Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Dissin' Franchisement Follow

#27 May 09 2013 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Quote:
Franchisers should have ultimate control over the product/services sold at franchisee locations, but I'm pretty sure this is a contractual issue, not a legal one. I don't think the federal or any state government has any @#%^ing business regulating this.


Agreed, contract is separate from law and the government should keep its nose out.

Enforcing private contracts in courts of law is a disgrace. Great point, Brownduck.

I'm not saying either party can't seek judgement from the courts in the case of a perceived contract breech. Perhaps "this is not a legislative issue" would have been a more accurate opinion.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#28 May 09 2013 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
gbaji wrote:
Um... Can't he sell his doughnuts to other retailers then?
Probably does and is concerned that he's going to lose a major contract. I hope after all the ******** about business men over the last year you didn't believe that this guy somehow only had one client.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 May 09 2013 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Can't he sell his doughnuts to other retailers then?
Probably does and is concerned that he's going to lose a major contract. I hope after all the ******** about business men over the last year you didn't believe that this guy somehow only had one client.


I'm not assuming one way or the other. He spoke only about $3M and 80 workers at risk. Whether that's his sole business or just part of it, the point about being able to shift that production to another outlet is still valid. Businesses change vendors all the time. It's usually a very good thing, since it keeps markets competitive. If he's making a good product, he should be able to find new customers for it. Running to the local government to have them pass a law to protect him from having to do this is kinda nutty.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 May 09 2013 at 5:28 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... Can't he sell his doughnuts to other retailers then?
Probably does and is concerned that he's going to lose a major contract. I hope after all the ******** about business men over the last year you didn't believe that this guy somehow only had one client.


I'm not assuming one way or the other. He spoke only about $3M and 80 workers at risk. Whether that's his sole business or just part of it, the point about being able to shift that production to another outlet is still valid. Businesses change vendors all the time. It's usually a very good thing, since it keeps markets competitive. If he's making a good product, he should be able to find new customers for it. Running to the local government to have them pass a law to protect him from having to do this is kinda nutty.


Agreed on the law aspect, but if this guy is a local / regional supplier of donut materials(w/e the **** that may be), and this franchise client is >50% of his revenue, it's not inconceivable to think that he'd be unable to find suitable replacement revenue in time to save the business, or at least, that part of it. Your magical fairy land where anybody can pull themselves up by the straps and make business happen at will doesn't exist,
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#31 May 09 2013 at 5:36 PM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
if this guy is a local / regional supplier of donut materials(w/e the **** that may be), and this franchise client is >50% of his revenue, it's not inconceivable to think that he'd be unable to find suitable replacement revenue in time to save the business, or at least, that part of it.
The guy is probably either competing with other people for his region's contracts, or is already in business with all the outlets that want his business so the chance that he can "find another outlet" is like zero either way.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#32 May 09 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Agreed on the law aspect, but if this guy is a local / regional supplier of donut materials(w/e the **** that may be), and this franchise client is >50% of his revenue, it's not inconceivable to think that he'd be unable to find suitable replacement revenue in time to save the business, or at least, that part of it. Your magical fairy land where anybody can pull themselves up by the straps and make business happen at will doesn't exist,


I never remotely said or even implied that. In a free market, there's no guarantee of success. This is one of the advantages of such a system, in that it increases the odds that any given market success is the result of someone bringing a product that people actually need/want to market at a price they can afford. That can only happen if businesses which fail to do so fail.

The idea of assuming that "anybody" can succeed "at will" is nearly the exact opposite of the principle of a free market.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 May 09 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,297 posts
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Agreed on the law aspect, but if this guy is a local / regional supplier of donut materials(w/e the **** that may be), and this franchise client is >50% of his revenue, it's not inconceivable to think that he'd be unable to find suitable replacement revenue in time to save the business, or at least, that part of it. Your magical fairy land where anybody can pull themselves up by the straps and make business happen at will doesn't exist,

I never remotely said or even implied that.
You do say and imply that "anybody can pull themselves up by their boot-straps" pretty much all the time, though, so you can see how he might be a bit confused.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#34 May 09 2013 at 8:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Agreed on the law aspect, but if this guy is a local / regional supplier of donut materials(w/e the **** that may be), and this franchise client is >50% of his revenue, it's not inconceivable to think that he'd be unable to find suitable replacement revenue in time to save the business, or at least, that part of it. Your magical fairy land where anybody can pull themselves up by the straps and make business happen at will doesn't exist,

I never remotely said or even implied that.
You do say and imply that "anybody can pull themselves up by their boot-straps" pretty much all the time, though, so you can see how he might be a bit confused.


