Apple doesn't need franchises because it sells the same products everywhere and can scale centrally. Service businesses like Keyrenter and Evernest franchise because they depend on local operators who understand their markets and maintain client relationships that can't work remotely.
like, why does Apple not franchise? Why did you franchise? Why did Evernest not franchise? Why did RPM franchise? I'm fascinated by the conditions under which individually owned and operated stores can be more successful than a corporately owned location. And like, why? And does that change? And like, I feel like I don't— there's like a part of my understanding here that isn't quite clicked in.
You know, I think certainly the service industries are, are much different than, than a product-based retail business, right? So when you're comparing Apple, they're selling a product and they can do that at scale and their locations, it makes sense to not. In fact, I don't know how they would franchise that, but for us in a service-based industry, you know, and when you think about franchises in general, restaurants and even like H&R Block taxes and other sorts of industries, you're providing a service locally. And I think that's where it really makes sense is we can't do really online sales to our folks from Salt Lake to New York or other parts of the country. In a sense, we have clients that are kind of shopping online, but they're physical asset is locally, and us being there locally initially when we're just starting them up works very well in that strategy because they can actually acquire a company and keep on the operator for a while to keep that moving forward.
