“Franchisees aren’t looking for trouble —they are looking for survival and profits!” as stated above by Carol. This is such a true statment. As franchisees we just want to be successful and maybe make a profit down the road. This franchisor doesn’t care and survival is the the name of the game.

“Les Stewart had a good post on BMM stating that independent franchisee associations should not seek permission or approval of the franchisor for their existence or viability, and it’s a good point. If the IndFa is dependent on approval of the franchisor, they’re not independent, are they?”

But I think that the point is deeper: an IndFA should have an independent business reason for existence; not merely a beef with the franchisor.

Why shouldn’t the franchisees being sued put their performance statistics out on the Internet for all to see on the website in order to expose the FAILURE FEE that is obscured in all franchise agreements and the ugly reality of contract law that upholds these failure fees?

TOC is an AAFD chapter but since the FR wouldn’t recognize them, Purvin had no plan B and they had to take the next step on their own (though AAFD did the contract grading, which was helpful). Butterfly Life laughed at Purvin when he tried to get them to discuss franchisee grievances, so he was shut down on that one, too. I just think the AAFD’s orientation is to get paid by the FR they get too cozy. Like Cuppy’s… they defended the FR til Dale stopped paying them, then they got indignant.

But I’m no expert on their IndFa track record… I just see what comes across my blog.

Companies are being forced to listen to their customers or they’ll face the backlash on the Internet. Smart companies embrace this new dynamic and change themselves for the better… and will succeed. Others will fight it and inevitably lose. The same thing is happening in franchising – franchisors need to start seeing franchisees as their customers, too.

Some simply can’t adapt. Your adversary on UnhappyFranchisee.Com, commenter “John,” keeps trying the same bullying tactic toward the Children’s Orchard franchisees that might have worked a decade ago. He finally got frustrated and left. Some will never be able to accept empowered franchisees; others will embrace the change and thrive.

Are you suggesting that an IFA who employs and actually works with a trade organization like the AAFD actually loses its independent status because the intermediary, the AAFD, composed of attorneys, necessarily has to cooperate with the franchisors who hold the balance of power by reason of the adhesory contracts that are upheld in the courts —and this always compromises the interests of the franchisees?

I’ve been reading Les Stewart’s comments on Franchise Fool about Independent Franchise Associations but I believe that franchisees don’t always feel kinship with their fellow franchisees, some of whom are competetors, UNTIl there is trouble in the network; i.e. some kind of systemic abuse that is impacting a growing number of franchisees. Unless there is a leader among them who is willing to take the responsibility to organize the IFA without using an attorney, I’m not sure what Les is saying. I believe he has said that it is better, if you have to use an attorney to use an attorney who doesn’t identify himself as a “franchise attorney” or to use him.

Franchisees aren’t looking for trouble —they are looking for survival and profits!

Just a year ago FR and FEE were expressing their love: http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2008/04/15/news/iq_20685892.txt

Now it’s gotten ugly:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-miedce/case_no-2:2009cv12166/case_id-239874/
Plaintiff: Children’s Orchard, Incorporated
Defendant: Children’s Orchard Store #210, Stephanie Fournier and Matthew Fournier
Case Number: 2:2009cv12166
Filed: June 3, 2009
Court: Michigan Eastern District Court
Office: Detroit Office [ Court Info ]
County: Washtenaw
Presiding Judge: Zatkoff
Referring Judge: Whalen
Nature of Suit: Contract – Franchise
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: None
Amount Demanded: $130,000.00

Les Stewart had a good post on BMM stating that independent franchisee associations should not seek permission or approval of the franchisor for their existence or viability, and it’s a good point. If the IndFa is dependent on approval of the franchisor, they’re not independent, are they? That’s one of the weaknesses of the AAFD approach – wonderful that Curves gives $200K to the IndFa, but what’s the benefit if the franchisor now owns the “independent” franchisee association.

TOC shows that franchisees have tremendous power whether Bond acknowledges them or not. Franchisors need positive, upbeat franchisees if they want to sell franchises. Bond has basically hogtied his sales efforts, and until he can kiss and make up with his franchisees I doubt he’s going to be depositing many franchise fees.

The TOC has power only if he gives TOC power by recognizing them and talking to the franchisees as a group, or talking to the AAFD about the contract. Even, under the new FTC Rule where Independent Franchise Associations have to be listed in the FDD, the franchisor doesn’t have to recognize and talk to the the IFA or the AAFD.

Collective bargaining has been a “no no” in franchising which depends upon dealing with franchisees on a one-on-one basis —especially in the courts. I’m sure Mr. Bond’s sttorneys have told him not to react in any way to the TOC website.

However, the TOC website will strengthen the relationship between the franchisees who can legally share their unit performance statistics with the public, and does act as a warning to prospective franchisees of CHildren’s Orchard who may find this website in their due diligence endeavors.

The negatives will not impact the individual owners, the franchisees, because customers are not reading the website. Any further lack of growth of the system because of the website can be a problem for the franchisees now under contract in terms of selling or renewing their contracts but apparently Mr. Bond doesn’t think this is a problem for him, as the owner of the system, because he does nothing about the contraction of the system. But, eventually he will have to react or fade away.

A divorce is out of the question for the parties because of the contract that unites them. Maybe, Mr. Bond will sell their contracts to a more successful franchisor of this concept.

It’s a standoff! But I congratulate the TOC for their efforts to bargain with their franchisor and for their efforts to warn those who might be thinking about joining this system.

Franchisee websites like TOC that deal in objective statistics and facts must be legally protected by our First Amendment Rights and will perhaps, in the end, change franchising to a more collaborative effort to the benefit of both the franchisor and the franchisee. The Internet and Google Search has brought CHANGE already to franchising because of sites like Franchise Pick and Unhappy Franchisee and other franchise talk websites.