Blog

After two decades in franchise development, I’ve learned that the most successful franchise organizations aren’t built on quick wins or short-term revenue spikes. They’re built on perfect alignment between what we want as franchisors, what our franchisees need to thrive, and what our team members are incentivized to achieve.

Too many development executives get caught up in the numbers game — how many units can we sell this quarter; how quickly can we expand into new markets. But when you optimize for long-term success across all stakeholders, everything else follows naturally.

Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

Aligning Team Compensation with Long-Term Success

Here’s where most franchise development companies get it wrong: they treat their sales and marketing teams like short-term hired guns, paying them to hit immediate targets without caring about what happens after the ink dries. That’s not just shortsighted—it’s destructive.

I’ve restructured our entire compensation philosophy around a simple principle: if our team members’ biggest payday comes from the long-term success of the brands they’re building, they’ll make decisions that prioritize long-term success.

We give equity in the franchise brands to our sales and marketing representatives working on those brands—not token amounts, but meaningful stakes that make them think like owners. When our VP of Franchise Development for a fast-casual concept has equity in that brand, they’re not just trying to sell as many franchises as possible this quarter. They’re thinking about franchisee quality, market development strategy, and brand protection because their biggest financial upside is tied to the brand’s long-term growth.

This approach lets me trust that my team won’t cut corners or cheapen our portfolio brands’ long-term success. They’re not incentivized to sell a franchise to an unqualified candidate just to hit their monthly number—that candidate’s potential failure would directly impact their equity value.

Related: After Decades of Hard Work, This Couple Is Living the Entrepreneurial Dream. Here’s How They Achieved Generational Wealth

Equity for Contributors Who Deliver Value

We extend equity opportunities to our 1099 franchise brokers when they’ve proven their value. These are the brokers who bring in quality deals, understand our brand standards, and contribute to the long-term health of our systems. When a broker has helped us build a brand from 50 units to 100+ units with high-quality franchisees, they become more than transaction facilitators — they become brand ambassadors who are financially invested in quality over quantity.

We also loop marketing representatives into equity when they deserve it. Marketing is a brand-building function that directly impacts long-term value. When our marketing professionals have skin in the game, they think differently about campaign strategies, brand messaging, and market positioning.

Related: A.I. Could Destroy the Power of Video Marketing — But Only If We Allow It

Pay So Well They Stay and Excel

Most companies pay what they think it takes to keep an employee. I’ve flipped that equation: What if you paid an employee so well that they not only stayed but excelled beyond what you thought possible?

When I hire a VP of Franchise Development, I offer high compensation, incredible benefits and meaningful equity so their goals align completely with the long-term success of the brands they’re working on. A VP thinking like an owner will make better long-term decisions than one thinking like an employee.

Franchising is fundamentally about building wealth by helping others build wealth. That philosophy should extend to our employees too.

Related: How the IFA Plans to Strengthen the $800 Billion Franchise Industry in 2025

Traditional Franchise Models vs. The Alignment Model

Traditional franchise models often create incentives throughout the organization. Franchisors make money on initial fees and royalties regardless of individual unit performance. Sales teams are rewarded for volume regardless of franchisee quality. Marketing teams are measured on lead generation rather than brand building. All of these groups are optimizing for different outcomes, creating tension and suboptimal results.

The alignment model flips this dynamic. When everyone — from franchise brokers to marketing managers to VPs of Franchise Development—has equity in the brands they’re building, everyone optimizes for the same outcome: long-term brand value and sustainable growth.

We still measure short-term performance metrics, but we structure compensation so that the biggest rewards come from long-term success. This creates a system where doing the right thing for the brand is also the most profitable thing for each team member.

Related: After 14 Years as an RN, She Opened the Business She Always Wanted to See — And Reached $1.3 Million

Why This Approach Isn’t More Common

If this approach is so effective, why don’t more franchise development companies use it? Many franchise development executives want to capture as much value as possible for themselves and their immediate stakeholders. They see equity as something to be hoarded rather than strategically shared. They think of team members as costs to be minimized rather than partners in value creation.

This approach might maximize short-term extraction, but it doesn’t build valuable, lasting enterprises. It creates franchise systems that are fragile, team cultures that are transactional, and brands that struggle to compound value over time.

Related: How I Turned a Failing Business Into a $1 Million Powerhouse in Just 6 Months

Building the Franchise Company of the Future

The franchise industry is evolving rapidly, and development executives who cling to old models of misaligned incentives will find themselves managing declining systems. The future belongs to companies that understand how to create genuine alignment between all parties involved in building franchise brands.

