Antonio McBroom’s franchise story began behind the counter at a Ben & Jerry’s scoop shop in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. A U.S. Chamber Foundation bio ↗ says McBroom started working at Ben & Jerry’s in 2004 while attending the University of North Carolina, bought the Chapel Hill shop in 2008 and became a multi-unit operator in 2012.

That path makes Primo Partners relevant for entrepreneurs studying [Black franchise ownership](/black-franchise-ownership/). QSR Magazine ↗ has profiled Primo Partners’ purpose-driven franchise growth, while Primo’s company story page ↗ describes work that includes franchising, hospitality, consulting and real estate development.

This is analysis, not a private financial profile of Primo Partners. The public sources cited here do not disclose the company’s current revenue, profit, unit economics, debt structure or lease terms. Still, Primo’s publicly documented growth helps explain the operating questions behind multi-unit franchising, especially for Black entrepreneurs weighing brand ownership, capital access and expansion risk.

Gross sales are not owner profit

Franchise growth can sound simple from the outside: buy into a known brand, follow the system, open another location and repeat.

In practice, multi-unit franchise ownership depends on cash flow, hiring, site selection, debt management, reporting and leadership depth. Gross sales may show customer demand, but they do not show how much cash an owner keeps after food costs, labor, rent, royalties, insurance, repairs, debt service and overhead.

Franchise Disclosure Documents can provide important information about fees, obligations, startup costs and, when included, financial performance representations. But an FDD is not a promise of take-home profit. The Federal Trade Commission ↗ advises prospective buyers to study the FDD, speak with current and former franchisees, and consult accountants and lawyers before buying.

For Black franchise owners considering expansion, the question is not only whether a first unit sells enough product. It is whether that store produces enough cash, after required costs, to support another lease, another payroll and another round of startup obligations.

A location can look strong on top-line revenue while struggling underneath. Rent may run higher than expected. Labor may exceed the plan. Repairs, remodel requirements or weak seasonal traffic can turn a promising unit into a cash drain. Operators who expand too quickly can add complexity before the first store has proved it can run with consistent margins and management.

The owner’s job changes at scale

A single shop rewards hands-on execution. The owner can cover shifts, train staff directly, watch inventory, know regular customers and read the neighborhood in real time.

Multi-unit ownership changes the job. The founder can no longer be the whole system. The company needs systems of its own.

That means store-level reporting that flags labor problems before payroll closes. It means managers who can run shifts without the founder present. It means a hiring pipeline that can support new openings without weakening existing stores. It also means centralized bookkeeping, maintenance coordination, vendor discipline, training standards and working capital to absorb a weak launch.

QSR’s profile reported that Primo Partners secured a Starbucks licensing agreement in addition to its Ben & Jerry’s work. Licensing arrangements can differ from standard franchise relationships, so operators need to read each contract closely rather than assume every branded-store deal carries the same rights, fees or controls.

Those public details point to a broader operating challenge. Multi-unit ownership is not just more locations. It requires management systems, capital planning and brand compliance across stores. That work becomes more complex when an operator manages more than one format or brand relationship.

Scale can help, but it does not erase risk

Scale may improve franchise economics in some cases. A multi-unit owner can sometimes spread administrative costs across more stores. A district manager’s salary may not make sense for one location, but it can become practical across a larger group. Training can become more repeatable. Better reporting can help an operator compare stores and spot problems earlier.

But growth can also hide weak units. A strong store may cover a struggling one for a time. A new lease can tie up cash that should have gone to remodels, manager pay or reserves. A growing company can mistake top-line expansion for health if it does not track store-level profit, cash return and debt coverage.

That distinction matters for Black entrepreneurs because access to capital remains uneven. The Federal Reserve’s 2024 report on firms owned by people of color ↗ documented differences in credit access and financing outcomes by owner race and ethnicity, including outcomes for Black-owned firms.

The Federal Reserve’s 2025 Small Business Credit Survey of employer firms ↗ also found that rising costs, operating expenses and uneven cash flow remained major challenges for many small employers. For franchise operators, those pressures can shape whether a second or third location strengthens the business or strains it.

Multi-unit franchising does not require capital once. It requires capital repeatedly. Owners may need money for acquisition deposits, tenant improvements, equipment, opening payroll, inventory, fees, rent guarantees and reserves. If financing arrives short, late or at a high cost, the operator may underinvest in the systems that make expansion work.

Franchising offers structure, not guarantees

Franchising can appeal to entrepreneurs who want a recognized brand, operating manuals, lender-facing disclosures and franchisor support. That structure may help some founders reduce parts of the trial-and-error burden that comes with building an independent concept from scratch.

It does not remove the need for capital, strong sites or disciplined operations.

The industry also presents franchising as a major economic engine. The IFA/FRANdata franchising economic outlook ↗, produced by industry-affiliated sources, describes franchising as a large U.S. employer with hundreds of thousands of establishments across multiple sectors. Those figures describe market size, not a guarantee that any individual franchisee will succeed.

The point is not that franchising is automatically safer or more equitable than independent ownership. Outcomes vary by brand, operator, geography, lease terms, financing structure and execution. When the pieces work, a franchisee can build an operating company underneath a licensed brand. That is different from simply buying a job.

Capital intensity varies by concept

A scoop shop, a coffee license, a chicken restaurant and a drive-thru quick-service restaurant can all fall under the franchise or licensed-brand umbrella, but they do not carry the same capital burden. Buildout costs, equipment, staffing, food inventory, hours of operation, drive-thru needs and real estate exposure can differ dramatically.

Bojangles’ franchising materials show how quickly the capital threshold can rise for restaurant operators. Its franchising site ↗ lists required net worth of $2.5 million and required liquidity of $1 million, along with estimated investment ranges that vary by restaurant format. Prospective franchisees should confirm current requirements in the latest company materials and FDD before relying on any figures.

That context helps explain the scale of a 2022 Bojangles deal involving Melanbo. Black Enterprise reported ↗ that Melanbo, a company tied to music executives Mel Carter and Kevin “Coach K” Lee, planned to develop 14 new Greater Atlanta locations after acquiring 18 existing Bojangles restaurants in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

Primo and Melanbo offer different examples of multi-unit franchising, not identical business models. An ice cream shop portfolio and a chicken restaurant platform can carry different real estate exposure, staffing needs, equipment costs, debt structures and opening timelines.

For Black operators and founders building [Black-owned food businesses](/black-owned-food-businesses/), the label “multi-unit” is not specific enough. The better question is: multi-unit under what capital intensity, lease structure, unit margin and development schedule?

The expansion rule that matters

Careful multi-unit operators underwrite expansion before they commit to growth. They ask whether the first unit produces enough cash after all expenses. They test whether management can run the business without the founder solving every problem. They maintain reserves. They study site quality. They understand the franchisor’s control rights, renewal terms, remodel obligations and transfer rules.

That is why operators studying [Black restaurant capital access](/black-restaurant-capital-access/) should pair brand analysis with real estate analysis. A recognized franchise name can help, but it cannot make every lease, traffic pattern or reserve account work.

Primo Partners’ publicly documented path from one Chapel Hill shop to a broader franchise and hospitality company offers a useful example of how franchise ownership can evolve into a larger operating platform. But the lesson is not simply “buy more stores.”

Multi-unit franchise ownership requires capital, controls, managers, real estate judgment and the discipline to pass on deals that do not work. For Black entrepreneurs, that discipline may determine whether expansion creates a stronger company or simply adds more storefronts to manage.