Franchises Must Meet Legal Definition to be an Actual Franchise

All franchises must meet the legal definition of a franchise no matter what they call it before it is an actual franchise. This is the Federal Trade Commissions take on the franchise rule. It is not illegal to call a company a franchise even if it is not one and if it is not it does not have to follow the rules. In this opinion of law, I do have a quick summary of thoughts for the Federal Trade Commission Franchise Rule Making Group:

So what you are saying is that even if a company calls what they do a franchise, it is not a franchise unless it meets the test. And if meets the test then it is a franchise no matter what the parties call it?

Well then Al Queda, which is often called a franchise in our national news, which is operating in the United States, actually is not a franchise and therefore does not need to disclose anything or any information. Yet all the legitimate businesses, which are franchises must disclose everything. Why not make Al Queda meet the definition of a franchise since they have similar training camps, collect fees and use similar handbooks, operations manuals and methods? Each international cell or franchise follows the same plans. If the FTC can make them fall within their definition; then the FTC can get a list of all their franchisees and the Federal Trade Commission can sue them to prevent attacks? Just like the Federal Trade Commission is doing with SPAM. Doing a lot of good there, let me tell you, with 2111 worth of junk mails today alone. Thanks for nothing. I want my taxpayers money back! What a complete disgrace and failure, is the Federal Trade Commission unfit to lead? Next question:

It appears the Catholic Church is a franchise but call itself a church. Operates using the same marketing plan to collect tithing, pays franchise royalties to the parent, even molests young children which seems to be a common theme and practice? So does this mean if Bob Smith owned a Motorcycle Repair Company instead of a car shop that it could become a church and franchise out and collect fees without being a franchise? "Zen and the art of?"

Although one might have problems with this argument since these examples are totally absurd, from a philosophical standpoint, one does have to ask the question? And perhaps even ask; why do we even have a franchise rule in the first place? Obviously it is to help other business models over the franchise model? So the Federal Trade Commission has a franchise rule to make it difficult for franchises to survive so other business models can do better? Yet it is now proven even with all this bogus over regulation franchising still wins as the most efficient model. I present these examples as so much of this report and those who commented are out to lunch.

Someone somewhere was afraid of how fast franchising was moving so we ended up with the franchise rule? That is not a sufficient reason to keep it. Especially with 105 complaints in a decade, 70% bogus meaning 26 complaints actual with over 350,000 outlets sold, show me another industry, which can show those types of figures? Well, show me, because I have been studying this and I can tell you none exists.

The Wal-Mart or Starbucks of the world have proven equally powerful and efficient to the franchise model, however much of their methods except for private ownership of units follows that of the methods of franchising. Now if we continue to limit franchising they will have no competition. The FTC claims to help competitive markets, yet it destroys competition rather than leveling the playing field; deny this.

The recent franchise report by the FTC and this discussion is pure unadulterated mental masturbation. Franchising is about win-win-win situations and solving problems in the marketplace, serving the needs of the economy, franchisor, franchisee, customer and even sometimes the shareholders. That is a good thing, if we argue over what is and what is not and try to define it one way or the other, we miss the point of why it even exists, it exists to extend brand name, save on capital outlay for rapid expansion and fill a niche in the market place where buyers and sellers come together of their own free will to partake using a unit of trade. Mr. Snow recently spoke about franchising and reiterated the President's message that "franchising means jobs!" How can you argue with that logic? Look at how many jobs are provided by franchising? Why would anyone want to over regulate the forward progress of all mankind and the value of the greatest business model ever created in the entire written history of our specie? WAKE UP!

You can make definitions all you want, you can redefine, re-write, argue, manipulate common words of the English language, but in the end all you do is limit the possibilities of the creative genius of those who seek and find niches to fill for the common good of all. Why are we doing this, can't we just reduce this burdensome regulation and let free will and free markets flourish? Why are we attacking small efficient businesses which turn to the franchise model for expansion? Meanwhile if you want to stop the Catholic Church from molesting children or Al Queda from hurting our country, be my guest, I hope you sue the crap out of them. Good luck. My question to everyone is what good is making definitions if it hurts commerce by sweeping in other businesses and industries into this never ending fold of over regulation and intense litigation? Let's use some common sense here please. "Enough Already!" Think on this.

"Lance Winslow" - If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance;

home | site map
© 2005