This doesn’t mean being soft or giving away equity carelessly. It means being strategic about how we structure relationships, measure success, and deploy resources. It means recognizing that the people who help build valuable brands should participate in the value they help create.

In my experience, companies that embrace this philosophy don’t just build larger franchise systems — they build more valuable ones. They create brands that team members are proud to build, franchisees are excited to operate, and investors are eager to back.

The choice is clear: We can continue optimizing for short-term extraction and build companies that eventually hit growth ceilings, or we can optimize for aligned long-term success and build franchise development organizations that compound value for decades.

Join top CEOs, founders and operators at the Level Up conference to unlock strategies for scaling your business, boosting revenue and building sustainable success.

Mark Zuckerberg loves MMA so much that he’s rented out entire arenas, sparred on a barge, had major surgery to fix a fighting injury, won medals, and built a “backyard” octagon at his Ko’olau Ranch compound in Hawaii. And according to a new book by the former president of global affairs at Meta, Zuckerberg even asked some company leaders to get on the mat.

“Mark’s commitment to MMA is so strong that he insisted one morning, during a management offsite, that some of his most senior executives join him for a training session,” wrote Nick Clegg in his soon-to-be-released book, How to Save the Internet (Penguin; November 11, 2025).

Related: Mark Zuckerberg’s Daily Routine: The Schedule of the Meta CEO Who Wears the Same Thing Every Day and Trains with MMA Fighters

Fast Company reports that, in the book, Clegg details one particularly uncomfortable-sounding scene, when he is being straddled on the mat by a colleague in a “Domination Mount” maneuver.

Clegg wrote it was “too close for comfort,” the outlet notes.

Meta investors have been warned in official filings that Zuckerberg and other members of management participate “in various high-risk activities, such as combat sports, extreme sports, and recreational aviation, which carry the risk of serious injury and death.”

The book also looks at the future of AI and how social media has changed the world, but as Semafor reports, if you’re looking for a tell-all about the inner workings of Meta, this is not it.

Related: ‘I Love This Sport’: Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Enters Into ‘Massive Partnership’ With UFC

A computer science professor is warning that advanced AI could be developed within the next couple of years, leading to mass unemployment by 2030.

On a recent episode of “The Diary of a CEO” podcast, University of Louisville Computer Science Professor Roman Yampolskiy warned that AI could cause “99%” of all workers to be unemployed by 2030. Yampolskiy said that artificial general intelligence systems (AGI) that are as capable as humans would likely be developed by 2027, leading to a labor market collapse three years later. He predicted that AI would provide “trillions of dollars” of “free labor,” giving employers a better option for their employment needs.

“You have free labor, physical and cognitive, trillions of dollars of it,” Yampolskiy said. “It makes no sense to hire humans for most jobs if I can just get a $20 subscription or a free model to do what an employee does.”

Related: Microsoft AI CEO Warns That ‘Dangerous’ and ‘Seemingly Conscious’ AI Models Could Arrive in the Next 2 Years: ‘Deserves Our Immediate Attention’

Yampolskiy predicted that any job on a computer would immediately be automated once AGI arrives and that humanoid robots would take over physical labor jobs within the next five years, leading to unprecedented levels of unemployment.

“So we’re looking at a world where we have levels of unemployment we’ve never seen before,” Yampolskiy said on the podcast. “Not talking about 10% unemployment, which is scary, but 99%.”

The only jobs left will be those that humans prefer another human to do for them, Yampolskiy said. AI will “very quickly” gain the capacity to take over other human occupations, including teachers, analysts, and accountants, he predicted.

Yampolskiy claims to have coined the term “AI safety” in a 2011 article and has since published more than 100 papers on AI’s dangers. He has written multiple books, including his 2025 book “Considerations on the AI Endgame: Ethics, Risks and Computational Frameworks.”

Related: The ‘Godfather of AI’ Says Artificial Intelligence Needs Programming With ‘Maternal Instincts’ or Humans Could End Up Being ‘Controlled’

In the podcast interview, Yampolskiy said that even coding and prompt engineering weren’t safe from automation. AI can design prompts for AI “way better” than any human, he stated.

Retraining is also impossible in this new reality because AI will automate all jobs and “there is no plan B,” Yampolskiy said.

Yampolskiy’s predictions match the forecasts made by other AI experts. Geoffrey Hinton, known as the “Godfather of AI” due to his pioneering work in the subject, stated in June that AI is going to “replace everybody” in white collar jobs. He challenged the idea that AI would create new jobs, pointing out that if AI automates tasks, there would be no jobs for people to do.

Meanwhile, in May, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei stated that AI would eliminate half of all entry-level, white-collar jobs within the next one to five years, causing unemployment to reach a high of 20%.

Related: ‘When I Get Paid, You Get Paid’: Software Engineers Looking for Work Are Promising $10,000 or More to Anyone Who Can Help Them Land a Job

It pays to have AI skills — nearly $20,000 more per year on average.

A recent study conducted by the job insight website LightCast analyzed over a billion job postings and found that employers are not only looking for workers with AI skills — they are also paying them more.

“Job postings are increasingly emphasizing AI skills, and there are signals that employers are willing to pay premium salaries for them,” LightCast’s Head of Global Research Elena Magrini told CNBC.

Related: Google Reportedly Told Its Staff to Use AI More or Risk Falling Behind: ‘It Seems Like a No-Brainer’

The study found that job postings that asked for AI skills paid 28% more, or around $18,000, than jobs that didn’t require AI. Jobs requiring two or more AI skills paid 43% more.

The roles with the highest differences in pay between workers with AI skills and those without were in the fields of customer support, sales, and manufacturing.

There are now over 300 possible AI skills, according to LightCast, from generative AI to AI ethics to autonomous driving and robotics. But the most common AI skills employers requested were two of the most mainstream — ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot.

In a surprising twist, non-technical sectors demanded AI skills more than technical ones, according to LightCast’s report. Since November 2022, when ChatGPT launched, demand for generative AI skills shot up by 800% for non-technical roles.

Related: These 3 Professions Are Most Likely to Vanish in the Next 20 Years Due to AI, According to a New Report

A recent report from The Wall Street Journal found that entry-level college graduates are getting six- or seven-figure salaries right out of school because of their proficiency with AI. Databricks, a data analytics firm, is planning to hire triple the number of recent graduates this year compared to last year because of these young workers’ ability to use AI, the company told The Journal.

While learning AI may give workers a boost in salary negotiations, the technology also has the potential to replace entry-level employees. A Stanford University study released last week found that AI-impacted jobs, like software developers, customer service representatives, and accountants, saw employment for workers ages 22 to 25 decline by 13% over the past three years.

“There’s definitely evidence that AI is beginning to have a big effect,” the study’s first author and Stanford Professor Erik Brynjolfsson told Axios about the report.

When our vertical series “Brace Face Betty” became the week’s top series by user engagement according to Social Peta, it wasn’t a big surprise for me. Our team has been working on content production for a long time, growing My Passion, the books platform, and My Drama, the short-form, vertical series platform. Over the years, we’ve identified the principles that make hits. These hacks apply to any creative niche, not just books or series.

Until recently, I didn’t have any social media accounts, and now I’ve become the algorithm’s ideal target audience. Here’s the system I use to predict and create viral products. Whether you’re building apps, content, consumer products or services, these insights will help you understand what makes audiences stop, engage and share.

70% of success happens before creation

Here’s what most creators get wrong: They focus on production quality and hope for the best. But viral success is determined long before you start creating. It’s about understanding three critical elements: niche, audience and platform.

Take the vertical short series, for example. This niche is growing like crazy now! According to iMedia Research, the vertical short drama market will be worth more than $13.8 billion by 2027, up from $5.2 billion in 2023. There are now over 200 apps dedicated to vertical series content, and the format is attracting talent from traditional TV and film who see an opportunity to create more efficiently and reach younger audiences directly. To be No. 1 in this niche in the EU and U.S. markets, we need to know it inside out. What hooks work? What pacing keeps attention? What elements make content shareable?

The second is audience psychology. We explore the emotional triggers that engage people. Typically, the topics of bullying, forbidden love and age gaps resonate well. Seek what works in your niche. These are not necessarily the topics you are interested in. Conduct audience research, put yourself in their shoes and determine their typical behavior. Use this as a basis for product development and creatives.

And the last element — platform mechanics. Each platform has different algorithms, user behaviors and content formats that favor specific approaches. We distribute content on all social platforms and prepare separate creatives for each.

The remaining 30% is execution. But without the foundation, even perfect execution fails.

Related: 5 Proven Tips to Better Understand Your Audience and Drive Sales

How to scroll social media smartly

Don’t confuse trend-watching with random TikTok scrolling and reposting funny Reels. The essence of trend-watching is not to mindlessly consume content, but to analyze what you see and spot opportunities.

