69.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Salem, Oregon
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Salem, Oregon. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Frontline labor pressure 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
19Sources used
14Primary sources
27Local 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
0.8 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.4 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Salem, Oregon
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average. Jan-Pro International was especially relationship-sensitive: removing frontline labor pressure moved it from #11 to #3 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 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Salem, Oregon
Recent population growth and 2025 housing permitting expand the addressable household-service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing units receiving building permits in 2025: 854 housing units. [5]
Several franchise-relevant frontline and support occupational groups have above-national mean hourly wages
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations: salem msa usd: 21.42; united states usd: 19.66 usd per hour. [8]
Downtown storefront vacancy was reported at 3.8 percent in October 2024, with about half of available spaces receiving new tenants within six months.
Low storefront vacancy and rapid tenant replacement measure space occupancy, not weekday lunch-period pedestrian demand. Local reporting simultaneously described declining-foot-traffic concerns, while Oregon state policy continues to support hybrid and remote work. Paid on-street parking also began after the 2024 report, while free customer and visitor garage parking remains. Current site-specific daypart counts are therefore required before using downtown vacancy as a walk-in-demand proxy. [11] [12] [13] [14]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent population growth and 2025 housing permitting expand the addressable household-service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large government employment base supports institutional account demand in the state-capital market1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Large regional health-care employment base supports institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Several franchise-relevant frontline and support occupational groups have above-national mean hourly wages1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
City and state institutional sales use formal procurement systems and solicitation processes1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Historic-design review can require prototype adaptation for exterior changes at designated Salem properties1 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 alignment71.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +1.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.40 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +1.4 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.11 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.02 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 71.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 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 | +0.7 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.70 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.68 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 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 |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.68 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
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 | +0.64 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.64 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.3 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 | +0.3 pts | |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.32 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.19 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
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 70.19 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 | +1.2 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.0 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.15 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.15 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.02 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.98 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.36 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.64 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.48 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| 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 | 69.52 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
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 effectPositive local support
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025181,779 people
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimates Base To July 20253.6 percent
- Housing Units Receiving Building Permits In 2025854 housing units
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.2 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #11 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.4 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Seasonally Adjusted Unemployment Rate In June 20264.9 percent
- Mean Hourly Wage For Food Preparation And Serving Related Occupationssalem msa usd: 19.78; united states usd: 17.86 usd per hour
- Mean Hourly Wage For Building And Grounds Cleaning And Maintenance Occupationssalem msa usd: 21.42; united states usd: 19.66 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.6 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.3 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo 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–#9
#2 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#5 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#6 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#8 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#9 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#11 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#12 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #13–#13
#14 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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] [5] [7] [11] [12] [13] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [9] [1]Competitive environment: [19] [4] [16]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [7] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [15] [13] [14] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [6] [5] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [17] [18] [7] [19]Referral ecosystem: [7] [17] [18]Territory quality: [15] [4] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [10] [9] [6] [3] [1]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.6 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.0 pts | — |
| #4 Mr. Rooter | +0.7 pts | — |
| #5 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | — |
| #6 Aire Serv | +0.8 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.7 pts | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts | — |
| #9 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #11 Jan-Pro International | +1.2 pts | -1.0 pts |
| #12 Workout Anytime | +0.5 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | -0.5 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. 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, HomeSmiles, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Salem, Oregon
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Salem, Oregon
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.5 to 69.6. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.6. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.5 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
- 69.5–69.6
- Category average
- 69.6
Rainbow International Restoration69.6
PuroClean69.5
Metric registry
The 27 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 | 181,779people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimates base | Salem, Oregon | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025 | 3.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and April 1, 2020 estimates base | Salem, Oregon | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Housing units receiving building permits in 2025 | 854housing units | 2025 building permits; monitoring report dated March 2026 | Salem, Oregon | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Multifamily units receiving building permits in 2025 | 496housing units | 2025 building permits; monitoring report dated March 2026 | Salem, Oregon | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Government employment in June 2026 | 47,300jobs | June 2026 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [7] |
