Major Layoffs at Dunkin' Donuts as Owner Carlyle Group Downsizes
HEARD ON THE STREET — Dunkin' Donuts Corporation has laid off a number of vice presidents and others, all significant members of the company's management team. The Officious Owl has not been able to verify the number or names, but he did receive an internal communications memo sent to Dunkin' Donuts and Baskin Robbins franchisees dated December 1, 2008, making an announcement on behalf of Paul Leech, Chief Administrative Officer, who is resigning as of December 31. Although Leech has been with Dunkin' Brands for 12 years and a total of 30 years including his time with previous owner Allied Domecq, he stated that Dunkin' needs a strong leader for Human Resources, and as the CAO he would never profess to be that person, although that has been one of his primary duties for a number of years.
According to an anonymous source close to the situation, "Dunkin' has indeed laid off a ton of people." He said Dunkin's Chief Operating Officer Will Kussell has been making personal visits to some of the largest franchisees to outline what is going on with the company. "According to Kussell, they are pulling in their development and expansion reins to concentrate on making the most for their current franchisees and for Dunkin'," he revealed. The source mentioned that raising unit operational performance would impose tremendous change on particularly its largest multi-unit franchise owners, since their emphasis in the past had been an entirely different strategy —expansion.
The Overhearing Hooter learned that McDonald's efforts over the last two or three years has eroded Dunkin' Brands and cut into Dunkin’s coffee and breakfast sandwiches efforts. "It’s got to be particularly hard in any new markets that Dunkin' is trying to crack into, finding out that McDonald's is already there," the source said.
In an interview with Kevin R. McCarthy, chairman of the Dunkin' Donuts Independent Franchise Owners association, he said he heard of the layoffs but did not have any details. He said, "While downsizing and reorganizations are an unfortunate characteristic of today’s troubled economic climate, Dunkin’ Brands seems to be engaged in a multi-year ongoing pattern of reshufflings, refocusings and reorganizations. It’s increasingly difficult for franchisees to know where or who to turn to for advice or assistance when titles, job functions and personnel so frequently change."
McCarthy also showed concern over the company making major changes without giving franchisees advance notice or getting their input. He said, “We don’t want to see franchisee support suffer because they don’t have a voice in corporate reorganizations even though such reorganizations directly impact their sales, profits and ultimately the customer experience. A more enlightened and modern management practice would be to collaborate and consult with franchisee leaders in advance of corporate reorganizations and not spring corporate reorganizations on the franchise community by surprise. Management should never forget that, in the end, it's franchisees that pay all the bills and serve all the customers every day of the year.”
Carlyle Group Announces Major Layoffs, Closes California Office
In another surprise announcement made yesterday, the Carlyle Group, one of three private equity firms that owns Dunkin' Brands, stated that it would lay off 100 people, which is 10 percent of their entire staff. It has also closed its California office. According to a Wall Street Journal article, this is the Carlyle Group's first downsizing in its 20-year history, and it is the first U.S. private equity firm to announce cuts as the industry braces for leaner times.
--
Related reading:












Dead geese lay no Golden Eggs!
This story is a sad commentary on the current state of American business under private equity ownership. Private equity is not doing as well as it historically has. Now they are squeezing more and more out of the proverbial "Goose that is Laying the Golden Eggs."
What Luther, Kussell, and their private equity owners need to remember is that if you squeeze the goose's neck too tightly, eventually the goose will asphyxiate: Dead geese lay no Golden Eggs! They just start to decompose and stink.
No, in tough economic times, f'or management should be thinking about "stimulating the economy with a tax cut", by cutting royalties or offering franchisees other incentives such as financial assistance in remodeling (as McDonald's did with McCafe), or perhaps offering extended franchise term. Instead, this f'or imposes increasingly draconian directives, further hurting f'ee bottom line profits.
Interestingly, in this f'or's view, who is to blame for today's eroding EC transaction counts? Franchisees. When things are going well, it is all about wonderful f'or management. When things are not going well, it is not the f'or's fault -- it is because the f'ees are messing up.
Sorry, Dunkin' Brands, you can't have it both ways. The inconsistency of your position is as transparent as your loathing and disrespect for your most valuable asset, your f'ees.
Remember, Mssrs. Luther and Kussell, f'ee willingness and ability to reinvest in your system is largely what created the $2.42 Billion of value that your Private Equity owners paid for the Brands only a couple of years ago.
-- Anon. Guest
(Sorry, I would love to sign my name, but I am sure the retribution for writing this would be swift and severe).
“Screw ‘em and Sue ‘em”
“Loathing and disrespect”. You got that right, Anon Guest!
