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.
Analysis by Thomas Jepsen, MSc Model: 0.9.0
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

Highest category average (limited comparison)Restoration

69.0 average across 2 concepts

Largest positive factorTarget-market demand

1.2 points average among 10 affected concepts

Largest negative factorLabor and staffing friction

0.7 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts

Most assumption-sensitive rankJan-Pro International

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.
RankFranchiseAlignment and tierLargest advantageLargest constraintEvidence confidence
1FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285
72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment
+2.3 ptsTarget-market demand No material negative local adjustmentModerate evidence confidence
2City 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
3ActionCOACHBusiness 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
4HomeSmilesProperty 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
5ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500
70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.5 ptsTarget-market demand No material negative local adjustmentModerate evidence confidence
6Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675
70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.4 ptsTarget-market demand No material negative local adjustmentModerate evidence confidence
7Jan-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
8Aire 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
9Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290
70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.2 ptsTarget-market demand No material negative local adjustmentModerate evidence confidence
10Tiger 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

View all 14 score calculations

Conditions that changed the analysis

What mattered most in Memphis, Tennessee

01

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]

02

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]

03

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
  • Passengers served at Memphis International Airport in 2025: 4,751,026 passengers [11]
  • Annual visitors in 2024: 13.1 million visitors [12]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand

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

Signs and graphics · B2B production and installation center

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #1 → #2
+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
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.3
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot applicable to this operating model
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.31
Published local-market alignment72.3

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

Facility management · B2B facility management and vendor coordination

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.5 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #2 → #9
+2.5 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-0.4 pts
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.5
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.4
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.13
Published local-market alignment72.1

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

Business coaching · home-based B2B advisory

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #3 → #6
+2.1 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-0.1 pts
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.1
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.00
Published local-market alignment72.0

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

Property maintenance services · Home-based mobile property-maintenance franchise using equipped service vans and technician crews to deliver bundled…

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #4 → #10
+1.4 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-0.5 pts
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.4
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.5
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.84
Published local-market alignment70.8

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

Drain and sewer service · emergency skilled-trade route service

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.5 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #5 → #1
+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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.5
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot applicable to this operating model
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.49
Published local-market alignment70.5

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

Plumbing · scheduled and emergency skilled-trade service

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #6 → #3
+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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.4
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot applicable to this operating model
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.36
Published local-market alignment70.4

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

Commercial cleaning · recurring commercial route service

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.2 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #7 → #14
+2.2 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-2.0 pts
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.2
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-2.0
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.26
Published local-market alignment70.3

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

HVAC installation, repair, and maintenance · Manager-led mobile HVAC installation, repair, maintenance, and emergency service business using skilled technicians…

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #8
+0.4 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-0.2 pts
-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 source
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.4
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.2
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.20
Published local-market alignment70.2

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

Home inspection · mobile property inspection service

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.2 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #9 → #5
+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 sources
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.2
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot applicable to this operating model
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.19
Published local-market alignment70.2

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

Public insurance adjusting · Home-based, referral-led public insurance adjusting business combining local property inspections with…

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #10 → #7
+0.3 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-0.1 pts
-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 source
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.3
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.18
Published local-market alignment70.2

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

Electrical · skilled-trade home service

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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot applicable to this operating model
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.00
Published local-market alignment70.0

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

Restoration · emergency property restoration

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-0.9 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #12
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.9
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.07
Published local-market alignment69.1

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

Fitness · fixed-location membership fitness

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-1.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #13
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-1.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score68.92
Published local-market alignment68.9

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

Restoration · emergency property 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Frontline labor pressure Evidence-1.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #14
-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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-1.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score68.91
Published local-market alignment68.9

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

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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.3
Property replacement-cycle demandDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing frictionNot applicable to this operating model
Transportation, routing, and parkingNot included in the score
Real estate and site feasibilityMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.31
Published local-market alignment72.3

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
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.

