Online Interest in Chicken Brands: What Prospective Franchisees Should Check

BBQ has released the results of a survey measuring online interest in major South Korean fried chicken brands. For the franchise community, the rankings are not the only point worth examining. Readers should distinguish between what the figures count, which brands they cover and whether they can inform judgements about running an outlet. Anyone considering a franchise should take particular care not to treat the volume of online posts as a measure of actual outlet performance.

The published figures count online posts

According to a report by iNews24 dated 28 September 2026, Genesis BBQ Group announced that day the results of an online big data analysis conducted by Data & Research covering nine major South Korean fried chicken brands. The analysis covered August, with BBQ ranking first for consumer interest in the survey.

The report put the number of posts about BBQ at 27,613. The brand with the second-highest total recorded 11,013 posts, making BBQ’s count approximately 2.5 times as high. Across the nine brands surveyed, the total volume was 58,162 posts, of which BBQ accounted for 47.5%.

The unit being measured here is the number of posts. The comparison reported is between volumes of online content collected for this particular survey. It was not presented as a comparison of customer numbers, order volumes or franchise outlet numbers. How the unit is described therefore affects how readers understand the figures.

It is also worth distinguishing between Genesis BBQ Group, which announced the findings, and Data & Research, which carried out the analysis. Separating these roles helps readers understand the source more accurately. When citing the findings, it is appropriate to include the research organisation, the period covered and the scope of the comparison.

What the report establishes is that posts relating to BBQ were the most numerous within a specific period and comparison group. Omitting those qualifications could make a single month’s volume of online content appear to be a comprehensive assessment of the brand.

A comparison limited to nine brands and one month

The first condition to check is the survey’s coverage. The report states that the analysis examined nine major South Korean fried chicken brands. This should not be broadened into a claim that the findings cover every chicken brand in the country: the denominator used in the interpretation must match the one used in the research.

For example, the 47.5% share was calculated from the total volume of online content about the nine brands surveyed. It does not represent BBQ’s share of chicken orders in South Korea or its share of sales across all chicken outlets. The report provides no basis for describing a share of online content as a sales market share.

The second condition is the period covered. The published findings relate to August, and the material provided does not include a trend across several months. These figures alone therefore do not establish that interest is continuing to rise or has remained at a particular level over an extended period.

The gap between brands must be read within the same limits. The approximately 2.5-fold comparison concerns the number of posts about two brands. It does not mean that customer numbers or repeat visits differ by the same multiple. The more striking a comparison is, the more important it is to state exactly what is being compared.

Anyone comparing these findings with future or previous monthly results from the same survey should also check whether the brands covered and the collection criteria are unchanged. This does not imply a problem with the current survey; it is a necessary check when comparing figures from different periods on a consistent basis. The material currently provided does not support that kind of time-series comparison.

A high post count does not show whether sentiment is positive

The third area to check is the counting methodology. The report says that online big data was analysed, but does not provide a breakdown of the channels used, the search terms applied or the handling of duplicate posts. These points would need to be checked against the underlying data or additional explanations.

The nature of the posts also warrants separate attention. The information provided does not show how much of the total consisted of consumer reviews, promotional posts from the brand, news coverage or other content. A high post count does not mean that every post describes an actual buyer’s experience.

Nor is the balance between positive and negative sentiment established. The term ‘interest’ in this report describes the post-count findings; it is not presented as the result of a consumer satisfaction survey. Distinguishing the volume of attention from the direction of sentiment is essential to reporting the announcement without exaggeration.

Franchise consultation materials or internal reports referring to these results should therefore retain the qualification ‘based on online post counts’. Recasting the finding as ‘the most preferred brand’ or ‘the brand with the highest purchase intention’, without separate evidence, would go beyond what the survey established.

When requesting further information, useful starting questions concern the collection channels, the precise rules defining the counting period and the way posts were classified. Such questions are not intended to dispute the ranking. They help establish what the findings can explain and reduce confusion when they are used alongside other data.

Check outlet trading data separately during franchise discussions

For readers considering a franchise, this announcement can serve as a reference point for the volume of online content recorded about a brand. However, the report provides no figures on individual franchise outlets’ sales, operating costs, profitability or investment payback periods. The interest ranking alone cannot establish which brand performs better on those measures.

During franchise discussions, it is useful to request online survey findings and outlet operating data as separate categories. The former shows how many brand-related posts were counted. The latter is needed to understand the trading conditions of the outlet a prospective franchisee is considering. The key is not to mix the purposes or units of the two sets of information.

Even when sales data is supplied, readers should check which outlets it covers, the reporting period and the group used to calculate any average. For cost data, they can ask which items are included. These are practical due diligence checks to carry out independently of online interest, not performance findings established by this announcement.

The same principle applies when sharing this news within the franchise community. Report the survey findings accurately, but do not add claims about customer behaviour or trading performance that the data does not contain. Clearly separating the published figures from matters that remain unverified helps define the limits of using brand news to inform a business start-up decision.

Practical takeaway: Read online interest figures alongside their survey coverage, period and counting unit, and obtain separate sales and cost data for any franchise decision.