Public Forums of Discussion
share franchise news, to prosper and amuse
At Jim’s ‘Almost Everything In Service Franchising’
Editor's note: This news clipping has turned into a long public discussion on Jim's franchising companies of Australia. As such, it has been converted into a public discussion forum, which are long-term discussions on big issues or franchise brands. - Mr. Blue MauMau
A year ago Jim’s franchising apparently consisted of 2,700 franchises in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Britain, with a turnover of $200 million. In just one year Jim Penman now reports 2950 franchises with an approximate turnover of $250 million.
Jim Penman, 57, began his original mowing operation in 1982 with a local leaflet drop. Times have changed and while Jim’s franchising has a remarkably small advertising budget with ‘about 29’ different franchise products under the Jim’s brand they are all out there on the road creating a huge public presence. Jim’s franchising is said to involve a very small investment for franchisees compared to other brands of similar public profile. The franchisee complaints that have been reported have contained allegations that the investment level could not justify the cost of pursuing the franchisor in relation to profitability and support grievances.
Jim says his turnover is ‘a very small percentage but obviously it's a very large pie.’
Jim on Franchisee Support
Jim Penman, founder of Jim's Group in Australia, discusses the importance of supporting franchisees
WHAT A JOKE!
Excuse me while I get a bucket and empty my stomach
Why would someone post a
Why would someone post a video of jim talking about 'supporting franchisees' - when ex franchisees are blasting him for the non support below?
I notice that Jim has put on two new divisions recently; Dingoes & Glass restoration. I wonder how long until they are mentioned on this site?
Jim's wouldn't want a survey
Jim's wouldn't want a survey done on there franchisors as the last one taken showed that the founder Jim penman should stand down.- also check the litagation on Jim's at the moment.
As an ex franchisee in the
As an ex franchisee in the test and tag division i have many positive memories of the Ivers as my original divisional franchisors. While i didn't agree with everything they did i believe they had great integrity and they truly believed in their system.
When they were shafted by Jim Penman (and Neil Welsh) I believe that James Ivers called every franchisee in the division to tell them the news which is more than could be said of our newly installed grand poobah. To this day i don't believe any franchisee has been deemed worthy of being told what actually transpired at the time or why the Ivers were booted out.
A lot has been said on this forum and in other media about how Jim Penman makes arbitrary changes to the contracts of his franchisors and then threatens them if they don't like it..... (the old like it or lump it scenario).....well, welcome to the world of a test and tag franchisee! While Neil Welsh doesn't actually make changes to existing franchisee's contracts, for legal reasons I imagine, he does go through the back door and make arbitrary decisions and changes to the operations manual which all franchisees are obliged to follow because it's in their contract! At times this had the direct effect of over riding one of the most important parts of the contract, namely the 'right of first refusal' in your own territory. When our regional franchisor was challenged on this he metaphorically threw his arms in the air and called in the big guns....enter Neil Welsh....again. And his solution?....."If you don't like it, you know what you can do....."
So people, give em hell because there is more than one rotten apple in the Jim's barrel.
Ex Tagger comments
Note that all franchisors are not like Jim, however, unfortunately, all have to act like Jim to stay in the game. Jim will remain whilstever greed and power is the underlying motive as many others also do not have the capacity to survive any competition that is equal.
By ex taggers comments he has been exposed to the incompetence and beligerent disregaurd to business ethics and total disrespect for franchisees by Neil Welch. By comments made it would appear that Neil Welch selected the right regional franchisor, that is greedy and not real bright.
Limitless would be the scope for franchisees and franchisors to expand if the ethos preached was actually practised. It is time for the real franchisees and franchisors to stand up and be counted to remove the tirany and pure uncaring selffish greed of the minority.
Sinking Ship
As a keen kayaker if anybody wants the throw a life jacket to Jim,,the PFD1 will keep his head above water, the PFD2-3 will only Assist floatation, just a little tip when purchasing a life jacket.
What i would like to know is when is the vote coming up to say yay or nay to Jim ?
With the UK stuffed and Canada not far behind it could be Australias turn just around the corner ?
What a business model that
What a business model that would have an International Master Franchisee broke after a couple of years. Seems to be the standard operating practice of the Jims Franchise system . Screw them over for a few 100 thousand all the while knowing that failure awaits.