But not "at will". BD's statement made it seem like I was saying that there was no problem with this because the guy could automatically make his business succeed if he wanted to, when my statement earlier in the thread very clearly hinged his ability to overcome this to whether his doughnuts would be in demand in the absence of these franchises buying from him. So he basically claimed I was saying the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Saying people "can" do something, and saying they can do it "at will" (implying automatic success in this case) are very very different things.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 May 09 2013 at 8:30 PM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
gbaji wrote:
my statement earlier in the thread very clearly hinged his ability to overcome this to whether his doughnuts would be in demand in the absence of these franchises buying from him.
Which is a remarkably retarded thing to say.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#36 May 10 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,594 posts
Ohmygosh, the things you'll argue about when gbaji is willing to indulge.

The article is pretty vague all over the place. What I got from it was that the main complainant has a DD franchise. His particular franchise provides daily made donuts to 9 DD's in the area. We can only surmise if the frozen dunkin donut will be a financial burden on him. He may lose business not creating the donuts from a mix, but who knows. His complaint seems to be one of reduced quality.

What kind of surprised me was that all these big franchise companies were concerned enough about this proposed bill that they sent representatives of their companies to attend this hearing. Perhaps I'll search later for an LD number.




Edited, May 10th 2013 3:11pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#37 May 10 2013 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
Elinda, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Ohmygosh, the things you'll argue about when gbaji is willing to indulge.
An argument implies there's a plausible opposing point, not someone just trying to cover their error.

Also post count.

Edited, May 10th 2013 9:33am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 May 10 2013 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Elinda, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
What kind of surprised me was that all these big franchise companies were concerned enough about this proposed bill that they sent representatives of their companies to attend this hearing. Perhaps I'll search later for an LD number. Edited, May 10th 2013 3:11pm by Elinda
I don't see what's so surprising that the companies would send someone to see exactly what was being discussed about completely rewriting their ability to enforce adherence to their standards, when standards are the basis of their entire business model.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#39 May 10 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
my statement earlier in the thread very clearly hinged his ability to overcome this to whether his doughnuts would be in demand in the absence of these franchises buying from him.
Which is a remarkably retarded thing to say.


And by retarded you mean "brilliantly relevant", right?

The core issue is whether a company, which has contractual authority to decide how its franchises receive their product, can actually exercise that authority if (in this case) it'll cause a loss of revenue to the guy who's been providing that product to the franchises previously. His argument is basically that since he'll lose business as a result of this, that even though the contracts allow for this (which must be true, or they'd be fighting it in the courts rather than in the legislature), that the state should pass a law preventing them from being able to do this effectively protecting his business from competition.

In a free market, no one's obligated to buy your product. That includes the Dunkin Donuts company. He's free to make his doughnuts. He's free to sell them to anyone who'll buy them. But to go to the legislature and essentially attempt to force a company to buy them? That's wrong. Period.

Edited, May 10th 2013 1:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 May 10 2013 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
gbaji wrote:
And by retarded you mean "brilliantly relevant", right?
I guess much like everything else, if you delude yourself into believing a complete falsehood that makes no sense you'll at least feel warm and fuzzy about yourself.
gbaji wrote:
But to go to the legislature and essentially attempt to force a company to buy them?
Spiffy, an argument no one made. That still doesn't make your "why doesn't he just sell to other people" any less "brilliantly relevant." He either already is, or already competing with other people (unsuccessfully) for other contracts. If the franchise contract dries up, "oh just sell to other people!" is a 'brilliantly relevant" thing to bring up.

And, as par your understanding: brilliantly relevant means retarded. I translated so you'd possibly get it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 May 10 2013 at 3:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And by retarded you mean "brilliantly relevant", right?
I guess much like everything else, if you delude yourself into believing a complete falsehood that makes no sense you'll at least feel warm and fuzzy about yourself.


Dude. This is the Asylum.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
But to go to the legislature and essentially attempt to force a company to buy them?
Spiffy, an argument no one made. That still doesn't make your "why doesn't he just sell to other people" any less "brilliantly relevant." He either already is, or already competing with other people (unsuccessfully) for other contracts.


Sure. So his doughnuts are not sufficiently in demand for him to sell those he was selling to the franchises elsewhere. Where's the problem with this, much less the problem with pointing it out?