Factor impact among the highest-rated franchise conceptsDiverging dot plot showing nonzero factor score contributions for the top 14 concepts. Zero-point concept-factor pairs are omitted, and factors with no nonzero contributions are excluded.+2.5+1.30.0-1.3-2.5
Target-market demand
#1 FASTSIGNS · Target-market demand · +2.3 pts1#2 City Wide · Target-market demand · +2.5 pts2#3 ActionCOACH · Target-market demand · +2.1 pts3#4 HomeSmiles · Target-market demand · +1.4 pts4#5 ZOOM DRAIN · Target-market demand · +0.5 pts5#6 Mr. Rooter · Target-market demand · +0.4 pts6#7 Jan-Pro International · Target-market demand · +2.2 pts7#8 Aire Serv · Target-market demand · +0.4 pts8#9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Target-market demand · +0.2 pts9#10 Tiger Adjusters · Target-market demand · +0.3 pts10
Labor and staffing friction
#2 City Wide · Labor and staffing friction · -0.4 pts2#3 ActionCOACH · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts3#4 HomeSmiles · Labor and staffing friction · -0.5 pts4#7 Jan-Pro International · Labor and staffing friction · -2.0 pts7#8 Aire Serv · Labor and staffing friction · -0.2 pts8#10 Tiger Adjusters · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts10#12 PuroClean · Labor and staffing friction · -0.9 pts12#13 Workout Anytime · Labor and staffing friction · -1.1 pts13#14 Rainbow International Restoration · Labor and staffing friction · -1.1 pts14
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
ConceptTarget-market demandLabor 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.

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

Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Memphis, Tennessee

69.0

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
MetricRaw valuePeriodGeographyRole in analysisSource
Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025609,647peopleJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measuresMemphis, TennesseeContext only [5]
Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025-3percentJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measuresMemphis, TennesseeContext only [5]
Number of households in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate250,830households2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesMemphis, TennesseeContext only [6]
Number of housing units in the 2024 ACS 1-year estimate291,759housing units2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesMemphis, TennesseeSupports modeled relationship [6]
Owner-occupied housing unit rate44.9percentJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measuresMemphis, TennesseeContext only [5]
Median household income52,679usd per year2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesMemphis, TennesseeContext only [6]
Persons below the poverty line24percent of people2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesMemphis, TennesseeContext only [6]
Transportation and warehousing receipts or revenue10,716,526,000usdJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measuresMemphis, TennesseeUsed in scoring [5]
Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue8,995,637,000usdJuly 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measuresMemphis, TennesseeContext only [5]
Mean travel time to work21.4minutes2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesMemphis, TennesseeContext only [6]
Transportation and material moving share of metropolitan employment17.1percent of employmentMay 2025Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSAUsed in scoring [7]
Transportation and material moving employment104,600jobsMay 2025Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSAUsed in scoring [7]
Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage30.38usd per hourMay 2025Memphis, TN-MS-AR MSASupports modeled relationship [7]
FedEx employees at the Memphis airport hub11,000employees minimumCurrent operating profile accessed August 2026FedEx Memphis hub at Memphis International AirportUsed in scoring [10]
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: 34,000,000mixed operating metricsCurrent operating profile accessed August 2026FedEx Memphis hub at Memphis International AirportUsed in scoring [10]
Cargo handled at Memphis International Airport in 20256.54billion poundsCalendar year 2025Memphis International AirportUsed in scoring [11]
Passengers served at Memphis International Airport in 20254,751,026passengersCalendar year 2025Memphis International AirportSupports modeled relationship [11]
Industrial vacancy rate5.6percentQ2 2026Memphis industrial marketContext only [8]
Average industrial asking rent4.75usd per square foot per yearQ2 2026Memphis industrial marketContext only [8]
Class A options in the 50,000 to 250,000 square-foot range25options minimumQ2 2026Memphis industrial market, 50,000-250,000 square feetConditional relationship [9]
Annual visitors in 202413.1million visitorsCalendar year 2024Memphis tourism marketConditional relationship [12]
Leisure and hospitality businesses in Shelby County2,300businesses minimumCalendar year 2024Shelby County, TennesseeContext only [12]
City permit workflow includes sign permits and licensesyesbooleanCurrent permit framework accessed August 2026Memphis, TennesseeConditional relationship [13]
Sign standards vary in specified Memphis districts and overlaysdistricts named: Central Business Improvement District, South Central Business Improvement District, Uptown District, University District Overlaydistrict listSign-code amendment text; current applicability requires confirmation through Develop 901Specified Memphis sign-code districts and overlaysConditional relationship [14]
Loess covers upland areas in the southeast Memphis quadrangle to depths of 4.5 to 16 metersminimum: 4.5; maximum: 16metersGeologic mapping published 2003Southeast Memphis quadrangle, Shelby CountyContext only [16]
Institutional needs assessment identifies aging housing stock and rehabilitation needyesdocumented findingMemphis housing and entrepreneurship conditions assessed in 2022Memphis, TennesseeSupports modeled relationship [17]
Memphis International Airport terminal modernization project scale650,000,000usd minimum project valueMulti-year terminal modernization project initiated in 2024 and ongoing in 2026Memphis International Airport terminal and landside areaContext only [19]
City solicitations are distributed through Beacon with registration for specifications and updatesyesbooleanCurrent procurement process accessed August 2026City of Memphis procurementContext 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