FAILED
Jim's Group business divisions that have failed
1 Alarms 2000-05
2 Appliance Repairs 2001-08
3 Concreting 2003-05
4 Earthworks 2004-05
5 Garden Edge 2003-05
6 Graffiti Solutions 2007-08
7 Heating & Cooling 2003-08
8 Irrigation 2002-06
9 Marie's Mobile Hair 2003-05
10 Mobile BBQ 1999-2006
11 Motor Vehicle Repair Service 1999-2000
12 Pool Care Retail 2003-09
13 Preggi Bellies (health and fitness for pregnant or post-natal women) 2002-04
14 Road Training (driving instruction for learners) 2000-07
15 Sand, Soil & Gravel 2001-02
16 Wardrobes 1999-2006
SOURCE: JIM'S GROUP HEAD OFFICE DOCUMENT, ''JIM'S GROUP DIVISION RECORD''
* List excludes other short-lived trialled divisions specialising in pet enclosures, locksmiths, removals, pest control, beach houses, balloons and roller shutters.
Yes ask the Iver's about the
Yes ask the Iver's about the so-called successful "business model" what happened to them?
Read Jim's contradictions in the Mary Ann Toy story in the Age - this reporter nailed it!
http://www.theage.com.au/business/will-jims-followers-mow-him-down-20091023-hdfp.html
Ivers
As a franchisee under the Ivers I would agree with some other comments, they may have been lovely people, except when pushed & than you saw another side of them, which was not so pleasant & not particularly good at managing a fast growing division. Our division has grown in leaps & bounds since the Ivers left & Neil Welsh has had control, it has been the best thing that could have happened to my business.
NEIL W COMMENTS
OK Neil, shame you can't speak up about other issues instead of looking like an Easter Island Statue at various meetings!
Neil w comments
The Easter Island Statue is a carbon copy of Jim. That is a hypocrite. Easter (as in bunny) publicly praises Jim but in meetings will totally demeanour Jim. Jim, keep the bunny in front of you as he sees your back as a target.
I don't know the
I don't know the Ivers,however if they are not equiped to successfuly run their business is'nt it Jim's responsability to help them as this is what they payed a lot of money for. Is it right to simply take their business and investment away from them? As a franchisee if your franchisor decided that you did'nt run your business as well as they felt that you should would you expect your zor to terminate you or help you succeed? Why does Jim have two sets of rules? One for the frachisee and one for the zor?
I don't know the
Ivers termination. Jim says it was because of the franchisees?. Jim says he spoke to franchisees?, how many?, was it two as suggested by Walsh?, was there a vote by all franchisees?. How many franchisees were there?.
Jim says Division sold to Walsh for $100,000 of which Ivers gets $80,000. In this thread on 04/09/2009 by Jim Penman titled Valuation, Jim states that the Test and Tag division was sold for $360,000 with 20 franchisees a couple of years ago.
Is this the same sale that Walsh purchased for $100,000 or has the division beeen sold again two years ago?.
So if Ivers was renting and paying a monthly rental, and Jim could see a cash sale of $360,000 direct into his cash pool and Jim received one or two complaints, would that trigger an agenda to take the cash?.
expansion theory hypothesis
I was given this web site today by a colleague. So far I have read about space ships, vented spleens, combantants and contestants. As a keen writer and reader of the big bang theory, maybe we are about to see another or will it be the creation of a black hole as Jim implodes and sucks the life out of those closest to him?.
Hypothesis and reading between invisible lines. What if Neil Walsh was one of the people Jim spoke with and they conspired to remove Ivers and Walsh to pay Jim $360 grand but only tell Ivers he gets $100 grand for the sale. Jim gets $280 grand net in the sky rocket, Walsh gets the Division from which he will make millions and they both get sadistic satisfaction of sticking it up Ivers?
Oh well it's only a hypothetical theory calculated on unknown anti-matter.
expansion theory hypothesis
Getting very warm grass hopper?. Ignore franchise codes as they are designed to go in circles.
Publications indicate potential fraud if Jim Penman and Neil Welsh's word can be believed. Jim says Test and Tag sold for $100,000 to Neil Welsh and Ivers received $80,000.
Neil Welsh says 33 franchisees at time of sale. Equals average $3030 per franchisee which is way under market value?. Jim also says Test and Tag sold a couple of years ago for $360,000 (same sale?) an average of $10909 per franchisee, which is nearer the market value as also described by Jim. If sold for $360,000, Jim gets 20%? equals $72,000 and Ivers $288,000.
Somebody has been short changed $208,000? (Ivers reportably received only $80,000). Was this by joint conspiracy or accessory afer the fact or lies told to intentionally mislead the public, officials and Ivers?.
Where is Ivers missing $208,000 dollars if Jim can be believed?.
Who is going to be first to admit to intentionally misleading the public and Ivers, Jim Penman or Neil Welsh?.
