











The blue and red boxes with white dots are immediately recognisable as containing Domino’s pizzas. The pizza chain is Australia’s largest and is run as a franchise, with the ASX-listed public company Domino’s Pizza Enterprises holding the Australian master franchise rights.
Industry analysts IBISWorld calculate Domino’s has 4.2% of the fast food and takeaway market in Australia.
But recent reports suggest all is not well with many of the store owners, who are struggling with rising costs and declining profitability.
The central issue appears to be what the federal government describes in its code of conduct as the “the imbalance of power between franchisors and franchisees”.
The Australian Financial Review has reported troubling claims in two key areas:
Domino’s appears to have doubled the margin on the key food ingredients it sells to franchisees and increased its advertising levy, according to a letter from store owners represented by the Australian Association of Franchisees. This could reduce their profitability
Domino’s Australian chief operating officer, Greg Steenson, reportedly encouraged franchisees in a presentation to take advantage of restructuring schemes that allow insolvent companies to continue to trade by negotiating repayment plans with the tax office and other creditors.
In a letter to Domino’s quoted in the report, the franchisees said their earnings have remained flat for 15 years, and have not kept up with inflation.
A former franchisee told a parliamentary inquiry into the franchising model the margin squeeze meant
franchisees can be ripped off by [Domino’s Pizza Enterprises] when forced to buy supplies at a higher price than they could get through their wholesalers.
He said the cost of food, labour, rent and other fixed costs had risen, but in 2019 pizzas were still sold at 1990s prices. “Nobody is left to pay for this but the franchisees,” the former owner said.
According to the Financial Review article, the cost of supplies remains a problem for franchisees. Time will tell whether Domino’s proposed 70 cent increase in pizza prices will help.
In response to questions from the Financial Review, Domino’s said the food margin had not “materially changed” in five years, despite volatility in ingredients prices.
Government reviews found the previous regulations had loopholes that did not sufficiently protect franchisees. There have been a string of high-profile disputes involving auto services company Ultra Tune, coffee chain 85 Degrees Coffee, Pizza Hut and others.
Following a 2024 inquiry, changes to the code of conduct were introduced this year.
Advertising expenditure comes from what is now known as a “special purpose fund” in the code of conduct. Franchisors need to provide franchisees with disclosure about how the money is spent.
In 2017, the consumer regulator Australian Competition and Consumer Commission fined Domino’s A$18,000 for allegedly slipping on its obligations to advise franchisees about its marketing spend.
Ensuring franchisees have a genuine say in how their increased contribution is spent could help to address any imbalance of power between Domino’s and its franchisees.
Franchisees reportedly now pay 6% of their earnings to Domino’s for marketing and advertising, up from 5.35%. That is in addition to 7% of gross sales paid as royalties, and other costs for email and bookkeeping.
The insolvency law for small businesses is explained by the Australian Taxation Office as a process that enables financially distressed but viable firms to restructure their existing debts and continue to trade.
The press reports say the franchisees of about 65 Domino’s stores were on repayment plans with the Australian Taxation Office. Many franchisees own two or more outlets.
Under the Corporations legislation, companies on these repayment plans may be trading insolvent, or believe they will become insolvent. Insolvent means they cannot pay their debts when they fall due. If this is the case, a key question that needs to be answered by Domino’s is whether their franchised outlets can become profitable.
In another media report, Domino’s was quoted as saying it disputed the number of stores on repayment plans, adding it was a “significantly smaller” number of franchisees.
The company was contacted for comment but did not respond before deadline.
So what does this mean for Domino’s store owners who may be trading insolvent?
Under the law, the restructuring process allows eligible small business companies:
If a company proposes a restructuring plan to its creditors, it is taken to be insolvent. This is a game changer for the franchisee and its creditors.
Franchisees receive protection from creditors who want to enforce rights under existing contracts. A franchisee’s creditors include suppliers, its landlord, employees, the tax office and the franchisor (in this case, Domino’s).
Currently these store owners are protected from any creditors pushing them to pay their debts. The restructuring process gives the store owners some breathing room while the debt negotiations take place.
Despite government inquiries and reviews, it seems the imbalance of power between the Domino’s franchisees and their franchisor persists.
But Domino’s can’t afford to stay the same. Franchisees need to make a profit. The move to enter restructuring could be a temporary band aid.
Domino’s largest shareholder and executive chairman, Jack Cowin, was appointed in July after the former chief executive left after just seven months. Cowin understands the franchised fast food sector and has pledged to lead a cost reduction program that will improve the profitability of stores.![]()
Jenny Buchan, Emeritus Professor, Business School, UNSW Sydney
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Australia continues to rely on billboard-style and cinematic advertising to promote itself as a destination. This approach, used for decades, presents a national image built around iconic sites and curated visuals.
While this style may appeal to tourism bodies because of the celebrity-fronted content and central control, it is increasingly out of step with how modern travellers plan their journeys.
In 2025, travellers are scrolling TikTok, watching Instagram reels, and browsing peer reviews. Tourism campaigns should meet people where they are.
