Multi-Unit Franchising Conference Strategy: Turning Access Into Franchise Growth

At this year’s Multi-Unit Franchising Conference, more than 2,000 attendees gathered in what is widely considered one of the most concentrated rooms of franchise capital in the industry. On paper, the opportunity is clear.

This is not just a conference. It is a pipeline accelerator, a deal room and a signal-rich environment for who’s actually growing in franchising. Thus, based on the data, this is one of the highest-quality franchise ecosystems you can be in physically — whether simply attending or investing in a branded footprint.

In this episode of Coffee & Analytics, 1851 Franchise publisher Nick Powills breaks down how to turn that investment into momentum with future buyers.

Conference attendees

About 2,100 total attendees were in the room, forming a near-perfect triangle of influence:

• 34% franchisors

• 34% franchisees and multi-unit operators

• 29% suppliers and vendors

This is NOT a top-heavy franchisor event or vendor trade show. It’s a deal-making ecosystem

Roughly speaking, the room included:

• 728 franchisors

• 711 franchisees and operators

• 615 suppliers and service providers

There were 711 franchisee attendees representing 523 different companies.

That matters because this is not a room where a few large operators brought teams. It’s a room filled with hundreds of distinct ownership groups.

The mix likely included:

Total Franchisee Attendees: 711

• multi-unit operators

• multi-brand groups

• emerging platform builders

This is one of the deepest franchise buyer rooms a brand can access.

There were 728 franchisor attendees representing 285 companies.

Many brands brought multiple team members across development, operations and leadership. This is a serious recruiting and growth environment, not just a brand-awareness exercise.

There were 615 supplier attendees representing 320 companies.

This means heavy competition, but also validation. A room with this many suppliers signals that the broader ecosystem sees real value in showing up.

Franchisee composition

Of the roughly 711 franchisees in attendance, spread across 523 unique companies, the composition looked something like this:

This was the largest category by far. It included:

• QSR (burger, chicken, pizza)

• fast casual (better-for-you, bowls, etc.)

• casual dining

• some full-service concepts

These operators are typically highly systemized and focused on unit economics. Many are looking for:

• easier operations

• lower labor needs

• daypart expansion

This group included:

• home services (restoration, HVAC, lawn, cleaning)

• B2B and light commercial services

• Mobile and service-first models

This may be the fastest-growing mindset segment in the room. These concepts offer:

• lower build-out costs

• faster ramp-up

• strong cash flow

These operators are often already multi-brand or are the most open to second-brand diversification.

This category included:

• boutique fitness

• beauty concepts (hair, med spa, lashes, etc.)

• wellness concepts

These brands often share:

• semi-absentee potential

• membership models

• brand-driven decision-making

• niche retail

• experiential concepts

• kids, education and specialty concepts

It’s a smaller segment, but one that is often curious about multi-brand expansion and differentiation.

• tutoring

• early education

• kids programs

These tend to attract longer-term operators and are often more operationally intensive.

This segment included:

• family offices

• multi-brand holding companies

• private investment groups

This may be the most sophisticated group in the room. Many think like private equity firms.

Franchisor breakdown

Among franchisors, the category breakdown looked similar:

• Restaurants: about 45% to 50% of brands

• Service-Based Brands: about 25% to 30%

• Fitness, Wellness and Beauty: about 10% to 12%

• Retail and Experiential: about 5% to 8%

• Education and Child Care: about 3% to 5%

• Emerging and Other: about 5%

The balance is notable. Few industry events maintain a near one-to-one ratio between franchisors and franchisees, which creates what appears to be an ideal environment for deal-making.

Deal making environment

But a closer look at the data, and the behavior of the attendees, tells a more nuanced story: This is a high-value audience, but not an immediate buyer pool.

Among the 711 franchisees in attendance, more than 500 distinct ownership groups were represented. This is not a room dominated by a handful of large operators, but rather a broad base of decision-makers with varying levels of scale. Many are multi-unit operators. Some are already managing multiple brands. Others are still expanding within a single system.

A smaller but meaningful segment represents first-time franchisees, often attending to learn, evaluate and build relationships before making an initial investment.

From a financial standpoint, the room skews heavily toward established operators. While precise figures vary, the perceived net worth of attendees typically ranges from $500,000 to more than $5 million, with a meaningful concentration of capital sitting in experienced multi-unit groups. By most measures, this is one of the most financially qualified audiences in franchising.

Yet qualification does not equate to immediacy.

Frankly, brands that apply patience to the franchise growth process are often the ones who remain hungry, satisfied and committed to business adaptation aligned with franchise growth.

Despite the density of capital in the room, many franchisees are not actively seeking a new brand. One benefit of having a booth was the ability to engage in direct conversations and gather insights from franchisees.

A few themes came up repeatedly:

• “I continue to buy underperforming units within my system.”

• “I’m open to another opportunity if the deal is right.”

• “I’m looking for semi-absentee opportunities that would complement my portfolio.”

• “I’m interested in what’s next.”

• “I want to leverage my existing real estate portfolio.”

When asked what constituted the right deal, many pointed to negotiation around the total package, including royalties, fees and overall structure.

