Direct ownership is often dismissed too quickly
This piece was originally shared on LinkedIn in response to recurring conversations with founders and leadership teams around this topic.
I’m publishing it here as part of an ongoing body of thinking around restaurant strategy, market entry, and operational decision-making.
Last week, I broke down the five models and where direct ownership sits on the scale.
It’s usually the first model ruled out, but I often advise founders to consider it, even as a phase one.
Here’s why:
- Clean market intelligence You can't learn a new market through someone else's execution. If they cut corners, substitute products, or get the staffing wrong and the site underperforms, you won’t know if it’s the market that didn't work or their execution.
If you own the first one, you know exactly what you're dealing with.
- The margin If you're well equipped to do it yourself, and can take a longer route, the upside is greater. You can make 20-30% bottom line instead of 5-10%.
- Credibility when you do scale If the long-term plan is franchise, owning the first site gives you something to sell. You have proven the model in that market, refined the brand, understood the local cost base, and built a track record.
That usually leads to better conversations, better terms, and a stronger brand template.
Direct ownership is not always the right answer.
But dismissing it too early can mean giving away the very learning that makes later growth stronger.
Next week, I’ll cover management agreements. The model that looks like someone else's risk until something goes wrong.
Since first sharing this, I’ve seen the same issue surface repeatedly — particularly with businesses entering new markets or scaling too quickly. The underlying challenge is rarely strategy itself, but how early decisions constrain execution later.
Andrew Jobes is the founder of Jobes & Co., a Dubai-based advisory working with restaurant and hospitality businesses across the Middle East and international markets.