10 Points of Probability in Selecting a Successful Franchisor

 Placing An Educated Guess On Which Franchisor Will Be There To Grow Old With You

CLEVELAND, Ohio (Blue MauMau) - The numbers say that for any given new franchise system that you are thinking about buying, chances are it will NOT be around in the next 10 to 20 years. Dr. Scott Shane, Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies at Case Western Reserve University, shares his findings on what to look for in choosing a franchisor that has staying power.

Says the good doctor, "Business failure rates are particularly high for young businesses and decline over time. Even franchisors are not immune to that. The probability of failure for franchisors that are one to two years old are really quite high."

From 1979 to 1996, Dr. Scott Shane crunched the numbers of franchisor attributes and system terminations. The professor looked at data that was collected over time through various guides, places that kept extensive records of franchise systems year by year. He found that only 15% of franchisors live to be 18 years old.  That is to say, of 1292 systems, 1097 failed (pdf), an 85% failure rate that is virtually indistiguishable from the rate of independent start-up failures. So, in the graveyard of franchise concepts, how do you differentiate one franchise from another in being able to last? The answers may surprise you. Statistically speaking, here are 10 points to consider that raise the probability that a franchise system will exist 10 years from now. Franchise buyers should seek franchisors who are:

  1. Older. There is a very high correlation between a system's maturity and less risk of failure. So look at a franchisor's age - the older, the better.

  2. Larger. Look at the size of the network. The larger the franchise system, the less chance of system-wide failure. A franchise buyer should ask, how long has this system been around and how big is it?

  3. Highly ranked by the media. The more highly ranked a franchisor is by the media, the less chance of failure. That's not necessarily because the media understands how to rank better franchisors. Dr. Shane observes, "This has to do with the nature of the attention people give to established businesses versus smaller ones. Failure rates of smaller systems at the bottom of the list are much higher but people do not focus their attention on them. It's not that higher ranking systems do not fail, it is just that lower ranking systems fail at a higher rate. Most of us just do not notice how much of a higher rate the lower ranking systems fail because we do not pay attention to the lower ranks precisely because they are lower ranked and not as well known." He continues, "I suspect what is going on is that there is a self-fulfilling prophecy in franchising. If I get enough attention, then franchisees pick me, and my system gets bigger. I get all the advantages of getting the franchisees, and that makes me less likely to fail."

  4. Concentrated. Franchisors that build up and saturate a specific state as opposed to being spread out with just a few units in every state are less likely to fail.

  5. Providing franchisees with exclusive territories. Franchisors who provide exclusive territories to franchisees are less likely to fail. The study does not specify the size of the territory, since territory size would vary greatly by industry, but rather correlates a positive relationship between granting any sized exclusive territory to franchisors who have survived. 

  6. Seeking franchisees with industry experience. Statistically speaking, franchisors who recruit largely within their own industry are less likely to fail. Their franchisees come to the system highly skilled in the business.

  7. Not allowing passive ownership, that is to say owners should not be working elsewhere. A test of the strength of a newer system is if franchisees work there full time. Dr. Shane says, "franchisors that allow passive ownership have higher failure rates." 

  8. Not master franchising domestically. Franchisors who delegate their franchise selling, training and royalties have higher failure rates. In his study, Making New Franchises Work (pdf), the point is made that delegating core competencies to master franchises has franchisors more easily losing their way.

  9. More expensive. It may be counter-intuitive but the more amount of money it takes to run an outlet, the more the franchisor is likely to survive. Dr. Shane explains, "The business is more substantial. It has more capital invested in it. If you have a system with outlets that are cheap to launch, those are easy for others to replicate and drive franchisees out of business and then finally the franchisor." But make sure you, the franchise buyer, can afford the higher price.

  10. Minimizing company-owned outlets. The fewer company-owned outlets, the lower the risk. Franchisors need company owned outlets but more than a couple are a distraction and a waste of resources.  The professor explains, "Marginal benefits from company-owned units maximize after two units. The resources that get devoted to adding the company owned outlets provide much less benefits than if you applied those resources towards adding franchises. Once you get past the demonstration outlet part of this, you are better focusing on franchising. However, once a franchisor gets past 500 units or so, that's a different, mature model. Large systems can benefit from corporate units experimenting in different markets. Keeping company-owned units to two is for young franchisors and does not include the large systems that have franchise buy-back programs for stock price advantage."

