TAM

$86.1 billion

Top‑down build using public market data and conservative allocation assumptions. Key inputs: (A) Asia‑Pacific foodservice: Fortune Business Insights reports the global foodservice market at $3,486.58 billion in 2024 and states Asia‑Pacific captured ~45.71% of that market in 2024 → APAC foodservice ≈ $1.593 trillion. We conservatively treat the product’s primary category — premium, occasion‑driven experiential dining (dates, private/social gatherings, chef‑led culinary adventures) — as a subset of foodservice and assume ~5% of APAC foodservice is addressable by premium experiential formats (table: 1,593B * 5% = $79.65B). (B) Add APAC meal‑kit / “cook & eat” channel: market.us (which aggregates Statista data) shows global meal‑kit revenue ≈ $21.99B in 2024 with APAC ~26.3% → APAC meal‑kit ≈ $5.78B (this maps to the product’s pre‑portioned ingredient + app guidance component). (C) Add a conservative carve‑out of shared/commissary/cloud‑kitchen revenue relevant to in‑studio experiences: Grand View Research shows global cloud‑kitchen market ≈ $73.18B (2024) with APAC ~47.8% → APAC ≈ $35.0B; because most cloud‑kitchen revenue is delivery‑focused we conservatively allocate ~2% of APAC cloud‑kitchen revenue to experiential/shared‑kitchen studio services (~$0.70B). Sum = $79.65B + $5.78B + $0.70B ≈ $86.13B → rounded to $86.1B TAM for AI‑guided premium shared kitchens across urban Asia. Assumptions are explicit: (1) “premium experiential” = ~5% of APAC foodservice (conservative given private‑dining / curated‑experience growth), (2) meal‑kit APAC share per market.us/Statista, (3) small percentage of cloud kitchen revenue maps to in‑studio experiential offerings. This TAM is a market‑level, 100%‑share figure (if the concept captured the entire defined opportunity).

• fortunebusinessinsights.com
• grandviewresearch.com
• scoop.market.us
• growthmarketreports.com
• growthmarketreports.com

SAM

$17.2 billion

Serviceable Available Market (what this business model can realistically target within the TAM): we restrict geography and customer type to dense urban centers in Asia (tier‑1 / high‑income metropolitan areas) and to the ‘busy professionals / experience‑seeking’ segment (the startup’s stated focus). Urban/affluent consumers concentrate a disproportionate share of premium dining and experience spend in APAC (Fortune: APAC leads foodservice; McKinsey: APAC consumers still splurge selectively on experiences). Conservatively we assume the target urban professional corridor captures roughly 20% of the TAM defined above (this reflects concentration of disposable income, frequenters of curated dining experiences, and higher adoption of app‑guided booking/tech platforms). 20% * $86.1B ≈ $17.22B → rounded to $17.2B SAM. Rationale: the company will initially pursue a limited set of major cities where willingness‑to‑pay, app adoption, and experiential leisure spending are concentrated (therefore reachable with a focused roll‑out and local marketing). This SAM excludes rural and mass‑market quick‑service spending and reflects service and channel fit (in‑studio cooking experiences + pre‑portioned ingredients + cleanup).

• fortunebusinessinsights.com
• scoop.market.us
• grandviewresearch.com
• mckinsey.com
• reuters.com

SOM

$172.3 million

Serviceable Obtainable Market (near‑term achievable revenue with a focused roll‑out and realistic penetration): we take a conservative go‑to‑market capture of ~1% of the SAM within an initial 3–5 year timeframe. 1% * $17.22B = $172.22M → rounded to $172.3M SOM. Bottom‑up sanity check (operating assumptions): using restaurant/experience unit economics as a cross‑check — Chef’s Pencil analysis shows median tasting‑menu price ≈ $179/person (premium experiential benchmark). If an average booking (party) is 2 people, per‑session revenue ≈ $358. Assume a premium in‑studio experience runs primarily in evening service with ~2 seatings/day (industry full‑service turnover guidance: ~2–4 turns/day is typical for full‑service restaurants; conservative choice = 2), so theoretical sessions = 730/year. Apply a conservative utilization factor (60% average booking fill) → 730 * 0.60 ≈ 438 sessions/year per kitchen. Revenue per kitchen ≈ 438 * $358 ≈ $157.0K/year. To reach $172.3M at that run‑rate would imply ~1,100 kitchens. Alternatively, with higher price points, add‑ons (retail meal‑kits, corporate bookings, subscriptions), or higher utilization (e.g., 80% or 3 seatings/day), the required footprint falls (e.g., ~300–800 kitchens). The 1%‑of‑SAM framing is a practical near‑term target for a regionally scaling operator (it maps to a multi‑city, multi‑dozen to low‑thousands kitchen footprint depending on ARPU/utilization), and it aligns with how comparable cloud/growth players have scaled revenues in APAC. Key operational assumptions are explicit so founders/investors can swap ARPU, utilization, and kitchen count to model alternative SOM scenarios.

• chefspencil.com
• paytronix.com
• therestauranthq.com
• grandviewresearch.com
• growthmarketreports.com