In Crypto ‘Arms Race’ For Mass Adoption, Companies Ink Sports Deals Worth Hundreds Of Millions

As cryptocurrency companies seek to reach mainstream audiences, some platforms are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to sponsor sports teams, stadiums and even leagues in a bid to woo new fans.

On Sept. 22, Crypto.com struck an eight-figure deal with the Philadelphia 76ers to sponsor the jersey patch and have visibility in the arena. The crypto trading app will also work with team management to develop non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and create a way for fans to use cryptocurrency to pay for tickets and other products. The Hong Kong-based company will also show up elsewhere alongside the NBA franchise—including on TV broadcasts and various other digital platforms.

Crypto.com Chief Marketing Officer Steven Kalifowitz recognizes that in order to build the brand, he has to also educate consumers about this new asset class.

“Crypto is not just another shoe,” he says. “It’s not a commodity thing or a suitcase or something. Getting into crypto is very much a cultural thing.”

Flush with money from eager investors, a growing number of crypto brands are spending big to reach a mass audience through sports sponsorships and mainstream events. Other deals this month include the cryptofinance company XBTO sponsoring the Major League Soccer team Inter Miami, the cryptocurrency exchange FTX sponsoring Mercedes-AMG’s Formula 1 team and the nonprofit Learncrypto.com sponsoring the English Premier League team, Southampton F.C.

Perhaps sports arenas are not a bad way to go when it comes to finding new fans for a new—and still largely unregulated—asset class that some critics dismiss as gambling and proponents say is the future of the internet as well as the economy. And in a fast-growing and cluttered market, the fight is to get not just recognition but market share.

“To me it looks like an arms race for user acquisition,” says Keith Soljacich, VP/GD of Experiential Tech at Digitas, a leading digital advertising agency. “It’s kind of like if you have a crypto wallet on a platform, it’s a lot like holding a Visa card, too.”

The 76ers deal is just one of many that Crypto.com has landed in the past year while it’s on an aggressive sponsorship spree totaling more than $400 million in deals. Earlier this month, the company became the first official crypto platform partner for the famous French soccer team Paris Saint-Germain. Crypto.com is also a sponsor of a wide range of teams including the NHL’s Montreal Canadiens, Fox Sports’ college football midday coverage, UFC, and Aston Martin’s Formula One team—just to name a few. Each of these also includes various other integrations far beyond a logo.

Chris Heck, president of business operations for the 76ers, says the team had been looking for a new jersey patch partner for a couple of years and spoken with hundreds of companies. And because the jersey patch is the most important partnership a team has, it requires brands and teams to be “completely aligned.”

“As the world woke up to the crypto space a little over a year ago, we got a chance to venture down that road,” Heck says. “Think about it this way: Sports are entering into the crypto era world, and we get to the at the front of the line with Crypto.com. These are folks that are partnering with gold-standard brands like UFC, F1, PSG, and we get to be their brand and their of choice in the United States with major sports teams and that’s pretty cool.”

All this to go beyond the current crypto user base to reach the masses: A study Crypto.com conducted in July found that total global crypto users have doubled year-over-year from 106 million to 221 million. However, just a fraction of those are currently the company’s customers.

Earlier in September, FTX—a two-year-old startup that just moved its headquarters from Hong Kong to The Bahamas—announced a $20 million ad campaign starring football legend Tom Brady and his wife, the model and businesswoman Gisele Bündchen. And like Crypto.com, FTX is sponsoring a wide range of teams and leagues in rapid succession including a five-year deal with the Major League Baseball announced this summer.

“If we just stop at one deal and we’ll wait and see how it does and wait to see how that does before doing another one, the best opportunities might be gone,” says FTX.US President Brett Harrison.

According to Harrison, FTX founder and CEO Sam Bankman-Fried asked for ideas of how do something “that’s big.” Someone then came up with the idea to buy the naming rights for a stadium, and a few months later they won the rights to rename the Miami Heat’s arena FTX Arena in a $135 million deal approved in March.

“There is a group of tech companies that know it in their bones that if they don’t become brands quickly, there is a time in the future where there will be just a few left,” says Jamie Shuttlesworth, chief strategy officer of Dentsu Americas, which became FTX’s agency of record in June.

Traditional advertising methods are important for building trust in crypto brands, according to Harrison—especially since it deals with something like taking care of people’s money.

“When’s the last time you saw an ad for maybe a bank pop up on the top of your Google search and said, ‘Time to move all my money from my Chase account or Citi account?’”

