With all franchise opportunities there are a few questions that all potential franchisees should ask of the franchisor. Bear in mind that this relationship could last many years and your business potential and your future happiness rests on the answer received. Money whilst important in the decision making process is by no means the only important consideration in business.
First and foremost it is important to ask about the franchisors background. Their experience in business and their knowledge of the field that you are about to enter in should be comprehensive. Not only will this give you a chance to inquire about their knowledge but will also help you understand the people behind the business opportunity that you are about to enter.
How does the franchisor evaluate new franchisees? If this has not been as well developed as it should be then surely it questions the value of the franchise as well. All franchisors should have a clear understanding of the types of people they are searching for and clear guidelines as to how evaluate and score them. Bear in mind that a chain is as strong as its weakest link.
How well do they communicate with you? What methods do they use do communicate? Are they in touch with the latest technology? Technology is changing rapidly and in the future only the business men with their fingers on the pulse will survive.
How fast do they respond to requests for further information? If the franchisor can not be bothered with answering your questions before you they have your money how will they react once the monies have changed hands? When you find a franchise where the lines of communication are not only open but they are also professionally conducted then you can almost be sure that you are backing a winning team.
How many franchises have they sold and how well are the other franchisees faring? Are the franchisees generally happy with their business? Is it what they expected? The moral of each part of the network will be a major factor in the growth potential of the group as a whole. Getting a grip on the profitability of their systems and understanding your chances of succeeding with their business ideas are very useful bits of information to have.
If possible get a full list of their franchisees names and contact details so that you can ascertain for yourself if the facts and figures quoted are reliable and trustworthy. Speaking to other franchisees will also help you to discover the pros and cons of the franchise business.
Finally it is important that you see eye to eye both with the franchisors and their long term plans for the business. Knowing what they hope to achieve and how they plan to do it will affect you and your business plans for many years. Are they receptive to ideas from other franchisees? Do they have a system of logging all the ideas received from their franchisees? Most of the best ideas invariably come from the people who are at the front end and dealing directly with the consumer.
Once you can get a feel for their long term plans and possibly approve of their way of thinking then you stand a better chance of not only living within their requirements and systems but also growing within them.
If you are ready to buy into the dream that the franchisor is selling then you have to be sure that not only the systems are in place to handle your growth but also that this strategic partnership will also develop further due to common ideas shared.
Naz Daud is the founder of CityLocal Franchise Opportunity. This business franchise is for people who would like to work from home and be their own boss
Dundee Business Directory
Business Franchise Opportunity
Ireland Business Directory & Franchise Opportunity
Social Entrepreneurship Today
Depending upon the way in which we choose to view it, the strengths or weaknesses of the concept of social entrepreneurship lie in the fact that most of its applications are in the form of a hybrid between private, non-profit and public sectors. As described, one such hybrid is found in non-profit organisations with an entrepreneurial offshoot that generates revenue for the organisation’s social objectives. With greater emphasis on the private, for-profit sector, a hybrid model is emerging whereby businesses lend money and expertise to non-profits. Increasingly, this latter model is linked to public pressure for businesses to demonstrate a measure of social responsibility.
The most realistic and desirable way for any business to be socially responsible is through what is called ‘‘strategic philanthropy’’ - selected giving in areas tied directly to the company’s interests and in arenas that the company can justly claim to have knowledge and a direct stake. The use of the term clearly suggests an indirect financial return on the philanthropic investment. Indeed, the exercise of traditional philanthropy does not make good business sense as it does not provide a tangible return. In a more refined consideration of types of philanthropy today, the notion of strategic philanthropy yet emphasises that highly motivated and visionary business leaders can bring together networks of organizations in new community ventures.
Like the term ‘‘strategic philanthropy’’, ‘‘social entrepreneurship’’ is an articulation, a combination of two concepts that do not naturally fit together and yet which seeks acceptance as common sense. It is the lack of a natural fit that renders the term open to resistance and challenge. Challenges, implicit or explicit, range from different interpretations of how the terms might justifiably be joined to denial that they should be used together at all.
Language is a key component in the shift towards rationalization of the concept of social entrepreneurship. This is because discourse acceptance precedes or runs in parallel with material acceptance. Thus we see the emergence of terms that were previously restricted to the business sector, such as ‘‘social venture capital’’, ‘‘social return on investment’’, ‘‘invest’’
rather than ‘‘donate’’, ‘‘revenue streams’’ and ‘‘client groups’’ applied to the social and public sectors.