Social media is a central source of travel inspiration, particularly for Gen Z and millennials, according to a global survey of 20,000 respondents across all age groups.
Almost 90% of young travellers discover new destinations through TikTok, and 40% say they have booked a trip directly because of something they saw on the platform.
What matters most is not just reach, but trust.
Influencers shape behaviour from desire to booking and post-trip sharing. Their impact rests on perceived authenticity. Real people telling stories resonate more than stylised ads.
Storytelling sits at the heart of this shift, and tourism providers can engage in this form of storytelling, too. Airbnb’s Host Stories campaign invites hosts to share personal narratives through short videos and blog posts.
By highlighting real hosts and their daily lives, marketing moves beyond selling places and instead emphasises authentic, locally rooted connections that resonate with travellers.
It introduces travellers to places through personal experience, grounded in local knowledge and genuine connection.
A 2025 study found user-generated content enhances emotional connection and perceived authenticity with potential tourists.
Stumbling on a friend’s holiday photo or a short travel video in their feed can increase the appeal of a destination. Unlike traditional advertising, which requires deliberate placement, peer content can influence simply by appearing in everyday browsing.
Australia has used participatory storytelling before. One powerful example is Tourism Queensland’s 2009 Best Job in the World campaign, which invited applicants from around the world to compete for a six-month caretaker role on Hamilton Island in the Great Barrier Reef. All they had to do was submit a short video explaining why they were the right candidate.
The campaign went viral, attracting over 34,000 applicants from 200+ countries, millions of website hits and global media overage.
Its success was driven less by who eventually got the job and more by the anticipation and unusual premise. It stood out because of simplicity and inclusivity, inviting real people to be part of the narrative.
Yet, 16 years on, Australia’s national tourism campaigns still rely on cinema ads, billboards and polished TV commercials built around icons such as Uluru and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
The long-running Inspired by Iceland campaign consistently encourages locals to share authentic travel memories, cultural insights and personal stories.
Iceland Hour, launched in June 2010, saw schools, parliament and businesses pause for a coordinated social media push. Citizens and international supporters posted more than 1.5 million positive, personal messages across social media in a single week.
The campaign helped rebuild confidence after the Eyjafjallajökull volcanic eruption, and contributed to a 20% year-on-year rise in tourist arrivals.
Finland’s Rent a Finn campaign, launched in 2019, embraced a similarly human-centred approach. Showcasing ordinary people rather than cinematic landscapes, the campaign reached 149 countries, contributed €220 million in additional tourism revenue and reinforced Finland’s reputation as the “world’s happiest country”.
The United Kingdom’s Great Chinese Names for Great Britain campaign in late 2014 invited Chinese audiences to propose Mandarin nicknames for 101 British landmarks.
Suggested names, such as “Strong Man Skirt Party” for a kilted parade or “Stone Guardians” for Hadrian’s Wall, were featured on Google Maps and Wikipedia.
The campaign attracted more than 13,000 submissions, sparked widespread engagement on Chinese social media and was followed by a 27% increase in visits from China. It was worth an estimated £22 million boost to the UK economy.
Participatory storytelling is not only more engaging, it can also be more sustainable.
Japan’s Hidden Gems campaign redirects tourist traffic away from overcrowded areas like Kyoto and Tokyo by spotlighting lesser-known destinations through locally led narratives. These stories promote slower travel, distribute benefits more evenly and reduce pressure on fragile ecosystems.
Australia faces a similar challenge. Our global image is still anchored to a handful of spectacular but vulnerable icons.
Yet tourism is about more than selfies in front of sandstone or coral. By inviting regional communities and visitors to tell their stories, we could shift attention beyond brochure highlights and encourage deeper, more diverse engagement.
There is also a strong economic case for prioritising emotional connection. Research shows when travellers form personal bonds with a place – through memorable, localised experiences – they are more likely to return, recommend it to others and stay longer.
Visitors are not passive consumers of postcard moments but active contributors to a shared story.
Australia’s tourism strategy should reflect this. This could mean amplifying visitor photos and videos on official platforms, inviting local communities to co-design campaigns, and drawing on authentic user-generated content rather than polished advertising and cinematic masterpieces.
That means letting go of perfection, embracing authenticity and trusting that the people who come here, as well as the people who live here, have stories worth sharing.![]()
Katharina Wolf, Associate Professor in Strategic Communication, Curtin University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Can a new satellite constellation create sunlight on demand? SpaceX/Flickr, CC BY-ND
Michael J. I. Brown, Monash University and Matthew Kenworthy, Leiden UniversityA proposed constellation of satellites has astronomers very worried. Unlike satellites that reflect sunlight and produce light pollution as an unfortunate byproduct, the ones by US startup Reflect Orbital would produce light pollution by design.
The company promises to produce “sunlight on demand” with mirrors that beam sunlight down to Earth so solar farms can operate after sunset.