Major stadium and team sponsorships are often held by brands that are already well known, but the crypto sector’s aggressive land-grab feels in some ways like strategies in games like “Risk” or “Monopoly”—where people can either wait for the right properties or buy everything they can as fast as possible.

When asked about the Monopoly metaphor, Harrison joked that “we’re trying plant our pieces on as many Park Places as possible.”

There’s plenty incentive for sports organizations to team up with crypto companies. Mike Proulx, a Forester analyst and marketing expert, said many sports leagues want—and need—to attract the next generation of fans.

“These kinds of deals look to tap into crypto companies’ young skewing userbase with NFTs that are, in a way, a modern/virtual take on old school baseball cards,” he says. “And the benefit to crypto companies is, of course, getting to leverage the league IP that legitimizes their platform with trusted brands while also growing their users.”

The crypto industry has exhausted its original market, says to R.A. Farrokhnia, a professor at Columbia Business School professor and Executive Director of the Columbia Fintech Initiative. However, blockchain technology isn’t something that’s easily explained to the average person—it involves cryptography, complex networks, and other concepts—and also still aren’t to a point where users can easily navigate.

According to Farrokhnia, there are still questions about whether the foundations and interfaces are advanced enough to warrant the aggressive push toward mass adoption. Or, he asks, “are we putting the proverbial cart before the horse?”

“These are all the moving parts in this ecosystem and it seems the pace for innovation has accelerated,” he said. “But are we doing things in the right sequence?”

Farrokhnia also points out the irony that despite all of cryptocurrency’s new innovations, the companies are still using classic marketing models. However, he adds that little for athletes to market unregulated digital economies than to pitch things like CPG products or other brand categories.

“What kind of reputation risk could this have for teams or sports figures or influencers or actors who are engaging in this kind of marketing campaign or activity? Most likely they have good lawyers that would protect them against such things, but you never know.”

Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Send me a secure tip.

I’m a Forbes staff writer and editor of the Forbes CMO Network, leading coverage of marketing, advertising and technology with a specific focus on chief marketing

Source: In Crypto ‘Arms Race’ For Mass Adoption, Companies Ink Sports Deals Worth Hundreds Of Millions

.

More Contents:

Wary of Bitcoin? A guide to some other crypto currencies

Consistency of Proof-of-Stake Blockchains with Concurrent Honest Slot Leaders

Gridcoin: Crypto-Currency using Berkeley Open Infrastructure Network Computing Grid as a Proof Of Work

Vertcoin: The Soaring Cryptocurrency Set to Surpass Bitcoin

Out in the Open: Teenage Hacker Transforms Web Into One Giant Bitcoin Network

Exclusive: Grayscale launches digital-currency fund backed by Silver Lake’s co-founder Hutchins

Crypto social network BitClout arrives with a bevy of high-profile investors — and skeptics

Kodak CEO: Blockchain Significant, Though Not a Doubling in Stock Price

Zcoin Moves Against ASIC Monopoly With Merkle Tree Proof”. Finance Magnates

Big-name investors back effort to build a better Bitcoin

How Spacs Became Wall Street Tree

If you want to see the future of so many of the special purpose acquisition companies currently flooding the market, look to the recent past. Nearly five years ago, Landry’s Seafood billionaire Tillman Fertitta took Landcadia Holdings public to the tune of $345 million. No matter that, true to the SPAC “blank check” model, there was not yet any operating business—dozens of hedge funds piled into its $10-per-unit IPO. 

In May 2018, Landcadia finally located its target: a budding online restaurant delivery service called Waitr that would merge with the SPAC in exchange for $252 million in cash. Fertitta touted the fact that the Louisiana startup, with $65 million in revenue, would now have access to 4 million loyalty members of his restaurant and casino businesses, and a new partnership with his Houston Rockets NBA franchise. Two years later, though, you very likely have never heard of Waitr. As such, its stock recently traded at $2.62, down more than 70% from its IPO price (the S&P 500 has climbed 76% over the same period).

Waitr was a disaster for pretty much anyone who bought the stock early. But the hedge funds that purchased Landcadia’s IPO units did just fine. Virtually all recouped their initial investment, with interest, and many profited by exercising warrants in the aftermarket. “SPACs are a phenomenal yield alternative,” says David Sultan, chief investment officer at Fir Tree Partners, a $3 billion hedge fund that bought into Fertitta’s Landcadia SPAC IPO—and pretty much any other it could get its hands on. 

