Is owning a Petland store “an exhilarating and rewarding experience” made possible by an “experienced team of professionals” or a blatant scam run by a company promoting a doomed investment for its own gain?

The dog fight that’s developing between Petland and its detractors would make Michael Vick squeamish.

The Humane Society Claims Petland is “the nation’s largest retail supporter of puppy mills”

The Petland franchise chain is America’s largest chain of puppy-selling pet stores, with 200 stores in 31 states and several foreign countries.  Petland claims to be an advocate for animal welfare and a leader in the fight against inhumane “puppy mills.”

The Humane Society of the United States tells a different story, claiming that Petland Inc. is “the nation’s largest retail supporter of puppy mills.”  On their website, they provide a video showing puppy mill cruelty and asking supporters to write to Petland to ask them to stop selling puppies altogether.

Petland Claims The Humane Society of the US is Lying

Petland counters with claims of their own on the Petland website, accusing HSUS of using unrelated footage to attack Petland:  “Petland is outraged that HSUS would intentionally use video footage of unrelated kennels in the report to try to mislead the general public into believing these facilities have a connection to Petland.”

Further, it accuses of the HSUS of misleading consumers and donors into thinking it is the parent organization of all local humane societies when, in fact, “they are NOT, and very little support in the form of dollars, actually makes it to the local level.”

Petland claims that when it comes to animal welfare, it is part of the solution.

Failed Petland Franchisees Are Also on the Attack

According to the Petland franchise website, when you become a Petland franchisee, “The Petland corporate staff has one focus: your success. From the president to the receptionist, everyone’s job is rooted in the support of the strategic partners.”

However, former Petland Inc. franchisees are suing the Ohio-based franchisor for fraud, alleging that the business model doesn’t work, that the stores are doomed from the start, and they sell them anyway.

According to a recent BizJournal story:

Columbus-based Luper Neidenthal & Logan and two New York firms filed a suit on behalf of two lead plaintiffs – franchisees in Nashville, Tenn., whose stores have gone out of business. The suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of all franchisees since November 1993, and asks for relief of about $20 million. It also seeks cancellation of franchise agreements, said Greg Melick, a Luper Neidenthal attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Melick estimates the average investment per franchisee totals up to $250,000, and the firms have been in contact with more than 40 franchisees.

The lead plaintiffs claim Petland fraudulently induced them to start a pet store when it knew, or should have known, the shops couldn’t succeed. A major allegation from franchisees, Melick said, is that pets supplied to the stores through Petland’s vendors were sick or dying.

Melick compared the franchisees’ problem to a restaurateur opening a new business and sending dozens of people to the hospital for food poisoning in its first weekend.

“For a large group of these franchisees, sick puppies is a problem when they open,” he said. “You just can never recover.”

This battle is just getting started and will, undoubtedly, be both public and messy… bad news for the franchise owners of those 200 stores.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

__________________________

FEATURED STORY:

TanWorld: Creating the Next-Generation Tanning Salon Franchise

OVERVIEW Interview with Tanworld V.P. Bob McQuillan

Visit FRANBEST’s: Unbiased franchise information, franchise interviews and detailed, searchable information on 400 franchise and business opportunities.

.

Franchisees, customers & experts vote for their favorite new franchises at Top New Franchise: Who’s hot. Who’s not.

Post from: EveryJoe

PETLAND: Who’s the Sick Puppy Here?

What was the great human rights victory?  Gay activist and blogger Mike Rogers allegedly bullied Subway into making one of its franchisees withdraw a $2500 campaign contribution to an anti-gay marriage “Yes on 8″ campaign, and one assumes, resubmit it as a personal contribution.

A post on PageOneQ (written both by and about Rogers) states that Rogers’ complaints to the company prompted franchisor Doctor’s Associates to send out a warning  letter to the franchisee, and to franchisees and developers worldwide:

“It has been brought to the attention of [Subway parent company] Doctor’s Associates Inc. that you have made a contribution to a politically oriented organization. It is our understanding that you intended this solely as a personal contribution and that you were not intending to make any representation on the part of the SUBWAY brand,” The company wrote in response to the gift made by a Merced, California location of the chain. The store is located inside the popular Merced Mall.

Explaining the company’s position the letter continued, “You should also be aware that your franchise agreement prohibits your use of the SUBWAY trademark as part of your business or corporate name. Further, it states that you agree to ‘…not use the Trademark in a manner that degrades, diminishes, or detracts from the goodwill of the business associated with the Trademark’ and ‘to promptly change the manner of such use if requested to do so by us.’”

So Mike Rogers prompted Subway to enforce its own current policy.  Woo-hoo!  Another major civil rights milestone.

Blogging about himself in the third person, it seems, Rogers writes:

On his original blog post, Rogers wrote, “We have a handle — a handle on a spigot of money. Mess with the gays and watch the ‘pink wrath’ slowly twist the spigot until they’re at the table begging for forgiveness.” At Subway the spigot is fully open.