01

Measure the city

Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.

02

Profile each operating model

Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.

03

Apply scoreable effects

Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.

04

Preserve conditional effects

Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.

05

Test rank sensitivity

Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.

06

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 0.9.0 · Compiler 0.15.1-franchise-image-filter · Report generated August 19, 2026 (site timezone)

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

  1. 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.

  1. 1
    Franchise-to-City Operating-Fit Model TaxonomyInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    User File Library
    Data period
    Calibration model version 0.9.0-calibration
    Scope
    Model-wide
    Locator
    factors, operating_attribute_taxonomy, city_modifier_taxonomy, confidence and provenance controls
    Source tier
    Tier 0 - controlling internal taxonomy
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  2. 2
    Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Published
    February 25, 2026
    Data period
    Sources cited as accessed through February 25, 2026
    Scope
    Memphis section within a multi-city research docket
    Locator
    Memphis, Tennessee section, pages 12-14
    Source tier
    Tier 5 - supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  3. 3
    Forensic Audit Report: Structural Capital Constraints and Jurisdictional Risk ProfilesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Published
    February 20, 2026
    Data period
    Sources cited as accessed through February 20, 2026
    Scope
    Memphis section within a multi-city municipal docket
    Locator
    Memphis, Tennessee section, pages 15-16
    Source tier
    Tier 5 - supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  4. 4
    Franchise neighborhood operating evidence compilationInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Mixed source dates cited in supplied rows
    Scope
    Memphis-labeled rows for Germantown, Collierville, Midtown, Cordova, Bartlett, and South Main; separate municipalities explicitly excluded from Memphis city generalization
    Locator
    Rows where city equals Memphis
    Source tier
    Tier 5 - supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  5. 5
    QuickFacts: 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

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Published
    May 14, 2026
    Data period
    July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 Economic Census measures
    Scope
    Memphis city, Tennessee
    Locator
    Population, housing, business receipts, income, and transportation table
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  6. 6
    Memphis, 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

    Publisher
    Census Reporter using U.S. Census Bureau ACS data
    Published
    February 8, 2026
    Data period
    2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates
    Scope
    Memphis city, Tennessee
    Locator
    Population, income, poverty, commuting, households, and housing units profile
    Source tier
    Tier 2 - recognized data interface
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  7. 7
    Occupational 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

    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    July 10, 2026
    Data period
    May 2025
    Scope
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR metropolitan statistical area
    Locator
    Table A and detailed occupational groups
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  8. 8
    Memphis Industrial Figures Q2 2026

    Used for: Industrial vacancy rate and Average industrial asking rent

    Publisher
    CBRE
    Published
    July 9, 2026
    Data period
    Q2 2026
    Scope
    Memphis industrial market
    Locator
    Vacancy, availability, asking rent, absorption, and construction pipeline summary
    Source tier
    Tier 3 - credible industry
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  9. 9
    Memphis Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026

