By Georges Panayotis
Something makes no sense in the kingdom of franchising. Relations between franchisees and franchisors are tense. While there are two ways to look at this: problems are swept under the carpet and any responsibility for shirked dialogue is refused, or else every question is taken on… even upsetting ones.
Words have meaning. At the root of this contractual relationship between the operating investor and the owner who sells the use of the brand, it must be an open rapport that is unequivocal. While they may have legitimate demands in terms of hotel groups' commitments to them, franchisees must remember how good it is to find ready to go concepts, nicely packaged with the user's manual, while family-run hotels were on the decline. They received much needed support to shift towards modernization and innovation of the national supply. The current good health of franchisees at the head of a real regional or national network is closely connected to follow-up assistance received from franchisers and their field teams.
But to be perfectly clear: brands were also happy to find entrepreneurs ready to risk their own money just when groups had decided to step away from organic growth. The unfurling of their brands on the entire territory could never have happened so quickly without this commitment.
What changed to disseminate this kind of wariness, to grow recriminations?
It is already a generational question! The profile of franchisees is no longer the same. Sons and daughters have taken their parents' places. They don't necessarily have the same emotional connections that first generation pioneers maintained. They prefer a new, more strategic, less convivial, approach that focuses more on results than loyalty. New entrepreneurs have also entered the game as pragmatic managers who are more accustomed to the slide rule than a pat on the back. Hotel groups have undoubtedly taken the time to adapt to these changes and modify their management style. They have been pushed more by necessity than by the commitment to openness, to accept multi-partner franchisees. This has resulted in a certain reticence towards sharing everything.
But context matters as well! Everyone was caught off guard by the explosive development of OTAs. Franchisees were not the last to resort a little bit easily to their good offices and undoubtedly they also play a role in the increased distribution costs. It is not totally justified to complain that brands are not drawing as many reservations as hoped.
It has become a question of impatience! It is true that it is now urgent that we put a little order back into the hospitality world and that makes the positions between the need for defense and the desire to attack difficult. Giving brands back their power and strengthening communications and distribution tools cost more and more, and also require some time to develop properly. But it is a lot to ask franchisees to systematically understand when experiences are being multiplied and openings toward new partners are increasing, especially when the models are not explained. The ball goes back to the center. It is absolutely necessary to avoid playing the peacock in the middle of the barnyard and not be so resistant as to be unable to be blended into a savory omelet.
The franchise is shared. Solidarity is the basic principal that naturally connects the two parties. It involves finding new balances, eliminating misunderstandings on both sides. This necessary connection must not be experienced like fetters and the responsibilities of each must be perceived as a heavy weight to carry around. Quite the contrary, there are not two clans facing off, but two partners seeking one another. Not everyone has understood that a franchiser bids us to "choose their camp". These petty quarrels are in vain and we prefer dialogue. Come speak with us during the round dedicated to franchising at the next Global Lodging Forum…