I spend 20 to 30 minutes each morning and evening on strategic scrolling. Previously, I trained algorithms to show me what I need to see. It’s not tricky: follow your competitors, like relevant posts, click on their ads and even leave comments. Done. Your feed is now a perfectly curated research tool.

Then I apply my analysis framework, which looks like this. When I spot viral content, I dig deep. How many creative variations are they testing? Which geographic markets are they targeting? What engagement patterns am I seeing? Can this approach scale? I document everything, because patterns emerge over time that individual posts can’t reveal.

Then I pass on the insights to the team. For instance, if competitors are launching 10-minute promotional videos while we’re using 1-minute clips, it means we’re at a disadvantage. So we need to catch up quickly. When I notice “I’m pregnant” hooks performing well across multiple verticals, I write to the team that we urgently need to use it too.

Surely, my whole team is also engaged in trend-watching. We use tools like Airtable, Make, Asana and others to exchange information quickly. It’s really important in the creative niche, since trends don’t last long and you need to act ASAP.

Viral product framework that works in each niche

Analyzing hundreds of viral products, I’ve identified key characteristics that unite them across all creative industries. This framework works whether you’re building apps, creating content, designing products or launching services.

Proven foundation. Instead of starting from scratch, try building on concepts that have already demonstrated success. For example, we use our content library of proven IPs and cast actors with track records from previous hits. The goal isn’t to copy, but to know what foundational elements work and build upon them smartly.

Trend integration. Implement everything you discovered during trend-watching. Automate your creative process with AI tools to launch faster and catch the trend when it’s hot.

High-level execution. Every element needs immediate engagement drivers that grab attention within seconds. In vertical series, this means compelling hooks, pacing that maintains interest and cliffhangers that create anticipation. For apps, it’s intuitive onboarding and instant value delivery. For physical products, it’s solving user problems elegantly from the first interaction.

Related: This Is How Close AI Is to Coming Up With the Next Viral Product

Your product is viral, what’s next

The common mistake founders make is stopping after they have a hit. I often notice it even on Netflix. Just imagine how its metrics and profits would have grown if they had made a sequel to Wednesday.

Every product should be designed to evolve and extend. So when you create a potential hit, think long-term about how you will develop it further and don’t aim for just a one-time success!

As young Americans struggle with high costs of living and salaries that haven’t kept pace with inflation, some of them rely on loans to make ends meet.

Nearly half (46%) of Gen Z between the ages of 18 and 27 depend on financial assistance from their family, according to a 2024 report from Bank of America.

What’s more, even though some parents are willing to help their kids out with cash, those loans don’t always come without strings attached — sometimes in the form of interest.

Related: Gen Z Is Turning to Side Hustles to Purchase ‘the Normal Stuff’ in ‘Suburban Middle-Class America’

Financial media company MarketBeat.com‘s new report, which surveyed more than 3,000 parents, found that an increasing number are charging their adult children interest on family loans.

“The Bank of Mom and Dad has always been generous, but even generosity comes with boundaries,” says Matt Paulson, founder of MarketBeat.com. “What’s striking is that while most parents don’t expect repayment — and certainly not at commercial interest rates — inflation and rising costs are starting to reshape how families think about money.”

The average interest rate charged by parents was 5.1%, according to the data. That’s still well below the costs their children might incur elsewhere: The average personal loan rate is 12.49% for customers with a 700 FICO score, $5,000 loan amount and three-year repayment term, per Bankrate.

Related: This Stat About Gen Alpha’s Side Hustles Might Be Hard to Believe — But It Means Major Purchasing Power. Here’s What the Kids Want to Buy.

Only 15% of parents would be comfortable with lending their kids $5,000 or more at one time, according to MarketBeat’s research.

Family loan repayment terms can also vary significantly by location. The top five toughest state lenders based on the interest rates parents charge were Nebraska (6.8%), Oregon (6.8%), Mississippi (6.5%), Georgia (6.4%) and Arkansas (6.3%), the report found.

Parents in Delaware and Maine tended to be the most lenient when it came to charging their children interest on loans, with 2% and 4% rates, respectively, according to the findings.

Related: Baby Boomers Over 75 Are Getting Richer, Causing a ‘Massive’ Wealth Divide, According to a New Report

Many parents who expect repayment also have a fast-tracked timeline in mind. Twenty-one percent anticipated seeing their loan repaid in one month, 15% within one year and just 8% more than a year later, per the survey.

Although 59% of parents reported being happy to help their kids with money, 27% said they would only do it if necessary, and 4% admitted to feeling resentful.

