Things Are (Still) Rotten in the State of Franchising

 In my position as the president of the American Franchisee Association, a national trade association that advocates for the rights of franchise business owners, I have seen many tragic stories from those who've invested their life savings in franchise businesses. It is horrifying to watch someone lose their life savings, their home, even their marriage, and file for bankruptcy, not due to any fault of their own, but because of their franchisor's bad faith business practices.

Yes, there is a patchwork quilt of franchise law out there. However, it has proven totally inadequate in dealing with the systemic problems in franchising. Let's start with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) "Franchise Rule," as those in the industry call it. The "Franchise Rule" is supposed to prevent fraud and misrepresentation in the pre-sale process (that means, before you buy the franchise). The Rule was promulgated in 1979 ... based on abuses by franchisors during the 1960's. Problem is, the FTC's Franchise Rule continues to address the dysfunctions of franchising during the 1960's when franchising was in its infancy. Even then, certain franchisers and their lobbyists (read, "lawyers") worked for ten years to hobble promulgation of the Rule. When it was evident that the "Rule" was going in effect, the "gimmee" to the franchisor community was that wronged persons would have to petition the FTC to address the wrongs. There was no "private right of action" given to the wronged franchisee. A franchisee has to go to the FTC to ask for redress on their behalf.

That might have been all right in the 1960's when the scam was in the pre-sale. The scam in franchising today is in the contract. Franchise contracts today are written to totally circumvent the spirit and intent of the Rule. They are written to deprive small business franchisees of many common law rights that every other citizen of the United States of America has access to; they are written by the corporation's franchise attorney in such a way that they can be changed arbitrarily by the corporation post-sale -- after the franchisee has sunk his/her money into the franchise.

That's just one of the issues franchisees hit up against during the ten or twenty year term of their franchise contracts. Another problem that we still wrestle with today coming from the 1960's was those folks selling franchises and promising investors they would make specific large amounts of money if only they bought a particular franchise. The FTC's requirements regarding "earnings claims" (Item 19 in the offering circular) were born out of that era. To this day, the FTC allows corporate franchisors to volunteer historical financial information about their operating outlets...you heard right..."volunteer." Does it surprise you that 85% of franchise corporations "volunteer" to keep the financial viability of their franchised  outlets secret? Even today, 27 years after its promulgation, the FTC sees no need to require franchise corporations ... the ones who lure buyers in with "own your own business, be your own boss" advertisements ... to disclose upfront the financial viability of their business offerings. To me, this is like buying a car without an engine. One of the most important facts you want to know when you go into business for yourself is, "how much money am I going to make?" If the idea of providing pre-sale information is important, then it is a fatal flaw of the FTC's franchise rule that disclosure of some measure of financial performance is not required.

You're starting to get the picture ... twenty-seven years after its promulgation, franchise corporations still hide behind and misuse the Item 19 disclosure requirement of the Franchise Rule. As a prospective buyer you are often told by franchise salespeople that they are ‘prohibited by law’ from making any earnings representations. This is basically untrue .. yes, some might even call it a lie! There is no federal rule or state law that prohibits franchise corporations from providing accurate earnings information in the disclosure document ... they just prefer not to volunteer the information.

By the way, what is most ironic about the voluntary disclosure of historical financial earnings information is that of the franchise enforcement cases undertaken by the FTC during the most recent audits by the General Accounting Office (GAO), 99.9% of the cases cited had to do with fraudulent or misleading earnings information give to prospective franchise purchasers. Yet, surprisingly, the FTC does not think the American consumer is entitled to that information ... upfront.

It has been the American Franchisee Association's mandate to strengthen the scenario for current and prospective franchise owners. Towards that end, I am going to start writing a column on Blue MauMau that highlights the issues that affect franchise owners across America with a frank discussion of their needs, their rights, their lack of rights and what, if anything, is coming down the pike to level the playing field. Franchisees need the help more now than they ever did in the 1960's.

Susan P. Kezios
President
The American Franchisee Association

 _______________________________

53 W Jackson Blvd Suite 1157
Chicago, IL 60604
Ph:(312) 431-0545, Fax: (312) 431-1469
www.franchisee.org

©Copyright 2006, Susan Kezios.

