Booskerdoo Coffee & Baking Co vs Papa Murphy's

Booskerdoo’s five-unit, company-owned footprint makes it a nonstarter for a franchise-focused software vendor. There’s no installed base of franchisees to upsell, and with a dormant FDD and zero unit growth, the pipeline is both empty and frozen. Even if their tech stack were falling apart, the total addressable market is so small that a single deal wouldn’t cover the cost of adapting your platform to a franchisor-controlled procurement model—one that makes third-party integrations inherently harder to sell through.

Papa Murphy’s wins on TAM and timing, despite posting negative unit growth. With 965 franchised locations operating under a 2026 FDD and an approved-supplier procurement model, the terrain is open: franchisees have procurement autonomy, which means a vendor can sell location by location without permission from the top. That’s 965 shots on goal against a royalty base that already pays 5% to the franchisor, leaving budget headroom for operational tools that reduce labor and food cost in a take-and-bake model where POS and scheduling directly impact throughput and margin.

The tradeoff is clear: Papa Murphy’s is a declining system, so you’re fishing in a shrinking pond, but Booskerdoo isn’t a pond at all—it’s a puddle with a locked gate. Negative unit growth is a risk to lifetime value, but an open procurement model on a 1,000-unit base still offers more near-term pipeline and faster sales cycles than trying to sell enterprise deals into a five-store chain with no franchising momentum.

Verdict: Papa Murphy’s is the only viable target; the TAM and procurement openness outweigh the contraction risk, while Booskerdoo offers no scalable franchise go-to-market.