Here’s a drive thru plot twist I still find weirdly delightful: most McDonald’s locations aren’t owned by McDonald’s. They’re run by independent franchisees. Which explains why one McDonald’s can feel like a well oiled French fry machine and the one three exits down feels like it’s being operated by raccoons on their first day.

And once you notice it, you can’t unsee it.

Fast food looks simple from the outside—logo, menu board, that familiar smell of “I’m only getting a drink” lies but behind the counter there are a few different ownership setups that change everything: pricing, cleanliness, speed, whether the employees look like they’ve been personally wronged by the concept of lunch.

So let’s talk about who actually owns these places, why the “same” chain can be wildly different by location, and how Wall Street got its hands on the curly fries.

(Store counts and percentages are approximate and generally U.S. focused.)

First: “Chain” doesn’t automatically mean “franchise”

A chain is just a brand with multiple locations using the same name/menu/overall identity. That’s it. The word doesn’t tell you who owns the building, who hired the manager, or who decided the dining room lighting should be “interrogation room chic.”

A franchise is a specific ownership model where the brand lets independent operators run locations under its rules.

So yes every franchise is a chain, but not every chain is franchised. (English is rude like that.)

The 3 ways fast food chains are usually owned

Think of fast food ownership like three different “relationship statuses.”

1) Corporate owned: “I control everything.”

With corporate owned chains, the parent company runs the stores directly. They hire the staff, manage operations, and generally have a tighter grip on consistency.

This is why places like In‑N‑Out tend to feel… eerily the same every time and why an In‑N‑Out menu nutrition guide is handy. (In a good way. Like a comforting little burger robot.)

Pros: more consistency, faster changes across the whole system, tighter training/standards.

Tradeoff: expansion is slower which is why regional burger chains by state can linger because the company has to fund and manage every new location.

2) Franchise based: “You can use my name, but you’re paying for the privilege.”

With franchise chains, independent owners buy the right to operate a location. They pay fees, follow brand standards, and run the day to day business.

This is the classic setup for McDonald’s, Subway, Dunkin’, etc.

And it’s why your local place might be incredible if the owner is hands on… or a little chaotic if the owner is running fifteen stores and hasn’t seen this one since 2019.

Pros: brands can expand FAST (franchisees fund new locations), local owners can be super invested.

Tradeoff: more variation—service, cleanliness, staffing, vibe. (Yes, vibe counts. It’s real.)

3) Hybrid: “A little of this, a little of that.”

Hybrid chains have some company owned locations and some franchised. This lets the brand test things in corporate stores before unleashing them on franchisees like “Here you go! Enjoy the new menu board that requires a PhD.”

Why the same chain can feel totally different by location

If you’ve ever said, “This one is better than the other one,” you’re not being dramatic. You’re just observant.

Here’s what usually changes from location to location:

The human factor (a.k.a. “who’s actually running this circus”)

Even with strict rules, franchisees vary. Some are obsessed with standards. Others are… spiritually opposed to restocking napkins.

A franchisee with three stores who actually shows up? Often great.

A franchisee with fifteen stores scattered across a region? You might feel it in the details.

Pricing wiggle room

Corporate owned chains tend to keep pricing more uniform (with regional adjustments). Franchisees often have some flexibility within approved ranges—so you’ll see the same combo cost different amounts across town.

If you’ve ever muttered, “Why is it $2 more here?” that’s usually franchising in the wild.

Consistency is HARD at massive scale

McDonald’s has around 14,000 locations in the U.S. Keeping that consistent is like trying to keep every sock in your laundry perfectly paired forever. It takes systems: suppliers, training, inspections, equipment requirements, audits… and even then, stuff slips.

Also: ingredient specs are usually standardized. What varies more is execution freshness, cleanliness, speed, and whether anyone looks you in the eye when you ask for ketchup.

Want to play fast food detective?

If you’re curious (or you just like knowing things), try this:

• Look at your receipt—many show a franchisee/operator name.
• Compare prices in the app at two nearby locations.
• If one location is disappointing, try another nearby (or go at a different time—rush hour can humble the best run store).

Same logo, different energy. Every time.

The tradeoff nobody can escape: consistency vs. growth

Here’s my favorite way to say it:

Consistency costs money. Growth costs control.

Corporate owned chains pay for consistency with slower growth and higher operating complexity. Franchise chains grow like crazy, but they’re constantly managing the tension of “Do it exactly our way” vs. “I’m the one paying the bills here.”

And yes, this is why the menu sometimes feels like it’s been designed by committee in a windowless room.

When franchisors and franchisees fight (because they do)

Franchising is basically a long term relationship with a contract, fees, and the occasional “per my last email.”

The most common drama points:

• Remodel requirements (“You want me to spend HOW much on new seating?”)
• Supplier rules (approved ingredients/equipment only)
• Promos that crush profits (corporate runs a deal; franchisees eat the margin)
• Menu complexity (because adding 14 limited time items is fun for exactly no one working the line)

Corporate wants brand consistency and big growth numbers. Franchisees want store level profit. Both goals make sense… and they collide constantly.

How Wall Street changed the vibe (yes, it did)

If you feel like certain chains got more “corporate” over time like the food got a little smaller and the soul got a little… spreadsheet-y you’re not imagining it.

Private equity firms (investment groups) often buy chains and run a playbook that looks like this:

1. Buy the brand
2. Sell off real estate / go “asset light”
3. Push harder toward franchising
4. Cut costs
5. Sell the company later for profit

It can make earnings look great on paper while reducing direct control over the customer experience. And it’s one reason a beloved chain can feel “off” after an ownership change, even if you can’t put your finger on it.

When the menu changes “for no reason,” there’s usually a spreadsheet somewhere giving a standing ovation.

The parent company thing that makes your brain glitch

Some chains are basically only children. Others are part of a huge corporate family.

Examples:

• Yum! Brands: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell
• Restaurant Brands International: Burger King, Popeyes, Tim Hortons

So sometimes you think you’re choosing between totally different options… and it’s like, surprise, it’s the same parent company in a different outfit. (Fast food is a little bit like dating, honestly.)

Why some chains refuse to franchise (and I kind of respect it)

Some brands look at franchising and go, “No thank you, I would like to keep my standards and my remaining sanity.”

In‑N‑Out famously doesn’t franchise. Chipotle also committed to company ownership after early franchising and later food safety issues made “tight control” feel very important.

The logic is simple:

• If you want total control, you usually give up fast growth.
• If you want rapid expansion, you accept that some locations will be better than others.

What this means for your next meal

You don’t need to whip out a detective magnifying glass in the drive thru (though honestly, you do you). But knowing this stuff makes the fast food universe make way more sense.

Next time your usual order tastes different across town, you’ll know it’s not just your mood—it’s often the ownership setup, the operator, the management, and the level of control coming from the top.

So yeah. Same burger, different boss.

Now go forth and order with just a little extra side eye—like a person who knows the fries are also a business model.