"so there's no point in judging them for failing to be profitable since they aren't trying." Point taken, but, we can definitely 'judge them' in the case of un

"so there's no point in judging them for failing to be profitable since they aren't trying." Point taken, but, we can definitely 'judge them' in the case of unit profitability. Expansion is one thing, it's loaded with startup costs for each unit - but the key is, 'are the long running installations running at unit profitability, even when accounting for corporate overhead'. That's the first order thing we need to know, because if not, then it's a problem because the only way to make more money would be to jack rent or cut overhead, neither good options. The other thing is of course the inherent risks in their contracts. Are their margins so thin they can't withstand a real-estate shock? What happens when there's a down cycle and they have a lot of empty space? Are their contracts subject to flexibility? Or are they toast? Surely, they're 'always room to negotiate' because if there is a downturn, their landlords will get it on some level and rather WW stick around than have an empty building, but there might not be enough room to manoever given possible overhead of running the place + corporate overhead. And lastly is the sustainability of their advantage. Do people really like the WW brand that much? Or are they betting on juicy corporate contracts with fat margins they can sink their teeth into like Oracle. I think that's where the bulk of the material grey areas reside.