4 ms·

You would think that the McDonalds franchise owners would push back on McDonalds corporate about this issue. They would rightly be complaining that they are los

You would think that the McDonalds franchise owners would push back on McDonalds corporate about this issue. They would rightly be complaining that they are losing revenue because the Taylor ice cream machine has low reliability. Even one service call per month is a significant cost to a low-margin business like a quick-serve restaurant. It is quite possible there is some hinky corporate politics and such within McDonalds corporate that is preventing improvement here.

paulmd 5y ago
McDonald's exerts extremely extremely tight control over its franchisees by corporate standards. Every single thing about a McDonald's is meticulously specified and regulated by corporate, from the equipment installations to the number of pickle slices that go on a burger and the soap that goes into the bathroom. Franchisees in general don't wear the pants in this relationship. If McD corporate says you use this machine, tough shit, you use that machine. I'm sure the feelings of franchisees are broadly speaking "taken into consideration" but it's not like there's a union here, the dynamic here is that franchisees will shut their mouths and go make some money for daddy. It's a weird arms-length model that has run into some trouble before, particularly surrounding labor law, as McD corporate has some very detailed expectations on how franchisees will hire, fire, pay, and operate their employees. Anyway basically if McDonald's says "you will take those things out of our machine" yeah, franchisees are absolutely going to hop to it. tbh if McDonald's were smart they'd just have done it without the "ackshually this thing will steal your girlfriend, poison your customers, and kill your dog" defamation, because if they'd simply said "we're terminating our business relationship with Kytch, have it removed in the next 2 weeks" franchisees absolutely would have done it anyway. Now they are fighting a lawsuit about it because they just had to get a dig in.
- gruez 5y ago
  >but it's not like there's a union here https://nationalownersassociation.com/join/ https://nationalownersassociation.com/join/
  - paulmd 5y ago
    Haha, fair, guess I should have checked. But anyway, corporate wears the pants is the dynamic. It's a very very tightly managed and top-down "franchise".
- ansible 5y ago
  Oh I know that McD is at the top when it comes to controlling franchisees. But if 13% of restaurants have the ice cream machine non-functional at any given time, that means half or more of them are having the problem at some time in the last month. If you're going to ignore a problem at that scale... well, that's just terrible.
- kmeisthax 5y ago
  I have to wonder if Taylor agreed to custom-build McDonalds an ice cream machine specifically because they figured they had implied license to hose franchisees on service costs. Or, in other words, if McDonalds had said "make the machine reliable enough to serve ice cream 100% of the time with no service calls", then Taylor would have charged 10x or something. The fact that McDonalds is libeling Kytch sounds like Taylor is speaking through McDonalds' mouth. Even if McDonalds had been more reserved, however; Kytch still has some industrial-espionage claims that might go somewhere. Also, for those wondering exactly how controlled McDonalds' franchise relations are: McDonalds franchisees are required to rent their locations from McDonalds, because McDonalds front-runs their business partners and buys the most valuable land[0] from under them. Literally nothing about the business of being a McDonalds franchisee works the way capitalism or business ownership is "supposed" to work[1]. It's more like paying to work at a somewhat-lucrative job than actually owning a business. McDonalds is a richest-of-the-rich company that sells business opportunities to the poorest-of-the-rich crowd[2], who are looking for a way to park lots of wealth[3] in a safe asset. [0] Typically, land immediately next to US Interstate off-ramps or equivalently high-traffic highways [1] Unless you're a left-winger, in which case the McDonalds "strip our business partners of capital interest in the store" policy is how capitalism is "supposed" to work, and treating your business partners as equals is a historical aberration. For the record I do find the left-wing critique of capitalism to be at least somewhat grounded in current business reality. [2] Menial labors of the capitalist class. If you define "poor, middle-class, and rich" based on how people make their money (poor: unskilled labor, middle-class: skilled labor, rich: capitalism), then you can recursively subdivide that grouping further, with richest-of-the-rich being people whose wealth comes from owning other businesses through some means (usually trademark or copyright). [3] McDonalds wants their franchisees to hold at least $750,000 of liquid capital and be able to invest between $1,000,000 and $2,200,000 into their stores.
  - ansible 5y ago
    From what I understand, Subway is also very strict with the franchisees. At least as far as food suppliers go. It is all in the name of "quality" or more truthfully "consistency". Even so, unless you're a relatively small regional chain, you'd think that having at least two different equipment suppliers would help corporate drive down costs for the franchisees, and thereby make more profit for themselves. That's what is so strange about this entire situation. McD corporate historically has been laser-focused on profit, which they get through scale (volume) and efficiency. I don't see how there aren't some people in corporate getting fired for this. If the ice cream machines work, they franchisees sell more product. This generates more revenue (and profit) selling the restaurants more ice cream mixture, as well as increasing profits for the restaurants themselves. Which also generates more profits for corporate too. Because of course corporate double-dips. Money being left on the table... that doesn't sound like McDonalds.

