Why is Oz investigating franchising?

Seems like a stupid question with a profoundly dead-nuts simple answer: Because franchisors are black-hearted bastards willing to pry the last nickel from a dying widow’s hand.

Okay.

But let’s hold our perfectly understandable emotions for a moment. I’ve had that response but have worked my way through that.

A few questions, though

  1. Do you think franchisor alone are smart enough to put together such a sophisticated, all-at-once machine?
  2. Do you think your national banker or lawyer is any less ruthless in getting their way, when push comes to shove?
  • Or, maybe, part of the franchisors’ role is to be a scapegoat for the real but hidden economic powers?

I’m pressed for time right now so I will be coming back to this topic but let me throw out an idea or two as I snatch a few moments away from moving my son back to university for the fall.

I think:

1. Oz politicians mean to investigate “franchising” really mean looking into little franchising [and not Big Franchising]. They want a superficial look a the visible fall guys instead of a systematic inquiry into the complex commercial arrangements I have defined. They only want bewildered, traumatized franchisees asking naive questions about things they will fake ignorance of. The politicians know all about franchising’s unfairness: this is a PR stunt to create another useless oversight process that will keep the abuses off the front pag

2. The real strength of modern franchising is in the Franchise Bar. Let’s call Oz’s King Rat lawyer and make him answer questions. These litigators do not like being asked questions by a well-prepared politician [assisted by a smart, good looking franchisee advocate]. See here the 2000 testimony from the Canadian Bar Association – Ontario.

3. Big Franchising is all about wealth re-distribution. The bankers and lenders are professionals with a statutory duty because lending is a credence good. They are a self-regulated industry whose lap-dog regulators run a dog and pony show of trapping and defeating complaints, How about inviting 3 or 4 of the franchise bankers to explain specific franchisee loans and patterns as they contrast to what I have seen in Canada.

  • Sure, the bank robbers are a nasty bunch. Guaranteed
  • But who exactly is driving the getaway car? [that’s franchising’s strength and its greatest weakness: its Achilles’ Heel]

If you want a solution, follow the money.

If you want to float down Big Franchising’s river, do as you’re told, talk your brains out and be happy with what they give you.

  • You are being played like a violin [again]. Wake up for God’s sake.

Anyone with any imagination can see this and knows the only rational response to this facade is to:

  • create a digital Big Franchising kangaroo Court with rules designed to broaden the inquiry .
Advertisements

One Response to Why is Oz investigating franchising?

  1. Carol Cross says:

    Okay! I understand and buy your premise that franchisors are merely a tool in the larger scheme of things. Franchising has been growing rapidly in the USA economy and the world economies since the deregulation of the banks and the financial institutions in the 80’s. Whenever possible, franchise contracts and leases have been securitized and are sold to investors in public and private markets. Franchising provides product for the banks and the lenders just as mortgages have provided product for the banks and the lenders. Is this right?

    Last night, on Public Television, a noted author and observer of the current deep problems in US financial markets brought on by the sub-prime scandal, indicated that the failure of the large financial institutions and the Federal Reserve to adhere to traditional risk assessment procedures that were in place before the 80’s, together with their desire to create great profits with NEW securities that could be bundled and sold to investors, has resulted in the MESS and economic pain that will be played out these next few years in the United States. He indicated that the laws against usury were abolished in the United States and that all great religions and governments have had usury laws to prevent the rich from exploiting the poor. He suggested that usury laws be reinstated in free and democratic republics.

    I didn’t realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were privatized and that the government is going to bail them out —-with taxpayer money, of course. This expert suggested that these institutions should be returned to government ownership as they did once serve the needs of the people when they were run by the government.

    Of course, all of this goes on out of view of the general public who really do not understand who drives the “getaway car!” The invisible chains of our credit cards and our designer mortgages ensure always that the “rich get richer and the poor get pooer” …….in the meantime –ain’t we got fun!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: