If we could get back on track here, there are some interesting points.
Dubinsky is navigating between competing interests here and we should cut him some slack (so long as he can tolerate Solomon's curmudgeonly manner and stops perpetuating the myth that the First Amendment applies to owners of blogsites in preventing owners from squelching speech on a privately owned site).
What has always struck me about DD is that; (1) there is a zee base of above-average sophistication and (2) the zor is often nasty and intrudes on the personal lives of its zees (see our 2004 article discussing Stephen Horn's ABA presentation and related matters).
There did appear to be some change to (2) with the arrival of Luther, and the willingness of the zor to engage in dialogue is at least a start. In the posting of 13 contentious points, there are some which are found in other systems and/or bearable by zees.
The 2 things which seem to be most serious are the harsh termination provisions and dilution of the brand image.
Both of those concerns are ones which implicate legitimate issues of both zor and zee, and I get the sense that the franchisees perceive that the franchisor will use those issues to run roughshod over the zees. Moreover, those concerns will take center stage as Dunkin' moves away from mom-and-pop owners to multi-unit owners.
In that regard, one wonders why anyone would take the risk of a multi-million dollar investment in a system where the termination provisions put you in a rather precarious position. The alternate channels of distribution issue may be more easily reconciled than the termination policy.
Paul Steinberg Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
Guest writes: "Remember that the Dunkin system is different. The franchisees own just about everything but the trademark. They own 100% of the shops, near 100% of the real estate or leases and the franchisees own 100% of the distributuion system. The franchisor does not own and operate one single shop. The franchisor knows this and respects it and has historiclly recognized its indispensible partners. Of course it sometimes needs to be pushed away from over reaching, as do we all."
Interesting, sounds like the same strategic advantage that allowed the Culligan dealers to dramatically re-write their deal.
Michael, are you kidding? Common measure? There is no way to agree with the completely unreasonable! We might as well be wearing signs on our backs that say "kick me".
No, much damage has been done and continues to be done. All Dunkin' Donuts franchisees need to join and support the DDIFO, and now. We need to stop Dunkin' Brands in their tracks before they destroy our system.
Time to make the donuts
If we could get back on track here, there are some interesting points.
Dubinsky is navigating between competing interests here and we should cut him some slack (so long as he can tolerate Solomon's curmudgeonly manner and stops perpetuating the myth that the First Amendment applies to owners of blogsites in preventing owners from squelching speech on a privately owned site).
What has always struck me about DD is that; (1) there is a zee base of above-average sophistication and (2) the zor is often nasty and intrudes on the personal lives of its zees (see our 2004 article discussing Stephen Horn's ABA presentation and related matters).
There did appear to be some change to (2) with the arrival of Luther, and the willingness of the zor to engage in dialogue is at least a start. In the posting of 13 contentious points, there are some which are found in other systems and/or bearable by zees.
The 2 things which seem to be most serious are the harsh termination provisions and dilution of the brand image.
Both of those concerns are ones which implicate legitimate issues of both zor and zee, and I get the sense that the franchisees perceive that the franchisor will use those issues to run roughshod over the zees. Moreover, those concerns will take center stage as Dunkin' moves away from mom-and-pop owners to multi-unit owners.
In that regard, one wonders why anyone would take the risk of a multi-million dollar investment in a system where the termination provisions put you in a rather precarious position. The alternate channels of distribution issue may be more easily reconciled than the termination policy.
Paul Steinberg
Franchisee Attorney, New York City, Ph: 212-529-5400
DD is Different
Guest writes: "Remember that the Dunkin system is different. The franchisees own just about everything but the trademark. They own 100% of the shops, near 100% of the real estate or leases and the franchisees own 100% of the distributuion system. The franchisor does not own and operate one single shop. The franchisor knows this and respects it and has historiclly recognized its indispensible partners. Of course it sometimes needs to be pushed away from over reaching, as do we all."
Interesting, sounds like the same strategic advantage that allowed the Culligan dealers to dramatically re-write their deal.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Are you kidding?
Michael, are you kidding? Common measure? There is no way to agree with the completely unreasonable! We might as well be wearing signs on our backs that say "kick me". No, much damage has been done and continues to be done. All Dunkin' Donuts franchisees need to join and support the DDIFO, and now. We need to stop Dunkin' Brands in their tracks before they destroy our system.Negotiation Techniques
Actually, there are a number of negotiation techniques designed to deal with the unreasonable: look up William Ury's Getting Past No.
Here is Ury's web page.
Harvard also has what looks to be an interesting course called Dealing with Difficult People,
For a couple thousand dollars, any director of a franchisee IndFA, could learn a great deal about negotiation.
Michael Webster PhD LLB
Franchise News
Post new comment