Nick Bibby's blog

I’ve said for years that ‘any business can be franchised, but not every business should be franchised’, and I don’t think they’d be any real disagreement about that.

Making an important decision based primarily on the content of a contract is tantamount to making an ill-informed decision.

The number one topic at this site, as well as all other franchise portals dealing with anything outside of ‘recruitment’, is that of “franchise relationships”.

A franchise ‘consultant’ works on a ‘fee for service’ basis, and when interacting with a prospective buyer or a franchisor (prospective or existing), they are paid a ‘consulting fee’ for

A franchise broker is paid a fee (a commission) by a franchisor upon the sale of a franchise in which the ‘broker’ participated.

Let's clear the air regarding due diligence. There is only one path to making a quality investment regarding self-employment. And, there are three sections to navigate along that path. 

There is an adage in marketing that you get what you pay for, but higher prices without real (or perceived) benefits generally result in fewer buyers.

I may need a little guidance with this project because it sounds like searching for a franchise requires some 'due diligence'.

I am going to apply for some franchises, and I HOPE that I'm qualified, selected, and in line to be offerd at least one option among many.

For years, I’ve promoted due diligence/feasibility as means tests for prospective franchisees/franchisors. But now I understand why this ‘pre-work’ is not so popular. It requires an effort.

We’ve grown lazy. We’ve tossed out common sense, individual responsibility, and worst of all, acknowledgement of an eventual appearance before God.  

 Network Founders, Executive Class and Unit Owners Have Difficulties Understanding One Another

There are essentially two types of franchise companies - those run by the firm hand of the founders and those run by the firm hand of the 'executive class'. Neither one really understands the other. In fact, neither one has much of a stomach for the other. And, neither one is particularly tolerant of franchisees that appear to 'not go along'. 

With rare exception, short of litigation (or a very strong association), most changes brought about by franchisees come in the form of lip service or at best, mild attempts at 'best practice' changes.

Management change is always the easiest (least intelligent) alternative to actually analyzing and 'fixing' a franchise system problem.  Why is this so? Because, by nature human beings do not want to admit mistakes or expose their short comings. (Example: franchise sales are down. Solution - hire a new VP of Franchising. But, never admit that a systemic problem might be the reason for that lack of sales. The same is true at all levels of the organization - CEO on down.) The great franchises understand, the rest (which is most) don't understand and never will. Why is that – ego + inferior skills at franchising = turmoil and/or failed systems.