Quote:
If the franchise contract dries up, "oh just sell to other people!" is a 'brilliantly relevant" thing to bring up.


I said he's free to sell to other people. I never said this was some magic that ensured that other people would want to buy his product though. If he can, great. If he can't, then demand for his product isn't high enough to justify the revenue he wants (or used to have in this case).

What the **** do you think people do when someone decides they don't want to buy their product anymore? They find other people to buy it, or they switch to some other business. That's all I was saying. Also, this is not a bad thing. It's a good thing. It's why we don't sell many wooden wagon wheels anymore. Not because some government authority mandated a change, but because the market dried up as people switched from wagons to cars, and went with rubber tires.


What's retarded is the number of people who don't seem to get that this is a natural normal and good process.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 May 10 2013 at 3:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Oh. This deserves its own response:

lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But to go to the legislature and essentially attempt to force a company to buy them?
Spiffy, an argument no one made.


Except the guy the article we're discussing is about, you mean.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 May 10 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
gbaji wrote:
I said he's free to sell to other people.
gbaji wrote:
Can't he sell his doughnuts to other retailers then?
I know, I know, "BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT I MEEEEAAAAANT!!!" This isn't a broad free market topic; we're right now discussing a specific market type. Twist all you want, "brilliantly relevant" is still "brilliantly relevant," no matter how much your special needs helper wipes the drool from your shirt.
gbaji wrote:
Except the guy the article we're discussing is about, you mean.
Is he in this thread posting, too? Is that who you think you're arguing with? Another "brilliantly relevant" point of yours.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 May 10 2013 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
Mr. Middleman is either lazy or fucking stupid. If his product is any good, he should easily be able to sell this to other doughnut shops as the "old DD doughnut". If people actually have an issue with the new frozen product, they'll be happy to go to another store and get their "old DD doughnut". Assuming DD doughnuts are any good in the first places, as I wouldn't know since we're all addicted to TH up here.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#45 May 10 2013 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
As someone who worked for DD, I can confirm that it's definitely a franchise that has a LOT of rules and regulations.

But at the same time, that means the owners pretty much have zero responsibilities, if they want. There's a regional manager who will handle any issue concerning the brand, from customer complaints to employee discipline (if it's anything close to severe enough that an owner would have gotten involved). You don't have to handle marketing. All the logistics stuff (schedules, payroll, etc.) is so minor that a single manager can effectively handle it and spend most of the week bored, particularly because Dunkin has an automated payroll system.

The guy I worked for owned, iirc, 12 of the stores. I'm sure he was making quite a bit of money, for essentially no effort. I'd wager he spent a maximum of two hours a week doing anything related to his stores (plural). In the four or five months I worked at mine, he visited maybe twice. And he was relatively local.

That's not to say that there isn't more payoff for more time spent. There is. A more active owner would probably grow a larger community presence, would be able to more effectively optimize hours (Dunkin has certain hours of operation requirements, but you can expand past them if you wish), do more effective market research so he gets the most out of each order.

But doing NONE of that is still going to make you money if:
-the franchise is doing well.
-your store is clean and efficient.
-your staff aren't ********.

That's why a franchise is attractive. So I have no interest in listening to the complaints of a store owner. You don't get to open a business piggy-backing off someone else's brand, which they have licensed to you, and then complain about their brand choices. Newsflash: you don't own or have any authority over the brand. Your choice to associate with the brand was just that - your choice.

If you want to have a say in the company, reinvest your profits in stock. You'll get to take part in the shareholder's meetings, which are now required to be available online in the US. The more you grow your own businesses, the more DD is going to take note of your successes (and thus use you for research, which I believe has a financial bonus to it). The more success you have there, the more stock you own.

I DO agree that not being able to pass on the business to an heir could be a serious issue. But I can also see the franchise's side of things - that takes away their ability to police who has access to their license. Maybe the answer is for them to be required to award the license to or buy out the heir.

What that would actually mean, I have no clue. But there IS a version of this I can see that is extremely problematic:

Some parent takes out a loan to open a franchised shop - leases the space, pays for the license, buys all the equipment (which is typically EXTREMELY expensive - a BR soft ice cream machine probably costs at least 10k, if not 15+). He dies suddenly, and now his kids are saddled with his debt. They have a lease on a space that can't be used as a Dunkin Donuts anymore, they own equipment designed for use with DD items (smoothie machine, for instance), and I bet a fair amount of that came with licenses that it CAN'T be used with anything but approved DD goods.

