69.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Memphis, Tennessee
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Memphis, Tennessee. Local business 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
10Primary sources
28Local 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
1.2 points average among 10 affected concepts
0.7 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Memphis, Tennessee
FASTSIGNS, City Wide, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.2 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #2 to #9 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 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 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 Memphis, Tennessee
Logistics-sector business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Cargo handled at Memphis International Airport in 2025: 6.54 billion pounds. [11] [10]
Logistics employers compete for overlapping frontline operations labor
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: FedEx employees at the Memphis airport hub: 11,000 employees minimum. [10] [7]
institutional_demand_containment
The logistics scale supports B2B and facility-account demand for concepts serving transportation, warehousing, airport, and industrial customers. It does not by itself establish citywide walk-in density, discretionary household spending, tourism spillover, or professional referral conversion. [5] [7] [10] [12]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Logistics-sector business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Logistics employers compete for overlapping frontline operations labor1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Tourism and event demand is location- and calendar-dependent2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
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 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.31 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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 72.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
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
- Strong
- 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 +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 |
| +2.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.13 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 | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 72.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
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
- Strong
- 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 +2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment72.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 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 |
| +2.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.00 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 | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 72.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
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
- Strong
- 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 +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.84 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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.84 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.49 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
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
- Strong
- 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 +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 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 |
| +0.4 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.36 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.0 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 |
| +2.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.0 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.26 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 | +2.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.26 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.20 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.20 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
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 | +0.19 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
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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- 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
- #5–#10
#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: 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.18 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
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.
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- 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
- #4–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 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 |
| -0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.93 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 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 |
| -1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.08 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 68.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 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 |
| -1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.09 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 68.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated FASTSIGNS
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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 72.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #2 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Transportation And Warehousing Receipts Or Revenue10,716,526,000 usd
- Transportation And Material Moving Employment104,600 jobs
- Fedex Memphis Hub Operating Scaleflights per day approximate: 400; packages per hour minimum: 180,000; documents per hour minimum: 245,000; airport lease area sqft minimum: 34,000,000 mixed operating metrics
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 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 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #7 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.7 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Transportation And Material Moving Share Of Metropolitan Employment17.1 percent of employment
- Transportation And Material Moving Employment104,600 jobs
- Fedex Employees At The Memphis Airport Hub11,000 employees minimum
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-2.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 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 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #1–#2
#2 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#5 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#6 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#7 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#8 Aire ServStable · tested #7–#8
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#12 PuroCleanStable · tested #11–#12
#13 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #13–#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: [5] [6] [7] [10] [11] [12]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [17] [18] [16] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [12] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [10] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [6] [19] [4] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [8] [9] [13] [16]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [12] [15] [4]Referral ecosystem: [10] [15] [5] [12]Territory quality: [5] [6] [14] [12] [9] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [4] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|
| #1 FASTSIGNS | +2.3 pts | — |
| #2 City Wide | +2.5 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #5 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | — |
| #6 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | — |
| #7 Jan-Pro International | +2.2 pts | -2.0 pts |
| #8 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | — |
| #12 PuroClean | — | -0.9 pts |
| #13 Workout Anytime | — | -1.1 pts |
