4 ms·

Franchises offload the risk on the franchisee and collect their percentage fee regardless of the performance. There was a segment on John Oliver's program abou

Franchises offload the risk on the franchisee and collect their percentage fee regardless of the performance. There was a segment on John Oliver's program about Subway being particularly predatory about this, as well as deliberately maintaining information asymmetry to mislead franchisees. In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here? Plenty of franchises have sustainably made money for the franchiser and the bulk of their franchisees. That stands in stark relief to the history of MLMs.
- asapitts 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 4y ago
Similarly, McDonald's is now, in fact, largely a real estate company: All of the franchises have to pay them rent, and it's the largest portion of their revenue.
- m463 4y ago
  It's interesting how some corporations do not do what they seem to be doing. I think of the airlines and rewards programs, google identifying people, and silicon valley startups selling stock.
seneca 4y ago
John Oliver is a comedian. Referring to him as a source isn't something that gives merit to an argument.
- antisthenes 4y ago
  What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals.
  - seneca 4y ago
    > What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. That's not really the point. I'm not disputing the correctness, I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. A comedian, even one playing as a social crusader, is not a source, much like my cat is not. > If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals. Do you mean counterarguments? Counterfactuals are things that didn't happen or are not true, not a response to an assertion.
    - antisthenes 4y ago
      > I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. I think we just have a different approach to communication. If you told me "the sky is blue, my cat told me so", I would probably just verify the color of the sky and completely disregard the 2nd portion. And no, that doesn't make your response flawed, because it mentioned a cat. It just makes it padded with irrelevant information. Part of comprehension is filtering irrelevant stuff like that from text in order to arrive at distilled facts that can be checked or verified through an experiment. Same way that my mentioning John Oliver doesn't really impact the weight of my arguments, since the facts within accurately reflect reality. It was just an irrelevant padding for context, not something that was supposed to give extra weight to my arguments. Does that make sense?
      - 4y ago

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> In which sense do you think franchises are counterfactual here? Plenty of franchises have sustainably made money for the franchiser and the bulk of their franchisees. That stands in stark relief to the history of MLMs.

asapitts 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 4y ago

Similarly, McDonald's is now, in fact, largely a real estate company: All of the franchises have to pay them rent, and it's the largest portion of their revenue.

m463 4y ago
It's interesting how some corporations do not do what they seem to be doing. I think of the airlines and rewards programs, google identifying people, and silicon valley startups selling stock.

seneca 4y ago

John Oliver is a comedian. Referring to him as a source isn't something that gives merit to an argument.

antisthenes 4y ago
What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals.
- seneca 4y ago
  > What gives merit to an argument is whether something has been researched and the accuracy of information behind it, not the occupation of the person presenting it. That's not really the point. I'm not disputing the correctness, I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. A comedian, even one playing as a social crusader, is not a source, much like my cat is not. > If your research into the Subway franchise indicates otherwise, I'm all eager to hear the counterfactuals. Do you mean counterarguments? Counterfactuals are things that didn't happen or are not true, not a response to an assertion.
  - antisthenes 4y ago
    > I'm saying your argument is flawed. Imagine I told you "the sky is blue, my cat told me so". Well sure, the sky is in fact blue, but that doesn't make my cat a good source of information. I think we just have a different approach to communication. If you told me "the sky is blue, my cat told me so", I would probably just verify the color of the sky and completely disregard the 2nd portion. And no, that doesn't make your response flawed, because it mentioned a cat. It just makes it padded with irrelevant information. Part of comprehension is filtering irrelevant stuff like that from text in order to arrive at distilled facts that can be checked or verified through an experiment. Same way that my mentioning John Oliver doesn't really impact the weight of my arguments, since the facts within accurately reflect reality. It was just an irrelevant padding for context, not something that was supposed to give extra weight to my arguments. Does that make sense?
    - 4y ago