If the colonisation of the social and public sectors by the language of business is accepted, the breakdown of barriers between the sectors becomes normalised. However, the terms cited are in contrast to the distinction between entrepreneurs who create social or artistic capital rather than financial capital, with social capital referring to that which is valuable to communities.
On the other hand, opposition could arise from the close association of the term ‘‘entrepreneur’’ with the creative and destructive aspects of capitalism. Those who are concerned about the negative aspects of business will be resistant to the blurring of the boundaries between public, private and civil society suggested by social entrepreneurship with the potential for increased influence of business beyond the private sector. The non-profit sector has long been associated with the creation and maintenance of a strong civil society. Marketing of that sector then calls that association into question with concerns for the viability of an independent civil society.
Furthermore, if business has the power to choose which non-profits are to benefit materially through socially entrepreneurial partnerships, what happens to those that are not chosen and therefore are marginalised?
A parallel can be drawn between the concept of social entrepreneurship and that of sustainability because sustainability is equally open to broad interpretation. Like social entrepreneurship, sustainability can favour either the social and environmental or the economic sectors, depending upon which model is adopted. Strong sustainability favours the social and environmental over economic development, upholding the social values of a truly civil society based social entrepreneurialism. Interpretations are derived from the beliefs and experiences of individuals. Social entrepreneurs and their work should ultimately be judged by the quality of the social outcomes, and that assessment should be made independently of the private interests of those entrepreneurs.
With concepts and movements such as social entrepreneurship, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility, it is crucial that we pay close attention to the persuasive uses of the terms as well as to their practical implication. All of them are contested, value-laden labels that can be used to reference a wide variety of interests, motives, activities and outcomes.
Entrepreneurship With Ethics
Why is it important to establish the moral status of entrepreneurship? Unless it can be shown that the entrepreneur does what is morally worthwhile as an entrepreneur, that his role is ethically praiseworthy, not only his or her status in the market but the market itself becomes vulnerable to serious moral criticism. This is because it is well recognised that ethics are the free market's life line. Many economists are beginning to realise this. Indeed, it is entrepreneurial activity that makes the best sense of profit - another vital part of capitalism.
However, without also demonstrating that entrepreneurship is ethical, the market would at most be hospitable to morally indifferent kinds of behavior; at worst it would encourage moral callousness and discourage the pursuit of presumably morally more significant objectives, such as order, self-restraint, artistic excellence, family values.
When a system is vulnerable in one of its essential ingredients, competing systems that lack this weakness become very powerful if not immediately successful alternatives. Their images improve, even if their actual performance leaves a lot to be desired.
Some argue that all we need is the hospitable environment, but this is false. Even in the freest of societies many, many potential market agents can be lazy. Not that laziness is encouraged but that it is clearly not foreclosed. That is partly what freedom means. One has a genuine choice whether to be productive or not. It is not enough to show that under capitalism human beings are free, unless the kind of uses to which such a system puts human effort can themselves be
morally worthwhile. So the question needs to be addressed. Why should one be productive? Why should entrepreneurship be practiced? What is good about it?
It is not enough by a long shot to answer that entrepreneurship is the ticket to a decent chance for wealth. Certainly one can agree that between stealing and producing, the latter is more honorable. However what if quietism - the form of religious mysticism that involves complete extinction of the human will, drawing away from worldly things - is proposed as an alternative?
How about asceticism - the religious ideal that one can reach a higher spiritual state by self-discipline and self-denial? How will the system that is hospitable to entrepreneurship be defended in the light of such powerful challenges?
The most serious challenges to capitalism come from those who contend that by making entrepreneurial effort possible - by protecting the rights to private property and the pursuit of happiness here on earth - this system corrupts human life. It tends to permit the commercialisation of human relationships, making us self-interested economic agents instead of what we really ought be, altruistic members of our community.
It is insufficient to reply that the capitalist system makes it possible for people to attain a better life here on earth. That is just what is in need of defense. Why should we strive for such a life in the first place?
In a society of just human relationships, there must be a consistent and constant hospitality to entrepreneurship because without this, an important moral dimension of human life would be suppressed or at least seriously distorted. Without such a welcome, public policy and law would yield to more widely accepted but sadly misguided moral sentiments, for example, the call for
greater and greater state power to regiment or re-engineer society instead of making it safe for natural human initiative.
