The problem teams hit
| Symptom | What it usually means |
|---|---|
| “We are on three delivery apps and nothing matches” | Separate menu copies per aggregator |
| “Direct ordering is an IT project” | Owned channels treated as greenfield builds |
| “Marketing wants a promo; ops needs a week” | No single place to compose offers per channel |
| “We do not know which channel actually wins” | Reporting trapped inside each platform |
How Fire spark supports the strategy
One operational connection. Connect your POS or RMS with credentials. That single link feeds aggregators and owned channels — you are not negotiating a new integration every time commercial wants another surface. Intentional channel mix. Use aggregators for discovery and margin where it makes sense; use owned channels for loyalty and direct revenue. Fire spark lets both coexist on the same stores and menus. Composed menus per surface. Your app can carry the full catalog; Uber Eats a delivery subset; the kiosk combo-forward items — composed from one POS source, not three spreadsheets. Fulfillment that matches the promise. Pickup on the aggregator, delivery on your web, drive-thru only where you have a lane — rules per store and channel, not one-size-fits-all.A practical planning frame
| Question | Strategic lens |
|---|---|
| Where do new customers find us? | Aggregators, SEO, app store |
| Where do we earn margin and data? | Web, app, kiosk |
| What can each store actually fulfill? | Store + fulfillment matrix in Fire spark |
| What should differ by channel? | Menu composition and promos, not operational truth |
Outcome
Commercial teams get a roadmap they can execute: turn on a channel, compose the menu, set fulfillment, measure in one place. Operations keep one kitchen workflow. That is omnichannel strategy that ships — not another year of middleware.Overview
Platform value and intelligence
Integrations
POS, aggregators, and owned channels
Channels
Owned vs aggregator surfaces
Comparison
Fire spark vs fragmented approaches