Rotten apple photo by tp. FTC statue of man harnessing trade (horse) photo by Novak.

Average: 3.7 (5 votes)

Tags:

There are no tags.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Eye Opening

Fascinating essay. Very eye opening. I would assume that the deck is often stacked high enough that franchisers won't budge so buyers have to walk away.

Will a good franchise lawyer be enough to guide one through the franchise agreement obstacle course?

Thanx Susan

Susan,
I am one who receives fees from franchise companies for successful placements of new franchisees to their systems.
I am probably one of the very few in my part of the industry who agrees and likes what you write. I am an advocate for my future franchisees, on a daily basis.
I teach the correct ways to research opportunities, and encourage them to find both successful and unsuccessful franchisees in the systems they are looking into.
The truth is out there, and it is not hard to find.
You just have to know who to talk to, and I am one who shows my folks the way.
For the right person, with the right characteristics, and with the financial means, franchising has great potential.
I am proud to promote franchising in my state of Ohio.
Again, Thank you!
FRANPRO

How Much Money Will I Make???

Susan writes: "One of the most important facts you want to know when you go into business for yourself is, "how much money am I going to make?" If the idea of providing pre-sale information is important, then it is a fatal flaw of the FTC's franchise rule that disclosure of some measure of financial performance is not required."

I just wanted to read that again.

Getting systemwide financial data is like a game of smoke and mirrors. The salesman avoids giving any numbers because he "legally cannot tell me".  He then points me to a few network friendly franchises that are willing to share their "typical" financials to give me confidence on investing my life's savings.

Now what's wrong with this picture?

Welcome Ms. Susan Kezios

On behalf of the community, let me welcome Ms. Susan Kezios. It's a great honor to have the president of the AFA sharing her insights and participating in discussions about franchise issues on our site.

Mr. Blue MauMau

A BIG overSTATEment!

Okay, for the better part of a week, I’ve tried to keep my fingers off the “comment” button. Like Eve, I’ve succumbed to the temptation! It must be the “Apple Graphic”.

Franchising is as American as Baseball, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet. A strong belief in the Free Enterprise System has been the driving force, behind many of the forefathers of franchising. If you truly believe in America, the Free Enterprise System and Franchising just must also believe that the invisible hand of the market will guide the industry to act in the public interest. I believe that the industry has done an outstanding job in self-regulation.

I think we can all agree that franchising isn’t perfect, and that there is always room for improvement. However, if we look at any industry, we can find things which we personally believe to be morally, ethically or legally WRONG! Look at the medical profession, and the number of medical malpractice suits filed each year. Is the medical profession ROTTEN? NO! Are there poorly trained doctors, YES! Are mistakes made? YES! Are we better off with doctors than without? YES!

If we look at US statistical data, how many franchisees are there? 767,000?
How many franchisors are there? 5,000?
How many Franchisors have registered in the major registration states for the 3 or more consecutive years? 1,300?
How many new franchise concepts are introduced each year? 3 to 400?

Now compare those numbers to actual number of complaints filed against franchisors for false and misleading Earnings Claims. The report prepared by the Bureau of Consumer Affairs found on the FTC website http://www.ftc.gov/reports/franchise93-01.pdf shows that over a 7 year period of time some 4,500+ complaints were filed against Franchising and Business Opportunity type companies. Of the 4,500 complaints only 6% were against franchisors. Of the 4,500 complaints 10% had to do with false or misleading earnings claims. If you extrapolate out the totals it would indicate approximately 27 complaints against franchisors for false or misleading earning claims, over a 7 year period of time. I guess an argument can be made that it is hard to file a complaint against false and misleading earnings claims if earnings claims are not provided. Perhaps this is why so many franchisors chose not to provide them. Does the franchisor not have a responsibility to protect the brand, and would making earnings claim create additional exposure for bringing down the entire brand?

Is the industry not better served by teaching potential franchisees the old adage “Buyer Beware”. Should we not teach franchisors to “Under Promise and Over Deliver” and that Franchising is a Marathon and not a Sprint. Should we not continue to move in the direction of proper selection?
I’ve seldom met a franchisee who will say “I failed because I did not follow the system, I did not ask and accept assistance, I did not do the things necessary to get the desired outcome”. I’ve met many who say the franchisor misrepresented the opportunity.