Who will be first to approach the Department of Public Prosecutions and turn witness for the Crown to apply for clemency?.
Did Jim pocket $20,000, $72000 or $280,000?.
Was there a conspiracy to devalue franchisees?.
Was or who bankrolled Welsh for the purchase?
Ex tagger said there was a blanket blackout on explanations at time of termination and sale?.
Was Welsh a part of a conspiracy and has maintained that conspiracy?.
Was Ivers paid $80,000 or $288,000?
Let's all see collaboted figures. So far Jim has shown two sets of books, which one is correct Neil Welsh, $100,000 or $360,000?. FOI can be applied for on Companies.
Funny thing is, they never
Funny thing is, they never paid for the division. They were only renting it from Jim.
Not so funny
Ivers developed the product and invested everything he had into Test and Tag. Only one error of judgement, he believed the public persona about Jim and placed his trust in Jim.
Irrespective if Ivers was renting or had re purchased his own interlectual property, Jim still stole the Division without having to invest anything. Jim has several OBE medallions and awards and these were all gained by Other Blokes Efforts.
Yes but why let the truth get
Yes but why let the truth get in the way of a good story? Seems to be a lot of this theory going around.
Ahhh.....there's that
Ahhh.....there's that selection thing again!
Everything carries Jim's name, until there is a problem?
Pay the money and sell franchises and all is OK - right Jim?
Stall with sales or get enough (which is never defined) complaints..."goodbye - you are the weakest link"
'Next victim to the counter please?' 'Ca-ching'.....that lovely sound of the cash register turning over
Maybe you should speak to the
Maybe you should speak to the franchisees who operated under the Ivers as Divisional Managers and see how they felt about them - they were quite simply terrible franchisors. Nice people, but terrible franchisors.
What just the two?
Two out of how many franchisees?
"Neil Walsh, who bought James and Heather Iver's division after their contract was terminated, says that at least two of the Ivers' franchisees were dissatisfied with their management."
Maybe someone should ask Neil
Maybe someone should ask Neil what he actually said, it would appear that the reporter has taken some liberties with the quotes attributed to him.
I was a franchisee under the Ivers' reign and was not disappointed with Jim's decision to not reappoint them in the Divisional role.
Ask Neil
The point is being missed by a manipulated smoke screen. If Jim and James Ivers had a differing view and Jim terminated Ivers, then that is between those parties.
However, Jim clearly states that he was acting for the franchisees at that time. My ex was never asked to vote either for or against Ivers performance. As such my ex and (now) many others object to being labbled as the reason for the dispossession of Ivers Division from him.
Jim's public display as the Robin Hood for franchisees is designed to receive support (without examination), however, look who the real financial beneficiaries are from his foray.
Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim and Jim.
Jim, you keep saying you have balls, well try and combine balls with the truth and leave out the spin. Play with a straight bat.
If you sacked someone because they didn't meet your goals than say so. If you sacked someone because the regional franchisors voted out, then say so. Don't hide behind franchisees and let them take the blame.
But JIm will never do that....
Jim is only concerned about Jim. That is a fact
His charade has been exposed, and from experience. the law means nothing so long as his ego and power remain in tact "Little man syndrome"
Laywers shake their head in disbelief at his antics, but they are forced to advise clients to back off because the cost can never justify the means.
Jim knows the rules. knows the game, and plays it to his full advantage. The law is meaningless when most can't afford it
JIM IS PURE EVIL
BELOW DRIVEL
The A grade imbeciles post below has already been questioned and countered previously, like all Jim supporters you are slow and a liar with no consideration for someone elses plight. May your ears turn to arseholes (again) and shit on your shoulders!
A grade imbeciles
LOL that call, " May your ears turn to arseholes (again) and shit on your shoulders!"
is legendary haha.
^_^
Legend
LMAO - great call!!
Grow Up
Grow up and welcome to the real world. If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen.
Paul Carr has the option of taking legal action and the courts will decide the outcome. It is clear that the only reason he is trying to get the media involved and starting up his website is because it is obviously not going well. If he was confident about the outcome, why wouldnt he wait until he had won and then shout about it?
I'll wait until the courts decide based on FACTS, but patterns of behaviour are very good indicators as to how someone thinks he is going and it is clear Paul Carr is struggling.
KEGGIE
Sure Jim!
I wonder if "Little Paulie ex
I wonder if "Little Paulie ex mate" believed Jim's offer (via print media Chalpat Sonti article) to fund any class action against Paul?
