April 25, 2024

Case Study: After the Parent Fails, a Franchisee Ponders His Next Steps

THE CHALLENGE Just five months after opening his three locations in the District of Columbia, Mr. Burris — a former director of advertising and media sales at the International Franchise Association — learned that his franchiser had declared bankruptcy in Australia. Without the parent company to support its franchisees with marketing and supply contacts, Mr. Burris and the other nine franchisees based in the United States struggled with what to do next.

THE BACKGROUND Mr. Burris had learned about Rent Your Boxes, which was called Hire a Box in Australia, at the 2009 West Coast Franchise Expo in Los Angeles, which he attended as an employee of the franchise association.

The idea for the business had particular appeal for Mr. Burris, who just three days before arriving in Los Angeles for the trade show had experienced a nightmarish move in which he found it difficult and expensive to acquire boxes. Mr. Burris met the Australian founder of Rent Your Boxes at the show.

“When he told me what his business was, which involved renting heavy-duty corrugated cardboard boxes, I thought one of my colleagues had put him up to it,” Mr. Burris said. “But I eventually gave him my card and told him that if he ever decided to start selling franchises in the U.S. to give me a call.”

While Mr. Burris enjoyed his job at the franchise association, he was open to the idea of running a business of his own, especially after the death of his wife a year earlier — which left him to raise his three children, one of whom is mildly autistic, by himself.

“I wanted a business my kids could run even if something happened to me,” he said.

When a representative of Rent Your Boxes contacted Mr. Burris in October 2009, he decided to take the leap and become the first of what would be 10 United States-based franchisees.

He flew to Australia for a few weeks to shadow franchisees in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane and to learn how the businesses worked before returning to the United States to open his first store.

Then, in March 2010, Mr. Burris said, he and his fellow franchisees received an e-mail informing them that the parent company had filed for the Australian equivalent of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. They were told, he said, that the business was being liquidated. “The rug got pulled out from under me,” Mr. Burris said.

While he was devastated by the news — especially the fact that the thousands of dollars he had paid in franchise fees and for related investments, like the purchase of a delivery van, were gone — he identified a possible silver lining: Despite multiple requests, the founder of the chain had never signed a final version of Mr. Burris’s franchise agreement.

That meant, he concluded, that regardless of what happened in the Australian bankruptcy court, Mr. Burris was essentially a free agent. And because his business was thriving, he believed he might be able to organize the other United States-based franchisees into a new business. He immediately bought a new URL, RentOurBoxes.com, hired a designer to create a new logo and put in an application to trademark the new name.

In July 2010, Mr. Burris called a meeting of the nine other franchisees, many of whom were first-time business owners, and offered them a deal: If they banded together, they could hire a lawyer to help them sever their ties with Rent Your Boxes and begin operating under the new name. All nine agreed, and the 10 franchisees resigned simultaneously. “That was our Independence Day,” Mr. Burris said.

At first, the company operated like a democracy, with business decisions — such as which suppliers to work with, whether to accept new franchisees or how to advertise — decided by committee. But the franchisees rarely saw eye to eye, partly because they operated in different markets.

“Everyone else was located in suburban areas while I was the only one based in an urban area,” Mr. Burris said. “Plus a lot of them were still angry because they thought all they would have to do in their business was fulfill orders. They never planned on having to build up their own market.”

As the committee approach grew increasingly counterproductive, Mr. Burris decided he needed to make a change.

THE OPTIONS Because he owned all of the intellectual property related to the new company, he considered taking control of the situation. If any of the other franchisees wanted to continue using the Rent Our Boxes brand, that person would need to sign a license agreement, which would involve a percentage split of the revenue. If the other franchisees did not agree to his terms, they would be free to exit and run their companies under different names.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=38b494c0e045d309e5eb8458a6654980

Link by Link: On Wikipedia, 9/11 Dissent Is Kept on the Fringe

AS the nation marked this terrible anniversary, people invariably turned to Wikipedia to learn about the events of Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly two million page views were registered last September for the article “September 11 Attacks,” a typically Wikipedian effort with exhaustive, even picayune, details of the events, bolstered by nearly 289 footnotes. This September, the total page view number could be something like six million.