I think overall the industry has done a good job of self-regulation. I do not think that additional regulation is the answer. I think saying that “things are ROTTEN in the STATE of Franchising” is a BIG over-STATE-ment. But of course that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?

Believe & Succeed,

FranSynergy
Synergizing Franchising 1 Franchisee at a time!

www.fransynergy.com

Earnings Claims - Caveat Emptor

I agree with Susan that financial disclosure should be a requirement in all UFOC's not voluntary.

Anybody looking to invest in a franchise should complete a through investigation of the franchise opportunity including validating all verbal or written representations made by the franchisor and it's franchisees.

In my view item 19 doesn't have to be a "earnings claim" or a profit/loss statement, but all franchisors should be required to make at least some financial disclosure to help prospective franchisees get a realistic financial picture.

The FTC should take a page from the SEC rulebook that requires FULL DISCLOSURE prior to any IPO.

If franchisors do not know know enough about their business model to make a financial disclosure, then they hold off on franchising until they do.

As a franchise broker I am reluctant to refer a prospect to a franchise that dosen't make any financial disclosure.

Jim Coen, Franchise Perfection, 877-469-3002, www.franchiseperfection.com,
jim@franchiseperfection.com

Bias

Susan,

For every horror story, there are many more success stories.  I appreciate your organization and AAFD adding volume to the voice of franchisees.  I don't think more regulation is the answer.  Profranchisee positions are not the answer.  Profranchisor positions are not the answer.  A recognition that both parties need to win to create a sustainable franchise organization is the answer.

In my humble opinion, franchising is a business unto itself.  A company can be an excellent retail chain or restauranteur and at the same time a lousy franchisor.  When we in the franchising community finally realize that franchising is more than just a distribution model and franchisees are more than a single point of distribution, we will righten the ship.  When franchise prospects become more aware of what excellence IN FRANCHISING LOOKS LIKE before they buy, there will be more success stories and more horror stories.

Incompetency, not integrity is the issue. 
Prospective franchisees often don't know who is and isn't a skilled francihsor before they invest.  Don Debolt (former IFA President) Deb Percival, and I got together to write Street Smart Franchising, which clearly shows the telltale signs of who is and isn't a skilled franchisor.

If you take a balanced look at franchising, you will see franchisees invest in the right to be incompetent in a particular industry or field.  If they had the necessary skills and experience, why would they invest in a franchise?  Franchisee incompetence (in the short run) is a given.  Franchisors need to impart their success model to the franchisee as quick as humanly possible.  This is their value to the franchisee.

Competent franchisors are competent in 4 key areas.
1.  Marketing and brand building
2.  Franchisee Recruitment, getting the right team on the field
3.  Training and coaching franchisees into peak performance
4.  Maintaining powerful franchisee and franchisor relationships.

Because franchisors are not uniformly competent in these areas, organizations like Kezios exist.

The Institute of Certified Franchise Executives (ICFE) is training franchise executives in the business of franchising.  Companies like Gappa's Management 2000, Babcock's Nova University and the Franchise Performance Group are working to raise the skill level of franchise executives. 

The IFA has opened the door for franchisee membership which allows for franchisors to hear the concerns of franchisees from the franchisees' mouths.

Companies like Fransurvey are measuring the relationship between franchisees and franchisor.

Companies like Success Handler and Franchise Performance Group and people like Flo Schell exist to coach franchisees to new levels of success, providing more advanced coaching than franchisors typically provide.

So resources are becoming available to help both parties come together to win.

We are missing a strong code of ethics by which franchisors comply.  IFA seldom if ever investigates and removes franchisors for eithical violations.  Instead, they take an arms length approach, and let the courts sort it out, which I believe dimishes the value of the IFA. 

The aircraft carrier is turning.  As the "old guard" of franchise executives (those who were around in the 70's) start disappearing and the new guard (those who understand and value the whole picture of franchising (the fact that franchisors, franchisees, suppliers) all need to win, the ship will turn.

