{{title}}
{{byline}}
{{byline}}
Australia is an attractive expansion market for U.S. franchisors, thanks to its high disposable income, strong affinity for American brands, and one of the highest levels of franchise penetration in the world. With more than 1,200 franchise systems, nearly 100,000 outlets, and revenue of $185 billion (Australian), it’s easy to see the attraction.
But there’s a trap many brands fall into. They build their Australian business plan around U.S. unit economics and U.S. pricing logic. The market looks familiar enough, with the same language, similar retail culture, and recognizable consumer behavior. So, the model gets lifted and shifted. That’s where things unravel, as we’ve seen with brands like Starbucks, Krispy Kreme, Carl’s Jr., Chick-fil-A, and Dunkin’ Donuts. Those brands faced restructures, stalled launches, or full withdrawals after misreading local economics.
A franchise system’s pricing model reflects cost structure, competition, and consumer willingness-to-pay of the market it was built for. The U.S. supports lower labor costs, larger stores, and franchisees who are typically sophisticated multi‑unit operators with scale advantages. In Australia, almost none of that holds.
Labor costs are materially higher. Rents in metropolitan areas are among the highest in the world. Australia remains largely a single-unit, owner-operator market, with only around 15 percent of franchisees running multiple outlets. The franchisee buying into a system is not a regional operator with 40 stores and a dedicated procurement team. It is most likely someone running one location, absorbing every cost increase directly.
When U.S. franchisors drop royalty rates, marketing fees, and supply‑chain structures built for U.S. margins into Australia, the unit economics often do not work. Franchisees have no room to adjust, and prices end up either too high for local consumers or too low to cover costs. Either way, the business fails.
Three recent examples make the point. ASX-listed Collins Foods brought Taco Bell to Australia in 2017, but by 2026, it had sold 20 of its 27 stores back to Yum! Brands for a token amount and shut the remaining seven outlets. Even a major Australian QSR operator walked away because Taco Bell couldn’t compete with local Mexican chains Guzman y Gomez and Zambrero, whose models were tailored to Australian costs and tastes.
MOS Burger, despite being Japan’s second‑largest fast‑food chain with more than 1,300 outlets across Asia, opened in Australia in 2011, then fully closed in 2024. No explanation was provided, but the pattern is clear: another international system unable to make the economics work in Australia.
Starbucks is the most instructive case. Its brand thrives almost everywhere, including in countries with strong coffee cultures like Italy and France. Starbucks’ formulaic, impersonal stores and high prices for coffee that wasn’t seen as better made Australia the exception. Its eventual comeback only worked once it stopped trying to be a mass‑market café and repositioned as a niche, tourist‑friendly, cold‑drinks‑led brand.
None of these failures was about product quality or brand strength. They were about context, pricing, and unit economics that were not designed for the Australian market.
Australia is a high‑cost operating environment. Labor, rent, and logistics are materially higher than in the U.S., and these pressures have only intensified. The regulatory bar is also higher: the Australian Franchise Code of Conduct includes a legal obligation for franchisors to ensure franchisees have a reasonable opportunity to earn a return. If a franchise’s fee structure makes profitability unlikely in Australia, they are not just inefficient; they are exposed.
Centralized procurement adds another layer of pressure. Franchisees are often required to purchase through mandated suppliers, even when more affordable local options are available. When you combine this with royalties, marketing levies, and system fees calibrated for U.S.‑style margins, single‑unit operators, who make up most of the Australian market, see their profitability rapidly erode.
Geography compounds the challenge. Australia is both highly urbanized and widely dispersed, with major cities separated by vast distances. Costs and consumer spending vary sharply between metro and regional areas. A single national pricing model, which is standard in many U.S. systems, ends up failing both. Metro customers are undercharged, while regional operators can’t make the economics work.
Franchisors that succeed in Australia don’t replicate their U.S. model. They rebuild their cost structure for Australian conditions, set royalties and marketing fees so franchisees keep real margins, account for regional price differences, and base pricing on what Australians will actually pay rather than a U.S. number adjusted by exchange rates. Pricing, in other words, is the first decision, not the last.
Australia isn’t a difficult market; it’s a nuanced one. The brands that succeed recognize early that Australian consumers have real spending power and a genuine appetite for quality American concepts. But capturing that value requires a pricing model designed for this market, not transplanted from another.
In Australia, alignment with local conditions isn’t a tweak to the model; it is the model.
Chris Petzoldt is co-founder and partner of Pretian Squared.