1) Instead of fulfilling a dream to own their own business, they were gouged every way they turned. Franchisee fees, royalties, training, marketing fund fees and paying top dollar to RFG for supplies left them with little or no money to pay themselves or their workers.
To me, that sounds like the ACA-style beat-up way of saying 'the economics didn't stack up for that store'. However, the economics could stack up for a normal proportion of franchisees, which would mean the fees are normal rather than 'gouging' etc.
If somebody shows that RFG's fees are higher than their competing franchisors, or that they have an abnormally high failure rate, then I'd believe it rather than being skeptical (as I am for every story run through ACA, and SMH is sounding awfully similar).
3. Potentially bad, potentially not. It depends if the store failed because of a weak franchisee, or an unsuitable location.
I am stating the reality, that there is another side to the story. SMH is writing one-sided beat-up articles to sell papers. I'd still like to know the true proportions though, to know if RFG has an abnormally high failure rate.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