In many cases, family loans don’t just provide financial support — they’re also “emotional transactions that test trust, responsibility and family dynamics,” Paulson notes.

Some of the richest people in the world — Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg — made their fortunes in Silicon Valley. However, a new report in the Wall Street Journal suggests that most U.S. billionaires did not amass their wealth in tech. Instead, it’s the banking and finance fields that have produced most of the country’s super-rich.

According to data shared with the WSJ from wealth intelligence company Altrata, there were 1,135 billionaires in the U.S. last year, up from 927 in 2020. Approximately 300 billionaires made their money in banking and finance, while an estimated 110 came from the tech sector. Meanwhile, 75 billionaires earned their money in real estate.

Many, of course, got a head start by inheriting wealth. One-third of U.S. billionaires received some or all of their wealth from an inheritance, per Altrata.

Related: This 30-Year-Old Billionaire Says Life ‘Hasn’t Really Changed That Much’ After Making Billions. Here’s Where She Spends Money.

The data shows that U.S. billionaires are worth $5.7 trillion in total. Musk, Bezos, and Zuckerberg alone comprise about $1 trillion, or nearly one-sixth, of that wealth.

Altrata also found that billionaires tend to live in one state above all others: California. The highest percentage of them, about 255 people, live in the Golden State. However, they have primary businesses in nearly every U.S. state, except for Wyoming and Alaska.

The list of U.S. billionaires includes some recognizable names, including Oracle founder Larry Ellison and Google co-founder Sergey Brin, as well as some more private individuals, like Diane Hendricks, co-founder of ABC Supply, North America’s biggest distributor of building products.

Hendricks, who is the richest self-made woman with a net worth of $22.3 billion, is one of 150 female billionaires based in the U.S., joining stars like Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez. Most of the list, 86%, is comprised of men.

Related: Is Selena Gomez the Next Beauty Billionaire?

When it comes to philanthropy, Altrata data shows that billionaires have donated or pledged to donate about $185 billion to charitable organizations over the past decade. Among them is Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who donated a record $6 billion to different foundations in June.

Nearly half of all overall donations from billionaires, $90 billion, went towards two causes: education and medical research. Some of the most popular organizations that received donations were the Central Park Conservancy in New York City, which received funds collectively worth about $100 million from 89 individuals, and Johns Hopkins University, which received donations from about 30 individuals totaling $7.5 billion.

However, charitable giving isn’t a priority for all billionaires. One in four has donated less than a million dollars each since 2015.

Over the past few months, I’ve received a surprising number of emails and even phone calls from private equity firms asking if I’d consider selling my business.

“Gene,” they all say, “we’ve followed your growth in the technology space and believe we can help you unlock value while preserving your legacy and team. Would you be open to a 20-minute call to discuss mutual opportunities?”

It’s flattering, sure. And it makes sense. According to Harvard’s Corporate Governance site, private equity exits jumped from $754 billion in 2023 to $902 billion in 2024 — about a 20% increase. Other reports show deal value rising by 50% in the first half of 2024 alone, with strategic acquisitions leading the way.

Private equity is everywhere — scooping up contractors, manufacturers, distributors and yes, even tech companies like mine.

Why? Because many business owners are aging out. The average small business owner in the U.S. is over 55, according to the Small Business Administration — and that was back in 2020. So a wave of exits is underway, and investors are eager to buy businesses with strong financials, recurring revenue and growth potential.

But my business? I don’t think I’m sellable. Not because I wouldn’t entertain an offer — but because once a buyer looks under the hood, they’ll realize the uncomfortable truth: My company has no real value.

Related: Want to Maximize the Sale Price of Your Business? Start with These 5 Value Drivers

The balance sheet no one wants

Let’s start with the basics. My business has no hard assets. No buildings, no equipment, no physical property. Just a bit of cash and accounts receivable.

Sure, we also have very few liabilities. In fact, most of our “payables” are actually prepaid client deposits — blocks of time that customers purchase in advance. It’s a great way to boost cash flow and reduce risk, but it creates a liability a buyer would need to honor. Not exactly attractive.

No contracts, no guarantees

We don’t lock clients into long-term contracts. We’ve never sold maintenance agreements or recurring support plans. Our clients use us when they need us — and leave when they don’t.

There’s no proprietary process or secret sauce. What we do isn’t complicated. In fact, anyone could learn it online. Our clients hire us not because we’re unique, but because they don’t have the bandwidth to do it themselves.

So if a private equity firm were to evaluate my company, they’d quickly realize there’s no predictable revenue stream to base a valuation on. No recurring income. No clear multiple to apply. We go project to project, client to client.

