Home | MyMauMau: Log In / Register | Ask Franny
Log In / Register | Feb 9, 2010

Franchisee Associations

RichardSolomon's picture

Note: This is the first of a number of Franchipedia articles about franchisee associations. I form and manage franchisee associations as part of my practice/business. This isn't just a theoretical discussion.

Franchisee Associations are different according to the number of franchisees, their conditions of success or lack of success, the perception that there are instances of real/perceived/potential franchisor over reaching that need to be dealt with, and the age of the franchise system.

They are to be distinguished from so-called Franchise Advisory Councils, which tend by and large to be appointed/aproved by the franchisor and that tend also to approve and try to sell to the franchisee community the programs that the franchisor initiates.

They are dealt with in this series as franchise specific rather than as a genre of associated franchisees of all franchisors seeking to deal with issues perceived to be common to the franchisee community as a whole. The American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD) is an example of that. They lobby Congress and try to set standards for the conditions under which the franchise relationship might work under optimum circumstances.

Franchisee associations should be formed as soon as possible. There is such potential for abrasive interfacing between franchisees and their franchisor that the franchisees should not await crisis before forming an association. Without serious problems of a threatening nature, it is almost impossible to convince franchisees to budget for an effectively managed association. In addition to the cost of the association, they fear being targeted by the franchisor as rabble rousers and anathematized whenever discretionary decisions can be made by the franchisor that might affect them personally. I have a program that removes most of that risk, but any protocol to protect identies can be compromised by the insider who decides to curry favor by revealing what transpires in the closed meetings. While there are rather successful measures to prevent that, the risk can't be reduced to zero. It can be reduced to almost zero by everyone joining the association. When an association includes the whole population, it becomes a nation. The problem of the Judas franchisee is a story in itself.

There is always the undercurrent that business people believe that rational business solutions can be had amongst people of good will. Unfortunately, I have found that in franchising, the contract is written so that the franchisor always appears to have all the prerogatives, no matter what the situation. Franchisors are told by their counsel that, because the contract can be used as a whip, they don't have to divert from their intended path on any subject. When franchisors give more than lip service to the proposition that the contract is intended to serve the relationship rather than the relationship being there to serve the contract, more positive achievements may be accomplished with less violence. That day hasn't yet arrived.

--

Writers note: I hope to provide several articles in this perspective over the next few weeks (schedule permitting), and I look forward to vigorous discussion/debate. I have been counsel to several associations, some populated by wealthy and successful franchisees and some populated by franchisees under assault. I certainly don't have all the answers. I just have those that work in situations where my strengths are needed. Being politically correct and tactful is nowhere to be found on my curriculum vitae. I can handle keeping a civil tongue in my head, but there is known to be a part of me always ready to go to war. If I can't make some material progress the nice way, I am perfectly willing to counsel doing it in other ways. Many times my own clients aren't ready for doing what has to be done when the answer is NO. I don't believe that begging is appropriate after you have already been rebuffed unless they have really caught you with your hand in the cookie jar, and begging is the only thing that might work. Then I can beg with the best of them.  

See FranchiseeAssociationManagement.com.

0
Your rating: None

3 Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Franchise Associations and Retaliation by Guest
As Richard Solomon pointed out, it is possible when activists within networks question their franchisor and try to form franchise associations, they can be singled out for punishment by the franchisors. Most franchise agreements permit the franchisor to determine when there has been a violation of one of the terms of the contract, and they can use these terms to threaten termination or nasty cures. They, of course, interpret the terms as they so desire. Termination means the entire loss of the investment of the franchisee who has signed a non-compete agreement and who also may be subject to "liquidated damages, i.e. owned royalties" upon termination. This prospect, in addition to the fact that franchisees need their business to succeed to avoid losing their entire investment, means that franchisees can be silenced almost at will by their franchisors. Richard Solomon suggests, wisely, that new associations should be represented by counsel almost immediately, or perhaps before they are even formed, to protect franchisee voices from unwarranted criticism and threats that they cannot counter on an individual basis.
FRANCHISEE ASSOCIATION AND RETALIATION by RichardSolomon
RichardSolomon's picture

The association should be formed/established by counsel without identification of the franchisees who initiated it. A small group of franchisees who know and trust each other should retain counsel to do it. Once there is an established agenda, a competent message can be prepared by counsel, on behalf of the association, to the franchisee population generally. Nothing should be said to the general population by anyone until that is accomplished. The seed money first group should probably be less than ten people. Then, if there is no support, the association is simply abandonned and no one knows who was involved.

Richard Solomon
www.FranchiseRemedies.com


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
Nothing is a secret in a franchisee association by Guest
Never forget that because the franchisor has such power (by virtue of the franchise agreement) that it can always get the information it needs from your fellow franchisees who have "joined" the association. Franchisors don't need "waterboarding", they just use one of the many tools available to them in the one sided agreement to get the information they need. Bad score on a franchise report? Want to make it better? Just give up the latest details of the "secret society" that is plotting against the franchisor, and the score becomes a shining example for all of how a franchisee should operate. In most associations (believe me, I know this from experience) the zees that are doing well do not want to rock the boat. The biggest challenge is always to get any group of business people to go in the same direction - especially if there is "risk" of franchisor retaliation. A franchise agreement is the closest thing I know of to living under a benevolent dictator. Do what they want, support management, and you are golden, but cross them, and off with your head! Once a franchisor takes away your right to use his service marks and system, and for good measure enforces the covenent not to compete, it's usually goodbye business, and too late. And, remember that the franchise agreement says you will follow all of the rules - including those in the operating manual that the franchisor can change often, at will, and without consultation.