Döner Haus Founder Shares the Start-Up Playbook for the Berlin-Style Kebab Brand
Nikolaus von Solodkoff had lived and worked in the U.S. for about a decade, all the while craving the flavorful döner kebabs that were an enormously popular street food in his native Germany. Introduced by Turkish immigrants in the 1970s, the juicy, perfectly seasoned halal meat was slow-roasted on vertical rotisseries and served with vegetables and creamy garlic sauce in a crispy pide pocket.
Even as the döner craze had swept Europe, the Berlin-style kebabs remained unavailable in the U.S. “After 10 years of being in New York, I’m like, OK, I should just bring döner kebabs to the U.S. And that’s what we ended up doing,” von Solodkoff says. His goal from the outset wasn’t only to launch a quick service restaurant, but to build a franchise to scale.
The Döner Haus flagship store opened in 2023 in Manhattan’s East Village and did $1.9 million in sales the first year. Two more corporate locations followed, and the brand began its franchise push in late 2024. The Döner Haus franchise is now experiencing coast-to-coast expansion with 50-plus locations under contract, two of those open and more launching this year. Von Solodkoff shares how it happened.
Q: What was your vision for Döner Haus from the beginning?
A: When we started Döner Haus, the goal was never simply to open a successful restaurant. The goal was to build a nationally scalable franchise company.
From the beginning, every major decision was made with that larger ambition in mind. The menu, supply chain, operating model, equipment, technology, training, brand identity and store structure all had to work not just in one location, but eventually across many markets and with many different operators. That is also why we chose to launch in New York City.
Q: Why New York?
A: New York is one of the most difficult places in the country to run a restaurant. The costs are high, the competition is intense, the labor environment is complicated and the number of regulations can feel endless.
Nearly every operational mistake becomes more expensive in New York. For us, that was the point.
We believed that if we could build a compliant, profitable and repeatable restaurant system in one of the hardest business environments in America, we would have a much stronger foundation for national growth. We did not want to create a concept that only worked under ideal conditions. We wanted to create one that could survive pressure.
Choosing New York was a deliberate stress test. If we had started in a cheaper, easier or less regulated market, we might have built a model that looked successful but depended on favorable conditions. We wanted to know whether the concept could work while dealing with high rent, strict health requirements, labor rules, construction challenges, permits, inspections, delivery platforms and intense competition.
New York forces discipline. It exposes weak systems quickly. It punishes poor planning. It makes inefficiencies difficult to ignore. That environment helped us identify problems early, while we were still small enough to fix them. It also gave us confidence. If an operating model can survive New York, there is a reasonable chance that parts of the business will become easier in other markets.
That does not mean every city is simple. Every market has its own challenges. But New York gave us a demanding baseline.
Q: Would you advise other founders to launch in such a challenging environment?
A: The lesson for other prospective franchise founders is not necessarily that they must open in New York. The lesson is that they should test their concept under realistic pressure. Do not build a model that only works where rent is low, labor is easy, the founder is present every day and vendors are located nearby. Build a model that can withstand the conditions it will actually face as it grows.
Q: Why was it important to start with the end goal in mind?
A: There is a major difference between opening a restaurant and building a franchise system. A restaurant can depend heavily on the founder. The founder can solve problems personally, make judgment calls, train people informally and fill operational gaps through experience and instinct.
A franchise system cannot work that way. It must be understandable, teachable, repeatable and enforceable. It must function even when the founder is not physically present. The operator needs clear procedures, dependable vendors, consistent products, defined standards and a model that can be reproduced in another location.
Because our goal from the outset was to build a franchise to scale, we tried to make decisions that were not merely convenient for our first location. That often made the beginning more difficult and more expensive. But it also prevented us from building a business that would later need to be completely redesigned.
Many founders build one successful location and only then begin asking whether it can be franchised. We approached the problem in reverse. We asked what a national franchise system would require, then worked backward to build the first restaurant accordingly.
