"Made in China" can kill. in 2007, it killed Zhang Shuhong. Zhang's company was Lee Der Industrial.
"Lee Der had been an important vendor for Mattel. ... Everything began to unravel, however, after Mattel discovered lead on toys based on Dora, Elmo and other beloved characters." Secrets of the Money Lab, Chapter 6.
When Dora & Elmo were transformed from cuddly to toxic, both Mattel and Lee Der were in deep trouble.Zhang was betrayed by his supply chain - when someone added lead to the paint. The paint on those toys for American children.
At the height of the scandal, "Made in China" toys threatened 300,000 children with lead poisoning. Mattel paid over $30 million for the product recall. Zhang paid with his life, he hung himself.
Lee Der had its export license revoked - a corporate death. And the brand "Made in China" suffered badly.
Yet, Zhang was an experienced vendor, who had worked with Mattel for over 15 years.
But, as the supply chain got longer and more fragmented both Zhang and Mattel lost control over quality.
Mattel was perplexed: "They [Lee Der] understand our regulations, they understand our program, and something went wrong."
Contrast Mattel's compliance program to what Kroc, McDonald's and their meat suppliers did in the late 50's with hamburger.
Mystery Meat
In the late 50's, hamburger was mystery meat. At times, unsafe, contaminated and poisonous. "Nitrates were used to keep the meet pink, even when it had turned"
At other times, soy protein was added. Soy protein was cheaper and because the soy absorbed water, there was less shrinkage in cooking.
The only regulation in place was that anything designated as "hamburger" could not have more than 30% fat. So, meat suppliers added extra blood to meet this requirement.
Finally, beef offal could be ground up and added to the "hamburger" mix.
The Standard or Recipe
The recipe for "hamburger" was created with the help of Golden States Food Corporation, GFS.
(GFS went on to be a major supplier with McDonald's. It is now the third largest beef supplier, with revenues over $6 billion. Not a bad payday for helping create and maintain a standard.)
The Strategic Problem
The negotiating strategy of the meat suppliers at the time was this:
Agree on a price with a drive-in, independent or chain, but then lower the quality to make the deal "work economically".
Since there were no standards or recipes for hamburger, the meat purchasers always had to bargain hard on price - quality could not be bargained for.
Remember that the regulations only required that anything called "hamburger" didn't have a fat content higher than 30%.
Suppliers could not credibly commit -in advance- to delivering standard hamburger.
This hurt consumers. It hurt the drive-ins and chains. Battling over pennies left no room for paying for the costs of monitoring and controlling quality.
It was the classic chicken and egg problem. If the drive-ins could expect high quality, they could pay more because the individual monitoring costs would be less, and they could charge consumers a bit more.
But, suppliers knew that they couldn't deliver high quality hamburger because some drive-in's would adulterate it and also sell it for the higher price.
The market for quality unravelled, before it got even started.
The Solution: High Standards and Tough Compliance
To solve this strategic problem, Ed Turner and others first decided that the McDonald's standards would hold fat content to between "17 and 22.5%".
And that "hamburger" had to be "83% lean chuck "shoulder" from grass-fed cattle and 17 percent choice plates (lower rib cage) from grain-feed cattle."
Some suppliers thought they could cheat McDonald's. Since the supply chain was fragmented and local, these supplier thought McDonald's would not and could not police their standards.
"They had not counted on the intensity of McDonald's commitment to its meat standards.
Rather than leave the inspection of meat to visual inspections -the method used by the McDonald brothers and most other drive-in operators - Turner and Karos advised franchisees to have the meat routinely analyzed in labs."
Finally, McDonald's provided other simple tests for its franchisees to use, conducted surprise inspections, and kicked out suppliers who failed the standards.
They also quit "hard bargaining" on price - giving up a few pennies on the pound to the meat suppliers.
It is this type of dedication to creating and enforcing standards, in collaboration with its franchise operators and meat suppliers that made McDonald's the force it is today.
It is a good reminder of the value of franchising: the creation and maintenance of standards as a result of collaboration between buyers and sellers & without relying upon the penalties provided by government regulation.
Sources:
Secrets of the Moneylab: How Behavioral Economics Can Improve Your Business Chapter 6- In Whom We Trust.
McDonald's: Behind The Arches Chapter 6 - Making Hamburger.
For the 5 Most Fascinating Stories in Franchising, a weekly report, click here & sign up.
Gary Kennett The unfortunate part of being a Franchisee, as I have experienced and observed is, that the Franchisor makes decisions, about Advertising, Sales Promotions, New Product ideas, and certainly, Operational Procedures, that directly affect your bottom line. They may have no clue about your immediate Market potential, but whatever they say, goes, as they move forward with their plans for sales promotions (i.e. DISCOUNTS), and product launches, that may have very little impact on your business, other than, discounting your Profit Margin. At the end of the day, if they're making 7.5% or more of your Gross Sales then, that's what they seem to care about. If they were tied into your Profit Margin then, they may pay closer attention as to who and how they effect their Franchisees. One might say "Well, wouldn't they be concerned if you potentially, went out of business, due to their blind shotgun strategies?" My answer is "No", they would simply approach you with a rock bottom "buy out" price, because your business was no longer worth what it could be, and move on. It's a sad day in Franchising, if you ask me.