Likewise, readers have repeatedly turned to the article “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” The article — similarly detailed with 299 footnotes purporting to explain accusations of faked video footage or controlled demolition of the two buildings — had 400,000 page views last September, and is on pace to have more than a million views this year.

One thing is certain, however. Not one of those visitors got to the conspiracy theories page by making a hypertext leap from a link in the main article about the Sept. 11 attacks. There is simply no mention of these theories, deemed fringe ideas, which have been repeatedly and officially discredited. They are written up in a variety of articles on Wikipedia, but they are kept on the fringe of the site.

This is no accident, but rather a Wikipedia policy concerning a topic as fraught with emotion as the Sept. 11 attacks. Thus the so-called gatekeepers of the media world — prominent newspapers, television news programs, newsweeklies — have an unlikely ally in Wikipedia, which bills itself as the encyclopedia anyone can edit.

“Certainly you would get dissent from a lot of our critics that we are responsible,” said Ira Brad Matetsky, a lawyer and member of the arbitration committee that resolves disputes over the editing of articles. But, he added, “one of the reasons that the 9/11 article has been fairly pushed in a conservative direction — and I don’t mean politically — is because so many people are reading this article.”

•

Over the last 10 years, the site has developed elaborate rules and standards, including creating the arbitration committee, a 17-member supreme court of sorts for Wikipedia.

In 2008, doubters of the official account of the attacks — sometimes called truthers — were told by the arbitration committee not to edit the main page on the attacks after so-called edit wars over what should be included there. (Mr. Matetsky, as a New Yorker who well remembered the attacks, recused himself.)

Since then, any mention or link to conspiracy theories from the main account has been scrubbed from that article: there is no description of the celebrities who have endorsed the view; no mention of poll results on the subject that show some support among the public; no account, even, of the attraction of conspiracy theories in a time of crisis.

The move has been supported on the discussion pages accompanying the Sept. 11 article, though one Wikipedia contributor, Arthur L. Rubin, a former aerospace engineer who is beginning law school at Western State University in Fullerton, Calif., has been trying to push back.

He does not believe the theories, he said, but says they are part of the Sept. 11 story. “Although the theories are fringe, the fact that there are theories is a mainstream phenomenon,” he said in an interview as he prepared for class. “Even in law school one of the students I was talking to was in the truther side of the matter — it really is a widespread phenomenon.”

His latest unsuccessful effort was to include the conspiracy theories article on the template for Sept. 11, a list of articles on the subject that appears on the bottom of any of those entries. It is a way of packaging Wikipedia’s work on a topic; the prevailing view at Wikipedia is that including the conspiracy theories would make the ideas seem more mainstream.

In response to Mr. Rubin, a commentator on a Wikipedia discussion page, Tom Harrison, wrote: “Like most fringe subjects it has been unduly (and unintentionally, in most cases) promoted, giving readers and maybe search engines an impression of cultural significance that isn’t supported to that extent in reliable sources. I don’t want to Suppress the Truth, I just want to give due weight.”

This consensus on Wikipedia certainly is not what an outsider might expect from a site that prides itself on its free expression views. In the past, Wikipedia editors have reveled in publishing material that others have considered better left unseen.

•

In the case of the ink blots used in Rorschach tests, complaints that publishing the material would threaten the psychology profession only emboldened the editor who put them there.

The phenomenon even has a name, the Streisand effect, a result of Barbra Streisand’s failed effort to suppress in court an aerial photograph of her home for privacy reasons, which only seemed to stoke interest. The photograph now illustrates Wikipedia’s Streisand Effect article.

Wikipedia, created in the year the Sept. 11 attacks took place, was profoundly shaped by those events. According to the article “History of Wikipedia,” the attacks spurred “breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles.”

A look back at the page from December 2001 about the attacks, including its gray In Memoriam banner, is to be transported to a rawer time — for the United States and Wikipedia. The writing is more emotional than one might expect from a site that now prides itself on a just-the-facts prose style. The article’s opening words describe the events as “what might well be the most devastating terrorist attack in the history of the world.”

