
The Dunkin' Donuts franchise kings (2014) - Oatseller
http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2014/09/17/the-secret-world-dunkin-donuts-franchise-kings/pb2UmxauJrZv08wcBig6CO/story.html
======
imjk
Contrast this story with that of the Cambodian-run donut empire of California:
[https://stories.californiasunday.com/2014-11-02/ted-ngoy-
cal...](https://stories.californiasunday.com/2014-11-02/ted-ngoy-california-
doughnut-king/)

Both tell fascinating stories about donuts and entrepreneurship.

------
rexf
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.

~~~
qq66
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.

~~~
Zigurd
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.

~~~
qq66
I do like the sugary white New England "regular" :) ... also, of course I'm
only referring to the major chains.

------
jessaustin
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.

~~~
jimmytucson

        > 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.

~~~
brianwawok
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...](http://freakonomics.com/2008/02/26/real-estate-agents-revisited/)

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

~~~
gohrt
> 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.

