Q: What will the grocers say to the politicians at the public hearings?

August 2, 2009

SecondOpinion

A: Whatever the fcuk I tell them to say.

This was my question to, and answer from, a Toronto, Canada lawyer before the hearings that lead up to the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

The real power behind established independent franchisee associations (IndFAs), is a handful of lawyers in North America.

All professionals will act so as to further and strengthen their current and future cash flows. This is not a huge insight.

But when the two objectives conflict (actually solving problems versus appearing to solve them) the professional’s needs are satisfied first because no one has the experience, knowledge or interest in challenging how the problem is framed.

Lawyers compel franchisees to deal with problems in the same way that denies the information/communication/internet revolution has ever happened. THINK: Would you want your doctor to treat you the same way the physicians did 100 years ago?

IndFAs never fulfill their potential because that would interfere with the dominant credence good providers’ interests (ie. the franchisee “Fixer” attorney). The credence good cheating problem is overcome by severing the attorney’s influence.

He is either allowed to do

  1. the diagnostic work (strategic planning) OR
  2. the proposed solution (actual litigation), BUT never both.

This helps to reduce the inherent conflict in being able to (1) frame the problem and (2) deliver the solution the the “problem”.

Any experienced IndFA executive knows that the lawyers have effectively captured almost all of the IndFAs. The litigation is a well-thought out puppet show between the industry’s legal titans.

  • This is the real reason that the American Franchisee Association is dormant: its attorney “supporters” want it that way.
  • Same why the AAFD so frequently put their foot into a warm pile of poo and lacks any credibility at all.

IndFAs are ineffective and usually deemed a “failure” because that  serves the most powerful stakeholders interests to do so.

The solution is to move toward a franchisee-centric model such as an Attorneyless franchisee network, AFN where no attorney can capture and disable the web-enabled massive power that franchisees have (Stewart’s Law of Group Power).

This is especially true when the franchisor is a publicly traded corporation in a mature industry that touches the public every day in a very intimate way in a rigid 24/7 product cycle.

The way out starts with one independent thinker asking for a 2nd opinion.


Rumblings in Canada’s grocery elite: Sobeys franchisees go independent

July 20, 2009

CFIGPeterKnipfelCFIGlogoWikidFranchise.org often adds depth and perspective to a current media franchise industry article.

Let’s take a look at the decades-old, but next to invisible, war of wills within Ontario’s grocery industry.

Last week, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that Buy-local push prompts Ontario grocers to go independent.

The Toronto Star ran a story last Saturday called Meat cleaves grocer’s tie to Sobeys: Ex-franchisee goes independent to gain right to sell beef, pork, poultry produced locally about 5 Sobeys franchisees taking themselves independent in southwestern Ontario.

That doesn’t seem to be much of a story unless you start looking into the background of the franchisees involved. The current press spin (a desire for more local suppliers) is certainly not the whole story.

In the CBC story a Mr. Peter Knipfel is quoted as saying:

“We actually put it [franchisor non-authorized products] on our shelves because we felt it very necessary for it to be in our community, and that prompted that we get away from the franchise system, because it was not making them [Sobeys] happy,” Knipfel says. “I didn’t want to ruffle any more feathers, so we just decided to part company.”

Grocery franchisors in Canada ruthlessly control what products can and cannot be purchased in their franchisees’ stores. Vendor programs (rebates, kickbacks, allowances) are a very important source of income for Big Grocery in Canada.

WikidFranchiseWhen you search WikidFranchise.org for “Peter Knipfel” you get the following article: CFIG Public Hearing Testimony. It appears that Knipfel was the Chairman of the Board of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers in 2000.

He is quoted as their Chairman in 2000 as saying:

…With the consolidation today in the grocery industry and the control that the franchisor has over the franchisee as far as pricing and our profitability is concerned, we need some protection for some fair dealing with our franchisor…

Sure enough, when you hop over to the CFIG’s website Knipfel’s photograph (see above) is prominently displayed as the Feature Story scroll.

That a former Chairman of the CFIG is one of the defecting franchisees is an indication that this story has much more to it than the simple formation a group called the Independent Hometown Grocers Co-Op.

I created WikidFranchise to help non-insiders understand the hidden meanings within franchising.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: