Big Frog Custom T-Shirts vs Aaron's and Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership

Right now, total addressable market makes the decision for us. Brand A gives you 1,162 total units, 224 of them franchised—more than triple Brand B’s entire franchise system of 73 doors. Even with zero unit growth year-over-year, that installed base is a pipeline you can work for multiple quarters. The royalty and ad fund hits (6% and 5%) signal franchisees are already committed to significant opex, so a software line item that demonstrably reduces labor or lifts ticket size fits their P&L posture. The wider investment band ($307K–$838K) tells you these are serious operators with capital, not hobbyists.

The real tradeoff is terrain. Brand B actually posts an AUV ($545K) and a lower investment floor, which typically means faster sales cycles and simpler demos. If you needed quick proof-of-concept wins, their smaller, owner-operator-heavy base is easier to penetrate. But with negative unit growth, you’re selling into a shrinking map. That’s a ceiling you’ll hit fast—73 units is a finite account list, period.

Timing and budget both favor Brand A. A flat footprint doesn’t mean dead; it means churn is settled and survivors are optimizing. Those 224 franchisees operate under an approved-supplier procurement model, so you can build a partner play with corporate that cascades into stores at scale. The three-dimensional volume advantage in units, investment size, and collective royalty burden makes Brand A the account you assign to your best field rep.

Verdict: Brand A wins on TAM, budget authority, and partner-leverage potential—Brand B is a fine pilot, not a territory.