Current Dunkin f’ees understand all too well Dunkin’s “Screw ‘em and Sue ‘em” mentality. Ask Cindy Gluck, Salim Ali, John Salema (who all have been reported upon on BMM) and a myriad of other good people who are now feeling or have felt the sting of this f’or’s vengeance.
F'ors like Dunkin’ Brands will only hasten the day of National Fair Franchising Legislation! Long live U.S. Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC) and his failed Small Business Franchise Act of 1998. This is much needed legislation that’s time may yet come! The pendulum has to come back toward center!
Re: “Screw ‘em and Sue ‘em”
I'm sorry but didn't Salema and Ali break laws!!!
terminate and ask questions later
That was alleged but not (yet) proven. I thought that in this country the proper process was the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law. Maybe the "laws" are different in Canton, MA.
FYI: Before the Luther / Horn regime, score of franchisees have survived certain scandals over the course of their business careers and are still franchisees. Dunkin' extracted (or is that extorted) their pound of flesh for the misdeeds and move on. Now it is "terminate and ask questions later." Maybe they just make more money that way.
Buyer beware: This f'or may love you one minute and turn on you the next. If you end up on the "Sh*t List" for one of many reasons, God help you! You will be in for the ride of your life.
May we all life in good health until the day that fair anything
the law of the land.
The landscape may be strewn with many corpses, but fairness is not the natural product of extinction.
Keep at what you are doing. We can still enjoy this lament Christmas of 2009.
--
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
Re: May we all life in good health until the day that fair anyth
Amen to that, Richard... The health part, not the waiting part. I may not always agree with you, but I never fail to get a good chuckle from your contributions.
Merry Christmas and Happy 2009 to you, by the way.
--The "Phantom Phranchisee"
Want to hear a sadder story than that?
The DD Franchisee association continues to operate in a single channel - remediation of DD as a vehicle worthy of continued investment.
When "things" get to the point where they now are at DD and at so many other companies,single channel strategies are not likely to be productive.
The DD franchisees need to find another aproach to getting well. Complaining about the health and treatment at DD obviously is unlikely to yield positive results.
On this track one should expect that DD is probably now over the hill, and that John Luther may be providing only hospice care.
McD didn't start its breakfast program yesterday. If the perception of the McD breakfast impact is just now dawning on DD, someone is sound asleep at the switch. The best example of folks being asleep at the switch today is General Motors. I see DD as being somewhat similar in terms of its prospects. You are quite unlikely to be able to reverse its movement toward the end of its life cycle. Certainly complaining is not going to achieve anything - nor is name calling.
The DD franchisee association should consider effective alternative strategies.
--
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
Aside from composing a Requiem...
And what "alternative strategies" would our venerable sage of franchise law recommend, pray tell? Aside from composing a Requiem, what do you think will work?
There are some things that venerable sage does not hand out
free of charge. But as part of my crisis management practice I deal with these issues rather frequently - frequently enough to know that what the DD people are doing now is a typical approach and practically never works.
--
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
Name your price, Richard!
Perhaps I may spring for this consultion (personally) to help the DDIFO find a strategy that will yield some positive results.
WOW! Now there's an example of a really serious proposal
Thanks, Mr Anonymous Guest, for that accolade.
It represents the apparent seriousness of what I see going on in DD. And you wonder why nothing positive is being achieved?
I don't wish evil on the DD franchisee group, but if they think that their franchisor is going to do an about face from its agenda for their company because y'all don't like it, you might not be smarter than a 5th grader.
Typically the group sits on its hands and watches as franchisee dissidents get picked off one by one, cheerlerading the target franchisee but doing nothing effective or having value to the franchisee target or to themselves.
DD is no different from every other franchisee group in similar circumstances. The opposition agenda never works because the franchisees don't own the company, and wouldn't want to own the company if it were even availalble to them to do so.
Every franchisor that has the options that DD has does exactly what DD is doing. This isn't rocket science. Any whenever that happens, the affected franchisees always do the same thing. And it never works.
And so every franchisee's investment dilutes and dilutes until there is no longer anything of capital value left. No one but a moron would buy them out at that point - which in franchising probably means that there are plenty of buyers. Just tell your buyer what a wodnerful business it is and how great you are treated by your franchisor, and what a magnificent history you have enjoyed - you know - your own discovery day - and some laid off FranWad will go out and get an SBA or other loan and buy you out - NOT!!
Why do frachisee groups always pursue the same dead end strategy? Why do they never look at the history of everyone always doing the same thing and always coming out with a bad ending. When the stimulus doesn't change, the reaction doesn't change.
--
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