![\"Village](\"https:\/\/www.diaryofanadi.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/05\/idiot_4.gif\" "\\"Village")
work\u201d. But that isn\u2019t the funny part.<\/p>\nI have to laugh. I noticed on a forum someone asking how they can get out of their agreed contract with a national driving school franchise due to \u201clack of work\u201d. But that isn\u2019t the funny part.<\/p>\n
Someone has posted in reply that the franchise in question isn\u2019t a \u201creal\u201d one, and that a \u201creal\u201d one would give you \u201cexclusive rights to the brand and pupils within a dedicated area\u201d. This is total crap!<\/p>\n
By way of explanation, take my favourite example – McDonalds. When you take out a franchise with them (all outlets are franchises, and cost a lot of money up front) you do not<\/strong> have exclusive rights to the brand. You do not<\/strong> have exclusive rights to the customers (whatever area they\u2019re in). You have to sell exactly what McDonalds tells you to sell, how they want you to sell it, and the customers can go wherever the bloody hell they please (which I do frequently if there\u2019s a queue or only one zit face serving whilst trying to assemble 10 Happy Meals at the same time). McDonalds – whether it be the franchisor or franchisee – has no rights over me whatsoever. But it is absolutely a \u201creal\u201d franchise.<\/p>\n Indeed, I have complained to McDonalds Head Office before about appalling customer service at certain branches and they\u2019ve told me that it isn\u2019t what they expect from their franchisees and that they\u2019ll deal with it. And they have<\/strong> dealt with it. Non-approved practices screw up the brand image, and it is McDonalds (the franchisor) who owns the brand – not the franchisee.<\/p>\n If a franchisor decides that any given area can stand another franchised outlet – and it is they<\/strong> who have the resources to decide, and they<\/strong> who also lose out if they\u2019re wrong – then it has every right to grant such a franchise. It is inordinately difficult for a franchisee to prove that perceived damage to their business was caused by the additional franchise – and not by the plethora of competitors who are springing up all the time. In the case of driving instruction and national brands, the brand is easily outnumbered by independent ADIs who are not affiliated to any multi-car school. However, most \u201cbig brands\u201d aim to chip away at that, and the way to do it is to advertise like no independent could ever dream of, and increase the number of cars to handle the extra pupils which result. It\u2019s what is known as \u201cbusiness\u201d.<\/p>\n I also note that the person who complained about the lack of work appears to be turning 10 or more hours a week – which for someone who has only been going 4 months in the current economic climate (and in East London) is pretty damned good. If he\u2019d gone as an independent straight away then he might now have been paying a third less for his car, but with less – possibly much less – than half of the work he currently has. You don\u2019t need to be a genius to see which option is the better gamble as a start up instructor in an instructor-heavy location.<\/p>\n By definition, franchising is the use of another company\u2019s successful business model.<\/strong> Further definitions include:<\/p>\n \u2026an authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities, for example acting as an agent for a company\u2019s products.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n A franchise holder, on the other hand, is defined:<\/p>\n\n
\n