Q: What other lessons did you take from your start-up experience?
A: The restaurant industry is full of shortcuts. Some operators ignore requirements, delay compliance, use informal labor arrangements, improvise procedures or rely on the assumption that no one will notice. We made the opposite decision.
From the beginning, we wanted to do everything by the book. That meant accepting higher costs, more paperwork, more professional advice and sometimes a slower process. It was frustrating, especially when competitors appeared to be moving faster by ignoring rules we were taking seriously. But a franchisor cannot build a national system on shortcuts.
A single independent restaurant may survive for years through informal practices. A franchise company has more visibility, more legal exposure, more stakeholders and more responsibility. Problems do not remain isolated. They can spread across the system and damage the brand.
We understood that franchisees would eventually rely on us. They would invest their capital, sign leases, hire employees and operate under our name. We could not hand them a model built around exceptions, hidden risks or practices that only worked because no one had challenged them yet.
Compliance was not simply a legal obligation. It was part of the product we were building. The brand was not just the logo or the food. The brand included the systems behind the restaurants.
Q: How did you approach building a supply chain?
A: Another major decision we made from the beginning was to avoid building a supply chain that depended entirely on New York. Our most important supplies are shipped from Texas, and that was intentional from day one.
At first, sourcing critical products from another state can seem unnecessarily complicated. It would have been easier to find local substitutes and solve the immediate needs of one store. But local convenience was not the objective.
We wanted products and vendors that could eventually support national growth. If a key ingredient was only available from a small supplier near our first restaurant, that could become a major obstacle when opening in California, Florida, Texas or anywhere else.
A franchise system requires consistency. Customers should receive the same core product regardless of location. Franchisees should not be forced to recreate the supply chain independently in every market. The business needs suppliers that can grow, ship reliably, maintain specifications and support expansion.
That is why we made national scalability part of the supply-chain strategy before we had a national footprint. But this created challenges. Shipping is expensive. Logistics can be complicated. Minimum orders, storage, lead times and distribution all require planning. But those were exactly the problems we needed to solve.
It is better to discover supply-chain limitations while operating one or two stores than after selling franchises across the country.
Q: The pressure to succeed with the first store must’ve been enormous.
A: We always understood that the first store carried more weight than simply generating sales. It had to prove the franchise thesis. If the first Döner Haus location could not attract customers, produce consistent food, operate within the rules, manage its costs and survive in New York, then the national franchise vision would not be credible.
There was no point in selling a dream that had not been proven in reality. That put enormous pressure on the first location. Every mistake felt significant because we were not only trying to make one restaurant successful. We were testing whether the entire concept could become something much larger.
But that pressure was useful. It forced us to take customer feedback seriously. It forced us to study operational problems. It forced us to improve preparation, equipment, staffing, menu design, training and purchasing. The first store became a laboratory. Every challenge gave us information about what the larger system would require.
The lesson was clear: Before asking franchisees to believe in the model, the founder has to prove that the model deserves to be believed in.
Q: You had to be very disciplined about not taking shortcuts – how did you do that?
A: One of the most difficult parts of building a scalable system is refusing decisions that would make the current moment easier but damage the future. A local product might be cheaper today but impossible to source nationally. A more complicated menu item might increase sales at one location but make training and execution harder across 100 stores. A custom solution might work beautifully in one restaurant but be too expensive for franchisees. A talented employee might be able to perform a process that cannot realistically be taught to everyone else.
We repeatedly had to ask whether a decision made the business more scalable or merely solved a temporary problem. That does not mean every decision must be perfect from the beginning. No founder has that luxury. It means the direction must remain consistent.
When we made mistakes, we tried to correct them in a way that improved the system, not just the individual location. The objective was never to create one restaurant that looked impressive because the founders were constantly holding it together. The objective was to create a model that could be handed to another serious operator and reproduced.
Q: With your background in finance and technology – not restaurants or franchising – you had a steep learning curve. How did you approach that?