Sad if any UK zees believed that porky, because poor Richard H who is struggling with paying the costs with the legal fees (maybe this is where you got mixed up ex matey") and can’t afford a lawyer, he asked Jim for help so Jim offered him - which is mighty white of you Jimbo - offered Richard a minimum fee holiday "ohhh how grand and generous"
Even though Richards’s lawyers said Jim should be paying for this - dropped like a hot potato I would say, wouldn’t you?
What transcript like this
What transcript like this Jim's Franchisor?
"As it stands, my
solicitors are no longer acting for me as I am simply not in a position to
pay them. They have suggested several times that Jim's Group should foot
the bill but having spoken with Jim a couple of times that is clearly not
going to happen."
Little Paulie Under The Spotlight
This is very clearly a lesson in how much negative publicity one disgruntled franchisor can cause.
Unfortunately for Paul Carr, once you turn on the spotlight, it invariably turns back on you and here it comes, Paul.
I haerd a rumour that he engaged in a very abusive telephone call with a legal representative who hung up on him. So enraged was little Paulie that he then drove 100 kms to the Court he is about to be dragged before and proceeded to abuse the Clerk of the Court because no one would do what he wanted.
The words "moronic imbecile" were bandied about, although were probably more applicable to the utterer of those words than the recipient.
Now the Clerk of the Court told the Judge who has taken a dislike to Little Paulie and now that he has allegedly bypassed mediation, his chances of winning have plummeted.
He has been hit with a court fee of 600 quid which he hasn't been able to raise yet and that car of his that is supposed to be getting repaired is allegedly with the repo man pending a significant outstanding payment coming through very soon (don't hold your breath repo man).
The house is next, as he will be losing that to pay legal costs, a fact Mrs Little Paulie may not be aware of just at this moment in time, although I understand that correspondence addressed to her has been prepared. That will be a fun topic for conversation for Little Paulie when he gets home that night!
Apparently even lawyers are steering a wide berth from Little Paulie as he has been unable to find representation of late, primarily due to his dubious financial position and more dubious mental state.
Perhaps all is not as it seems with Little Paulie.
little paulie ex bud
Hey mate, heard of karma bro?, you will get yours if you have a relationship (failship) with jims. So then we will all laugh at you when you loose everything you have like you have laughed at poor paulie. You need to be less concerned with paulie and more concerned with your own life YOU DOUCHE!!!!!!!!!
^_^
I was disgusted with the
I was disgusted with the above thread ,only a complete douche would get the obvious please you are getting out of some poor buggers misfortune and their loss of income ,home and possibly everything they own because of their unfortunate aquantance with JIM. Words can't express how much you disgust me!
Fantasy land
Yes it was disgusting but quite normal behaviour for a Jim supporter.
Don't worry -I am both financially solvent and mentally strong as Jim will discover in Court next year. Best to ignore such moronic fabricated posts and let the idiots enjoy their simple juvenile pleasures.
Jim's Admin Staffing Roundabout..
Rumour has it that Jim and his Admin Centre are seeking more staff – one of interest is the changeover of Legal Counsel , or more importantly the current legal senior counsel will be an underling of a newer and better Senior Legal Counsel, how will that work or does this say Jim is not confident in his current legal staff regime?
Also as well expected Maunders after scurrying away is up for replacement apparently the replacements come highly qualified, NOT with franchising backgrounds but with racing/gambling backgrounds, it this true?
Has anyone bothered to ask, amidst all of the external turmoil of Jims ruthless and barbaric treatment of his divisional and regional franchisees and brave franchisee's who dare to question his "ethos" why he cannot keep his high ranking staff employees? Does this not smack of a man who just cannot be told and has a complete lack of respect from his high ranking staff that the “rats are deserting the sinking ship”?
Does Jim ever question himself with these same questions?
Is the ship sinking Jim?
Jim Who???
Purchased a JM franchise here in Vancouver Canada. The agreement was light and easily understood and the price was reasonable. Cracks appeared immediately. The market here is under serviced , it rains half the year so who wants to work outside. Well I do. So I buy my franchise, the training is unnecessary (Its not rocket science) and bingo Im in business. Now the word has gone out on my St and with friends and relatives that Im now in business as a gardener. Now my personal line is ringing off the hook. Naturally like all JM franchisees you have a personal business line. So I think, hey this is retarded. These people want me not Jims Mowing.
Side Note
The face on the side of the trailer over here is regarded as something stupid over something wacky. We franchisees recommended having the signage with no face as Canadians neither care about Jim Penmans story or find the face worthy of being on the side of a trailer. It was a continual source or irritating questions like is that your dad?