 

Joe Mathews

Franchise Performance Group
Co-author Street Smart Franchising

Thanks Susan!

I have never met a prospective franchisee that wasn’t eager to join a franchise system that contained energetic, successful, profitable franchisees that were enthusiastic about the future of their franchise business.

 And, yes it is about character, integrity and excellence in franchising! Truly World-Class Franchise companies have no problem being completly transparent with their prospects. Because they have no-fear.

I say we need more openness, more transparency, what do all existing franchisees have to say about their franchise? 

In an open market, where consumers have ALL the information they need to make  informed decisions...the best companies survive and the rest either improve or become extinct. Do we provide prospective franchisees with ALL the information to make the best informed decisions?

Do we really believe that all 3,000+ franchise opportunities are equal?

Is it not obvious that the tragic death of Bob Baber is a symptom of a much larger problem?

 

Jeff Johnson, Founder/CEO   FranSurvey.com

Earnings Claims

Here are some interesting thoughts, based on 30 years of experience, regarding why many franchise companies do not publish earnings claims:

1.  Their own locations do not make money and they are using franchising as a "stay-alive" tactic,

2.  An unscrupulous franchise consultant has called them on the phone to tell them they have the greatest new franchising concept and they should stop what they are doing and begin to franchise even though they are not franchise material,

3.  They have yet to finalize and formalize their business model. They actually end up experimenting with franchisees at the franchisee's expense.

It is also true that many lawyers advise them not to disclose information but I honestly believe that will change.

I can also tell everyone that I turn down 60 - 70 % of the companies that contact us to develop their franchise because they are either not ready to franchise, cannot produce an earnings claim (Yes, I only take clients that can - unlike others) and/or their concept is not repeatable.

Who cares if a particular consulting company puts hundreds of companies into franchising every year?  Prospective franchisees should, that's who. 

I believe many franchise companies have no business franchising.

Craig Slavin
Franchise Architects
Franchise Navigator

847-465-0111

FranchiSEE Lawyers

A good franchiSEE lawyer is what is needed here ... one who advocates for the people who purchase franchises. Unfortunately, however, the majority of franchise lawyers write the contracts for the franchise corporations ... that's where the majority of the money is, you know. You can find a good franchiSEE lawyer under "Legal" at www.franchisee.org. Don't lock yourself into finding a lawyer in your own back yard. It is more important to find one who understands franchise law and who is aware of the landmines loaded into franchise contracts on an unsuspecting buyer. Franchisee lawyers tell me that when negotiating with a new franchise corporation they can typically negotiate out 70-80% of what they would consider "bad" clauses for their clients. As far as the older, more established chains go, they typically don't alter a punctuation mark. They could ... but, they say they can't. For the record, there is nothing in the FTC's Franchise Rule or in any state law that says they cannot. They can, in fact, attach a Letter of Agreement to their "form" contract noting the changes made for you. That way they don't alter their "form" contract, but they provide some very valuable changes ... with very real monetary benefits ... for you, the prospective purchaser.

Susan P. Kezios
President, AFA

More Government Is Not the Solution

There is a tremendous amount of information available to a franchise buyer. Besides all of the data that an independent business owner can muster up, a franchise buyer is in the enviable position to be able to visit anyone in the system to ask intimate questions about their business -- something that is furnished in the list of franchise units of Item 20 in the UFOC. The franchiser's own financial health is disclosed through its financial statements.  There are many franchisers that provide earnings claim -- even though by doing so they open themselves up to law suits from anyone that doesn't exactly meet those numbers or doubts their reasonableness.

Market forces work. If a buyer is uncomfortable with information NOT disclosed in the UFOC, they can walk away to a concept that does provide it.

Business has risks, yet franchising more often than not dampens that risk. It offers much more information than anyone opening up an independent business can get.

The last thing we need in this dynamic market is more government involvement.

Earnings Disclosure

The practice of saying that "giving earnings information is illegal" would be outlawed in the proposed FTC Business Opportunity Rule as a deceptive practice.

Susan, do you think that the fact that UFOC's are now available for free from the California Corporations site will make the market demand more item 19, earnings disclosure, disclosure?