| #14 Rainbow International Restoration | — | -1.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
FASTSIGNS, City Wide, ActionCOACH 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, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Memphis, Tennessee
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Memphis, Tennessee
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.9 to 69.1. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.1. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.9–69.1
- Category average
- 69.0
PuroClean69.1
Rainbow International Restoration68.9
Metric registry
The 28 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 | 609,647people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [5] |
| Number of households in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate | 250,830households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [6] |
| Number of housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate | 291,759housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Memphis, Tennessee | Supports modeled relationship | [6] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 44.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [5] |
| Median household income | 52,679usd per year | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [6] |
| Persons below the poverty line | 24percent of people | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [6] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts or revenue | 10,716,526,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Memphis, Tennessee | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue | 8,995,637,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [5] |
| Mean travel time to work | 21.4minutes | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Memphis, Tennessee | Context only | [6] |
| Transportation and material moving share of metropolitan employment | 17.1percent of employment | May 2025 | Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Transportation and material moving employment | 104,600jobs | May 2025 | Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage | 30.38usd per hour | May 2025 | Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| FedEx employees at the Memphis airport hub | 11,000employees minimum | Current operating profile accessed August 2026 | FedEx Memphis hub at Memphis International Airport | Used in scoring | [10] |
| FedEx Memphis hub operating scale | flights per day approximate: 400; packages per hour minimum: 180,000; documents per hour minimum: 245,000; airport lease area sqft minimum: 34,000,000mixed operating metrics | Current operating profile accessed August 2026 | FedEx Memphis hub at Memphis International Airport | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Cargo handled at Memphis International Airport in 2025 | 6.54billion pounds | Calendar year 2025 | Memphis International Airport | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Passengers served at Memphis International Airport in 2025 | 4,751,026passengers | Calendar year 2025 | Memphis International Airport | Supports modeled relationship | [11] |
| Industrial vacancy rate | 5.6percent | Q2 2026 | Memphis industrial market | Context only | [8] |
| Average industrial asking rent | 4.75usd per square foot per year | Q2 2026 | Memphis industrial market | Context only | [8] |
| Class A options in the 50,000 to 250,000 square-foot range | 25options minimum | Q2 2026 | Memphis industrial market, 50,000-250,000 square feet | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Annual visitors in 2024 | 13.1million visitors | Calendar year 2024 | Memphis tourism market | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Leisure and hospitality businesses in Shelby County | 2,300businesses minimum | Calendar year 2024 | Shelby County, Tennessee | Context only | [12] |
| City permit workflow includes sign permits and licenses | yesboolean | Current permit framework accessed August 2026 | Memphis, Tennessee | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Sign standards vary in specified Memphis districts and overlays | districts named: Central Business Improvement District, South Central Business Improvement District, Uptown District, University District Overlaydistrict list | Sign-code amendment text; current applicability requires confirmation through Develop 901 | Specified Memphis sign-code districts and overlays | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Loess covers upland areas in the southeast Memphis quadrangle to depths of 4.5 to 16 meters | minimum: 4.5; maximum: 16meters | Geologic mapping published 2003 | Southeast Memphis quadrangle, Shelby County | Context only | [16] |
| Institutional needs assessment identifies aging housing stock and rehabilitation need | yesdocumented finding | Memphis housing and entrepreneurship conditions assessed in 2022 | Memphis, Tennessee | Supports modeled relationship | [17] |
| Memphis International Airport terminal modernization project scale | 650,000,000usd minimum project value | Multi-year terminal modernization project initiated in 2024 and ongoing in 2026 | Memphis International Airport terminal and landside area | Context only | [19] |
| City solicitations are distributed through Beacon with registration for specifications and updates | yesboolean | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Memphis procurement | Context only | [15] |
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, FASTSIGNS reached 72.31 after target-market demand +2.3 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.
- 1Franchise-to-City Operating-Fit Model TaxonomyInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Forensic Audit Report: Structural Capital Constraints and Jurisdictional Risk ProfilesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Franchise neighborhood operating evidence compilationInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5QuickFacts: Memphis city, Tennessee
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, Transportation and warehousing receipts or revenue, and Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue
- 6Memphis, TN Profile Data
Used for: Number of households in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate, Number of housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate, Median household income, Persons below the poverty line, and Mean travel time to work
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Memphis, TN-MS-AR - May 2025
Used for: Transportation and material moving share of metropolitan employment, Transportation and material moving employment, and Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage
- 8Memphis Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Industrial vacancy rate and Average industrial asking rent
- 9Memphis Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Class A options in the 50,000 to 250,000 square-foot range
- 10Properties and Cargo
Used for: FedEx employees at the Memphis airport hub and FedEx Memphis hub operating scale
- 11Memphis International Airport served 4.8 million passengers and handled 6.5 billion pounds of cargo in 2025
Used for: Cargo handled at Memphis International Airport in 2025 and Passengers served at Memphis International Airport in 2025
- 12Tourism Economic Impact
Used for: Annual visitors in 2024 and Leisure and hospitality businesses in Shelby County
- 13Buildings and Zoning
Used for: City permit workflow includes sign permits and licenses
- 14Memphis and Shelby County Unified Development Code - Sign Regulations
Used for: Sign standards vary in specified Memphis districts and overlays
- 15RFP/RFQ
Used for: City solicitations are distributed through Beacon with registration for specifications and updates
- 16Surficial geologic map of the southeast Memphis Quadrangle, Shelby County, Tennessee
Used for: Loess covers upland areas in the southeast Memphis quadrangle to depths of 4.5 to 16 meters
- 17Closing the Gaps Memphis Needs Assessment
Used for: Institutional needs assessment identifies aging housing stock and rehabilitation need
- 18
- 19MEM on the Move: Airport modernization construction project begins
Used for: Memphis International Airport terminal modernization project scale
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.