Quote Originally Posted by steelish View Post
Ah, but an owned and operated FRANCHISE with corporate backing is hardly the same thing as a small sole proprietorship.
Oh I agree its obviously not exactly the same, yet in many facets a franchise location is undeniably more closely related to a mom and pop store than a corporately operated location. Franchisees are typically considered small business owners, and have many of the same issues/obstacles unless they are area or territory licensees.

While bound by legal agreements and receiving "support" from the franchising corporation, the truth is once a franchisee is in a location it can be near impossible to get them out. Therefor there are huge variances in aspects such a cleanliness, quality, customer service, pricing and even selection when comparing one franchise location to another or a corporate location.

I worked for a global franchise corporation for over 20 years as a field consultant / operations expert and corporate trainer. I have seen far too many locations/operations that should have been run out of business, or had their stores taken back by the franchisor due to bad (often dangerous) or ridiculous practices or policies and yet they remained in business. Several of these franchisees that I personally know only operate these businesses as a tax shelter, and honestly don't care if they lose money or not.

To MMIs point, at least from my "half a career lifetime" experience in retail, success in capitalism is far less often the result of quality and merit as it is about doing whatever it takes to maximize profits. Its about the bottom line not about merit or people.

The average American consumer is far less sophisticated, knowledgeable or discriminatory than you might think. Which is where regulation comes into play. Were success truly based upon merit, quality, putting customers first, then we probably wouldn't need industry regulation. However time and time and time again that has not proven to be the case.

Respectfully,
Tantric