Tippi Toes vs Little Diggers

We can’t score Brand A because the data is empty—no unit count, no AUV, no growth, no procurement model. That alone makes it a non-starter for a vendor allocating finite sales capacity. You don’t chase a blank FDD when a quantified alternative is sitting right there.

Brand B gives us a real, if modest, total addressable market: 84 franchised units with double-digit unit growth and a franchisor-controlled procurement model. The AUV of $269K is low, which caps per-unit software budget, but the centralized buying path means you sell once and deploy across the system. That’s a terrain advantage—single throat to choke, faster rollout, lower sales cost per seat. The tradeoff is you’re fishing in a small pond with thin per-unit economics, so deal size will be volume-dependent, not whale-sized.

The meaningful dimension here is timing plus terrain. Brand B is growing, current on filings, and structurally easier to land-and-expand inside. Brand A offers nothing to evaluate, so the opportunity cost of waiting or digging further isn’t justified.

Verdict: Brand B is the only rational target right now—small AUV hurts, but franchisor-controlled procurement and active unit growth make it a winnable, scalable account.