Michael Webster
www.bizop.ca

A laughable statement

" Fransynergy" said: "I think overall the industry has done a good job of self-regulation. I do not think that additional regulation is the answer. I think saying that “things are ROTTEN in the STATE of Franchising” is a BIG over-STATE-ment. But of course that’s just my opinion. What’s yours?"

My opinion is first that franchising is not an industry that's a lot like calling an Initial Public Offering (IPO) an industry. Franchising is a method to expand a brand. Secondly, the FTC created the "franchise rule" in 1979 because franchisors were not doing a good job of "self-regulation" and a lot of investors were getting burned.

"Fransynergy" also stated: "Does the franchisor not have a responsibility to protect the brand, and would making earnings claim create additional exposure for bringing down the entire brand?"

Of course a franchisor has a responsibility to protect the brand, how can making a realistic financial representation based on past experience and ongoing operations "bring down a brand"? That is just a laughable statement. 

It's statements like that, that prove why the FTC Franchise Rule is not only necessary but it should be protected and enhanced to require even more disclosure.

Jim Coen, Franchise Perfection, 877-469-3002, www.franchiseperfection.com,  jim@franchiseperfection.com

FTC's Enforcement of Franchise Rule Report

FranSynergy writes: "The report prepared by the Bureau of Consumer Affairs found on the FTC website shows that over a 7 year period of time some 4,500+ complaints were filed against Franchising and Business Opportunity type companies. Of the 4,500 complaints only 6% were against franchisors. Of the 4,500 complaints 10% had to do with false or misleading earnings claims. "

That's an interesting report, full of fascinating charts and facts. I'm going to list it in our weblinks directory. It's also a good reference for a story I'm researching. So thanks for referencing it.

By the way, any member or guest can add to Blue MauMau's listings of franchise related weblinks. We gather links to important franchise sites by human intelligence from you experts and not by Net bots. Just select share info> weblinks on the left navigation block and summarize what it links to.

Mr. Blue MauMau

Simple Solution

Franchisors should stop listening to their corporate counsel and instead put out highly detailed earnings claims, or rather as they should be known as "historical cost claims."

They should also take the position that they are not selling franchises, but rather awarding them to qualified individuals.

Just a start.

Michael Webster PhD LLB Psychology of Compliance and Due Diligence Law www.bizop.ca

Consultants

Craig,

While you are on the topic of "franchise consultants' {And welcome to BlueMAuMAu}, how about the large number of new franchisors that like the consultant/broker model for lead and deal flow, but are willing to work with every consulting group in the world, because they say it is a "numbers game".

Ridiculous. There are more and more of us out there, {monthly it seems}, and that does not even include the "franchised" ones that even try to sell their own "franchises" to make a fee for themselves.

Our little corner of the world is getting very crowded, but the usual standouts including the FranNet group, which I am a part of, will prevail.

Franpro

Earnings Claims --No Help for Franchisees

The comments by Craig Slavin are pertinent to "No Help for the Franchisees" and will permit prospective franchisees to understand that the "business of franchising"  has been developed primarily in the interests of the franchisor.  

Since franchising appears to be "here to stay",  honest consultants who consult both with the franchisor and the franchisee are in the position to steer franchisees away from bad investments and financial death.      

But, of course,  as Les Stewart would say,   be sure to do due diligence on your consultant.   5.   

FranchiSEE Lawyers Link

Thank you for taking the time to answer. It took me a little bit of time to find the AFA's list of franchisee friendly lawyers. I found it.

http://www.franchisee.org/legalresource.htm

Thanks for some great info.

Rick

Impressed

It's way past office hours back east, yet the president of the American Franchisee Association is typing away on her keyboard to help us out. Am I the only one impressed? Here's someone who definitely has a passion to help the little guy. (I'm 5'4" so I qualify.)

Susan, I bet you are the establishment's worst nightmare but it's good to have you here.

Craig

It would seem that Mr. Jim

It would seem that Mr. Jim Cohen, a respected and long standing member of the franchising community, found my comments to be as objectionable as I found the statement "Things are (Still) Rotten in Franchising".  I do not wish to get into a mud slinging contest with Mr. Cohen.  However, being that this forum is not only a place where people come to share their knowledge, opinions and ideas, but also a place to gain knowledge, so I feel compelled to respond.

