What's the Difference...

between a corporate location and a franchised location?

Good Q. I am not an attorney nor a legal expert but to the best of my knolwedge in layman  terms a corporate location is owned by the corporation that owns the business. A franchise location is owned by an individual or a company that bought and paid the mother corporation for the right to own that location, in almost every case the franchiser has a set of guidelines and regulations that the franchiser must adhere to. Also, in most cases the parent corporation is the supplier of goods for the franchisee. This is why you may see a disclaimer for some ads and or sales that say, "at participating locations" as some franchises may not want to participate if they have that option.
 
I am sure some savy business person or attorney will give more details and or better explanations

jonjax71


Good Q. I am not an attorney nor a legal expert but to the best of my knolwedge in layman  terms a corporate location is owned by the corporation that owns the business. A franchise location is owned by an individual or a company that bought and paid the mother corporation for the right to own that location, in almost every case the franchiser has a set of guidelines and regulations that the franchiser must adhere to. Also, in most cases the parent corporation is the supplier of goods for the franchisee. This is why you may see a disclaimer for some ads and or sales that say, "at participating locations" as some franchises may not want to participate if they have that option.
 
I am sure some savy business person or attorney will give more details and or better explanations

That sums it up pretty good.  That is also why corporate owned places are usually a bit (or a LOT) better than franchised ones; IMO.

A really important point for a franchisee is to read the fine print about the rights of the corporation (franchisor) to establish their own stores in areas where a franchisee may locate.

What has happened over the years is the franchisors such as Burger King have tried to sell whole territories to one Master Franchisee rather than make individual sites available in a territory to many single unit owners.  They look for well capitalized individuals or a firm created for the purpose of taking a territory and putting up a group of stores within a specific period of time.  

Burger King and these firms do not want a whole bunch of individual store owners to deal with anymore.  If you want just one unit of a well known franchise, you probably will have to buy it from an existing owner after getting blessed by the corporate office. 

Now if it's a new franchise and they can't attract or demand master franchisees, then you could just buy the right to one unit.  Rarely is that available anymore.

JohnJax - Good job!

Thank you all. That's what I thought, but I just wasn't sure.

One glaring difference comes to mind.  We got a flyer in the mail with a coupon to invite us to try the "new" roast sirloin(better than Prime Rib) at our local Gloden Corral.  It only had their address on it.  We payed before entering.
As I went up to the buffet, i couldnt find anything resembling a roast.  Trying to converse with the mexican attendant got me nowwhere as my Spanish is quite limited and his English was worse.  I finally got a manager over.  he not so politley informed me that I was lucky the cashier  honored the coupon(a buck of each adult buffet) that as a franchise he wasnt required to do so.  As a franchise he also wasnt required to offer corporate menu items!.  I tried to convince him to look at my flyer(the cashier took it) to prove that only his store was listed on it.  He didnt care.  He said he wasnt responsible for specials that were advertised by the company.  By the time I had gotten done with him we had been there over 1/2 an hour and my wife was already eating as she was very hungry.  I asked him for a refund on mine and he refused saying we had already been eating!  What a jerk!