It plans to start with an 18-metre test satellite named Earendil-1 which the company has applied to launch in 2026. It would eventually be followed by about 4,000 satellites in orbit by 2030, according to the latest reports.
So how bad would the light pollution be? And perhaps more importantly, can Reflect Orbital’s satellites even work as advertised?
In the same way you can bounce sunlight off a watch face to produce a spot of light, Reflect Orbital’s satellites would use mirrors to beam light onto a patch of Earth.
But the scale involved is vastly different. Reflect Orbital’s satellites would orbit about 625km above the ground, and would eventually have mirrors 54 metres across.
When you bounce light off your watch onto a nearby wall, the spot of light can be very bright. But if you bounce it onto a distant wall, the spot becomes larger – and dimmer.
This is because the Sun is not a point of light, but spans half a degree in angle in the sky. This means that at large distances, a beam of sunlight reflected off a flat mirror spreads out with an angle of half a degree.
What does that mean in practice? Let’s take a satellite reflecting sunlight over a distance of roughly 800km – because a 625km-high satellite won’t always be directly overhead, but beaming the sunlight at an angle. The illuminated patch of ground would be at least 7km across.
Even a curved mirror or a lens can’t focus the sunlight into a tighter spot due to the distance and the half-degree angle of the Sun in the sky.
Would this reflected sunlight be bright or dim? Well, for a single 54 metre satellite it will be 15,000 times fainter than the midday Sun, but this is still far brighter than the full Moon.
Last year, Reflect Orbital’s founder Ben Nowack posted a short video which summarised a test with the “last thing to build before moving into space”. It was a reflector carried on a hot air balloon.
In the test, a flat, square mirror roughly 2.5 metres across directs a beam of light down to solar panels and sensors. In one instance the team measures 516 watts of light per square metre while the balloon is at a distance of 242 metres.
For comparison, the midday Sun produces roughly 1,000 watts per square metre. So 516 watts per square metre is about half of that, which is enough to be useful.
However, let’s scale the balloon test to space. As we noted earlier, if the satellites were 800km from the area of interest, the reflector would need to be 6.5km by 6.5km – 42 square kilometres. It’s not practical to build such a giant reflector, so the balloon test has some limitations.
Reflect Orbital’s plan is “simple satellites in the right constellation shining on existing solar farms”. And their goal is only 200 watts per square metre – 20% of the midday Sun.
Can smaller satellites deliver? If a single 54 metre satellite is 15,000 times fainter than the midday Sun, you would need 3,000 of them to achieve 20% of the midday Sun. That’s a lot of satellites to illuminate one region.
Another issue: satellites at a 625km altitude move at 7.5 kilometres per second. So a satellite will be within 1,000km of a given location for no more than 3.5 minutes.
This means 3,000 satellites would give you a few minutes of illumination. To provide even an hour, you’d need thousands more.
Reflect Orbital isn’t lacking ambition. In one interview, Nowack suggested 250,000 satellites in 600km high orbits. That’s more than all the currently catalogued satellites and large pieces of space junk put together.
And yet, that vast constellation would deliver only 20% of the midday Sun to no more than 80 locations at once, based on our calculations above. In practice, even fewer locations would be illuminated due to cloudy weather.
Additionally, given their altitude, the satellites could only deliver illumination to most locations near dusk and dawn, when the mirrors in low Earth orbit would be bathed in sunlight. Aware of this, Reflect Orbital plan for their constellation to encircle Earth above the day-night line in sun-synchronous orbits to keep them continuously in sunlight.
So, are mirrored satellites a practical means to produce affordable solar power at night? Probably not. Could they produce devastating light pollution? Absolutely.
In the early evening it doesn’t take long to spot satellites and space junk – and they’re not deliberately designed to be bright. With Reflect Orbital’s plan, even if just the test satellite works as planned, it will sometimes appear far brighter than the full Moon.
A constellation of such mirrors would be devastating to astronomy and dangerous to astronomers. To anyone looking through a telescope the surface of each mirror could be almost as bright as the surface of the Sun, risking permanent eye damage.
The light pollution will hinder everyone’s ability to see the cosmos and light pollution is known to impact the daily rhythms of animals as well.
Although Reflect Orbital aims to illuminate specific locations, the satellites’ beams would also sweep across Earth when moving from one location to the next. The night sky could be lit up with flashes of light brighter than the Moon.
The company did not reply to The Conversation about these concerns within deadline. However, it told Bloomberg this week it plans to redirect sunlight in ways that are “brief, predictable and targeted”, avoiding observatories and sharing the locations of the satellites so scientists can plan their work.
It remains to be seen whether Reflect Orbital’s project will get off the ground. The company may launch a test satellite, but it’s a long way from that to getting 250,000 enormous mirrors constantly circling Earth to keep some solar farms ticking over for a few extra hours a day.
Still, it’s a project to watch. The consequences of success for astronomers – and anyone else who likes the night sky dark – would be dire. ![]()
Michael J. I. Brown, Associate Professor in Astronomy, Monash University and Matthew Kenworthy, Associate Professor in Astronomy, Leiden University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