So what’s the cause for celebration?

So, Mike Rogers, what’s the cause for celebration?

That you harrassed a franchisee into hiding his political views?

That you got one guy to reclassify his contribution as “personal”?

That you further convinced franchise companies to avoid social issues?

That you can use the same tactics as your political adversaries? (See  McDonald’s: Did McD’s Cave to Anti-Gay Group’s Boycott?)

That you prompted the corporation to warn thousands of Subway owners to keep their personal opinions – including pro-gay rights opinions – from being connected to their businesses?

Sadly, the Pink Wrathers (not to be confused with the Pink Truthers) have again missed an important point.  This means that they’ve dissuaded franchisees who agree with them from voicing their political views in connection with their businesses.

Too bad Mike didn’t go for a real victory – like getting other Subway franchisees to contribute 10 times that amount for his cause.

Of course, bullying is a lot less work.

ALSO READ:  Subway Fires Gay Porn Star Kurt Wild

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHOULD JOE THE PLUMBER STICK TO PLUMBING AND SUBWAY TO MAKING SANDWICHES? 

SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

__________________________

Visit FRANBEST’s: Unbiased franchise information, franchise interviews and detailed, searchable information on 400 franchise and business opportunities.

.

Franchisees, customers & experts vote for their favorite new franchises at Top New Franchise: Who’s hot. Who’s not.

photo source:  FranBest

Post from: EveryJoe

SUBWAY: Smacked by the Terrifying Pink Handbag of Wrath

(FranchisePick.Com)

The American Family Association had been calling for Richard Ellis, McDonald’s vice president of U.S. communications, to resign from the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and for McDonald’s to drop its membership and cease financial support for the NGLCC. McDonald’s provided $20,000 to be one of the corporate sponsors of the chamber’s annual fundraising gala.

The group led a boycott of McDonald’s, circulated a petition, held a press conference at McDonald’s headquarters, and maintained the BoycottMcDonalds.com website.  The website claims that McDonald’s corporate employees attended seminars teaching them how to advance the homosexual lifestyle:

The conference, held in Austin, TX, was designed to train employees how to effectively advance homosexuality in the workplace and to persuade top corporate officials to embrace the lifestyle by offering special recognition and benefits to gay employees.

The AFA site also objected to the McDonald’s employee health benefits package, which it claims “includes full coverage for sex-change procedures, post-operative recovery, and mental health counseling throughout the process.”

McDonald’s has apparently caved in to most of this group’s demands.  The Chicago Tribune reports that Richard Ellis has been reassigned to Siberia Canada, that he has resigned from the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, and that McDonald’s will not renew it’s membership in the organization that it claims it wasn’t a member of, anyway.

On its protest website, the American Family Association has declared victory:

Great news! Because of AFA supporters like you, McDonald’s has told AFA it will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald’s. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald’s joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

McDonald’s said it’s Vice President, Richard Ellis, has resigned his position on the board of directors of NGLCC and his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald’s also said that the company has no plans to renew it’s membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.

In an e-mail to McDonald’s franchised owners, the company said, “It is our policy to not be involved in political and social issues. McDonald’s remains neutral on same sex marriage or any ‘homosexual agenda’ as defined by the American Family Association.”

We appreciate the decision by McDonald’s to no longer support political activity by homosexual activist organizations. You might want to thank your local McDonald’s manager.

How Strong IS McDonald’s Commitment to Diversity?

In the Tribune article, McDonald’s officials claim that Ellis’ involvement in and subsequent divorce from the NGLCC were personal – and not corporate – activities… indicating that McDonald’s bold reaction to the controversy – in a nutshell – is to wimp out.

While the judgement of a Public Relations VP whose actions prompt a national boycott could certainly be called into question (his job, after all, is to quell, not attract or incite, potential boycotts), McDonald’s tepid reaction and unwillingness to back up a senior executive results in the worst of both worlds.

The conservative Christians are emboldened, even stronger in their belief that McDonald’s is an amoral but tameable behemoth that they can manipulate through the media.  My guess is that they will be maintaining the BoycottMcDonalds.com domain for future use.

The once-encouraged gay McDonald’s employees and customers feel sold-out once again.

And the McDonald’s heavily promoted commitment to diversity seems to ring a bit hollow.

After all, how strong is a commitment to diversity if it only exists until someone complains?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?  SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.

__________________________

Visit FRANBEST’s: Unbiased franchise information, franchise interviews and detailed, searchable information on 400 franchise and business opportunities.

.

Franchisees, customers & experts vote for their favorite new franchises at Top New Franchise: Who’s hot. Who’s not.

Image credits:  IdeaFarm.  Used by permission.

Post from: EveryJoe

McDonald’s: Did McD’s Cave to Anti-Gay Group’s Boycott?