This is the second blog in a 4-part series designed to help companies selling into the restaurant industry better understand, classify, and strategically approach go-to-market efforts for franchised brands. Read part one here.

In the first part of this series, we discussed the challenges of selling into franchise-heavy brands and why, for outbound sales efforts, I often refer to franchising as “the restaurant industry’s f-word.” These fragmented systems, made up of independent decision-making units, are notoriously hard to navigate. Yet, they present a massive opportunity for companies willing to approach them with a tailored go-to-market (GTM) strategy.

Recognizing this fragmented landscape is just the start. The real challenge is identifying which brands are worth pursuing and prioritizing effectively to avoid wasted effort. How do you select the right franchise brands and ensure meaningful ROI?

After years in the restaurant tech industry, I developed the STAR and STEP framework—a brand classification tool that balances revenue potential with cost and efficiency.

We’ll begin with the first two critical elements: Strategic fit (S) and Targetability (T). Together, these factors will help you assess which brands deserve your attention and which ones should be deprioritized, or even disqualified, altogether. Done right, this first step will leave you with a clear understanding of which brands lack strategic fit or targetability, allowing you to focus resources where they matter most.

S: Strategic – Is there product-market fit?

Before pursuing a big-name brand, it’s crucial to determine whether there’s realistic product-market fit (PMF). A common mistake, especially among founders new to the restaurant industry, is assuming that all restaurants solve problems in the same way. This assumption can lead to costly missteps.

Top U.S. restaurant brands succeed by hyper-specializing their operations, streamlining every aspect of how they do business. While smaller brands may implement software off-the-shelf, enterprise brands typically require a tailored version—rarely the full package, and almost never without extensive customization. Think of it this way: small brands, little complexity; larger brands, endless complexity.

Because no two brands operate alike, assessing PMF on a brand-by-brand basis is essential. Each year, department heads should gather to assess the top 150 brands, going line-by-line on a screenshare to evaluate them individually.

Too often, this strategic exercise is skipped for its simpler, faster—yet far costlier—alternative: gut feeling. I call this the Aspiration Trap, where brands are pursued based on perceived influence, the allure of their logo, or, worse, to satisfy someone’s ego. The trap deepens when a deal is won through sheer effort, only to reveal, during implementation, that it’s a poor fit. Nothing is worse than discovering post-sale that a brand requires extensive product adjustments that you can’t realistically support. In a past role, I witnessed nearly 80% of a SaaS roadmap derailed, as resources were diverted from innovation to customizations needed by a large, yet misaligned client.

To make decisions based on fit, not gut, the first step in our assignment framework challenges you to assess, with clarity, whether each brand aligns with what you can realistically offer today.

This evaluation comes down to two critical questions:

1. Would they buy?

The first question in assessing strategic fit is whether this brand is likely to purchase your solution at all. A brand’s need doesn’t automatically mean they’ll look to you for the solution. Ask yourself:

• Is this brand likely to buy third-party solutions like ours, or do they build internally?
• Do they have a competitor’s product in place, and is replacement realistic?
• Are they experiencing pressing pain points that our solution addresses?
• Have smaller franchisees shown PMF by adopting our solution?

These questions help gauge whether the brand is even in the market for your solution. Starbucks, for example, is known for building its own solutions, making it an improbable partner for most external tech vendors.

2. Can we sell to them?

The second question requires honest internal reflection: Assuming there’s buying potential, could we realistically win them over? This is about understanding your own capabilities and identifying any obstacles to delivering consistent value across the brand. Ask:

• Do we solve this brand’s problem in a way that fits their specific business model?
• Do we have the necessary integrations, customizations, or expertise to support this brand’s needs?
• Do we have the capacity to implement and support them effectively at scale?

This step ensures that, even if a brand is open to working with you, you’re not setting yourself up for failure by targeting a brand that requires capabilities you lack today.

Common reasons for Strategic disqualification

Here are some common reasons why prominent brands might fail your strategic fit evaluation:

• Build vs. Buy: They build solutions internally.
• Need misalignment: Their approach conflicts with our service model.
• Competitor locked: They’re in a long-term contract with a competitor.
• Technical barriers: Their tech stack or dependencies prevent seamless implementation.
• Financial limitations: Bankruptcy or restructuring limits tech investment.

After completing the strategic fit evaluation, you should have a clearer sense of which brands are truly worth pursuing, and which aren’t worth the investment at this time. By rigorously assessing each brand’s alignment with your product, you can avoid costly missteps and focus on opportunities with genuine potential.

With strategic fit clarified, the next step is determining how accessible these brands are. Strategic and targetability assessments work in tandem to reveal brands worth pursuing, so let’s explore whether these brands can realistically be reached and engaged.

T: Targetability – Can this brand be reached effectively?

Once you’ve determined that a brand is strategic, the next step is assessing its targetability. Even if a brand is critical to your market, it’s meaningless if you can’t reach or influence its decision-makers. Targetability involves both the discoverability of these decision-makers and the accessibility of their decision-making units.

In a perfect world, you’d only need to target a single corporate buyer per brand, obtaining a top-down mandate that ensures adoption across all units. However, as we discussed previously, this is rarely the case in the restaurant industry. More often than not, corporate influence doesn’t extend to every franchisee, forcing the only other viable GTM strategy: selling directly to individual franchisees.