The links from that December 2001 entry to other Wikipedia articles also tell a story, especially the ones like Missing Persons, Opportunists, Collective Trauma, and Misinformation and Rumors.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8d68432445102fa53f4ff622f1291a5f

You’re the Boss: Finding the Nerve to Take an Advertising Risk

Part of the Austin Humane Society campaign.Courtesy of Austin Humane Society.Part of the Austin Humane Society campaign.
Branded

One of the hardest things to do in business is to take a risk with your advertising. I’ve made ad campaign presentations to fiercely competitive, Type A owners and here’s what happens:

A proposed campaign is presented that meets the creative brief, nails the marketing objectives and is not similar to anything that has been done in the company’s industry. Minute one, the chief executive’s face is euphoric, almost giddy. Minute two, more of the same as the C.E.O. imagines how far a truly new campaign might take the company. And then we get into the third minute and the rush of possibility recedes, deflated by the annoying arrival of self-doubt.

I know how hard it can be to take a risk, to try something different. I’ve been there, sweat behind the knees and all. It’s not pretty. The one mental mechanism that does seem to help me take the leap is reminding myself that sticking to the same actions is very likely to produce the same results. Is that what the situation calls for? That’s typically the mechanism that convinces me to move in a different direction. Of course, I also tend to look at the office’s lucky troll doll to see if its hair has gone white. I was reminded of this recently when the Austin Humane Society engaged our agency for help coming up with a new campaign.

The organization hadn’t tinkered with its brand for 15 years, and it had some big goals it wanted to achieve. First, it wanted to increase donations to keep its no-kill pet adoption center in Austin strong. The executive director, Frances Jonon, and the director of development and marketing, Amanda Ryan-Smith, knew that doom-and-gloom campaigns tend to work in their business — but only in short bursts. That approach can also lead to what’s known in the fund-raising world as “donor fatigue.”

To sustain the organization for the long-term, Ms. Jonon and Ms. Ryan-Smith thought they might need to step away from those types of campaigns. But it was a thought that scared them. “We were terrified, quite frankly, about moving away from the negative tactics because we know it works,” Ms. Jonon said. “Our industry heavily uses the ‘pets are dying!’ message because it provides a quick fund-raising fix.”

We were ecstatic. This client recognized that moving away from the standard campaign was the way to go. Our team, headed by our brand strategist, Suzanne Kyba, conducted a series of workshops with executives and staff at A.H.S., along with interviews with key donors. We wanted to gain insights from those closest to the organization. We also wanted to test the hypothesis that a positive message could have as much impact as the puppies-in-dumpsters approach. As part of the process, we uncovered some untapped opportunities that seemed to resonate with the audience. We uncovered some statistics about how animals not only enhance the emotional lives of owners but actually create physical changes — helping the heart, mind and body. In other words, while saving an animal’s life, people can also extend their own.

With this information, we developed a positive campaign platform of “Transforming Lives,” which refers not only to pets but to the lives of people who donate and adopt them. When we made the presentation, Minute One went well. Minute Two was more of the same. And after the all-important Minute Three, the A.H.S. executives were still on board. They approved the positioning with the new tag line and positive rallying cry, “Unleash Hope.” “We always knew that was a place we wanted to move to, but we just didn’t know how to get there,” Ms. Ryan-Smith said.

The next step was to bring the campaign to life. Staying the course, the campaign focused on the lifelong bond and emotional connection between pet and owner, as well as the impact animals and people have on each other. Posters, interior signage, direct-mail pieces and their mobile adoption vehicle, the Adoption Waggin, highlighted the messaging in a fun (but heart-tugging) way. Four humorous videos were produced featuring animals speaking with each other about their various needs, perceptions and misperceptions about shelter animals. We revamped the A.H.S. Web site with custom online tools to showcase the pets up for adoption, highlighting aspects of their characters, personality traits, habits and special tricks. And, because music helps us make those important emotional connections, we recruited 100 Austin-based bands to donate songs that A.H.S. staffers matched with animals to better display their personalities. We also created an online game called Trapcat to offer an entertaining and educational glimpse into the population-reducing benefits of feral cat trapping.

So far, the results have been good. This year, despite the down economy, Ms. Jonon reports there has been a 13-percent increase in overall fund-raising and donations. The annual holiday appeal alone doubled what it had done in previous years. And, for the first time A.H.S. had more than 3,000 adoptions in a year.

MP Mueller is the founder of Door Number 3, a boutique advertising agency in Austin, Tex. Follow Door Number 3 on Facebook.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=6ec3fcf6aecd740afdc41a1b45774da4