saturated Aggregate As Mechanisms For Concrete Deterioration And D Crackingfreeze thaw damage mechanism supported: yes; d cracking mechanism supported: yes engineering finding
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.8 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.8 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #6 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Greater Lansing Industrial Availability Is Concentrated In Large Blocks While Smaller Buildings Remain Limitedmarket vacancy percent: 12.3; north vacancy percent: 19.1; south vacancy percent: 26.9; west vacancy percent: 0.8; survey minimum building size sqft: 20,000; available inventory concentrated in large vacancies: yes; smaller industrial buildings limited availability: yes percent and market characteristics
- Colliers Reports Low Overall Lansing Industrial Vacancy With Materially Different Submarket Vacancyoverall vacancy percent: 2.9; cbd vacancy percent: 6.7; east vacancy percent: 4.6; north vacancy percent: 1.6; south vacancy percent: 8.1; west vacancy percent: 0.1; asking rate usd per sqft nnn: 7.52; under construction sqft: 546,000; additional values omitted percent usd and square feet
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#12
#5 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#6 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#7 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#13
#8 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#9 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#11 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#12 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#13 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#14 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [6] [9] [10] [11] [13] [14] [1] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [8] [4] [1] [3]Competitive environment: [4] [14] [12] [15] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [5] [6] [1] [2] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [7] [12] [15] [3] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [15] [13] [14] [17] [19] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [10] [11] [4] [14] [3]Referral ecosystem: [10] [11] [9] [6] [3]Territory quality: [12] [15] [13] [14] [17] [16] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [19] [20] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +0.8 pts | — | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +0.6 pts | — | — |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.4 pts | — |
| #4 Aire Serv | — | +0.9 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.8 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #7 PuroClean | — | +0.8 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — |
| #9 Workout Anytime | — | — | — |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #11 HomeSmiles | +0.3 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | +0.4 pts | — | -0.7 pts |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #14 ZOOM DRAIN | — | — | -0.7 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to real estate and site feasibility. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Lansing, Michigan
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Lansing, Michigan
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.8 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.1–70.2
- Category average
- 70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.1
Metric registry
The 19 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 113,884people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Lansing, Michigan | Context only | [4] |
| Household count, owner-occupancy, and median gross rent | households: 51,588; owner occupied housing unit rate percent: 53.8; median gross rent usd: 993households percent and usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Lansing, Michigan | Context only | [4] |
| Selected city-level consumer and institutional economic activity in 2022 | retail sales usd thousands: 2,230,271; accommodation and food services sales usd thousands: 221,465; health care and social assistance receipts usd thousands: 2,176,093; transportation and warehousing receipts usd thousands: 357,098usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Lansing, Michigan | Context only | [4] |
| Government employment is a large share of Lansing-area nonfarm employment | total nonfarm employment thousands: 239.9; government employment thousands: 58.5; government share percent derived: 24.4; government year over year change percent: -5.9thousands and percent | Unemployment and employment through June 2026; wage references through May 2025 | Lansing metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Michigan State University fall 2025 enrollment | total students: 51,838; undergraduate students: 41,415students | Fall 2025 | Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan | Used in scoring | [9] |
| State of Michigan publishes vendor opportunity forecasting and open bids through SIGMA VSS | vendor opportunity dashboard: yes; open bids via sigma vss: yes; dashboard updates weekly: yesprocess features | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | State of Michigan procurement | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Michigan State University publishes current bid opportunities and offers supplier intake | public bid opportunities: yes; potential supplier intake: yesprocess features | Current publicly listed solicitations accessed August 2026 | Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Mean hourly wages for selected operating labor groups in the Lansing metropolitan area compared with the United States | all occupations: lansing metro: 31.47, united states: 33.54; food preparation and serving: lansing metro: 17.57, united states: 17.86; construction and extraction: lansing metro: 31.61, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: lansing metro: 29.02, united states: 30.44; office and administrative support: lansing metro: 24.36, united states: 24.79, employment: 27,580; production: lansing metro: 25.77, united states: 24.81usd per hour and jobs | May 2025 | Lansing-East Lansing, Michigan MSA | Context only | [5] |
| June 2026 unemployment rate compared with the United States | lansing area percent: 4.6; united states percent: 4.4percent | Unemployment and employment through June 2026; wage references through May 2025 | Lansing area | Context only | [6] |
| 1991-2020 Lansing climate normals show recurring snowfall and freezing temperatures | annual snowfall inches: 50.2; days high at or below 32f: 52.6; days low at or below 32f: 142.5inches and days per year | 1991-2020 climate normals | Lansing, Michigan | Used in scoring | [7] |
| FHWA identifies repeated freeze-thaw exposure and susceptible saturated aggregate as mechanisms for concrete deterioration and D-cracking | freeze thaw damage mechanism supported: yes; d cracking mechanism supported: yesengineering finding | Engineering mechanisms for freeze-thaw deterioration and D-cracking | Freeze-thaw-exposed concrete | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Greater Lansing industrial availability is concentrated in large blocks while smaller buildings remain limited | market vacancy percent: 12.3; north vacancy percent: 19.1; south vacancy percent: 26.9; west vacancy percent: 0.8; survey minimum building size sqft: 20,000; available inventory concentrated in large vacancies: yes; smaller industrial buildings limited availability: yespercent and market characteristics | H1 2026 | Greater Lansing industrial market | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Colliers reports low overall Lansing industrial vacancy with materially different submarket vacancy | overall vacancy percent: 2.9; cbd vacancy percent: 6.7; east vacancy percent: 4.6; north vacancy percent: 1.6; south vacancy percent: 8.1; west vacancy percent: 0.1; asking rate usd per sqft nnn: 7.52; under construction sqft: 546,000; additional values omittedpercent usd and square feet | H1 2026; industrial data collected through June 13, 2026 | Lansing / Mid-Michigan industrial market | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Greater Lansing office vacancy varies materially by submarket while the CBD continues adapting to hybrid work and reduced state leasing | market vacancy percent: 18.3; cbd vacancy percent: 24.9; east vacancy percent: 15.9; north vacancy percent: 8.8; south vacancy percent: 8; west vacancy percent: 20.9; hybrid work adjustment: yes; state transition from leased to state owned space: yespercent and market characteristics | H1 2026 | Greater Lansing office market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Greater Lansing retail vacancy varies materially by submarket | market vacancy percent: 17.1; east vacancy percent: 10.3; north vacancy percent: 22.5; south vacancy percent: 29.8; west vacancy percent: 14.7; new tenant demand offsetting turnover: yespercent and market characteristics | H1 2026 | Greater Lansing retail market | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Michigan Avenue bridge construction creates a defined temporary lane, parking, and large-truck access condition | start date: 2026-06-01; expected completion: mid-September 2026; michigan avenue lanes during work: 2; one lane each direction: yes; parking prohibited grand to cedar: yes; museum drive access affected: yes; large truck left turn from museum to michigan restricted at times: yesconstruction condition | Construction scheduled from early June through mid-September 2026 | Michigan Avenue bridges over the Grand River and Museum Drive, Lansing | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Lansing administers a form-based zoning code with the current third amendment effective May 4, 2026 | third amendment effective date: 2026-05-04; form and appearance regulated: yes; sign code chapter: 1310regulatory framework | Current Form-Based Zoning Code; Third Amendment effective May 4, 2026 | Lansing, Michigan | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Exterior work in designated Lansing Local Historic Districts is reviewed by the Historic District Commission | covered work examples: additions, alterations, demolitions; certificate of appropriateness process: yes; code chapter: 1220regulatory requirement | Current Historic District Commission process accessed August 2026 | Lansing Local Historic Districts | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Current Lansing site-plan checklist states the site-plan review and additional-revision fees | all plans fee usd: 900; each additional revision review usd: 130usd | Current checklist published in 2026 | Lansing, Michigan | Context only | [19] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 70.78 after target-market demand +0.8 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Multi-city structural operating research docket (I 132)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-Killers and Structural ConstraintsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - mod: Lansing neighborhood rowsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Lansing city, Michigan
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Household count, owner-occupancy, and median gross rent, and Selected city-level consumer and institutional economic activity in 2022
- 5Occupational Employment and Wages in Lansing-East Lansing - May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for selected operating labor groups in the Lansing metropolitan area compared with the United States
- 6Lansing Area Economic Summary
Used for: Government employment is a large share of Lansing-area nonfarm employment and June 2026 unemployment rate compared with the United States
- 7Lansing Normals 1991-2020
Used for: 1991-2020 Lansing climate normals show recurring snowfall and freezing temperatures
- 8Ensuring Durability of Concrete Paving Mixtures - Part I: Mechanisms and Mitigation
Used for: FHWA identifies repeated freeze-thaw exposure and susceptible saturated aggregate as mechanisms for concrete deterioration and D-cracking
- 9Fall Enrollment Report 2025
Used for: Michigan State University fall 2025 enrollment
- 10Vendor Opportunity Dashboard and State of Michigan open-bid access
Used for: State of Michigan publishes vendor opportunity forecasting and open bids through SIGMA VSS
- 11Bid Opportunities
Used for: Michigan State University publishes current bid opportunities and offers supplier intake
- 12Industrial 26 Market Insights: Greater Lansing Area, Michigan | H1 2026
Used for: Greater Lansing industrial availability is concentrated in large blocks while smaller buildings remain limited
- 13Office 26 Market Insights: Greater Lansing Area, Michigan | H1 2026
Used for: Greater Lansing office vacancy varies materially by submarket while the CBD continues adapting to hybrid work and reduced state leasing
- 14Retail 26 Market Insights: Greater Lansing Area, Michigan | H1 2026
Used for: Greater Lansing retail vacancy varies materially by submarket
- 15Lansing Market Reports | 2026 H1
Used for: Colliers reports low overall Lansing industrial vacancy with materially different submarket vacancy
- 16Michigan Avenue Bridges
Used for: Michigan Avenue bridge construction creates a defined temporary lane, parking, and large-truck access condition
- 17Zoning
Used for: Lansing administers a form-based zoning code with the current third amendment effective May 4, 2026
- 18Historic District Commission
Used for: Exterior work in designated Lansing Local Historic Districts is reviewed by the Historic District Commission
- 19City of Lansing Site Plan Review Checklist - All City Departments
Used for: Current Lansing site-plan checklist states the site-plan review and additional-revision fees
- 20
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.