As for the use of the term "Industry": Yes, I've read the semantical arguments of referring to "Franchising" as an industry.  I think we all agree that "Franchising is an organized form of distribution that involves:
1) the use of a common Brand,
2) a fee,
3) assistance and
more than 80 "Industries" utilize "Franchising" as a form of distribution.  Having said that, I believe that "Franchising" is an "Industry".  Mr. Cohen's analogy of the IPO has been used before.  An IPO is not an Industry, however there is a whole industry built around the offering of IPO's.  If you look at the number of trade organizations, trade magazines, trade shows etc... it becomes fairly obvious that "Franchising" has become an "Industry".  If one were to Google "Franchise Industry" one would find some of the LEADING NAMES in Franchising.  Mr. Cohen's particular area of specialty has had the same "semantical" arguments.  Mr. Cohen are you a "Franchise Broker", "Referral Source", "Lead Generator", "Franchise Consultant", or "Franchise Coach"?  

As for 1979 and "Franchisors not doing a good job of "Self-Regulation"....  I'll take your word for it, Mr. Cohen.  In 1979 I was a Junior in High School.  It's now 2006!  In the 20+ years that I've been involved in Franchising, I've found that the industry has improved dramatically.  Although additional regulation may be inevitable, I believe that the vast majority of franchise professionals would prefer that the "Industry" self-regulate in order to avoid and/or delay additional regulatory constraints for as long as possible.

As for my statement which brought you so much laughter.  One of the main reasons less than 20% of Franchisors provide "Earnings Claims" is because of the amount of potential liability they open themselves up to in doing so.  With exposure comes the increased potential of a "Law Suit".  In today's litigious society with "mega-million" dollar verdicts, brands don't stand by losing million dollar verdicts.  You might reference:

Beyond the liability issues there are many other valid reasons for choosing not to provide earnings claims.  It is not always or even normally to "HIDE" poor performance.

Mr. Cohen, you stated "As a franchise broker I am reluctant to refer a prospect to a franchise that dosen't make any financial disclosure."  I think the elimination of more than 80% of the franchise opportunities on the basis of a lack of an earnings claim is a disservice to the client.  How do your other Clients you know the ones who pay you -"The Franchisors" feel about your strong lobby efforts for additional regulation?

MY OPINION(s):

  • Franchising isn't Rotten! 
  • Don't rule out a franchise concept simply because the franchisor doesn't offer an earnings claim.
  • If you're investing in a franchise, do your homework regardless of if the franchisor offers an earnings claim or not. 
  • Franchising is the most powerful form of distribution known to mankind, and it has become an industry! 
  • It's easier to defend an earnings claim in the UFOC than one that is not! 
  • Mr. Cohen is an industry professional whose opinion I disagree with, I respect his right to it, and I've meant him no disrespect!

Now that you know our opinions, WHAT'S YOURS?

Believe & Succeed,

FranSynergy
Synergizing Franchising 1 Franchisee at a time!
http://www.fransynergy.com

Consultants

Franpro,

Yes, unfortunately, there are a lot of "consultants" out there.  Many of whom are not qualified to do what they are doing.

Those that have strong business models, morals and ethics will/should survive. Hopefully.

By the way, hat's off to Blue MauMau.  Tell it like it is has always been my motto.

Full speed ahead and don't spare the horses.

Craig Slavin

Franchise Architects

Franchise Navigator

847-465-0111

My name is Jim Coen! What's yours?

 "Fransynergy" stated:  "Although additional regulation may be inevitable, I believe that the vast majority of franchise professionals would prefer that the "Industry" self-regulate in order to avoid and/or delay additional regulatory constraints for as long as possible."

I'm not sure that is so true, the unscrupulous franchisors made it harder on the rest. I know many "franchise professionals" prefer that the FTC clarify and update The Franchise Rule. The whole point of Susan's blog regarding "Things are still rotten in franchising" is that there are still many people loosing their shirts to unworthy franchisors, the reality is that "self regulation" is just "industry" rhetoric. Can you give us an example of "self regulation"?

