Why Feasibility Matters
The majority of restaurants that open in Turkey each year close within the first three years. Behind this statistic lies not a single problem but several avoidable mistakes. What these mistakes have in common is that most of them are detectable before the investment is made.
Feasibility does not guarantee that a concept will work. But it shows what you do not know and which assumptions carry risk. That knowledge lets you avoid the most expensive mistakes.
Dimension 1: Market Demand Validation
Market demand validation answers this question: Is there enough of a customer base in the target area for the target concept?
Validation steps:
- 1Traffic analysis at the target location: Daily footfall and vehicle traffic, off-hours density, weekend-vs-weekday difference.
- 2Observation of similar concepts: Occupancy rates, queue length, and service hours of similar venues in the immediate area.
- 3Social proof analysis: Review volume and tone of nearby restaurants on Google Maps and Tripadvisor.
- 4Target customer profile validation: Is the customer you have defined genuinely concentrated in this area?
Risk signals:
- Most similar concepts in the immediate area are empty or closed
- Foot traffic drops to near zero after business hours
- Average ticket in the area is well below your intended pricing
Dimension 2: Competitive Positioning
Competitive positioning answers this question: Why would someone choose your concept?
Positioning test — four questions:
- 1Who is the direct competitor for this concept in the target area?
- 2What differentiates you from competitors? (Menu, price, atmosphere, service, location?)
- 3Is this differentiation meaningful for your target guest?
- 4How easy is it for competitors to replicate your differentiation?
Positioning matrix:
| Dimension | You | Competitor A | Competitor B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price segment | ? | ? | ? |
| Menu character | ? | ? | ? |
| Atmosphere | ? | ? | ? |
| Target guest | ? | ? | ? |
Fill this matrix. If there are no empty cells and every row looks identical, test whether you are actually differentiated.
Dimension 3: Financial Model
The financial model answers this question: Can this concept be profitable, and when?
Break-even calculation framework:
| Line | Monthly Amount |
|---|---|
| Rent | X TRY |
| Staffing (gross) | X TRY |
| Raw materials (food+bev cost, target 30 pct) | % of revenue |
| Fixed costs (energy, maintenance, licences) | X TRY |
| Total fixed + semi-fixed costs | = Monthly break-even revenue |
Monthly visits needed to reach break-even revenue:
'Break-even revenue ÷ Average ticket = Monthly visits needed'
Compare this number against the realistic traffic capacity of the location. If the required visits exceed 80 percent of maximum location capacity, the concept is high-risk.
Payback period:
Initial investment ÷ Monthly estimated net profit = Payback period (months)
For a healthy restaurant investment in Turkey, the target payback period is 18–30 months. Scenarios above 36 months carry elevated risk.
Dimension 4: Operational Capacity
Operational capacity answers this question: Can you run the concept consistently?
Operational capacity checklist:
- Is there experienced staff to run kitchen and service operations?
- Has the required kitchen equipment been identified and costed?
- Is the menu compatible with the kitchen infrastructure? (Equipment limitations constrain menu complexity.)
- Has the capacity to recruit and train staff been assessed?
- If seasonal, is there an off-season sustainability plan?
Dimension 5: Location Fit
Location fit answers this question: Is the chosen premises compatible with the concept?
Location fit test:
| Criterion | Yes/No | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Is floor area compatible with concept capacity? | ||
| Does kitchen infrastructure meet concept requirements? | ||
| Is visibility and access suitable for the target guest? | ||
| Is rent cost compatible with the break-even model? | ||
| Does the location brand perception match the concept? |
If two of the five questions are "No", either location or concept needs to be reconsidered.
Feasibility Outcome and Decision
After evaluating all five dimensions, the concept falls into one of three categories:
Green: Four of five dimensions are strong. Proceeding is rational — operational planning can begin.
Yellow: Two or three dimensions are weak or unclear. The concept should be revised: corrections to location, pricing, or concept definition are needed.
Red: Three or more dimensions are weak. Proceeding in current form is not advisable. Radical revision or abandonment should be considered.
Feasibility does not produce "yes" or "no" — it produces "yes under these conditions" or "no until these conditions change." That distinction is its most valuable output.
