4 ms·
That would entirely defeat the purpose of franchising agreements. The point is to diffuse risk, standardize the brand, and allow local owners to decide the thi
by microcolonel 7y ago
That would entirely defeat the purpose of franchising agreements.
The point is to diffuse risk, standardize the brand, and allow local owners to decide the things which don't affect the brand, in the service of their own interests (including whether or not to continue operating the location).
A franchise where the owner bears a small minority of the risk might as well just be centrally owned.
- mgkimsal 7y agoand where the franchise parent bears basically no risk at all is a pretty crappy deal for franchisees, who basically take what seems to be most of the risk (described in the article) for... 30% of the gross profit? maybe? eventually, 7-11 will be known as a place where you're likely to encounter sick children lying on chairs at 10pm because the franchisee's family is living in the store. eventually that might actually damage the brand enough that they'd remove some of the stipulations.