A common pattern among multi-unit operators is to expand within their existing concept until available territory is exhausted. Only after reaching that limit do they begin evaluating additional opportunities. That dynamic fundamentally shifts how franchisors should interpret the value of the conference.

Rather than a room full of active buyers, the event is better understood as a room full of future capital allocation decisions.

For franchisors, the return on investment from attending is often measured in near-term leads, discovery days or signed agreements. However, in this environment, those metrics can be misleading.

The real value lies in access — not to immediate transactions, but to operators who will make expansion decisions over the next 12 to 36 months. In that context, success is not defined by how many deals are closed immediately after the event, but by whether a brand becomes part of the consideration set when those decisions are eventually made.

For franchisees operating one or two concepts, the decision to invest in a new brand is rarely about choosing between competing franchisors. Instead, it is a comparison against what they already own.

The central question becomes:

Why allocate capital to a new concept instead of opening another unit within an existing system?

This framing places franchisors in direct competition not only with each other, but also with the proven performance, familiarity and operational efficiency of the franchisee’s current portfolio.

When franchisees do begin to consider a second or third brand, their evaluation is typically grounded in a consistent set of criteria:

• unit economics, including revenue, margins and payback period

• operational complexity, such as staffing, systems and scalability

• incremental return, compared to existing brands

• territory availability and the ability to build a multi-unit footprint

• brand momentum, reflected in openings and franchisee performance

• exit potential, including financeability and long-term value

For these operators, brand positioning alone is insufficient. Decisions are driven by data, experience and peer validation. Thus, brands should make a shift from selling to positioning.

As a result, the traditional franchise development approach, focused on immediate conversion, is giving way to a longer-term strategy.

Franchisors are increasingly tasked with:

• demonstrating performance through unit-level data

• positioning their concept within a broader operator portfolio

• providing credible proof through existing franchisees

• maintaining visibility over time through consistent content and communication

Platforms such as 1851 Franchise and similar media ecosystems are playing a growing role in this shift, allowing brands to remain visible to operators well beyond the conference itself.

For brands that invested significant time and resources to attend Multi-Unit, the question is no longer simply how to follow up. It is how to remain relevant.

In a room defined by long-term decision-making, the brands that succeed are not those that sell first, but the ones that are remembered when the timing is right. In franchising, that moment often comes months, or even years, after the initial conversation.

Here are 10 headline-driven story angles franchisors should consider developing in the months following the conference:

• “From 1 to 5 Units: How Franchisees Are Scaling Within [Brand] and What Changes at Each Stage”

• “How Long It Really Takes to Hit Profitability in [Category]: A Franchisee Breakdown”

• “Why Multi-Unit Operators Are Adding [Brand] as Their Second Concept, Not Their First”

• “Inside the Numbers: What Franchisees Are Actually Spending to Open and Ramp a [Brand] Location”

• “What Breaks Between Unit 2 and Unit 6, and How Top Operators Solve It”

• “Why Some Franchisees Stop at 3 Units, and Others Build to 30”

• “The Labor Model Shift: How [Brand] Compares to Traditional Franchise Staffing Structures”

• “What Experienced Franchisees Look for in Their Next Brand, and Where Most Concepts Fall Short”

• “From Operator to Owner: How Franchisees Transition to Multi-Brand Portfolios”

• “The Exit Conversation: What Makes a Franchise Attractive to Buyers and Private Equity”

This is where most people completely blow it. They follow up with: “Great meeting you, let’s set a call”

That does not work with this audience.

Subject: “Not for today — but when you’re ready”

Message:

• Acknowledge they’re likely growing current brand

• Position yourself as future option

This lowers resistance immediately

Example sequence:

Email 1:

“How operators are hitting $X/month in [category]”

Email 2:

“What changes from unit 1 to unit 5: A real breakdown”

Email 3:

“Where this fits if you already own [their category]”

This is where 1851 brands have a HUGE advantage.

Use:

• 1851 Franchise content

• interviews

• case studies

• thought leadership

Follow them everywhere digitally

Instead of:

• Discovery Day

Consider:

• operator roundtable

• webinars

• “How multi-unit operators evaluate second brands”

You become a peer, not a seller

Six to 12 months later:

“Are you still expanding within [Brand]? If and when you look at a second concept, I’d be happy to share what we’re seeing across operators.”

Now, your messaging starts to break through. This tone shift moves the relationship from sales to nurturing.

What everyone says:

• “We’re growing fast”

• “Great support”

• “Amazing culture”

What wins:

1. Respect their current brand

“If I were you, I’d keep building [Brand] too…”

2. Introduce doubt, subtly

“At some point, every operator hits a ceiling — territory, margins or bandwidth…”

3. Position yourself as the next logical step

“When that happens, most operators look for something that offers [insert your differentiator: higher margin, lower labor, different daypart].”

4. Back it with Proof

“Here’s how operators are actually performing…”

You are not competing for their next decision. You are competing for their future identity as a multi-brand operator The brands that win are the ones that:

• show up consistently

• speak in operator math

• fit into a portfolio narrative

• prove outcomes with real operators

Follow 1851 Franchise on Youtube to be the first to know about new episodes of Coffee & Analytics with Nick Powills.