That might work for me. But it doesn’t work for them.

A team that disappears when I do

I do have employees. But most of the work is handled by independent contractors. That comes with its own risk — from worker classification issues to a lack of long-term commitment.

Our setup has always been virtual. We’ve been remote since 2005. No office. No shared culture. No in-person meetings. Everyone works independently, and I check in as needed. It works for us — but it doesn’t scream “scalable organization.”

The reality? This business doesn’t run without me. I do the selling. I do the marketing. I oversee projects, handle accounting, manage admin and lead the day-to-day. If I were hit by a bus tomorrow, this business would fold within 30 days — with contractors and staff likely splintering off to do their own thing.

No IP, no exclusivity, no moat

We implement CRM platforms. It’s a crowded, competitive space. The very vendors we represent are often our biggest competitors. There’s no barrier to entry. Competitors appear regularly — usually cheaper, often younger and sometimes better.

We don’t have any intellectual property, documented systems or defined processes. Every project is different, and it rarely makes sense to create templates or workflows that won’t apply next time.

So there’s nothing here to “buy.” No assets. No exclusivity. No edge.

So, what do I have?

I have a business that works for me.

For more than 25 years, it’s paid the bills, put my kids through college and built a retirement plan for my wife and me. It’s also supported dozens of employees and contractors along the way. That’s something I’m proud of.

My model has always been simple: do the work, bill for it, generate cash, save what you can. Rinse and repeat. And for me, it’s worked beautifully.

But let’s be honest: this model doesn’t build transferable value. There’s no goodwill. No buyer-ready systems. No brand equity. No enterprise value. Just a highly functional, one-person-driven operation that disappears without me.

Related: Starting a New Business? Here’s How to Leverage Transferable Skills From Your Prior Careers and Drive Success

If your business looks like mine

Don’t be discouraged. But do be realistic.

You may be generating cash — and that’s great. You may be living well — even better. But unless you’ve intentionally built for scale, structure and succession, your business may not be worth much to anyone else.

And that’s okay — as long as that’s the plan.

For me, it is.

Are you hungry for business? Burger franchises are sizzling hot, offering entrepreneurs a slice of one of the most enduring — and profitable — sectors in the food industry. From iconic, time-tested staples to bold newcomers flipping the script on fast-casual fare, the burger game is as competitive as it is delicious. What connects the biggest winners? Consistency, strong brand appeal and operations that can be replicated coast-to-coast — and even around the world.

In this ranking, we’ve rounded up the top 10 burger franchises lighting up the scene this year, based on the 2025 Franchise 500. Whether you’re craving the comfort of a beloved classic or chasing the next up-and-coming smash hit, these burger brands bring more than flame-grilled meat — they deliver scalable systems built to stand the heat.

This article will help you decide whether these burger giants — and rising stars — are serving up the right opportunity for you.

Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

1. Culver’s

• Founded: 1984
• Franchising since: 1988
• Overall rank: 7
• Number of units: 1,020
• Change in units: +17.1% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $2,642,500 – $8,573,000
• Leadership: Julie Fussner, CEO
• Parent company: Culver Franchising System LLC

Culver’s isn’t just slinging burgers — it’s crafting a cult following, one ButterBurger at a time. Born in Wisconsin and steeped in Midwestern hospitality, the brand has grown steadily to more than 1,000 units, thanks to its focus on quality, community and crinkle-cut fries done right. Under CEO Julie Fussner’s leadership, Culver’s has embraced calculated growth, posting a 17% unit increase over the past three years — not to mention a top 10 ranking in the 2025 Franchise 500. With an investment starting at just over $2.6 million, franchisees are buying into a system designed to last, backed by a brand that still feels like family.

Related: The Culver Family Opened Their First Restaurant in 1984 — Now Culver’s Has 1,000 Locations. What’s Its Secret?

2. Wendy’s

• Founded: 1969
• Franchising since: 1971
• Overall rank: 8
• Number of units: 7,282
• Change in units: +5.8% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $310,095 – $2,828,707
• Leadership: Kirk Tanner, president & CEO
• Parent company: Wendy’s

Wendy’s brings bold flavors and bigger ambitions to the quick-service burger game. Known for square patties, Frosty treats and fast-food snark, the brand continues to evolve with modern store formats and a push into digital ordering and global markets. Its relatively low entry point for a legacy brand — paired with strong consumer recognition and a multibillion-dollar support system — makes Wendy’s a compelling option for franchisees who want scale and staying power.

