Failed franchisees are stigmatized and shunned

It surprises me less as time goes on but it is remarkable how far all franchisees which I once considered friends, go out of their way to avoid public contact with me. They literally recoil in fear or catching some invisible but unwanted disease.

Their social/economic need not be defiled is very profound.

Stigma and Social Identity chapter

The Greeks, who were apparently strong on visual aids, originated the term stigma to refer to bodily signs designed to expose something unusual and bad about the moral status of the signifier. The signs were cut or burnt into the body and advertised that the bearer was a slave, a criminal, or a traitor – a blemished person, ritually polluted, to be avoided, especially in public places. Later, in Christian times, two layers of metaphor were added to the term: the first referred to bodily signs of holy grace that took the form of eruptive blossoms on the skin; the second, a medical allusion to this religious allusion, referred to bodily signs of physical disorder. Today the term is widely used in something like the original literal sense, but is applied more to the disgrace itself than to the bodily evidence of it…

Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity, Erving Goffman 1922 – 1982

I think most “failed” franchisees like me internalize this loathing which accounts for the dramatic under reporting of all franchise opportunism. The shaming that goes on by Blue MauMau contributors such as Richard Solomon, triggers this self-censuring mechanism quite well also.

One Response to Failed franchisees are stigmatized and shunned

  1. Carol Cross says:

    I think the LOSERS in franchising fade away because they are ashamed that they were taken and just want to forget about their failure. If Richard Solomon SHAMES those who haven’t done their due diligence, he also points out that most attorneys don’t know how to perform adequate due diligence for their clients, etc.. Obviously, Richard KNOWS that regulation is a sham and that all of the talking around the real problem — which is the lack of material information for franchisees — enables franchising to go on as usual. The attorneys are very happy with the sad state of franchising regulation because it does provide work for them. Franchising is a good example of “parable of the broken-window economics.” If franchisees were protected and couldn’t be hurt and exploited, all of those who benefit from franchising would lose money.

    What is the purpose of Blue Mau Mau? Who knows? The other day they pointed out that Harvard, indirectly, is enabling the same old FALSE statistics about how successful franchising is for everybody but, of course, this won’t stop franchisor alumni of Harvard from using the Harvard platform to push franchising and these false statistics, and to provide new generations of FRANWADS for Richard to make fun of.


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: