You walk into a franchise location, and it looks just like the franchise right in front of you. The floors, the materials have the same patina of use. You walk into an independently run location doing the same thing, and it looks worlds different – the top-of-the-line this, the fully budgeted that – and the two get along just fine.
Because of who is making the decisions and what’s being optimized differently. Franchises have a set of rules. Independents go on gut and budgets. It makes sense. It’s rational. Yet sometimes, their assumptions go to such different extremes.
Where Franchises Benefit From What Doesn’t Work Elsewhere
That’s what franchises have that independents lack – knowledge of failure across the network. If one location does something that doesn’t work, it gets reported to corporate. If fifty locations have it fail, it’s standardly excluded.
It’s located in spots that get a lot of use. Franchise kitchens are outfitted with industrial strength materials since moves are always in the same place with spills. Franchises learn from unfortunate experiences that basic materials won’t get them far in these spots. They need companies like https://www.chequerplatedirect.co.uk/checker-plate/aluminium-chequer-plate/ for corporate to have seen cheap alternatives fail across too many sites for corporate to have the higher costs; not for corporate to merely have the higher expenses.
Independent owners learn their lessons from unfortunate experiences – their first location is essentially a beta test. Some owners get lucky through word-of-mouth. Some owners get what they need through experience and fix it next time their window opens.
Network vs. Standalone Considerations
Franchises think about a network. Corporate-driven considerations for repairs, training cohesion, brand appearance, and many other factors aside from “is this going to work for me” are at play. It must work in humid conditions and arid ones; bustling cities and slower suburbs.
Independents think about themselves for now. Environmental situations matter. The traffic flow at this moment is critical. Budget considerations far outweigh what corporate can stomach as a potential hit. If done correctly, however, they serve as a more aesthetically pleasing fit for the community.
But they’re also entrepreneurial decisions that haunt them down the line because they don’t know what other places have lasted over time. Franchises know what’s broken and what’s being used correctly through wear and tear over multiple years over multiple locations; independents do not have such history to determine best practices.
Standardized Maintenance
Employees know how to care for their locations in a franchise because it’s just like the one where they trained. Standardized cleaning requirements exist across the board. Standardized attention to surfaces uses similar products; standardized maintenance schedules align.
While this seems excruciatingly boring at times, down the line when employees shuffle from one location to another or temped in, suddenly there’s a standard of cohesion.
Independent businesses train their employees with tribal knowledge of how their specific business works. An employee hired today will take months to understand what’s taken a veteran employee years to experience. If one critical employee leaves, the knowledge disappears.
Dispersing Risk Among So Many More Locations
Franchises disperse risk across hundreds if not thousands of locations. If corporate engages with one material and it fails across the board, it’s catastrophic – but unlikely; vetting expects that it shouldn’t happen for the majority. If something works, every other location will benefit from success.
For independent businesses, they bare 100% of all risk from under-performance. If they make a mistake on material selection, it’s 100% devastating to their operation. There’s no portfolio effect of disappointment spread across many other sites. Such risk-averse determinations make more sense even though riskier options save on capital expense in the long term.
But franchises cannot respond quickly if they’ve standardized materials after agreements with other locations. Stuck with standard specifics, independent businesses cannot pivot in a heartbeat if better options come down the road; independents can play around with new options first and get feedback quickly – then switch immediately.
Visual Appeal Matters
Franchise equity relies upon visual presentation so that a client can be in one location in one town and recognize the same business in another town by how it looks and feels. This isn’t fluff; this is how travelers determine whether or not they should go into one franchise versus another unknown shop.
Surface selections dictate value; materials that wear identically create uniformity regardless of when certain shops opened; materials that fade strangely clash against brand awareness.
Independent franchises do not care for this type of uniform consistency across outlets. Authentic charm and hometown character can serve as selling points as well as better-worn surfaces than any material ever could – as long as it adds character without interfering with brand recognizability.
Negotiating Power and Costs
Corporate franchises with contractors give access to pricing opportunities with independent franchises simply do not have access. Volume changes help discover better pricing scales; longevity helps foster compliance-friendly schedules; standardized specifications create fewer custom requests that would raise expenses.
Independent owners pay retail price or small contractor pricing that has minimal appeal but ironically has synonymous materials; independent owners pay more per unit with similarly styled options; independent contractors charge more because they can project their efficient efforts elsewhere per multiple locations with similar types of jobs.
This price differential lessens specifications franchises would ask for greater than independents ever would. Yes, franchise materials might be more expensive; however, they pay far less for those materials than any independent ever could.
Regulatory/Insurance Considerations
Franchises mandate locations that exceed codes more than minimum requirements because corporate legal/insurance teams want extra padding against liability exposure for all sites as opposed to individual cared ones.
Independent operations skate by code; very few exceed code regulations outside of impending issues; extra safety is fantastic but costs money without definitive ROI; it’s a risk assessment for added protection for one site as opposed to a brand as a whole.
Insurance companies recognize this distinction; franchises get low premiums partly because above-code specifications reduce claim potential.
When Standards Can Lag
Standards can lag behind with franchises when something gets standardized across thousands of locations; change takes time and detail; it’s newer materials that get better ratings but franchises move slower because they have unified standards to keep consistent through a networked effort.
Independent operators can change gears immediately when something else is better; they don’t require general consensus; there’s no overall change legitimized that takes time to slow things down; independent operators can move quickly at times – and that’s an advantage that levels out benefits franchised operators would gain through standardized efforts.
Corporate bureaucracy means that sometimes franchised standards change because it’s easier for an administrative function than performance-based need. A material gets left because changing it would create red tape headaches instead of what’s still the best option on the market.
How It Makes Sense
It makes sense that standards apply where cohesive solutions trump localized optimization driven by proven solutions moreso than adaptability further down the line.
It makes sense for independently owned locations without standards where cohesive options flourish where flexibility creates adaptable benefits forged from substantive need.
Of course neither is better than the other. They’re different divergent strategies implemented in different situations. Franchise standards avoid common pitfalls but restrict flexibility down the line; independent options encourage customization but lose institutional memory down the line for what’s best up front.
Savvy owners in each situation know what they’re getting into and what they’re sacrificing for doing so. Franchisees who comply with standards appreciate proven solutions with network buy-in; independent operators making a custom decision understand they’re gambling based on local insight versus well-researched experience.
It’s clear how these differences exist because they’re both getting maximum benefit from radically different variables; seeing this only strengthens sound decisions from either side in light of their parameters.