Donut Inn Franchising

* Re “Doughnut Franchisees Are Rancor-Filled,” Jan. 5.

Having just read John Glionna’s article on Art Pfefferman and Donut Inn, I felt compelled to write. It is distressing that Glionna chooses to take a one-sided, biased attack against Pfefferman and his Donut Inn chain. Franchise agreements are set up for the benefit of the franchiser and the franchisee. A savvy franchiser cannot, should not and would not tolerate any franchisee’s independent operation of a chain (franchise) store. Royalties are generated from the concentrated advertising efforts of the chain franchiser and its name recognition. A franchiser is well within his rights to fine any franchisee for violating such terms.

Having been involved in the commercial real estate field, specifically retail leasing and shopping center management, for over 20 years, I have firsthand experience of the myriad violations that occur between landlord and tenant. Pfefferman is well within his rights to impose any and all fines allowed through the contractual agreement between his company as franchiser and a franchisee. If the franchisee’s violations go unchecked and / or underreported, then the franchiser is the one who must recompense the landlord for the violations caused by its subtenant.

Furthermore, I have had the pleasure of working with Pfefferman on a number of occasions as both a landlord and a broker representing his interests and find him to be one of the most honest and reputable franchisers in the business. I believe accusations that Pfefferman is churning franchise units for profit are misleading. On the contrary, Pfefferman’s offer to repurchase the unit is usually a practical solution to another franchisee’s disillusionment in self-employment and, for the most part, these disillusioned entrepreneurs are much better off working for someone else.

BRUCE A. FRASCO

West Hills

Frasco is senior vice president of Told Partners Inc.

*