And the most important question to consider for franchise buyers is saved for last.

"If I were a prospective franchisee, the first question to ask is whether a franchise concept will work in the kind of industry I am looking at," observes Dr. Shane. "There's a chapter [in my book] on how franchising is more effective in certain industries."

I guess if we want to know what industries are most conducive to franchising, we will have to buy the book and read it.

--

Further readings:

Average: 1 (3 votes)

Tags:

There are no tags.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

from Fellow Clevelander

Dr. Shane,
I enjoyed reading your thoroughly thought out list...
I hope it makes some folks who are thinking about franchising their businesses stop and think if they are really ready and capable of bringing their concepts to market.
Nothing in our business world is easy, especially the home runs that some seem to be looking for.
Your article only confirms my feelings of skepticism when confronted with yet another new franchisor, that is requesting my guidance and help.
Franpro

On reflection it me be even worse

It was posted:

that is to say, of 1292 systems, 1097 failed (pdf), an 85% failure rate that is virtually indistiguishable from the rate of independent start-up failures.

My reply:

I suspect that number is far worse than it looks.  Allow me to explain why.   Over the years I have been and done many things.  Most of them intentional.  I started and terminated businesses for many reasons and not one of them was that it was not profitable but a couple were ended because they were not profitable enough, or especially in my case, because there was another mountain out there I wanted to climb.

I have noticed a lot of small businessmen think nothing of simply changing businesses, out of boredom or seeking more profitability.  Those numbers are reflected in the SBA statistics for non-franchise businesses.  They are not really failures the owners just move onto something else, specifically because they are not contractually obligated to stay with a system that does not provide the return they want, the excitement or whatever.  Such is the nature of franchising.  A franchisee does not really have the luxury of simply packing it in and working for someone else because of obligations to the franchisor's, non-compete agreements, and trouble disposing of the assets. 

My point is if, a franchisee could liquidate as easily as a non-franchise business I would suspect the failure rate for franchising would far exceed the rate for non-franchise businesses, my gut tells me that number would be 4.5-6% higher.

FuwaFuwaUsagi

FuwaFuwaUsagi ---Franchise failure

Do you believe that some large networks like UPS and Quiznos indulge in "churning" as a management tool through their encouragement of third party asset purchases of failing or "hobbled" stores?
Doesn't the visibility of The UPS Store that has been accomplished through churning mislead new prospects as to the actual viability of the business plan.
I respect your opinions and you seem to be your own man!

The Nature of Sunk Costs: Fran v. Indep. Businesses

Fuwa,

You are absolutely correct. There are incentives only within franchising that compels franchisees to continue losing operating funds long past the time comparable independent businesspeople would abandon the operation.

It has nothing to do with skill or hard work: the key difference is that the operator is "stuck" because the franchisor can exercise their discretion because of the franchisee's Sunk Costs.

Sunk costs are expenditures that are not easily [if at all] recoverable by a businessperson. In franchising this potential problem is made worse because:

  • the assets themselves are highly idiosyncratic [useful in only a narrow range of business],
  • the franchisor says if and when you can sell your assets and
  • the franchisor, largely, how much (%) you will get [various contractual obligations].

Gillian Hadield explains:

For the franchisee, the most significant economic feature of franchising is the allocation of capital investments…

 A business with sunk costs, [franchisee] on the other hand, will continue to operate even though it has never recovered its investments in fixed costs, and it will not shut down until the amount it is losing exceeds what it would lose by simply abandoning the investment.

The incentive that causes a business with sunk costs to stay in operation despite losses makes franchisees vulnerable to franchisor behavior known as "opportunism." [my emphasis]

Problematic Relations: Franchising and the Law of Incomplete Contracts, Stanford Law Review, 1990

Professor Hadfield points out the very real economics:

  • independent businesses will abandon when their variable costs are consistently MORE than their selling price (a few bad months), while
  • franchisees will endure operating losses until the TOTAL losses are GREATER that their TOTAL asset investment (often in the  + tens of thousands, time = 2 years?]

Danger of Forced Discounting
Independent businesses would never discount their goods or services in such a way that would put their business in danger. If they were forced into a price war, their exit is easy.