Related: From ‘Where’s the Beef?’ to the Metaverse — Here’s How Wendy’s Keeps Innovating Fast Food

3. McDonald’s

• Founded: 1955
• Franchising since: 1955
• Overall rank: 22
• Number of units: 42,406
• Change in units: +7.6% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,471,000 – $2,728,000
• Leadership: Chris Kempczinski, CEO
• Parent company: McDonald’s

McDonald’s reigns as the unrivaled titan of quick-service burger franchising. Its iconic Golden Arches are backed by a proven, scalable model and powerful real estate strategy. To own a slice of its legacy, franchisees must navigate a seven-figure investment alongside a $45,000 franchise fee and have at least $500,000 in liquid assets. But the payoff is baked in: McDonald’s strong brand, operational rigor and global footprint offer unmatched scale — and profitability — for those able to match its ambition.

4. Burger King

• Founded: 1954
• Franchising since: 1961
• Overall rank: 53
• Number of units: 19,732
• Change in units: +2.5% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $2,064,200 – $4,730,500
• Leadership: Chris Elias, senior director, business development and franchising
• Parent company: Restaurant Brands Int’l.

Burger King — originating in 1953 and franchising since 1959 — offers a storied license into fast-food royalty with a typical investment of $1.8 to $4.2 million and a $50,000-$55,000 franchise fee. Under the umbrella of Restaurant Brands International, Burger King is undergoing a bold transformation — acquiring its largest franchisee for $1 billion and rolling out a sweeping remodel plan dubbed “Reclaim the Flame.” The chain aims to modernize nearly 90% of U.S. outlets by 2028, blending heritage with sleek, high-tech efficiency.

Related: Burger King’s Owner Is Buying the Chain’s Biggest Franchisee for $1 Billion

5. Sonic Drive-In

• Founded: 1953
• Franchising since: 1959
• Overall rank: 56
• Number of units: 3,521
• Change in units: -0.11% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,714,200 – $3,370,900
• Leadership: Jim Taylor, brand president
• Parent company: Inspire Brands

Sonic Drive-In has carved out a lane all its own in the burger world — where roller skates meet cherry limeades and carhops still matter. Launched in 1953 and franchising since 1959, the brand now boasts more than 3,500 locations nationwide. Backed by Inspire Brands, Sonic offers flexible formats, from full-scale drive-ins to nontraditional locations, with startup costs ranging from roughly $669,000 to over $3.6 million. Franchisees need strong financials — typically $1 million in net worth and $500,000 in liquid assets — and pay ongoing royalties and marketing fees. It’s not just nostalgia on wheels — Sonic is evolving fast, backed by serious tech, bold flavors and a fiercely loyal fan base.

6. Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers

• Founded: 2002
• Franchising since: 2004
• Overall rank: 59
• Number of units: 531
• Change in units: +30.8% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $897,836 – $2,753,566
• Leadership: Chris Dull, president & CEO
• Parent company: N/A

Founded in 2002 and named after a WWII veteran, Freddy’s Frozen Custard & Steakburgers has become a fast-casual standout with over 500 units across the U.S. and strong systemwide sales near $1 billion. Franchisees invest between $786,000 and $2,750,000 up front, with typical minimum asset requirements of $850,000 net worth and $250,000 liquidity. Acquired by Thompson Street Capital Partners in 2021, Freddy’s is accelerating expansion — targeting Canadian provinces and opening locations like Beaumont, Texas, later this year. With strong growth and proven AUVs, Freddy’s remains a compelling franchise opportunity.

Related: Fried, Fast and Franchised — These Are The Top 10 Chicken Franchises in 2025

7. Habit Burger & Grill

• Founded: 1969
• Franchising since: 2013
• Overall rank: 107
• Number of units: 379
• Change in units: +10.2% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,026,000 – $2,859,000
• Leadership: Jonathan Trapesonian, head of franchising and development
• Parent company: Yum! Brands

Habit Burger & Grill started as a fast-casual restaurant called The Habit in Goleta, California, in 1969, and didn’t open its second location until 1996. It started franchising in 2013, and in 2020, Yum! Brands purchased the company and expanded it to more than 350 locations worldwide. The fast-casual chain is known for its charburgers, chicken and ahi tuna sandwiches. Franchisees interested in opening a Habit Burger & Grill must have a net worth of $3 million and a cash requirement of $1 million.