They're essentially ******* They're saddled with all the debt, with no way to repay it, simply because they don't have the right to keep their doors open. That's an issue to me.

But if DD was required to buy them out, IF they don't approve the license (so the people can't just demand the cash), then it at least zeroes out the debt to the heir.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#46 May 12 2013 at 10:56 AM Rating: Good
*****
16,594 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Elinda, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
What kind of surprised me was that all these big franchise companies were concerned enough about this proposed bill that they sent representatives of their companies to attend this hearing. Perhaps I'll search later for an LD number. Edited, May 10th 2013 3:11pm by Elinda
I don't see what's so surprising that the companies would send someone to see exactly what was being discussed about completely rewriting their ability to enforce adherence to their standards, when standards are the basis of their entire business model.
This is Maine.

I'm guessing someone wanted a work-paid vacation.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#47 May 14 2013 at 4:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Amazing what happens when you stop editing out half of what I said.

lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I said he's free to sell to other people.
gbaji wrote:
Can't he sell his doughnuts to other retailers then? And if he can't, then doesn't that suggest that his crappy doughnuts only made a profit because he was able to make a deal with those franchisees in the first place?
I know, I know, "BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT I MEEEEAAAAANT!!!"


Correct. I never said that he can automatically successfully sell his doughnuts to other retailers. I even included a whole sentence about what it means if he can't do so. So how about you stop trying to pretend that I never considered the possibility that he might not be able to sell his doughnuts elsewhere when I quite clearly did.

Ok?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 May 15 2013 at 7:04 AM Rating: Good
******
49,743 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ok?
I'll tell you what, you start being a half way decent writer and prove you graduated high school English class, stop this on the fence indecisive writing style that you have when you're writing about anything that isn't inherently political, and I won't have to pick a side for you? Okay sweety?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 May 15 2013 at 11:28 AM Rating: Good
Under A Thumb...
*****
10,012 posts
gbaji wrote:
If they don't, then changing the law to force a different interpretation of that contract after the fact is a really bad direction to go. While someone may think this is the good and right thing to do right now in this one case, what you're really doing is sending a message to anyone entering into a contract in the future that the state may arbitrarily change the interpretation of said contract at a whim. Which is not a good thing.


What the ******* **** are you talking about? Contract Law is an entire division in courts. The interpretation of a contract changes "on a whim" all the **** time, from differing jurisdictions, judges and new rulings. This is clearly an issue for the courts and not legislation but could you pretend, after all the YEARS of debating the meaning of a contract (which you've routinely screwed up since Jump Street) that you finally understand it?

My god you're stupid.
____________________________
Quote:
I would imagine that if you could understand Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy.
Lebowski Fest | Church of the Latter-Day Dude | Nick And Dooie!
#50 May 15 2013 at 3:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok?
I'll tell you what, you start being a half way decent writer and prove you graduated high school English class, stop this on the fence indecisive writing style that you have when you're writing about anything that isn't inherently political, and I won't have to pick a side for you? Okay sweety?


Is that what you think you're doing? Cause it looks to me like all you're doing is quoting half of what I wrote and then berating me for failing to address some key aspect of the issue that's clearly addressed in the half you chose not to quote. I mean, I suppose you're trolling but it's the kind of trolling that makes you look like you have the reading comprehension of a 3 year old (and a not so bright 3 year old at that).

You could at least be entertaining about it, but you fail at that too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 May 15 2013 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If they don't, then changing the law to force a different interpretation of that contract after the fact is a really bad direction to go. While someone may think this is the good and right thing to do right now in this one case, what you're really doing is sending a message to anyone entering into a contract in the future that the state may arbitrarily change the interpretation of said contract at a whim. Which is not a good thing.


What the @#%^ing @#%^ are you talking about? Contract Law is an entire division in courts. The interpretation of a contract changes "on a whim" all the **** time, from differing jurisdictions, judges and new rulings. This is clearly an issue for the courts and not legislation but could you pretend, after all the YEARS of debating the meaning of a contract (which you've routinely screwed up since Jump Street) that you finally understand it?

My god you're stupid.


My god people on this forum suck at reading. What part of me saying "this is something that should be decided in the courts" made you think I didn't realize that we have a system (the courts) to deal with this? My entire point was that we should deal with this in the courts, but that this guy, having (presumably) failed to get the results he wanted in said courts, is trying to get the law changed after the fact. Holy ****!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 71 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (71)