The Dunkin' Donuts franchise kings (2014) | Hacker News Reader

The Dunkin' Donuts franchise kings (2014)

bostonglobe.com

49 pointsOatseller11 comments

Contrast this story with that of the Cambodian-run donut empire of California: https://stories.californiasunday.com/2014-11-02/ted-ngoy-cal...

Both tell fascinating stories about donuts and entrepreneurship.

Great read about the relationship between franchisees and the franchisor (Dunkin’ Brands). There are lots of benefits (and costs) to being a large franchisee network.

Also, the chart at the bottom is revealing: most of their sales come from beverages, not donuts.

Dunkin' has always been more famous for its coffee than its doughnuts. People in New England can argue over who has the best doughnut but nobody argues about who has the best coffee.

Dunkies has good unsweetened iced tea but the coffee is bland. Unless you like a sugary white New England "regular" the coffee is nothing special.

I do like the sugary white New England "regular" :) ... also, of course I'm only referring to the major chains.

A former co-worker used to work at Dunkin' Brands HQ and said the franchisees call the coffee "black gold". Outside of the cup it's pure profit.

He said it was pretty comical that you could always tell when a franchisee meeting was taking place because the parking lot would be filled with exotic cars (which is a rare sight in New England's pothole filled roads).

It's interesting that Joyal can get away with acting as agent for both the buyer and seller of franchises. That's frowned on in real estate. For those franchises which include the building, I wonder if he has to hire two local real estate agents.

Perhaps frowned on, but not illegal in MA IIRC.

    > That's frowned on in real estate.

...which is ironic to me, since both agents are incentivized towards the exact same outcome: the property changing hands.

Sure, but a reputable buyer's agent should (in theory) make sure the buyer pays the lowest possible price. A reputable seller's agent should (in theory) make sure the seller gets the maximum possible price.

Of course the buyer's agent commission actually works against this, and the sellers commission is not very swayed by $10k purchase price one way or the other, see http://freakonomics.com/2008/02/26/real-estate-agents-revisi...

But - saying both agents have the same goal is not exactly fair.

> buyer's agent should (in theory) make sure the buyer pays the lowest possible price.

this is not true, even in theory. A buyer's agent (properly clled a "Selling agent" in some jurisdictions, reflecting the role) has a duty to serve the client. Getting the "lowest possible price" is not a requirement. Getting the client a property they want to buy, and properly informing the client of important information, is the agent's responsibility. Getting a good price is a point of competition maybe, but not a responsibility.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com