hi

The advantages of having a franchise as suggested by the reading: trusted supplier, saving money for advertisment and security, are deemed useless or incomplete by the lecturer. The lecturer is totally against the idea of purchasing a franchise, and she refutes to each of the reason by providing results of multiple study reports.

According to lecturer, franchise owners are forced to buy goods and services from the firms that have a tie-up with the franchise company. Although, this protects the owners from wrong supplier. However, these goods are generally overpriced and the owners have no option eventhough they might get the same product from some other place at a cheaper price they are literally forced to buy it at a much higer rate.

Additionally, money spent on advertisement comes from the profit share of franchise. This money is used only for the promotion of brand and its products not for individual businesses. The share that the franchise owners pay is quite large, instead they could advertise their own businesses with even half of that money.

Lastly, Although having a franchise may seem less risky but it is not secure. Lecturer, provides a second option of buying up of already existing independent busineses. This claim is supported by the fact that the success rate of such an initiative is nearly twice when compared to having a franchise.

Thus to sum up, eventhough franchise owner might have its own advantages but it does not provide a clear indication of these benefits. Also, the lecturer is against the idea of buying up a franchise for the reasons mentioned above.