An interesting conversation today with Michael Seid. Centered around AB 257, newly signed legislation in the State of California, the grand wizard of all things franchise indicates that the sky isn’t falling in California; it’s already fallen. Our self-aggrandizing icon of franchising went on to say something as brilliant as this:
“Kim Perrotta, why does my association speak volumes about where I stand on Franchise issues? Do you think that the IFA – which has franchisees on its board – and whose chairs are frequently franchisees – and which has a vital and vigorous franchisee forum – only has a single focus? How absurd. I think the 1980s are calling you”. (-:).” <–isn’t this emoji special?
Oh, but there’s more!
“I don’t share your opinion that entering California is any more difficult than Maryland. I know both heads of their franchise regulation ) – although one recently retired) may disagree with them on occasion – but both are competent, and neither creates significant barriers to franchisors wishing to offer franchises in their states any more than any other regulator in other states”.
Clearly, the franchise wizard fails to consider why so many franchisors steer clear of the registration states. I’m sure he knows the “franchise regulators” because he’s attempted to get his fee-paying franchisors registered. And by the way, we know them ALL but need not name-drop. Our communication with them is constant on speed dial and text.
Next up, pending the mass exodus of his fee-paying clients from California, I suspect his inside track on legislative knowledge warned them long ago about the risk associated with doing business in California. My goodness, look at the long list of clients the blowhard has “advised”:
If he’s going to advise clients and others, he’d better get started quickly; he’s got nearly eight hundred thousand franchised establishments to inform.
I couldn’t help myself but answer his snarky little “I know more than anyone” posts with the following response:
“Try joining the “unwashed” here on planet earth Michael Seid. Those that can’t put food on the table nor pay for medical expenses. Not everyone is as fortunate as those who send out templated franchise agreements and then package and sell them to anyone who can breathe. Run for office. I don’t appreciate snarky responses when trying to have a conversation. And I’m afraid I certainly have to disagree with how he’s advised clients and said he’s answered it. Doublespeak never impressed me. He’d hop on the emerging franchise company tomorrow and attempt to register them in CA. Let’s not kid ourselves—fees reign supreme.
And as absurd as Facebook’s favorite LOL’r may think, their single focus IS to keep things precisely as they are, never allow the transformational change in franchising that might benefit cherished Franchisees, and continue to parachute any number of fee seeking Lawyers and Vendors to follow them off the cliff and into the anti-franchisee abyss is what remains absurd. For those that may want more insight into transformational change, you can find some here:
Mr. Emoji fails to remember that when Robert Rosenberg and others started the International Franchise Association, Franchisee’s weren’t even allowed to become part of it. It was consistent pressure and the lack of appeal that had to have them recognize cherished Franchisees if they were to continue accelerating revenue.
Today, with its templates, canned responses, and cliches, the International Franchise Association works to fight off and stop anything that may benefit Franchisees. If Mr. Emoji believes otherwise, he’s another lemming who should take down his shingle and bloviate over on Facebook.
My posts speak for themselves, as do my articles. I don’t walk in lockstep with the rest, although, unfortunately, there was a time when I did, which I regret.
Feedback or responses are not necessary or desired. If you must, you can have the last word as I’ve said my piece and need not say any more for those that know me feel free to drop me a line.
Coincidence when all the “franchise side” lawyers, vendors, and those not even in the business pop up in threads that might impact their fees? I don’t think so—fees reign supreme. One in particular that provided a good laugh was an MD, MBA, who threatened to have me “blocked” on the thread by reaching out to everyone on it with his command to block me. Bedside manner? Not at all, just another elitist.
If it weren’t obvious alone, it would be comical.
As for my original thoughts on AB 257, you can find them here.
I posted this in January of this year. I’ll let you know if I find any posts by our “Global Worldwide” IFA entrenched “member (He reminded us that he was):
One thing for me is inevitable. Cherished Franchisors will figure it out, work it, and overcome the impact it may cost. That, my friends, is “franchise resiliency.”