Anyway back to the story at hand
So here I am flooded with work none of which is coming through the Jims office and Im paying the Jims office a bunch of cash without having ever really used their services. So I talk to a few other franchisees and they have the same story although perhaps to a lesser degree then me.
Within 9 months of going into business with jims I had much more work then I can handle so I register a separate company and move all my existing clients to it.
Withing 3 years this business has grown to 3 employees and me with sales of 350k per year . Next tax year will be closer to 500.
In comparison there are a few strictly Jims franchises (not many) here in Vancouver with sales Sub 100k. Im no longer a franchisee and think myself stupid for not investigating the local market before buying a franchise.
Dont at all blame Penman or Dennis selling it to me or for trying to make a buck, thats what its all about. Unfortunately here the concept is failing and there is no amount of change that can prevent it.
Like the attempt at the USA the Canadian one is doomed. Franchisees would be talking to independents
all the time and see the money that can be earned without the containment the franchise causes.
Just hope that Dennis and crew pulled some bucks while the going was ok
Who, Who???
Your right Jim WHO indeed?
Jim the Volvo driving povo, I am for the little man Jim, or Jim the ruthless, greedy, malicious person who and please read Mary Ann Toys article (which hit the nail on the head)
http://www.smh.com.au/business/will-jims-followers-mow-him-down-20091023-hdfp.html
Seriously read this extremely observant and well worded article!
Who... just plain nasty! He did not give a “tinkers cuss” about the aussie battler “Mum and Dad” investors, the Iver’s is a sad example that we know about thanks to the exposure of this article! I would like to know of the other lost souls (regional /divisional franchisees) out there who have suffered at the hands of this person, these people are worn out with fighting via the so-called correct way, yes the law who don’t give a flying ***k and just want it off their plate because it is way too boring!! Which understandably s not their fault as it is yet the government who can change the laws/legislation, to protect us!
What came first the “Chicken” or the “Egg” is the policy still in question re: franchising!
DONT allow this “rape, pillage and plunder”!! on the Mum and Dad investors!
Jim: Povo or Greedy?
Government : Brown Envelope Collectors or Serious?
Too worn out to care maybe until of course it happens to YOU!
Then we all ask "hoo hoo" is there an owl out there?
Or go into business yourself as like Mr Canada did..!
Minister Emerson is a total disgrace when you consider the brown nosing he did prior to the election versus what he has done since being elected (virtually zero) one has to wonder as of tomorrow being the 11th of the 11th; what would Gough think?
“Maintain the Rage” was the statement – We are, what are you doing Emerson?
Looks very much to us and the 60,000 plus franchisees that you are continuing to fiddle while we "burn", well done Nero, your efforts will be remembered at the upcoming ballot box.
Know what you mean about the
Know what you mean about the face, it’s the one of a nasty paedophilic uncle that every one covers for to avoid the shame!
jim's forum
jimp 04/11/2009 10.03pm
" This is part of an email from a franchisee paul is chasing for fees,after threatening to break his legs for complaining to me.
Upon my solicitor hanging up on him because of his abusive behavior he proceeded to travel 100k to the court where which we are due to have a hearing and rant at the clerk and call him a moronic imbecile because my solicitor refused to speak to him. The upshot being the judge is aware of his behavoir and has taken a dislike to him ,also Paul refused mediation which goes against him.
He seems to be showing cracks in more ways than one."
Jim's lies
I can confirm that the email is completely untrue and has no doubt been fabricated by Jim himself- I have asked him to send me a copy of the email and he has ignored the request.
Obviously if I had done this, how on earth would the franchisee know? And how does he know what the judge is apparently thinking?
The facts are that I have 2 court cases pending with this rogue terminated franchisee ( who was part of Jim's conspiracy against me- on the promise of a well paid management position post my departure) for non payment of fees and breach of contract, but I have never spoken to his solicitor or visited the Court.
Jim's lies
I can confirm that the email is completely untrue and has no doubt been fabricated by Jim himself- I have asked him to send me a copy of the email and he has ignored the request.
Obviously if I had done this, how on earth would the franchisee know? And how does he know what the judge is apparently thinking?
The facts are that I have 2 court cases pending with this rogue franchisee ( who was part of Jim's conspiracy against me- on the promise of a well paid management position post my departure) for non payment of fees and breach of contract, but I have never spoken to his solicitor or visited the Court.
JIm has to be kidding
Sounds like an honours graduate from the "Jim's School of Dispute Resolution"
You have to love the professionalism Jim displays in putting this type of thing on forums. If someone does it to him, he shuts the forum, topic or site down.
This is exactly the way Jim himself behaves...there's enough lawyers (and disgruntled franchisees) around that would have a smirk after dealing with Jims antics.
