Decision sheet · Prepared for Tasha · Not legal or financial advice
Indiana legalized the cosmetology apprenticeship pathway in 2024. Almost nobody is using it. Here are the four businesses that fact makes possible — and what each one actually earns.
| Subject | Apprentice-to-license, Indiana |
| Legal status | HB 1135 · Public Law 82 · live 07/01/2024 |
| Mechanism | DOL registered apprenticeship → licensure exam |
| Incumbent | Atarashii · DOL-approved since 2018 |
| Market today | ~30 participating Indiana businesses |
| Constraint | Independent · brand alongside, not above |
The pathway exists. The rulebook exists — DOL registered apprenticeship supplies the standards, hour tracking, mentor ratios, theory requirement and wage progression. A federally approved sponsor already runs it here.
What doesn’t exist is adoption. Roughly 30 businesses are participating, in a state with 60,000+ licensed cosmetologists. Two years after the law passed, that’s a rounding error.
Every model below multiplies by one number: how many apprentices are active in Indiana. That number is currently somewhere near 30–60. Read Section 06 before falling in love with any of these.
Own the entity · Highest control · Slowest ramp
She registers with U.S. DOL as a multi-employer sponsor. Salons sign on as employer partners. She owns the standards, the RAPIDS reporting, the theory instruction, the credential. She charges salons per apprentice, per month.
Revenue = (active apprentices) × ($300/mo) × 12
+ DWD group sponsor grant
Ramp — months to first dollar
~9 mo registration & recruitment → first fee at month 10
| Line | Yr 1 | Yr 2 | Yr 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active apprentices | 3 | 18 | 45 |
| Salon fees | $10,800 | $64,800 | $162,000 |
| DWD grant | $20,000 | $15,000 | $20,000 |
| Operating cost | ($28,000) | ($62,000) | ($118,000) |
| Owner net | $2,800 | $17,800 | $64,000 |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Breakeven | 33 active apprentices |
| Value per apprentice | $6,000 across a 20-month program |
| Independence | Total. She owns it outright |
| Brand alongside? | Yes — as partner or funder, not employer |
Pros
The only one that builds equity. A sponsor with 200 apprentices is an asset — sellable, financeable. Switching costs are brutal in her favor: logged hours are tied to the sponsor, so mid-program salons don’t leave. Grants flow to sponsors, not curriculum vendors. Full margin — $6,000 per apprentice versus $900 renting curriculum.
Cons
She owns strangers’ licensure outcomes. Bad program at a partner salon, that’s her standards failing. Salon closes mid-program, the orphaned apprentice is her problem. The incumbent’s founder is a DOL apprenticeship ambassador — she’d be fighting the referral channel, not just the product. And Year 1 owner net of $2,800 is not a life.
What decides it
Whether she can stomach being the accountable party for someone else’s career.
Not a business · A staffing decision
She runs apprentices at a salon under someone else’s sponsorship. No fee income. The apprentice is labor. The return is cheap staffing plus retention.
Return = (service revenue) − (wages + tax + sponsor fee + tools)
Real payoff = the licensee who stays
Ramp — months to positive contribution
Observe → assist → produce · contribution turns positive ~mo 14
| Line | Yr 1 | Yr 2 | Post-lic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wages @ $10/hr | ($15,600) | ($17,160) | comm. |
| Payroll tax | ($1,404) | ($1,544) | — |
| Sponsor fee + tools | ($4,800) | ($2,400) | — |
| Service revenue | $9,000 | $42,000 | $70,000 |
| Salon net | ($12,804) | $20,896 | $35,000 |
Pros
Cheapest possible truth. Two apprentices teaches her more than any research. No regulatory burden — the sponsor carries it. And the economics genuinely work for a salon: the ~$12,800 Year 1 hole pays back in roughly four months of a retained licensee.
Cons
The retention problem eats it. Two-thirds of the industry leaves within five years. Carry someone 14 months, they walk at licensure — which is exactly the fear that keeps adoption at 30 businesses. She’d also be paying the incumbent to learn how to compete with them. One salon’s ceiling. Not a company.
What decides it
Does she have a chair? If no, this is moot — and it drags A down with it.
Gating question: does Tasha hold an active Indiana cosmetology license and salon access? If she’s a brand instructor rather than a practicing licensee, B is dead and A may be too.
Lowest capital · Fastest to sell · Rents distribution
She sponsors nobody. She builds what everyone’s missing and licenses it to sponsors, salons and brands: theory instruction, mentor certification, chemical-service supervision protocol, and a portability rule for when a salon closes mid-program.
Revenue = (apprentices on RTI) × ($75/mo) × 12
+ (new mentors × $450) + (renewals × $150/yr)
+ brand curriculum license
Ramp — months to first dollar
~4 mo content build → first license at month 5
| Line | Yr 1 | Yr 2 | Yr 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apprentices on RTI | 40 | 150 | 400 |
| Theory licensing | $18,000 | $135,000 | $360,000 |
| Mentor certification | $27,000 | $63,000 | $117,000 |
| Operating cost | ($15,000) | ($52,000) | ($145,000) |
| Owner net | $30,000 | $146,000 | $332,000 |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Breakeven | 17 apprentices on theory, or 33 mentor certs |
| Capital required | Lowest — it’s content and IP |
| Note | Yr 3 assumes 400 statewide apprentices — a 10× expansion |
Pros
She can sell to the incumbent instead of fighting them. Being the standard inside your would-be competitor beats losing to them. The IP is portable — most states allow beauty-trade apprenticeship, so the same content sells in 30+ states with no new registration. That’s the only national reach she can get alone. Zero liability for licensure outcomes.