Read more: There are only 2 GTM strategies for restaurant tech companies →

It’s common for companies to overestimate the influence corporate holds or assume that brands will provide franchisee lists or even buy clean, accurate target lists from third-party vendors. In reality, this level of access is rare and inconsistent, making scalable outreach difficult across the industry.

Mapping franchise networks and uncovering decision-makers requires significant time, resources, and a blend of internal and external validation efforts.

Let’s break this process down.

1. Assess the landscape

The first step in targetability is evaluating the degree of fragmentation within the franchise structure. Some brands consist of a few large franchise groups, while others are comprised of hundreds or thousands of independent franchisees, each with their own decision-making authority. The more fractured a brand’s franchise system, the harder it will be to target effectively.

Questions to consider during this step:

• How fractured is the brand’s franchise system? Are there a few large players, or does it consist of many small, independent owners?
• Is there any available information on where software decisions are made?
• Can existing franchisee customers provide insights to better understand the landscape?

If you can’t find reliable information on a brand’s franchise structure or discover that the network is too fractured to reach effectively, this is often a sign to disqualify the brand at this stage.

2. Assign an approach

With the franchise landscape clear, the next step is choosing either a Top-Down (↓) approach (targeting corporate) or Bottom-Up (↑) (targeting franchisees directly).

Top-Down (↓) – Corporate-led engagement

Top-Down (↓) targets corporate leadership or key decision-makers. While corporate may lack authority over franchisees, their endorsement can accelerate franchisee adoption.

• Is the corporate team actively engaged in technology adoption decisions?
• Can corporate leaders provide a “preferred vendor” recommendation to franchisees?
• Will corporate buy-in help accelerate franchisee adoption?

Top-Down (↓) is ideal for brands where corporate holds some sway over franchisee decision-making. By securing a corporate endorsement, you can drive faster adoption as franchisees feel more confident in a solution backed by corporate.

Bottom-Up (↑) – Franchisee-led targeting

Bottom-Up (↑) focuses on directly engaging franchisees. This approach bypasses corporate to achieve quick wins and build momentum.

• Can you directly engage franchisees and demonstrate ROI at their level?
• Are franchisees receptive to vendor outreach, or do they resist non-corporate solutions?
• Does the franchisee network have the autonomy to make independent buying decisions?

Bottom-Up (↑) works best for brands with highly fragmented decision-making, where franchisees act independently. By winning over franchisees individually, you can build grassroots momentum and gradually scale adoption.

While both approaches might seem relevant for certain brands, it’s essential to assign a primary focus at this stage. Is the biggest opportunity in securing corporate buy-in, or is it more realistic to start with individual franchisees? Documenting this primary approach will be key for the next steps of your franchise-specific GTM strategy.

Common reasons for Targetability disqualification

Not every brand will make it past the Targetability stage. Here are some common reasons why you might disqualify a brand at this point, even if it’s otherwise strategic:

• No info available: Reliable information on the brand’s franchise structure isn’t accessible, making it impossible to form a clear targeting strategy.
• Too fractured: The franchise network consists of too many small, independent players, making the cost of reaching them prohibitively high.
• Unreachable DMs: Franchisees or corporate decision-makers are difficult to identify, resistant to vendor outreach, or guarded by gatekeepers.
• No authority: Even if you can reach franchisees, they may lack the autonomy to make purchasing decisions or implement new solutions.

In a past role, I managed a team of BDRs tasked with targeting Dairy Queen franchisees. We had a few customers within the brand and a list of store locations, but we quickly encountered roadblocks. Many locations were staffed by employees who didn’t know who the owner was, whether the location was franchised or corporate-owned, or even if the store faced the specific challenges our technology could solve. Despite our best efforts, the decision-makers were too hidden, and we ultimately had to disqualify the brand for bottom-up sales based on the information we gathered.

Where do we go from here?

At this point, you should have a clearer picture of which franchise brands pass both the Strategic Fit and Targetability tests. These are the brands worth considering as part of your growth strategy, while those that fall short on either front should be disqualified to avoid wasting time and resources.

This reflection is crucial. With strategic, targetable brands, you now have a hypothesis of how to engage—Top-Down (↓) or Bottom-Up (↑). For disqualified brands, remember: that’s a smart choice. Not every brand is winnable, and not every concept deserves your resources.

Before moving on, remember…

• Strategic fit: Focus only on brands that align with your product.
• Targetability: If you can’t reach decision-makers, even strategic brands aren’t worth it.
• Disqualification saves resources: Free resources for winnable accounts.
• Watch for the “Aspiration Trap”: Avoid prestige-driven logos; if heavy customization is needed, it’s likely not worth it.

Now that you’ve identified the brands worth your attention, it’s time to move from qualification to justification. In the next blog, we’ll tackle the tougher question: Are these brands worth the cost and effort to target? We’ll explore how to classify brands based on their potential for Acquisition or Expansion, helping you make smarter, more intentional go-to-market decisions.

---

Explore how Restaurantology’s data and consulting services can empower your business by contacting us for more detailed insights. Whether you’re looking to refine your go-to-market, optimize systems and market data, or gain a deeper understanding of industry trends, Restaurantology provides actionable intelligence to guide your strategic decisions and help you stay ahead in the competitive restaurant tech landscape.