FORUM SO CALLED EMAIL
I agree with the above post 100% as i like so many others have witnessed Jim's brand of dispute resolution on many occasions.
Speaking of 100, last time i was in England they relate distances in miles not k's as they are still on the imperial system not metric!, For my money Jim wrote this thread himself, the above fact coupled with the other drivel written relates more to how he would act than any one else.
Nice try Jim, but as always no one believes a word you say!
Carpet fiasco
Of all the things I read on the Jim Penman truth site I found the "carpet fiasco" to be the most incredible.
Jim seems to suggest that a cost factor came into his decision to use a competitor to clean carpets at a Jims owned venue over a Jims franchisee:
Whilst the idea that the $76 difference in cost mentioned should threaten viabilty is disturbing in itself, of more concern is the notion that Jim does not see how damaging franchisee relationships has a greater impact on "viabilty" than any increasing overheads.
I cannot think of much that is more damaging to a franchise than handing a job to a competitor rather than to one of your own zees. To then see Jim go on to try to defend his actions as being to the benefit of his zees merely cements my opinion that Jim has lost the franchise plot, if he ever really grasped it in the first place.
This correspondence really should have been the other way round. It should be the franchisor berating a regional for not seeing the bigger PR and zee relationship picture, for not taking the opportunity to ensure a new franchisee gets further work experience, for not having $76 worth of pride in his franchisees' work, for potentially destroying the brand by not demonstrating faith in the Jims system, for putting evidence into the hand of a competitor that even "jims" wont use "jims"......the list goes on and on.....and instead we have Jim Penman failing to make any of those arguments himself?
It's concerningly backwards.
Should it be kudos to the Valet carpet cleaning contractor for keeping this info about Jims from the media? Or should it be commiserations to them for not seeing a viral marketing campaign for themselves when it was handed to them?
Either way, it is a disturbing situation and one that would win my vote to see heads (of company) roll.
ATTENTION ALL JIMS FRANCHISEES
I would like to thank the author of the above post making her intelligent and observant comments.
For all of you who are yet to make it to the truth site here is just one example and please note it is "A FACT" of Jims so called support of a franchisee who dared to question him.
I would like to make a very important point to you all here and that is this is but one of the many disgraceful exchanges we can show you of Penman being caught with his hand in the cookie jar. There are other even more despicable acts that he perpetrated upon "the little people" meaning you the franchisees.
Please understand that you are dealing with a master politician here who is playing on the tall poppy syndrome that is rife in Australia and he is betting that you are the type that scratches a luxury car because you fail to ask how can I have, rather than why have they got it, please remember this quote:
"Thinking is the hardest work anybody can do, that is why so few people engage in it" Henry Ford.
Read below and put your thinking caps on!
The Transcript
>> Below is a transcript of an email ‘conversation’ between John Marsh a Jim’s cleaning franchisee and Jim Penman CEO and founder of the Jims group. Makes interesting reading, please forward on to your address book something I feel people would be interested to know.
2008/9/5 John Marsh:
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>> I am writing to you as I hold grave concern in regard to information
>>> I
>> have
>>> received about the use of an outside contractor employed to clean
>>> the carpets at the training centre. I learned of this yesterday in a
>>> casual conversation with a friend. Apparently a lead was sent to a
>>> Jim's Carpet Cleaner who came and quoted the job, whoever arranged
>>> this felt the quote was too high and mentioned this to someone who
>>> suggested a person from
>> Valet
>>> 5. He was called, quoted and did the job. I found this totally
>>> beyond comprehension, not really believing that it was true I made
>>> some calls to
>> my
>>> franchisor who confirmed it.
>>>
>>> On your on hold message you personally advertise Jim's carpet
>>> cleaning,
>> the
>>> exact wording I do not know, but I am sure it would be in the form
>>> of a professional job at a fair price, obviously not fair enough for
>>> the Jim's group, how bloody hypocritical !! I really can not believe
>>> that the credibility of the entire Jim's Group, something that you
>>> have spent over
>> 25
>>> years building could be shot down to nothing over the princely sum
>>> of
> $76.
>>> Yes Jim $76 that was the difference between the two quotes! In
>>> addition
> it
>>> has been brought to my attention that the Jim's franchisee who
>>> quoted had only just signed up and this was his second or third
>>> lead. He apparently does not know what transpired and I have been
>>> asked not to tell him, I
> can
>>> understand why, if it was me I would be screaming for my money back!