Related: This Is the Most Important Thing You Can Do to Improve Your Business, According to the Co-Founder of a $32 Billion Company

8. Jack in the Box

• Founded: 1951
• Franchising since: 1982
• Overall rank: 182
• Number of units: 2,178
• Change in units: -1% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,910,500 – $4,032,100
• Leadership: Van Ingram, CDO
• Parent company: Jack in the Box Inc.

Founded in 1951 in San Diego, Jack in the Box began franchising around 1982 and now operates nearly 2,200 restaurants across 22 states. Aspiring franchisees face an upfront investment ranging from about $2 to $4 million, alongside a $50,000 franchise fee. Ongoing fees include a 5% royalty and 5% marketing contribution. You must have at least $1.5 million in net worth and $500,000 in liquid capital to open a Jack in the Box franchise. The brand is expanding into new markets like Georgia and Chicago, but is also streamlining operations: under its “Jack on Track” strategy, including closing underperforming locations to sharpen its long-term performance.

9. Carl’s Jr.

• Founded: 1945
• Franchising since: 1984
• Overall rank: 187
• Number of units: 1,719
• Change in units: +2.6% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $1,486,000 – $3,176,500
• Leadership: Joe Guith, CEO
• Parent company: CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

Carl’s Jr. has come a long way from its 1941 origins — franchising since 1984 and now operating around 1,700 U.S. restaurants. If you’re aiming to own one, be prepared for a startup cost between approximately $1.3 and $3.4 million, plus a franchise fee of nearly $25,000. Ongoing obligations include a royalty of around 4% of sales and marketing fees of about 6%. Candidates generally must have a net worth of at least $1 million and liquid capital between $300,000 and $500,000. The brand’s premium image and franchisor support make it a solid bet for seasoned operators.

Related: 3 Lessons I Learned Selling My Billion-Dollar Company

10. A&W Restaurants

• Founded: 1919
• Franchising since: 1925
• Overall rank: 193
• Number of units: 848
• Change in units: -5% over 3 years
• Initial investment: $298,899 – $1,639,906
• Leadership: Betsy Schmandt, CEO
• Parent company: A&W Restaurants

A&W is a storied icon of American fast food — founded in 1919 and franchising since 1926, it’s the nation’s oldest restaurant franchise still thriving today. With around 460 U.S. locations (and nearly as many worldwide), A&W has been fully franchisee-owned since 2011. Initial investments range from approximately $300,000 for compact formats to over $1.6 million for freestanding outlets, plus a $30,000 franchise fee (discounted for veterans). Ongoing costs include a 5% royalty and marketing fee. Franchisees need at least $500,000 in net worth and $250,000 in liquid capital.

Starbucks revealed its protein lineup on Tuesday, and the company is going “all in,” according to a press release.

Starbucks coffeehouses in the U.S. and Canada will offer a Protein Cold Foam topper alongside a new line of Protein Lattes starting September 29. The lattes are made with protein-boosted milk.

Related: Starbucks Is Betting on Protein Cold Foam and a ‘Sugar Reduction’ to Turn Around Lagging Sales. Here’s a Look at the Sweeping Changes.

“As we continue to get back to Starbucks, we’re focused on modernizing our menu with innovative, relevant, and hype-worthy products that will resonate with our customers,” said Tressie Leiberman, Starbucks’ global chief brand officer, in the release. “Our new protein beverages tap into the growing consumer demand for protein in an innovative, premium, and delicious way that only Starbucks can deliver.”

Starbucks says its Protein Cold Foam has been used in one out of every seven beverages since the company began testing the foam in July. The company also says the demand is there — 70% of Americans surveyed said they were interested in consuming more protein, according to the 2025 IFIC Food & Health Survey.

^Starbucks

The new drinks are customizable with sugar-free and unsweetened options.

Related: Starbucks Just Experienced a ‘Record-Breaking Sales Week’ Thanks to One Line of Products

What Is Starbucks Protein Cold Foam?

According to Starbucks, the foam is a “creamy, frothy topping that adds texture and flavor to any cold coffee, tea, or Refreshers, creating a delicious, layered drink” and adds 19 to 26 grams of protein per Grande beverage.

It also comes in various flavors (banana, vanilla, sugar-free vanilla, chocolate, matcha, salted caramel, brown sugar, and plain), and seasonal flavors, including pumpkin and pecan.

The new lattes, meanwhile, offer even more protein: 27 to 36 grams worth. Rather than the foam topper, these drinks are crafted with the newly introduced protein-rich milk.

Related: Starbucks Is Hiring a ‘Global Content Creator’ to Travel, Drink Coffee, and Get Paid Six Figures