| State government employment in June 2026 | 23,900jobs | June 2026 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Health care and social assistance employment in June 2026 | 35,400jobs | June 2026 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.9percent | June 2026 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations | salem msa usd: 19.78; united states usd: 17.86usd per hour | May 2025 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations | salem msa usd: 21.42; united states usd: 19.66usd per hour | May 2025 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for office and administrative support occupations | salem msa usd: 26.15; united states usd: 24.79usd per hour | May 2025 | Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties) | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Downtown storefront vacancy reported in October 2024 | 3.8percent | Downtown conditions reported in 2024 | Downtown Salem | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Share of available downtown spaces reported to receive new tenants within six months | 50percent approximate | Downtown conditions reported in 2024 | Downtown Salem | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Local reporting described business-owner concerns that downtown foot traffic was declining while low vacancy and tenant replacement indicated mixed conditions | mixed conditionqualitative | Downtown conditions reported in 2024 | Downtown Salem | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Oregon state policy defines hybrid remote work and supports alternate-work options where approved | hybrid and remote work supportedpolicy status | Policy effective March 21, 2025 | Oregon state government | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Paid on-street parking began in Downtown Salem on July 10, 2025 | effective date: 2025-07-10; paid on street: yes; free customer visitor garages: yespolicy status | Paid on-street parking effective July 10, 2025 | Downtown Salem | Conditional relationship | [13] [14] |
| Willamette Valley industrial vacancy rate in Q1 2026 | 4.9percent | Q1 2026 with availability and construction figures through April/Q2 2026 | Willamette Valley industrial market | Context only | [16] |
| Industrial space listed as available in the Willamette Valley moving into Q2 2026 | 2,500,000square feet | Q1 2026 with availability and construction figures through April/Q2 2026 | Willamette Valley industrial market | Context only | [16] |
| Salem office market vacancy rate in Q1 2026 | 4.6percent | Q1 2026 with availability and construction figures through April/Q2 2026 | Salem office market | Context only | [16] |
| Salem retail market vacancy rate in Q1 2026 | 3.9percent | Q1 2026 with availability and construction figures through April/Q2 2026 | Salem retail market | Context only | [16] |
| City reports that its 2022 Housing Capacity Analysis process redesignated and rezoned land to allow housing in more areas of Salem | land redesignated and rezonedplanning status | Current page describing 2022 Housing Capacity Analysis and subsequent zoning changes | Salem, Oregon | Context only | [6] |
| Development in Salem floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area requires floodplain review and applicable mitigation documentation | permit required when in mapped arearequirement | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Salem floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area | Context only | [9] |
| Covered floodplain development requires mitigation assessment addressing no net loss of flood storage, water quality, or riparian vegetation | no net loss assessmentrequirement | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Salem floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area | Context only | [9] |
| Exterior alterations to local historic landmarks or resources within National Register Districts require historic design review | historic design review requiredrequirement | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Salem historic landmarks and National Register District resources | Conditional relationship | [10] [3] |
| ODOT Phase 1 Center Street Bridge construction schedule and funding status | design period: 2021-2026; construction start: estimated late 2026; phase 1 design and construction cost cap usd: 200,000,000project status | Current project page accessed August 2026; Phase 1 design 2021-2026 and construction estimated to begin late 2026 | OR 22 Center Street Bridge and approaches | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| City vendors are selected through competitive or informal purchasing; formal opportunities use ITBs or RFPs and OregonBuys | formal and informal procurementprocess | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Salem | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| OregonBuys is the state eProcurement system used for competitive bidding under State Procurement Services | oregonbuys competitive biddingprocess | Current procurement framework accessed August 2026 | State of Oregon | Used in scoring | [18] |
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 whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
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 71.40 after target-market demand +1.6 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.2 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 claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Municipal Hostility Index: Forensic Capitalization of Structural Constraints and Economic Choke PointsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 162(5).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Exterior alterations to local historic landmarks or resources within National Register Districts require historic design review
- 4U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Salem city, Oregon
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025
- 5Housing Production Strategy: 2025 Update
Used for: Housing units receiving building permits in 2025 and Multifamily units receiving building permits in 2025
- 6Housing Production Strategy
Used for: City reports that its 2022 Housing Capacity Analysis process redesignated and rezoned land to allow housing in more areas of Salem
- 7Employment in Salem MSA (Marion and Polk Counties): June 2026
Used for: Government employment in June 2026, State government employment in June 2026, Health care and social assistance employment in June 2026, and Seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in June 2026
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Salem — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations, and Mean hourly wage for office and administrative support occupations
- 9Floodplain Development Permits
Used for: Development in Salem floodplain or Special Flood Hazard Area requires floodplain review and applicable mitigation documentation and Covered floodplain development requires mitigation assessment addressing no net loss of flood storage, water quality, or riparian vegetation
- 10Historic Design Review
Used for: Exterior alterations to local historic landmarks or resources within National Register Districts require historic design review
- 11Checking in on Salem’s downtown
Used for: Downtown storefront vacancy reported in October 2024, Share of available downtown spaces reported to receive new tenants within six months, and Local reporting described business-owner concerns that downtown foot traffic was declining while low vacancy and tenant replacement indicated mixed conditions
- 12Statewide Policy 50.050.01 — Working Remotely
Used for: Oregon state policy defines hybrid remote work and supports alternate-work options where approved
- 13Paid Parking Comes to Downtown Salem July 10
Used for: Paid on-street parking began in Downtown Salem on July 10, 2025
- 14Parking
Used for: Paid on-street parking began in Downtown Salem on July 10, 2025
- 15OR 22: Salem Center Street Bridge Seismic Retrofit Design Phase
Used for: ODOT Phase 1 Center Street Bridge construction schedule and funding status
- 16Mid-Valley Market Update — First Quarter 2026
Used for: Willamette Valley industrial vacancy rate in Q1 2026, Industrial space listed as available in the Willamette Valley moving into Q2 2026, Salem office market vacancy rate in Q1 2026, and Salem retail market vacancy rate in Q1 2026
- 17Become a City Vendor
Used for: City vendors are selected through competitive or informal purchasing; formal opportunities use ITBs or RFPs and OregonBuys
- 18State Contracts
Used for: OregonBuys is the state eProcurement system used for competitive bidding under State Procurement Services
- 19
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.