>>>
>>> Surely the correct way to have dealt with this if the quote was felt
>>> to
> be
>>> too high, would have been to contact the franchisor for the area to
>>> personally come and access the job and keep it in house, after all
>>> the franchisee is a representative of the Jim's group and needs to
>>> be guided
>> to
>>> a correct pricing structure, if out in the field he is quoting to
>>> high it will have a knock on effect to all of the services Jim's
>>> offer, from
>> public
>>> word of mouth.
>>>
>>> You're an intelligent man Jim, so I am sure it is not necessary for
>>> me to explain the impact this would have on the Jim's group as a
>>> whole if this became public knowledge, or if the media got wind and ran with it!
>>>
>>> As for Valet 5, well if it was me I'd be telling the world, what a
>>> great
>> way
>>> to advertise, I can see it now VALET 5, THE PREFERRED CARPET
>>> CLEANERS
> FOR
>>> THE JIM'S GROUP.
>>>
>>> I and many thousand's of franchisees have invested a great deal of
>>> money
>> to
>>> buy a business that uses your integrity, persona and credibility,
>>> since buying my franchise 3 years ago there have been a few things
>>> that have caused me some angst but this takes the cake! I can only
>>> hope that this
>> does
>>> not become public knowledge, leads would drop to Zero and it would
>>> not surprise me if you never sold another franchise again. Over
>>> dramatic
>> maybe,
>>> but the public are a fickle commodity, I wonder how long Virgin
>>> airlines would last if Richard Branson chose to fly with Quantas
>>> because he felt
>> they
>>> offered a better more competitive service!
>>>
>>> The more I think about the hypocrisy of this situation the harder I
>>> find
>> it
>>> to comprehend. I will be giving some serious thought over the next
>>> few
>> weeks
>>> as to whether I wish to remain with a group that holds its own
>>> backbone
> in
>>> such high disregard.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate it if you would could afford me the courtesy of a
>> reply,
>>> the damage is done in my view but I would like to know your feelings
>>> on
>> this
>>> matter and what action if any you may take in relation to it. If it
>>> was
> me
>>> Jim, Heads would roll.
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> John Marsh
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Penman [mailto:penman.jim@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 9:06 AM
>> To: John Marsh
>> Subject: Re:
>>
>> Sorry John, I'm not going to be able to give you the answer you want.
>> Jim's guys are good and we give them tens of thousands of dollars a
>> year in work around our place, but we work like any other business in
>> looking for the best value at the best price. If our guys are equal
>> value, of course we'll use them. If not, we won't. At the extreme,
>> your argument would have me sack all my IT, bookkeeping and cleaning
>> staff and use Franchisees only. Then what are my Franchisees and
>> Franchisors going to say when our service levels drop because we
>> can't afford to look after them properly? On another level, we've
>> spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building a Conference Center
>> so we can give better quality training at a lower price. Using Jim's
>> guys only would have made this impossible. Who benefits from that? I
>> know it's only a carpet cleaning job, but where do you draw the line?
>> The rendering of our buildings was just a painting job, but we could
>> not have done it without the price we achieved (around $50,000).
>>
>> I'd expect you to use Jim's guys for bookkeeping or whatever if
>> they're as good as anyone else, but NOT if it would seriously cripple
>> your business. And if you tell me you would make such a decision,
>> then you're not being entirely truthful.
>>
>> John, if you want to leave Jim's because I won't live up to your
>> code, then do so. I've never lived by this and never will. My aim is
>> to provide constant improvement in service to Franchisees,
>> Franchisors and customers. That's what I've promised and that's what I'll deliver.
>>
>> Incidentally, I don't appreciate bad language. It doesn't strengthen
>> your case nor cast credit on you as an individual. And I always reply
>> to my Franchisees. The only reason I would not respond to any contact
>> is that I did not get it.
>>
>> Jim
> 2008/9/6 John Marsh:
>> You where right Jim, not the answer I want. Certainly I can
>> understand
> that
>> in a business the size of the Jim's group it would be totally
>> unviable to use subcontractors in all the areas of operation, it
>> makes perfect sense
> to
>> me to employ full time staff in all the aspects of administration, I
>> would ask you one question; would you use VIP garden services to
>> maintain the grounds at Mooroolbark if they offered a more
>> competitive service!! The point of my email was to express the point
>> that why would the public use a service we provide if we wouldn't use
>> it ourselves. As for the comment
> made
>> in to relation to bad language, bloody is a word in the English
> dictionary,
>> and was used in a context to emphasise my disbelief so your comment
>> is laughable.
>> Obviously I am going to have no joy in resolving this issue with you,
>> so I will ponder in which avenue I will move to. I had a great deal
>> of respect for you Jim, and held you in high regard sadly no longer .