Franchisees, on the other hand, can have their operating profits and investments stripped away from, say, 4 severe discount periods forced on them a year. They would not hand in the keys until their losses were GREATER than the accumulated profits, initial and ongoing investments, etc. since the beginning of the franchise.

The same sunk cost :: opportunism mechanism goes for tied buying, forced equipment purchases, forced renovations, rebranding decisions, etc.

Franchisees are acting rationally by staying much longer than it would appear wise to do so, if you don't take into account the sunk cost hazard. This danger occurs in 100% of all franchise relationships: opportunism may, or may not, be used either all the time or never [or something in between].

The more sophisticated the system is managed, the mere threat of using opportunism is effective enough in getting 100% compliance [an agreement that an independent would never give]. Anyone that knows anything about franchise systems knows that each has their own good & bad stories, history, culture, etc.

Done with enough skill, just motioning to the metaphorical bull whip is enough to make a franchisee cave.

This does not mean, of course, that there are not many happy franchisees, just as in the feudal days there were many happy serfs…

The Grange Report, Ontario, Canada, 1971

Les Stewart, MBA :: industry analyst
www.cafo.net :: FranchiseFool :: the Wise say No

I am right about something - did heck freeze over????

Les writes:

Fuwa,

You are absolutely correct.

My reply:

I saw this, ran over to my woman and excitedly pointed to the computer screen showing her that I was correct about something!!!!!

As a married man it is not often I am told that - LOL!!!!

FuwaFuwaUsagi

Conclusion:The ONLY way

Conclusion:

The ONLY way out, aside from bankruptcy, is to keep up the "good franchisee show" and offer to sell at a drastically reduced price and induce generation #2 or #3 to take the bait.

some thoughts...

As many of you know I am fairly active in the business community, which is to say I communicate, counsel, and talk to aspiring business owners often.  One very common sentiment that is often opined is that "well they must make money or there would not be so many of them" or "well they certainly would not be doing that if they were not making money at it".  And of course in franchising that is not necessarily true.   I believe most franchisers understand that the perception is that because there are many of them they must be successful.  

One of my clients has made a fortune in franchising only he did it through real estate not the actual operation of the franchises.   Now people would look at his 100+ franchises and think wow-those things must make a lot of money - wrong.  All they do is pay the equivalent of the rent that he owns on property he shrewdly selected for appreciation.

Now before I provided services for him I also would have though...wow there is more money in "x" than I would have thought, no there is just about as much money in "x" as I thought, only I did not consider that a franchise can offer a way to acquire wealth that has little to do with the profitability of the franchise.

My point is, after seeing some of the big leagues I realize how far removed a little guy like me is mentally from some of these operations.  People like me think the franchise has to be profitable in order to make money for myself.  That is not true.

regards,

FuwaFuwaUsagi

Misrepresentation in Selling Franchised Business

Usually, in Churning and the "Squeezing" Mechanism, the buyer will want to see the statement of your accounts, etc.. that back up your IRS Return and you will be held responsible for any misrepresentations you make to a buyer, and remember that your asset agreement with any buyer will have to be approved by your franchisor, but the franchisor has no due diligence concerns under law, and if you have misrepresented any facts concerning the sale, it is you who will be sued.
Normally, in churning, the franchisor gets the third party to make the offer if they want the store. If you try to sell and use an honest broker, he will tell you the truth about your chances of selling a failing buisiness before he takes your money, etc....
If there are other parties in the network who are interested in your store, they will want it for nothing, this is true!
If nobody wants the store and you are sooner or later forced to terminate, normally under the terms of the agreement you signed, you will be forced into bankruptcy.
When you are forced into bankiruptcy, you lose your rights to recourse in the courts, generally, I believe. However, I am not an attorney.
But, any way you look at it, you are between a rock and a hard place.

Finally Figured it Out, huh? What now?

jbmont60,

Exactly:

  1. Transfer to the next chump for whatever the franchisor says. Take what they give you and don't be surprised if it is ongoing debt. Sign the confidentiality order. Best to move out of the community.
  2. Abandon and go bankrupt: A very underutilized option, in my opinion. Most personal bankruptcies are for $25,000. Are you going to pay for years to support a regime that many could view as bankrupt? More attorneys go bankrupt than sue each other, I would imagine.
  3. Go independent: not meant for the faint of heart but a lively option (if you love the vertical market day-to-day stuff). More possible if you live in a back water as regional Justices are much more friendly to local businesspeople than city judges are. Definitely a do-it-yourself with some help. Do it 100%, loud-and-proud or don't do it at all. Judges hate non-competes and, in Canada, about 40% of some types of civil cases litigants are self-represented (ie. make them pay, you tell the Justice your story).

Note to the Disgruntled

  1. Expect nothing but betrayal from your peers.
  2. If you expect an attorney to save you, send me your money now and save yourself the time.
  3. If you expect your politician/bureaucrat...same as #2.
  4. Everyone hates lawyers: now's your chance to learn why and report back.
  5. Most franchisors have the imagination of a bag of hammers. (You'll learn who the real brains of the outfit are, for sure.)
  6. The media can be quite useful.
  7. Get a rotten job; at least you'll be paid minimum wage.

The law does not pretend to punish everything that is dishonest. That would seriously interfere with business.

There is no such thing as justice--in or out of court.

Laws should be like clothes. They should be made to fit the people they serve.

No other offense has ever been visited with such severe penalties as seeking to help the oppressed.

The trouble with law is lawyers.

Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for.

Clarence Seward Darrow, Esq.

Les Stewart, MBA :: industry analyst

www.cafo.net :: FranchiseFool :: the Wise say No

Thank you FuwaFuwaUsagi

I recognize your truth to be the truth.

A diversified portfolio

Isn't this exactly the type of performance that you would expect from a well diversified real estate portfolio?

Michael Webster PhD LLB

Misleading Advertising Law

The Unvarnished and Brutal Truth by Les Stewart

The above is the truth! Watch those pro-franchising people who will hardly ever admit the truth come in and try to change the subject.

I love your post, Les Stewart!

How do account for McDonald's franchisees?

McDonald's franchisees rent their land and building from McDonald's Corporation. Are you now going to propose that McDonald's franchises are not reasonably successful? Are McDonald's franchisees simply chattel or indentured servants? If that is indentured servitude please sign me up!

Michael: I do not understand

Michael:

I do not understand what you are attempting to communicate.

Please expand on your thoughts and type slowly to aid in my comprehension  : )

All the best,

FuwaFuwaUsagi

The Les' Post is an Opinion...

And as opinions go everyone has one, and some are better than others.

You confuse the issues to confuse McDonald's?

Apparently you can't read or think! McDonald's has nothing to do with the issues we have been discussing.
Of course there are successful franchisors who don't indulge in churning and abusive and predatory practices, and one such franchisor appears to be McDonalds. But, of course, I don't know tht much about their early history.

Real Estate and Capital Gains

Take a look at this chart:

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/re_growth_forecast/index.html

A portfolio consisting only of partial ownership in residential homes would see a small yearly loss associated with taxes, maintenance, and insurance balanced by a gradual increase in capital gains.

Why should the ownership of real estate/franchise be in principle any different than the above investment strategy?

I don't say that a multi unit holder has to adopt the strategy, but why shouldn't every multi unit holder look at this McDonald strategy?  Land values will outlast the value of a "proven" business model.

Michael Webster PhD LLB

Misleading Advertising Law

thank you

Michael:

Thank you for the response and I quite agree.

There is much I would like to say, but I honor my confidentiality agreements.

I would just suggest people open their minds to the possibilities and think a little outside the "box" that franchisers present to you.

Michael, as always I wish you only the very best of what life may bring.

FuwaFuwaUsagi

Well your entitled to your opinion too...

but not your own cute little version of the truth!

Additonally you paint with broad strokes and if you want to talk about your unfortunate franchising experience and your franchisor then so be it.

But please stop making assumptions that there is a vast franchisor/IFA/right wing/republican/democrat/IRS/FTC/SEC/FBI/CIA/MIT/UCLA/Auburn conspiracy to defraud the masses of mankind through a ponzi-style franchise scheme to CHURN the innocent little franchise lambs in order to grow a franchise system. It is simply a lot of BS!

Multi Units

Thank-you Fuwa for your kind comments.

I would simply add that the type of due diligence a prospective multi unit holder has to engage in should focus on the variability of the returns of real estate holdings.

Michael Webster PhD LLB

Misleading Advertising Law

    Syndicate content