Franchises Can be Success Stories

"[Franchising] has a history of performing relatively well compared to the broader small business sector even when economic indicators are pointing down," says FCA executive director Steve Wright.

This is from an article that appeared in The Australian this week.  It is a continuation of the Franchise Council of Australia’s media machine’s roll out to set the stage for their political lobbyists to block the feared Franchising Inquiry recommendations that will be delivered to Parliament on Monday 1 December 2008. 

Mr. Wright offers flawed franchising data from the FCA’s sponsored “Franchise Australia 2008 Survey” that fails to give a comparison to non-franchised figures; so how can he compare performance?  How well do franchised businesses perform relative to non-franchised?   Will the Australian public and parliament buy into these false assertions and numbers and those to follow?  The data was produced by Professor Lorelle Fraser of Griffith University. 

Of Interest:

Joint Committee On Corporations & Financial Services, Reference: Franchising Code of Conduct 

Friday, 10 October 2008

Prof. Frazer:  “It is information on franchisees that is missing.  Of course, what we do is a survey of franchisors. So it is very limited in that respect.”   

Hon. Bernie Ripoll MP – CHAIR: “It could also be that that statistic is distorted by the fact some people cannot exit no matter what.  They have put in money that they have to recoup over time and they will bear whatever it takes to get through it.” Wednesday, 5 November 2008

Mr Rodney Hackett:  “The meat in those reports by Griffith University clearly indicates that the methodology, the quality of the outcome of that survey, is a load of nonsense.”  

“But people will endlessly quote just the executive summary in those Griffith University surveys which go on to regurgitate endlessly that there is no problem in franchising. Sorry guys, there is. If you like, I might be able to compile a list of suicides for you so you can understand how serious it really is.” 

“The other parties who propose that there is not a problem, that nothing needs to be done, the present measures work, are the very same parties who so rigorously and comprehensively opposed Minister Beddall’s amendments back in 1992.  The same arguments were trotted out, the same thing.  Their purpose in all truth is to deflect and defer and hope another 24 years will go past before anything has to happen.”   Michael Delaney, MTAA, Transcript of Evidence, p335 - Reid Committee 1997. 

The author of this article is Australia’s foremost small business journalist and speaker and has been the leading voice for franchisee protection and a better armed regulator.  

--

Related articles by Peter Switzer; 

• Little fish get a weapon to fend off the sharks
• Time to heal old wounds: new minister needs to address franchising
• Franchisees to back Rudd's bully brief 
• Franchisors good and bad
• Dead men walking as competition watchdog turns a blind eye
• Ketchell franchise decision faces High Court test