>> I'm sure this fact will have little effect if none at all on you, but
>> I will say it all the same!
>>
>> John
-----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Penman [mailto:penman.jim@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 12:13 PM
> To: John Marsh
> Subject: Re:
>
> To answer your question, no I would not use a competing franchise
> chain for any service. We only use independents, for obvious reasons.
>
> On the subject of dictionaries, perhaps you would care to look up the
> word 'hypocrisy'. This is not living up to your own standards, or
> asking someone else to abide by standards you would not live up to
> yourself (as you have done). My standards are pretty clearly laid down
> in my book and elsewhere.
>
> I'm disappointed you have no problem with crude language, which
> presumably also applies to the way you deal with clients. Given this,
> I look forward to your speedy departure from the system, as promised.
>
> Jim
Original Message-----
> From: John Marsh [mailto:johnm@jimscleaning.net.au]
> Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 1:03 PM
> To: 'Jim Penman'
> Subject: RE:
>
> I have no problem within my business regarding clients Jim, I haven't
> taken leads for approximately a year, other than the odd unserviced
> lead I have been asked to take up. Most of my work is from referrals
> so I obviously have the right approach in that regard. You seem to be
> living on a different planet, in none of my communications I have
> madeany statement as to Promise to leave, only that I will be giving
> serious thought as to whether I wish to remain. Having invested a sum
> of $22,000 perhaps you would be kind enough to refund me this amount,
> I can assure you it would facilitate greatly in my choice!
>
To: 'John Marsh'
> Subject: RE:
>
> Further to this Jim, perhaps you should look into things with a little
> more effort, Valet 5 is a Franchise!!!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Penman [mailto:penman.jim@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 2:17 PM
To: John Marsh
Subject: Re: FW:
John,
Try and talk sense. Using a Franchise nobody's heard of is not going to cause a stir, while using VIP or similar just could. There's a practical side to my principles, and that's basically that I look to the best interests of my Franchisees as a group. If I followed your principles, I would be in such a bad financial state I'd give a lot LESS work to Franchisees, plus be able to provide less support.
As to looking into things more carefully, perhaps that's something you should have done. You're the one who bought in under illusion that I followed some meaningless 'principle' of yours, which you wouldn't even live up to yourself. I repeat the question you've failed to
answer: would you use Jim's guys over lower priced (but equal quality) alternatives, even if that drastically cut into your viability?
As to your $22,000, use crude language or obscenities with my clients and I will see you terminated. And no, you won't get your money back.
Jim
Thanks Jim, now I know where I am going with this. How dare you threaten me, I have had enough of your twist on words, I have never used bad language with my clients and I thought that would be obvious seeing I am flat out 7 days a week. As for Valet 5 being a franchise no one has heard of, well I have and so have many of my friends, and anyway the fact is irrelevant they are a competitor which in your reply you state you would 'never use for obvious reasons', reasons which where my concern to start with, and something I have every right to have concern with. In answer to your question I have no need of the services offered by the Jim's group, I am more than capable of doing things myself, or have a number of friends who are more than willing to assist me if the need arose.
John
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Penman [mailto:penman.jim@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 6 September 2008 9:29 PM
To: John Marsh
Subject: Re: FW:
You have every right to 'question' a policy. Franchisees who do this
can expect a courteous response and an explanation, and sometimes we
modify the policy.
What you did is write a rude, crude, insulting letter, saying that you
were looking to quit the system because you were disgusted with my
hypocrisy. John, you are the hypocrite and the one making threats. If
you regularly speak to clients the way you have addressed me you will
be terminated - that's no special threat but merely what's in the
Franchise Agreement.
I don't respect you, or your opinion, but keep your nose clean and
you'll be in no trouble.
Jim
I felt this response unworthy of a reply, the final comments I find childish and patronising. Instead I’ve packaged it up and sent it out so people can
make there own decision. I would like to thank everyone for their support so far, which has been 100% positive.
Ps Must have had a terrible time coping with the Australian Tourist Board advertising campaign of a few years back!
Jims Reply
I to am a Jim's franchisee and to be honest I am disgusted with the way this thread has been handled by Jim. In my opinion I think Jim should be wary that what this thread seems to be doing more than anything else is damaging the good name of Jim's (all franchises) through bad publicity. While a few franchisees seem to have set the ball rolling, Jim seems to be making sure it picks up speed!
I only hope this whole incident doesn't damage my business, as there are other people reading this string other than disgruntled Jim's franchisees!!!
Cheers
Col
Post new comment