Unorganized, passive franchisees attract abuse

GreekPhalanxSolomon is at it again.

Everyone should read this post.

Over at a Blue MauMau post called Power of a United Phalanx, Richard Solomon spells out the facts:

There is one indispensible maxim – no matter what your franchise contract says, no franchisor can force abuse down your throat if he is confronted with a united phalanx of determined franchisees who have provided the resources needed to get the job done.

People who tell you that there is such a thing as “fair franchising” and touchy feely nonsense like that will never be able to lead you to a reasonably safe future. Abusive franchisors don’t give a tinker’s damn about chatters and whiners. They believe their contracts give them the right to do whatever they feel like, and only confrontation can deter the abuse. Abuse always carries with it the generation of additional revenue from the franchisees that they never contemplated when they signed their contracts. Abusive, opportunistic franchisors do not forego revenue streams because some sissy threatened to call them a name or to give them adverse publicity. Only with a united and funded independent franchisee association can you counter these kinds of people.

Do not confuse what I am telling you with an attitude of constant confrontation. The goal is not to have to confront your franchisor. You don’t have to confront anyone who has come to believe that you are a cohesive and organized force that will resist abuse. Being able to confront usually means you rarely need to confront.

You get the peace and profitability you deserve by being ready to go to war (marshaling resources).

Just because you thought you’d be given something should not stop you from defending what is rightfully yours: the fruits of your labour and investment: now and in the future.

phalanx n.1 Gk Hist. a line of battle, esp. a body of Macedonian infantry drawn up in close order.  2 a set of people etc,. forming a compact mass, or banded for a common purpose.

3 Responses to Unorganized, passive franchisees attract abuse

  1. Richard is silent on what the IndFa should be doing when “not confronting” the franchisor.

    Perhaps, a trade secret?


  2. Les Stewart says:


    Some may say that if an IndFA merely exists, it is a significant classification of confrontation.

    A type of witness to a history that is important enough to keep alive.



  3. Carol Cross says:

    I think Richard Solomon is talking about TOTAL franchisee participation in a franchise association. Obviously, when the contracts are designed to force the franchisees into dealing one-on-one with the franchisor, the franchisor has always maintained the balance of power in his favor when franchisees who thrive will not join associations because they think they don’t need them and they believe that if they join an Association, they may lose points with the franchisor.

    Richard and Les Stewart have pointed out that the UNITY of all of the franchisees in itself does present a problem for the franchisor who may not declare war on his entire network of franchisees and who may see the value of collective bargaining outside of the legal process, despite the franchisor’s superior position in the contract.

    Richard has always indicated that the Franchisee Association needs full membership and good representation from the very beginning with the understanding that a full membership of franchisees, thriving and not thriving, does have the power of numbers that franchisors can’t afford to ignore.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: