Dunkin' Responds with No Comment on How DDIFO Conducts Its Affairs
Mr. Caldeira stated:
Dunkin' Brands and our senior leadership team communicate broadly and directly with our entire Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee system through our elected advisory councils that have been in operation for more than three decades. The franchisee advisory councils were formed to represent all of our franchisees who today number well over 1,200 operators across 34 states, including those franchisees that are currently members of the Dunkin’ Donuts Independent Franchise Owners Association (DDIFO). Therefore, we do not feel it would be appropriate to comment on how the DDIFO chooses to manage its affairs.
We recognize and respect that individuals and organizations, such as the DDIFO, that have no official ties to the Dunkin’ Brands organization or our elected franchisee advisory councils, have their own agendas, to which they are certainly entitled. However, they do not seem to take into consideration the strength and well-being of the entire Dunkin’ Donuts organization. If we, as the franchisor, do not continue to work hand-in-hand with our elected franchisee advisory councils to keep Dunkin’ Donuts relevant and engaging to consumers, then we are not living up to our collective responsibility as brand stewards for all of our franchisees.
At Dunkin’ Brands, we share a common goal with our franchisees–our most important constituency–to strengthen our brands and increase their sales and profitability. We will continue to work closely and collaborate with our franchisees, as we have done so for the past 58 years, because we truly recognize how critical they are to our overall business success.
Related articles:
- Dunkin' Franchisee Association Makes Unique Decision in Restructuring Board
- Dunkin' Franchisees Tell How They Really Feel
- Conflict Brewing Between Dunkin' Donuts and Franchise Owners
- Franchise topic:
franchisor that are specifically permitted by the language of your franchise agreement is really stupid.
There is a point at which what is permitted in the agreement is so misused that it destroys the franchisees' businesses. At that point litigation may be fruitful. The problem is that what I see being claimed is based upon laws that don't fit the situation. There is, for example, no antitrust claim available in a tying situation. Deriving extraneous revenue from vendors who deal with your franchisees is not a RICO case. When there is a possibility of a valid claim based on the facts, but your lawyer asserts the wrong claims, YOU LOSE.
But on the whole, you are right. If you agree to the terms, those are the terms. You can't change the terms after the fact by suing people.
You would think that people who can read would not sue people for doing what the contract says they can do.. DUH!!--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Mr. Caldeira writes--
"We recognize and respect that individuals and organizations, such as the DDIFO, that have no official ties to the Dunkin’ Brands organization or our elected franchisee advisory councils, have their own agendas, to which they are certainly entitled. However, they do not seem to take into consideration the strength and well-being of the entire Dunkin’ Donuts organization".
No, of course they don't. The DDIFO takes into consideration what is best for their constituents, Dunkin Donuts franchisees. There will always be issues that favor the Franchisor at the expense of the Franchisee, (such as selling Dunkin Donuts coffee at other unrelated retail outlets), and vice versa.
He then contends---
"At Dunkin’ Brands, we share a common goal with our franchisees–our most important constituency–to strengthen our brands and increase their sales and profitability"
The above statement ignores the fact that strengthening the brand and increasing franchisee sales and profitability don't always go hand in hand. Marketing Dunkin Donuts brand coffee at the local supermarket might help strengthen the brand, (although I doubt the connection between Dunkin Donuts and coffee needs to be reemphasized), but it also serves to decrease franchisee sales and profitability.
He concludes with--
"We will continue to work closely and collaborate with our franchisees, as we have done so for the past 58 years, because we truly recognize how critical they are to our overall business success".
He seemingly omitted--
--as long as they don't choose to organize on their own or attempt to collaborate in a manner which we can't control or don't approve....
I had the occasion to taste Dunken DoNuts coffee a few weeks ago. It aint anything that would disitinguish a brand identity to me - unless it tastes different when drunk while eating donuts. It's rather blah!
It is impossible for me to appreciate why anyone would give a damn if this dishwater style coffee were sold elsewhere. It sucks.
What is harder to appreciate is why they sell this kind of yuk coffee in their own stores. Selling this piss elsewhere can't possibly detract from DD image/identity/sales/profotability. Gimme a break!--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
I agree with what you say about personal tastes. I see that at least someone claims that what is sold in grocery stores may not be the same blend as in the DD shops themselves. But that really isn't the issue, and I was just being my usual kick 'em and see how they howl self.
What I was hoping to get as a response to put me in my place was some statement about the quantitative impact upon the franchisees of the decision to sell the coffee in grocery stores.
If putting the coffee in grocery stores cannot be shown to correlate with reduced sales in franchisee owned stores, then why are the franchisees complaining about it?
It really has to do with impact. You can bet that the franchisor has an "impact study". It may be total bullshit, but they have one and will trot it out at the trial of any case. If the complaining franchisees have their own contrary impact study, and it can stand up to cross examination, then there may be something to complain about.
Otherwise it's all about noise. If they had come to me - and they have not - I would have insisted upon a competent demonstration of impact before making it a cause celebre. But you can always find a lawyer who will yell about anything, with or without evidence that the complaint has merit.
Without impact evidence, they are wasting a lot of credibility for nothing. If you disagree with that, please tell me so and please tell me why. Thanks--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
You are exactly correct. Making a fuss when there is no data to justify the fuss is the hallmark of the incompetent group.
Supposition won't cut it. Where is the leadership of a group that does such things without impact data - not surmise, but data?--
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Richard Solomon, FranchiseRemedies.com, has over 45 years experience with franchise litigation and crisis management. He is a graduate of The Citadel and The University of Michigan Law School
Guest says - "Democracy is a bitch, isn't it?"
TIF replies - There is nothing democratic about a franchise relationships. The agreements and operating manuals spell out the relationship. And they ain't equal.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
DoDil Says - "Tif you admit the relationship between a zor and zee isn't equal. It is in favor of the zor?"
TIF replies - Yes of course, but if you read your franchise agreement or any franchise agreement you would know this fact.
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
The Truth Shall Set You Free!
TIF
Post new comment