 Jim Coen, Franchise Perfection, 877-469-3002, jim@franchiseperfection.com, www.franchiseperfection.com

My objection to the calling franchising an "industry"

The main reason I object to calling franchising an "industry" is that it implies that franchising is controlled by the franchisors or the "franchise professionals" that "Fransynergy" refers too.

The reality is franchisees are an integral part of the success of the franchising formula. Without franchisees the so called “industry” of franchising wouldn’t exist.

The American Franchise Association of which Susan Kezios is President, and the American Association of Franchisees & Dealers of which Robert Purvin is President, exist to offer a more balanced voice for franchisees other than rely on “industry professional to self-regulate”.

Jim Coen, Franchise Perfection, 877-469-3002, jim@franchiseperfection.com, www.franchiseperfection.com

To me unnessary regulation

To me unnessary regulation can be compared to CENSORSHIP.  Where does it start, and where does it end?  You asked about examples of where Self Regulation has worked:
One of the first places that come to mind is in the use of "Brokers" which may very well be the next HOT REGULATORY TOPIC.  You may find this article to be
of interest.

I'd also say that the IFA (...the International Franchise Association the oldest, largest and only association that represents the entire franchise community...) has been supportive of many of the proposed changes to the FTC Rule, while maintaining a fair and balance attitude in protecting the "Franchise Community" as a whole.  So my next example of where Self-Regulation has worked would be here.

Over the years, the IFA has adopted and embraced a number of other initiatives to promote healthy and mutually beneficial relationships within the franchise community.  Primary among these is the IFA’s Self-Regulation program, which includes the IFA Code of Ethics, the IFA Ombudsman program and on-line compliance and education programs for the franchise community.

David J. Kaufmann made a good statement regarding Self-Regulation: I don't think there's much of a contest between government regulation in franchising and self-regulation in the franchise arena. Experience has proven over and over again that self-regulation is far more efficient, achieves its goals in greater depth and has better results for all concerned, both franchisors and franchisees, than government regulation.

You may find the following articles to provide a better understanding of "Self-regulation":

http://www.ifaresolve.com/
http://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/06252002Hearing603/Wieczorek1032.htm
http://franchise.org/article.asp?article=765&paper=93&cat=174
http://franchise.org/article.asp?article=1021&paper=91&cat=232
http://franchise.org/article.asp?article=908&paper=91&cat=215
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/607195-1.html
http://www.entrepreneur.com/franzone/article/1,5847,299631,00.html
http://www1.worldbank.org/finance/html/self-regulation-in-developing-.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1154/is_n1_v81/ai_13309168

IN CLOSING: I'm not saying that "Earnings Claims" are a bad idea.  I'm simply saying that the "Marketplace" can resolve this issue without the need of additional REGULATORY intervention.

  • I believe in The Free Enterprise System,
  • I believe in Franchising,
  • I believe anyone investigating a Franchise SHOULD perform the necessary due dilligence required regardless of what may or may not be included in Item 19! 

That's just my opinion!

Believe & Succeed,

FranSynergy
Synergizing Franchising 1 Franchisee at a time!
http://www.fransynergy.com

Thank you for the examples of self regulation.

The IFA is a substanial organization that has done a tremendous job over the years in the support of franchising. But, stating that it is an organization that "represents the entire franchise community" is a little bit of a stretch.

The IFA is mostly thought of as an organization representing the interests of franchisors. The primary focus of the organization is its lobbying efforts on behalf of franchisors.

If the IFA was representing the "entire franchise community" then why would there be franchisee organizations such as the AFA (American Franchisee Association) and the AAFD (American Association of Franchisees and Dealers)?

In the past few years the IFA has initiated a number of programs to try and reflect a more balanced approach, the IFA Ombudsman Program you mention is a good example, but some say the IFA hasn't committed enough resources to the Ombudsman program.

There is no doubt that franchising is a powerful force. Organizations such as the IFA, AFA, AAFD and open forums like Blue Mau Mau contribute to the growth and future success of franchising. 

-

Jim Coen, Franchise Perfection, 877-469-3002, jim@franchiseperfection.com, www.franchiseperfection.com

    Syndicate content