Hacker News Reader

Comment by baron816 | Hacker News Reader

> With a 0.13% acceptance rate, it’s harder to become a Chick-fil-A franchisee than it is to...get a job at Google (0.23%)

I think I'd rather just get a job at Google.

View on HN

I think either of these acceptance rates are computed by casting the widest net possible. Nevertheless I have to believe Chick-Fil-A has a very rigorous process for hiring managers, who in turn know how to hire good workers; I have never once encountered the typical surly fast food worker at any of their restaurants.

Same. I ate at a food court that had a Chick Fil A and the Chick Fil A employee refilled everyone's drinks at our table even though they weren't all bought at Chick Fil A. That's just not normal for fast food workers.

I have had a similar experience as well, FWIW.

I think either of these acceptance rates are computed by casting the widest net possible.

Quote the opposite. In a Forbes (or similar business publication) last month it stated that Chick-Fil-A is very selective about who it allows to have a franchise. It gets something like 20,000 applications each year but only awards a few franchises.

Apparently the biggest factor in getting a franchise is whether the owner has a demonstrated history of investment and involvement in the community.

By casting the widest net I mean they are including everything possible in the denominator: perhaps everyone who does the first stage of the process. I know way too many people from my small social circle, who got jobs at Google, to believe that only 2 in 1000 serious applicants gets in.

They said $150-$250k a year for the owner so you would get paid better too.

150-250k a year for a 60hr a week job as the “owner”.

That sounds like reasonable compensation for a 60hr a week job.

Not sure if you are implying this is not such a great deal but that's what it sounded to me.

Maybe from the perspective of a tech person in silicon valley that's not great. But in comparison with pretty much any other job out there this is stellar.

He's also forgetting that a huge number of these are in "normal" America with much lower costs of living and no state income tax. That kind of money goes much farther there.

You can't really compare it to "any other job", since a franchise owner needs to front (or be able to raise via loans or investment) a cool million or two just to get started.

$150k-$250k/year is a fairly nice ROI for even $2M (though taking on loans or investment changes the math), but the calculation gets a little murkier when you factor in additionally needing to work 60 hours/week, six days/week to keep it coming in.

Put another way, if you already have access to $2M, $150k-$250k/year might not seem all that attractive when compared to what you've done prior to that.

As described in the article, Chick-fil-A (not the franchisee) covers all costs except for the $10k franchise fee, in exchange for a much higher share of revenue than competing restaurants. I'd hope that competitors' franchisees make more than $150k-$250k/year in exchange for their $2M upfront/borrowed + 60 hours/week.

Do they accept job-shares for the position of owner. That's a pretty sweet deal for a $75k-$125k @ 30hr/week job?

Of course they do. The franchise police don't take away your franchise if they catch someone helping you.

Yes but at some point, if you have the right brains and vision, you can slowly replace yourself in the business, even if not completely. In a job no matter where, you stop working, your income goes to 0. Period.

That's fantastic income for anyone once you get past the highly skewed Silicon Valley bubble.

Most people work far more for less and would love to have their own business with this much potential earnings and low startup cost.

When I worked at Chick-fil-A, I knew quite a few operators that worked less than 40. This is where Chick-fil-A’s ownership model helps them. Managers who want to be operators will work for less than they can earn other places for a chance at being an operator, because CFA tends to hire internally.

You can potentially scale the chickfila to 2-3, though, and you can imagine you can get other franchises eventually.

From the article:

In most cases, they aren’t permitted to “own” multiple locations. They aren’t permitted to run any other business.

I think multiple locations is a thing, if you can prove you can operate one at very good ratings. Didnt realize exclusivity point, though.

"Most" is a broad term. I know in the Dallas are, a few stores are "owned" as one-of-two, and at least a few as one-of-three. In the cases I know about, someone had to "own" a successful stores for several years before they were allowed to try for a second.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com