Jim RuckerHaving worked as both a Franchisee and for a Franchisor, an important issue I see is Franchisees entering into a franchise system with the unrealistic expectation of owning their own business and operating it as they see fit. Yes, they own a business but really what was purchased was the Franchisor's system and if the system is not followed, it can ruin a brand. While many new Franchisees appreciate the system when they start, they can become resentful later because they are not given the leeway to operate things their way. Branding is perhaps the most compelling reason to buy into a franchise system and in order to maintain a high level of consistency and meet customer expectations, there must be compliance with the system. Most franchisees are not born business experts and struggle with some of the most important aspects of successful business operations. Again, they appreciate the system while they are learning it but once it is mostly mastered, dissatisfaction can creep in with the control the Franchisor maintains. One other thing I see concerning Franchisee dissatisfaction is everyone would operate differently if they were the Franchisor and regardless of the decisions made, you aren't going to please everyone. Decisions made by the Franchisor must be made in the best interest of the Franchisor and the system as a whole.
Madam Becky AdamsI have found this dissatisfaction when interviewing franchisees, and it seems to start after a year or so when they feel they are no longer getting value for money in the form of training and support.
If you're trying to do right by the franchise partner it must be soul destroying for a franchisor to be complained about all the time!
Gary KennettFor me, I was very well aware of the relationship, between Franchisor and Franchisee, but the difference is that I thought the Franchisee had more collective influence, as a Group, and the overall situation and status of different events, has proven that we don't. So, I certainly, was not under the belief that I would come into the picture and change my product menu, to offer things the Franchisor doesn't, but I would summarily say that "most of us are not pleased with their dictatorial approach to various issues.
Tim EvansLike Paul said, a lot of franchisees come into the business after being "outsourced" or "downsized" with no previous business experience. They are generally unemployable (not really) to most companies based on age, etc. The franchise system offers them an opportunity to come in a business system, which offers them the core structure of running a business. Unfortunately, all they have is a JOB (just over broke). The key is to make as much as you can above the line (yes the franchise gets their share), but manage your below the line expenses to maximize "your money".
Robert RicheRobert Riche. I was a franchisee for over 20 years running multiple units, and almost five years in a senior corporate position. Purchasing a franchise is a very dangerous proposition. All the power and control rest with the franchisor, you end up with a lot of turn over of management staff, field management etc., most systems have a high turnover every 3 to 5 years, everyone thinks they have a better idea. Tim your comment about franchisee's is true, but that's what the industry attracts. You can list the quality operations on one hand. Everything else is suspect.
Gary KennettMy situation was different than most, in that, the original franchising co. was bought out, but by folks not well experienced in the business. Then, they began implementing their view of the business, and it's future complexion and business model, along with the new "culture" and "atmosphere" they wanted to convey. Due to the very nature of the original business, and how it was now, differing with the newer ideas being brought in, it simply clashed and I think alot of conflict resulted.
Madam Becky Adams
Thank you so much guys for your thoughts. I have been considering trying to combine a franchise structure with a business mentoring model...
So, for example, with the gardening and grounds business, instead of someone buying a franchise, they buy a 'business in a box'.
Their brand, their business to do what they want with.
They buy a step by step proven model, training and support, but the business is theirs from the outset. If after a year of help from a team of on-site and on-line experts they feel they have enough experience, they can cut loose and go it alone, or just buy the support services they think they need.
To me, from having spoken to so many miserable franchisees, it gives the best of both worlds. Autonomy within a proven structure and as much support as you do or don't feel you need.
Cláudio PazinI am franchisee here in Brazil and the brand that I represent is recognized and has several awards, but the results and expectations presented by the franchisor during the sale process weren't reliable. For example... units with a bad results are often offered to Franchisor Managers or older franchisees at very low prices. It's a way to avoid to show the "shut down" number. There was two years ago I searched for another brand in a different segment, but analyzing the franchisor's data I realized that the data provided weren't also reliable, so I faced the franchisor with my analysis and I heard the answer that if the franchisor tells the truth would be impossible to sell franchises. Of course that time I gave up...
Carlos RocheHello Claudio, Sorry to hear about your situation. I understand that the franchisor may have lied about the real numbers, however, if the franchise is solid, give it all you've got and sell.
Do you still have the franchise?
What kind of product or service do you provide?
For the 5 Most Fascinating Stories in Franchising, a weekly report, click here & sign up.
To Comment Original LinkedIn Discussion here -- Click here
To Comment on this Article --Click here