By Georges Panayotis
In any love story there is that balancing point where each individual has the feeling of sharing a single plenitude, wherein there is no desire to take advantage of another's weakness. In life and business alike this quest for balance feeds discussions between partners; sometimes they are discreet, other times they are more tumultuous, as love stories are wont to be.
Over the ages, relations between hotel operators and owners, franchisers and franchisees, operators and distributors have been supported by balances of power and a regular shifting of this balancing point. Long after their American counterparts, today French franchisees want to shift the balancing point to implement governance of brands that takes their concerns better into account.
While the primary motivation remains an equitable sharing of commitments and associated costs, today we are beyond simple economic reasoning. There is now a political dimension, in the sense of the "government of the city", motivating the franchisees, perhaps a bit late, but better later than never…
Let's be clear, for many years, franchisees rarely complained about a situation that was mostly to their advantage. Within an expanding hotel market, with moderate supply growth, the contribution of the brand, of its attributes, of its commercial strength have fulfilled entrepreneurs big and small, who have modeled a good share of the modern hotel industry. Then they were confronted with the evolution of models, caught between groups with a generally vertical strategy, preferring operational management, organic development, marketing innovation; on the other hand groups focusing on asset light, franchise development, brand marketing and distribution tools; and especially the irruption of mega online distributors that charge the high price for their near stranglehold on digital marketing and digital channel.
Anesthetized by the initial benefic effects of the intervention of OTAs, hoteliers have taken their time to notice perverse effects. Accustomed to comfort, a dash of paternalism, relations with their franchisers, franchisees did not take care to organize themselves as a credible and efficient opposition. That is the purpose of their quest for balance today. Nothing requires it to be conflictual, quite the contrary, everything aims to make it constructive.
In the United States, the three major organizations of owners/franchisees (AHLA, AAHOA, NABHOOD) are powerful, respected and constructive counterpoints. They represent nearly all operators – both individual and institutional, without the limitations of groups or brands, and are able to enter discussion with major brands with full transparency of the contracts of each. Nothing can be done without shared consensus, but the combined strength of owners and hotel groups makes it possible to be heard at the highest levels, regarding strategic questions, such as distribution and the sharing economy.
Is this totally inconceivable in France? Is the syndrome of division and individual chapels stronger than the common interest and the quest for a new balance? This deserves some rapid thinking and setting aside of dissensions and egos because time is short and the landscape will undoubtedly be upset once again in the months to come. The late organization of franchisees is an opportunity to snatch up and demonstrate imagination and develop new, efficient and lasting governance. And why not take advantage of it to make the initiative European, as the subject also affects Europe.