A: We had to learn quickly. Some of that learning came from advisors, lawyers, brokers, vendors and other experienced professionals. Some came from making decisions and seeing the results directly.
Even though our plan was always to build a franchise to scale, we still had to remember that operating restaurants was only one part of the job. Building a franchise company requires a different set of skills. A franchisor must understand franchise law, disclosures, registrations, training, support, territory planning, site selection, construction, supply-chain management, brand standards, technology, marketing, franchisee relations and long-term system economics.
One of the best things we did was remain closely involved. We did not assume that hiring an expert meant we no longer needed to understand the subject. Experts are essential, but the founder still owns the consequences of the decision.
A lawyer may understand the legal framework. A broker may understand the real estate market. A distributor may understand logistics. But the founder has to determine whether the recommendation fits the actual business.
The strongest advice we can give is to listen carefully, ask questions and never outsource your judgment.
Q: How did you keep franchisees top of mind while designing the system?
A: A scalable franchise system must work economically for the franchisee. That sounds obvious, but it is easy for franchisors to lose sight of it.
Every unnecessary equipment requirement, oversized location, excessive buildout feature, expensive vendor relationship or complicated operating procedure makes the franchisee’s job harder. At the same time, cost cutting cannot undermine product quality or brand consistency.
The real challenge is designing the simplest possible system that still protects what makes the brand valuable.
We have spent a great deal of time questioning assumptions. Does the store really need this much space? Is this equipment necessary? Can the process be simplified? Can the supply chain become more efficient? Can training reduce labor complexity? Can the operator reach profitability without unrealistic sales expectations?
These questions matter because a franchise system does not become powerful merely by opening many stores. It becomes powerful when franchisees have a realistic opportunity to succeed. Franchisees who succeed strengthen the brand, open additional locations, attract better candidates and create sustainable growth.
In making sure franchisees had the best chance for success, we also established the very low 3% royalty and 2% marketing fees, which still give us the resources to support the system, protect the brand and invest in growth. They also keep the economics healthy for the operator.
Q: How did you turn early challenges into opportunities?
A: Startup challenges are unavoidable. What the founder does with them makes the difference. A vendor failure can become a better purchasing process. A training failure can become a clearer manual. A construction problem can become a better site checklist. A staffing issue can become a more realistic labor model. A product inconsistency can become a stronger quality-control system.
We learned to stop viewing problems only as isolated frustrations. Each problem was evidence that showed us where the system was weak and where additional structure was required.
This is one of the most important mindsets for any founder who wants to franchise. The goal is not to avoid every mistake. The goal is to make sure the organization never pays for the same mistake repeatedly.
A mistake should produce a process. A challenge should produce knowledge. A failure should improve the next location.
Q: Overall, what are the most important lessons you learned in launching the Döner Haus franchise?
A: The biggest lesson we have learned is that scalability is not something you add later. It has to influence the business from the beginning. That does not mean the first version of the system will be perfect. It will not. It means the founder must make decisions with the future network in mind.
Choose suppliers that can grow with you. Build processes another person can learn. Test the economics honestly. Follow the rules. Document what works. Fix what does not. Avoid shortcuts that create hidden liabilities. Prove the concept before asking others to invest in it.
Most importantly, build the first location as though it will become the blueprint for everything that follows. That was our approach with Döner Haus.
We did not start with the ambition of owning one good restaurant. We started with the ambition of building a franchise juggernaut.
New York was not an obstacle to that plan. It was the test. The regulations, costs, operational pressure and competition forced us to become better. Doing everything properly created a stronger foundation. Building the supply chain for national growth from day one prevented us from thinking too locally. Making the first store work proved that the larger vision had a chance to work.
The path has not been easy, but that was never the expectation. The goal was to build a franchise to scale and eventually operate far beyond us. That requires more work at the beginning. It also creates the possibility of building something much bigger.
To learn more about franchise ownership opportunities, visit Döner Haus.