Cons
It’s a feature, not a company. The moment sponsors see it work, they in-house it — she’s building the thing her customer most wants to own. Someone else holds the salon and apprentice relationship, so no pricing power and no expansion path. $75/mo is trivially undercut. And it loses money at today’s adoption.
What decides it
Whether the chemical-supervision and portability protocols are genuinely hard. If they’re hard, this is infrastructure. If they’re a PDF, it’s a commodity.
Fastest cash · Decoupled from adoption · Concentration risk
She contracts as an outside firm that builds and runs a brand’s apprenticeship pipeline. Not an employee. A vendor. Schools were always customer acquisition for manufacturers — apprenticeship is the same play with no campus and better margins. An apprentice trained on a color line is a decades-long buyer.
Revenue = retainer × 12
+ per-apprentice activation ($500)
+ second line, once brand-agnostic
Ramp — months to first dollar
~3 mo to contract → retainer from month 4 · only option that pays in year one
| Line | Yr 1 | Yr 2 | Yr 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retainer | $48,000 | $120,000 | $120,000 |
| Second line | — | — | $60,000 |
| Per-apprentice | — | $15,000 | $50,000 |
| Operating cost | ($22,000) | ($48,000) | ($95,000) |
| Owner net | $26,000 | $87,000 | $135,000 |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Breakeven | One signed brand |
| Client concentration | 100% in Yr 2 · 67% in Yr 3 |
| Brand alongside? | This is the alongside model |
Pros
It pays in year one. $66,000 at today’s adoption, when the others are at $3,800 and negative. Brand budget is marketing spend, not operating P&L — bigger pool, and it’s already allocated to education, so she’s redirecting money rather than asking for new money. She has the relationship today. No cold start. And it puts her in every salon conversation in the state at someone else’s expense — which is exactly the input Option A needs later.
Cons
It’s a job wearing a vendor costume. A single-client retainer with her former employer is corporate with fewer benefits, no equity and no unemployment insurance. No asset accrues — she stops, revenue stops. The apprentices belong to Aveda’s ecosystem, not hers. And if corporate decides apprenticeship cannibalizes institute enrollment, she becomes the vendor of a threat. That’s live, not a tail risk.
What decides it
Whether she can land a second line inside 18 months. One client forever isn’t independence.
Do not build this quietly. A vendor business whose first client is your current employer, sold using relationships from the day job, ends badly when discovered rather than disclosed. Check whether her employment agreement already assigns this work.
Statewide active apprentices. Here’s what each model earns at each level of adoption — and the honest reason the ranking flips.
| Active | A Sponsor | C Curric. | D Brand | Vs. today |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | $3,800 | ($11,625) | $66,000 | Today |
| 60 | $32,600 | $6,750 | $72,000 | 2× |
| 120 | $90,200 | $43,500 | $84,000 | 4× |
| 250 | $215,000 | $123,125 | $110,000 | 8× |
| 400 | $359,000 | $215,000 | $140,000 | 13× |
| 600 | $551,000 | $337,500 | $180,000 | 20× |
Assumes she captures 40% of sponsored apprentices under A, sells theory to 70% of the market under C, and holds a flat brand retainer under D. Option B is excluded — it’s a staffing line, not a P&L.
This reverses what the ranking looked like before the math
D is the only model that pays before the market exists. At today’s ~30 apprentices, C loses money and A earns $3,800. D earns $66,000 — because a retainer doesn’t care how many apprentices there are.
A wins decisively if the market ever materializes. Past roughly 200 apprentices, owning the sponsorship beats renting curriculum and beats a flat retainer badly. The crossover sits somewhere around 120–150 active apprentices.
So they aren’t alternatives. D funds the wait. A captures the upside. C is the hedge that makes both easier to sell.
D → A
Now: pitch the brand as a vendor. It pays in year one, it’s the only model that survives today’s adoption, and it puts her in every salon conversation in the state at someone else’s expense. Disclose it first.
Alongside: build the mentor certification and the two protocols nobody has — chemical supervision, and portability when a salon closes. Cheap. Sells to anyone. Makes her the person who fixed the objections opponents keep winning with.
Optionally: run two or three apprentices herself to learn where it breaks.
At ~120 active apprentices: register as her own group sponsor and take the full $6,000 per apprentice instead of $900. Not before — the math doesn’t clear and the incumbent is real.
Before any of this: ten phone calls. “You can legally hire an apprentice. You’ve been able to for two years. Why haven’t you?” If the answer is never heard of it, that’s D. If it’s can’t carry a non-earner for a year, that’s A with grant-funded wage offsets. If it’s I don’t know how to teach theory, that’s C. Ten calls is worth more than this entire document.