4 ms·
I thought the real reason was to exert control over franchisors, so that in the event of a McDonald’s going rogue they can revoke the lease and end the franchis
by quartesixte 5y ago
I thought the real reason was to exert control over franchisors, so that in the event of a McDonald’s going rogue they can revoke the lease and end the franchise.
- gruez 5y ago>so that in the event of a McDonald’s going rogue they can revoke the lease and end the franchise Why they can't revoke the franchise agreement?
- smokelegend 5y agoSure they can, the amount of money generated from these actions you honestly believe McDonald's doesn't have the best contract lawyers to enforce their TOS. Play by Mc D's rules or no happy meal for you....
- quartesixte 5y agoThey do both, but revoking the lease allows for far greater control I believe
- stubish 5y agoIt is to stop a franchise rebranding themselves as Golden Arches, selling their own food to the existing customer base and not kicking the franchise money back to corporate HQ. Versions of which happen a lot when an established franchise owner realizes they can make more money by no longer paying for the franchise branding and infrastructure (lose 10% customers, gain 25% revenue, profit!)
- quartesixte 5y agoThe switcharoo is really common with smaller franchised brands. A few years on the original contract, then do a quick brand change overnight or contract with a similar competitor. I see it all the time around where I live it’s kind of hilarious. “Welcome to Totally A Different Hot Dog Joint! The menu is 99% the same!”