    Used for: Class A options in the 50,000 to 250,000 square-foot range

    Publisher
    Cushman & Wakefield
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Q2 2026
    Scope
    Memphis industrial market and industrial size segments
    Locator
    Small- and mid-bay discussion, page 2
    Source tier
    Tier 3 - credible industry
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  10. 10
    Properties and Cargo

    Used for: FedEx employees at the Memphis airport hub and FedEx Memphis hub operating scale

    Publisher
    Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority
    Data period
    Current operating profile accessed August 2026
    Scope
    Memphis International Airport and airport property
    Locator
    FedEx employment, leased space, flight frequency, and package throughput
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - public authority
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  11. 11
    Memphis 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

    Publisher
    Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority
    Published
    January 22, 2026
    Data period
    Calendar year 2025
    Scope
    Memphis International Airport
    Locator
    MEM by the numbers in 2025; body reports 6.54 billion pounds despite an erroneous ton unit in the page headline
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - public authority
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  12. 12
    Tourism Economic Impact

    Used for: Annual visitors in 2024 and Leisure and hospitality businesses in Shelby County

    Publisher
    Memphis Tourism
    Data period
    Calendar year 2024
    Scope
    Memphis destination market and Shelby County employment and business statistics
    Locator
    Annual visitors, leisure and hospitality jobs, businesses, and visitor impact
    Source tier
    Tier 3 - recognized local institution
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  13. 13
    Buildings and Zoning

    Used for: City permit workflow includes sign permits and licenses

    Publisher
    City of Memphis
    Data period
    Current permit framework accessed August 2026
    Scope
    City of Memphis
    Locator
    Develop 901 portal for planning, zoning, building, engineering, fire, and sign permits and licenses
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  14. 14
    Memphis and Shelby County Unified Development Code - Sign Regulations

    Used for: Sign standards vary in specified Memphis districts and overlays

    Publisher
    City of Memphis and Shelby County
    Published
    January 1, 2017
    Data period
    Sign-code amendment text; current applicability requires confirmation through Develop 901
    Scope
    City of Memphis and unincorporated Shelby County, with district-specific provisions
    Locator
    CBID, SCBID, Uptown, and University District Overlay sign provisions
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  15. 15
    RFP/RFQ

    Used for: City solicitations are distributed through Beacon with registration for specifications and updates

    Publisher
    City of Memphis
    Data period
    Current procurement process accessed August 2026
    Scope
    City of Memphis procurement
    Locator
    Beacon solicitation access, specifications, and update-notification workflow
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  16. 16
    Surficial 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

    Publisher
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Published
    January 1, 2003
    Data period
    Geologic mapping published 2003
    Scope
    Southeast Memphis quadrangle, Shelby County
    Locator
    Map description of loess and alluvium depth and distribution
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  17. 17
    Closing the Gaps Memphis Needs Assessment

    Used for: Institutional needs assessment identifies aging housing stock and rehabilitation need

    Publisher
    Living Cities
    Published
    October 7, 2022
    Data period
    Memphis housing and entrepreneurship conditions assessed in 2022
    Scope
    Memphis, Tennessee
    Locator
    Housing-stock age and rehabilitation need discussion
    Source tier
    Tier 2 - recognized institutional research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  18. 18
    Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis for Memphis, Tennessee-Mississippi-Arkansas
    Publisher
    U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    Published
    January 1, 2024
    Data period
    Market conditions through the report preparation period in 2024
    Scope
    Memphis TN-MS-AR Housing Market Area; broader than Memphis city
    Locator
    Housing Market Area definition and housing-market analysis
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  19. 19
    MEM on the Move: Airport modernization construction project begins

    Used for: Memphis International Airport terminal modernization project scale

    Publisher
    Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority
    Published
    July 18, 2024
    Data period
    Multi-year terminal modernization project initiated in 2024 and ongoing in 2026
    Scope
    Memphis International Airport terminal and landside facilities
    Locator
    Project scale, multi-year duration, and commencement statement
    Source tier
    Tier 1 - public authority
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026

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.

Request a private franchise review
View methodologyView source registry

Twenty Twenty-Five

Take Free Franchise Match Quiz