Twenty-two franchise owners operate across 135 DMAs with varying agencies, budgets, and tactical approaches — producing a cost-per-appointment spread wider than any other metric in the system. The best-performing franchise acquires an appointment for $73. The highest-paying franchise pays $354 for the same unit of demand. Same brand. Same product. Same customer. The gap is operational, not structural.
The variance is not random. Each franchise has chosen an agency, set a budget, and picked a tactical mix independently — and the combinations produce wildly different outcomes. Some combinations work. Most are somewhere in the middle. A few are losing money every month. The franchisees themselves are largely unaware of where they sit in the distribution, because no one publishes the distribution.
The variance is not a franchise failure. It is a corporate failure to publish the distribution. When franchisees cannot see where they sit, they cannot know what to change. A transparent, shared benchmark is the single highest-leverage corporate intervention in this observation.
Every number on this page is sourced to a document The Good Feet Store team provided in the RFP package. Nothing here is agency estimation dressed as insight. The evidence is corroborated across three independent sources that triangulate the same conclusion.
Adtaxi's franchisee deck confirms the full CPA range across managed franchise accounts: $73 at the floor, $354 at the ceiling. The data exists. It is not yet shared back to the franchisees themselves in a way that creates peer pressure or improvement loops.
Adtaxi's corporate-managed accounts perform materially better than the franchise median — $130 vs. $180. The gap is partially scale, partially standardization, partially agency continuity. Closing half of it across the franchise network is the near-term opportunity.
Eight-plus independent agencies service the franchise network across 22 owners. Each agency has its own reporting cadence, its own bidding strategy, its own benchmarks. No shared learning loop exists — the best franchise's playbook is not reaching the worst franchise.
The fix has to work inside the reality of franchise economics — owners with autonomy over their P&L, relationships with their existing agencies, and no obligation to adopt a corporate recommendation. Every lever in this section is an enablement, not a mandate. None requires a franchisee to change agency. None requires a contract amendment. All require corporate to build and share something the franchisees cannot build alone.
Quarterly benchmark report to every franchise owner: here is your CPA, here is the median, here is the top quartile, here is the bottom quartile — anonymized but specific enough to know where you stand. The franchise in the bottom quartile calls their agency the next day. The agency either explains itself or gets replaced. Corporate does not have to do any of the follow-through.
Corporate documents the tactical mix, budget ratios, and platform structures used by the top-quartile franchises — and publishes them as a shared playbook. Franchisees who want corporate's digital team to implement the playbook on their behalf can opt into a shared-services model at a nominal cost. Those who prefer their current agency have a reference to benchmark against.
A quarterly 45-minute session between corporate's digital team and each bottom-quartile franchise owner: here is what's happening, here is what the top quartile is doing differently, here is the shared playbook, here is what we could do together. The tone is partnership. The goal is to move two franchises out of the bottom quartile per quarter.
Ratio between the highest and lowest franchise CPA. The ceiling is not the problem — the bottom is. Five franchises paying $240-354 per appointment are the most immediately recoverable opportunity in the network.
If every below-median franchise moves halfway toward the median CPA, network-wide savings reach $8-15M annually. Same brand. Same product. Same customer. Smaller range. Better economics for every owner, including the ones already performing.
Peer retail networks with mature enablement operate at <2× CPA dispersion. Reaching that ceiling across all 22 franchises produces compounding savings that feed back into higher same-store volume (Obs. 01).
The franchisees are not the problem. The agencies are not the problem. The absence of a network operating system is the problem. Build it once. Let every owner decide for themselves how much of it to use.
Franchise variance is fundamentally a governance problem, not a media problem. Jekyll + Hyde's national TV program already benefits every franchise equally — that part works. Ryze's role is to build the tooling corporate needs to publish the benchmark, package the playbook, and run the shared-services option for franchises who opt in. Every franchise keeps full autonomy — they just get a better operating environment around them.
J+H's contribution to the variance problem is ambient and positive: a strong national TV program raises the tide for every franchise, regardless of their individual digital agency. The franchise in the bottom quartile still benefits from the −6% CPO swing that the MPRB analysis documents. J+H's job here is to sustain that baseline and share flight data with Ryze for the benchmark dashboard.
This is one of Ryze's highest-leverage roles in the engagement: building the operational tooling that compresses the CPA distribution without touching franchise autonomy. The work is platform, analytics, and implementation — not mandate. Every lift comes from franchisees choosing to use what we build.
Three primary KPIs drive the intervention and define success. Four supporting KPIs surface the diagnostic detail that tells us why a metric is or isn't moving. All seven feed one shared dashboard that both agencies access and the client owns.
22 owners. One operating environment. Twenty-two independent decisions — all made better.
The most important thing this observation does not recommend is a mandate. No franchise has to change agency. No franchise has to adopt the playbook. No franchise has to opt in to shared services. Every franchisee keeps full autonomy over their local program, because that autonomy is structurally built into the business. What the network is missing is not authority — it is information and infrastructure. The benchmark report tells each owner where they sit. The playbook tells them what the top quartile does. The optional shared-services tier gives them a cheaper way to execute it. And the quarterly coaching conversation with the bottom five franchises turns the worst-performing corner of the network into the highest-leverage improvement opportunity. Compress the distribution. Let every owner benefit in their own way. The economics of the entire network move together, without any single owner losing an inch of what they already control.