Franchise, brandchise

The actions of so-called “rogue” franchisees from the Angus & Robertson bookstore group have got me thinking about brand and franchises.

I don’t know all that much about the legal structures of franchises. I do know Australia is one of the few countries in the world that have franchise trade practices (otherwise known as the Franchising code of conduct), but it isn’t the legal structure and obligations of franchises that interest me.

When brand is the result of the promises you keep, then the very nature of the franchise model makes it difficult to sustain it. Being “entrepreneurs with the brand” is really part of the job description of a franchisee. You want them to go that extra mile and be enthusiastic, but only so far.

So where is the line? I am sure it changes with every franchisor.

Brands are a highly complex series of interdependencies and adding the franchise business model into the mix can only complicate that.

In any business, the final test of the brand rests in the relationship between business and customer, and that relationship is owned by the franchisee, yet I suspect very few franchisors understand, acknowledge that or build it into their agreements in some way – after all, the “brand” is the primary asset that the franchisor is selling, isn’t it? Perhaps not.

Let’s look at some of what the franchisor sells. They sell a business model and buying power; a name and logo that may or may not have market awareness; an operating intent/set of value propositions; and some marketing and promotional support (not always wanted).

In other words, it’s a shell that will need to be filled up and brought to life by the actions and promises of the franchisee. So who exactly owns the brand?

I would argue that while the franchisor most certainly built the foundations of the brand, the living, breathing brand is owned by the franchisee and as with any business they can strengthen and grow it or undermine and destroy it. Unfortunately (or not), their lot is inexorably tied to their fellow franchisees.

I’m not saying that the actions of one franchisee can permanently undermine the brand of all, however it sure doesn’t help – much like the actions of one employee can impact the brand.

Conversely, even though they don’t “own the brand”, the actions of the franchisor can certainly impact the brand for all, case in point – Angus & Robertson.

I am not sure how any Angus & Robertson franchisee can effectively operate right now with continued news of doom and uncertainty hanging over their heads. And while there may not have been a “legal breach of contract” there has most certainly been a breach of trust.

So where does all of that leave brands and franchising?

In the end, whether a franchisor or a franchisee, the same basic brand principals that are true for any business are no different here.

Establish what you stand for and honour it. Know what your values are and choose to work with people who share them. Build the principles and practices of the business in accordance to those things. Make promises you can keep and keep them.

See you next week.

Michel Hogan is a Brand Advocate. Through her work with Brandology here in Australia and in the United States, she helps organisations recognise who they are and align that with what they do and say, to build more authentic and sustainable brands. She also publishes the Brand thought leadership blog – Brand Alignment. is a Brand Advocate. Through her work with Brandology here in Australia and in the United States, she helps organisations recognise who they are and align that with what they do and say, to build more authentic and sustainable brands. She also publishes the Brand thought leadership blog – Brand Alignment.