paulmd 5y ago

McDonald's exerts extremely extremely tight control over its franchisees by corporate standards. Every single thing about a McDonald's is meticulously specified and regulated by corporate, from the equipment installations to the number of pickle slices that go on a burger and the soap that goes into the bathroom. Franchisees in general don't wear the pants in this relationship. If McD corporate says you use this machine, tough shit, you use that machine. I'm sure the feelings of franchisees are broadly speaking "taken into consideration" but it's not like there's a union here, the dynamic here is that franchisees will shut their mouths and go make some money for daddy. It's a weird arms-length model that has run into some trouble before, particularly surrounding labor law, as McD corporate has some very detailed expectations on how franchisees will hire, fire, pay, and operate their employees. Anyway basically if McDonald's says "you will take those things out of our machine" yeah, franchisees are absolutely going to hop to it. tbh if McDonald's were smart they'd just have done it without the "ackshually this thing will steal your girlfriend, poison your customers, and kill your dog" defamation, because if they'd simply said "we're terminating our business relationship with Kytch, have it removed in the next 2 weeks" franchisees absolutely would have done it anyway. Now they are fighting a lawsuit about it because they just had to get a dig in.

gruez 5y ago
>but it's not like there's a union here https://nationalownersassociation.com/join/ https://nationalownersassociation.com/join/
- paulmd 5y ago
  Haha, fair, guess I should have checked. But anyway, corporate wears the pants is the dynamic. It's a very very tightly managed and top-down "franchise".
ansible 5y ago
Oh I know that McD is at the top when it comes to controlling franchisees. But if 13% of restaurants have the ice cream machine non-functional at any given time, that means half or more of them are having the problem at some time in the last month. If you're going to ignore a problem at that scale... well, that's just terrible.
kmeisthax 5y ago
I have to wonder if Taylor agreed to custom-build McDonalds an ice cream machine specifically because they figured they had implied license to hose franchisees on service costs. Or, in other words, if McDonalds had said "make the machine reliable enough to serve ice cream 100% of the time with no service calls", then Taylor would have charged 10x or something. The fact that McDonalds is libeling Kytch sounds like Taylor is speaking through McDonalds' mouth. Even if McDonalds had been more reserved, however; Kytch still has some industrial-espionage claims that might go somewhere. Also, for those wondering exactly how controlled McDonalds' franchise relations are: McDonalds franchisees are required to rent their locations from McDonalds, because McDonalds front-runs their business partners and buys the most valuable land[0] from under them. Literally nothing about the business of being a McDonalds franchisee works the way capitalism or business ownership is "supposed" to work[1]. It's more like paying to work at a somewhat-lucrative job than actually owning a business. McDonalds is a richest-of-the-rich company that sells business opportunities to the poorest-of-the-rich crowd[2], who are looking for a way to park lots of wealth[3] in a safe asset. [0] Typically, land immediately next to US Interstate off-ramps or equivalently high-traffic highways [1] Unless you're a left-winger, in which case the McDonalds "strip our business partners of capital interest in the store" policy is how capitalism is "supposed" to work, and treating your business partners as equals is a historical aberration. For the record I do find the left-wing critique of capitalism to be at least somewhat grounded in current business reality. [2] Menial labors of the capitalist class. If you define "poor, middle-class, and rich" based on how people make their money (poor: unskilled labor, middle-class: skilled labor, rich: capitalism), then you can recursively subdivide that grouping further, with richest-of-the-rich being people whose wealth comes from owning other businesses through some means (usually trademark or copyright). [3] McDonalds wants their franchisees to hold at least $750,000 of liquid capital and be able to invest between $1,000,000 and $2,200,000 into their stores.
- ansible 5y ago
  From what I understand, Subway is also very strict with the franchisees. At least as far as food suppliers go. It is all in the name of "quality" or more truthfully "consistency". Even so, unless you're a relatively small regional chain, you'd think that having at least two different equipment suppliers would help corporate drive down costs for the franchisees, and thereby make more profit for themselves. That's what is so strange about this entire situation. McD corporate historically has been laser-focused on profit, which they get through scale (volume) and efficiency. I don't see how there aren't some people in corporate getting fired for this. If the ice cream machines work, they franchisees sell more product. This generates more revenue (and profit) selling the restaurants more ice cream mixture, as well as increasing profits for the restaurants themselves. Which also generates more profits for corporate too. Because of course corporate double-dips. Money being left on the table... that doesn't sound like McDonalds.