The SPAC boom of 2020 is probably the biggest Wall Street story of the year, but almost no one has noticed the quiet force driving this speculative bubble: a couple dozen obscure hedge funds like Polar Asset Management and Davidson Kempner, known by insiders as the “SPAC Mafia.” It’s an offer they can’t refuse. Some 97 percent of these hedge funds redeem or sell their IPO stock before target mergers are consummated, according to a recent study of 47 SPACs by New York University Law School professor Michael Ohlrogge and Stanford Law professor Michael Klausner.

Though they’re loath to talk specifics, SPAC Mafia hedge funds say returns currently run around 20%. “The optionality to the upside is unlimited,” gushes Patrick Galley, a portfolio manager at Chicago-based RiverNorth, who manages a $200 million portfolio of SPAC investments. Adds Roy Behren of Westchester Capital Management, a fund with a $470 million portfolio of at least 40 SPACs, in clearer English: “We love the risk/reward of it.” 

What’s not to love when “risk” is all but risk-free? There’s only one loser in this equation. As always, it’s the retail investor, the Robinhood novice, the good-intentions fund company like Fidelity. They all bring their pickaxes to the SPAC gold rush, failing to understand that the opportunities were mined long before they got there—by the sponsors who see an easy score, the entrepreneurs who get fat exits when their companies are acquired and the SPAC Mafia hedge funds that lubricate it all. 

It’s about to get far worse for the little guy. Giant quant firms—Izzy Englander’s Millennium Management, Louis Bacon’s Moore Capital, Michael Platt’s BlueCrest Capital—have recently jumped in. Sure, they all raised billions based on algorithmic trading strategies, not by buying speculative IPOs in companies that don’t even have a product yet. But you don’t need AI to tell you the benefits of a sure thing. And that means torrents of easy cash for ever more specious acquisitions. Says NYU’s Ohlrogge: “It’s going to be a disaster for investors that hold through the merger.” 

In the first 10 months or so of 2020, 178 SPACs went public, to the tune of $65 billion, according to SPAC­Insider—more than the last ten years’ worth of such deals combined. That’s just one indication that the current wave of blank-check companies is different from previous generations. 

In the 1980s, SPACs were known as “blind pools” and were the domain of bucket-shop brokerage firms infamous for fleecing gullible investors under banners such as First Jersey Securities and The Wolf of Wall Street’s Stratton Oakmont. Blind pools circumvented regulatory scrutiny and tended to focus on seemingly promising operating companies—those whose prospects sounded amazing during a cold-calling broker’s telephone pitch. The stockbrokers, who typically owned big blocks of the shares and warrants, would “pump” prices up, trading shares among clients, and then “dump” their holdings at a profit before the stocks inevitably collapsed. Shares traded in the shadows of Wall Street for pennies, and the deal amounts were tiny, typically less than $10 million. 

uncaptioned
Former stockbroker and convicted felon Jordan Belfort was immortalized in The Wolf Of Wall Street. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, blank check companies, similar to today’s SPACs but known as blind pools, were his stock and trade. Getty Editorial

In 1992, a Long Island lawyer named David Nussbaum, CEO of brokerage GKN Securities, structured a new type of blank-check company, with greater investor protections including segregating IPO cash in an escrow account. He even came up with the gussied-up “special purpose acquisition company” moniker. 

The basics of the new SPACs were as follows: A sponsor would pay for the underwriting and legal costs of an initial public offering in a new shell company and have two years to use the proceeds to buy an acquisition target. To entice IPO investors to park their money in these new SPACs as the sponsors hunted for a deal, the units of the IPO, which are usually priced at $10 each, included one share of common stock plus warrants to buy more shares at $11.50. Sometimes unit holders would also receive free stock in the form of “rights” convertible into common stock. If a deal wasn’t identified within two years, or the IPO investor voted no, holders could redeem their initial investment—but often only 85% of it. 

GKN underwrote 13 blank-check deals in the 1990s, but ran into regulatory trouble with the National Association of Securities Dealers, which fined the brokerage $725,000 and forced it to return $1.4 million for overcharging 1,300 investors. GKN closed in 2001, but Nussbaum reemerged in 2003 running EarlyBirdCapital, which remains a big SPAC underwriter today. 

SPACs fell out of favor during the dot-com bubble years, when traditional IPO issuance was booming. In the early 2000s, interest in SPACs returned with the bull market, and the deals started getting bigger. Leading up to the 2008 crisis, dealmakers Nelson Peltz and Martin Franklin both turned to SPACs for financing, raising hundreds of millions of dollars each.

Around 2015, SPACs began to offer IPO investors 100% money-­back guarantees, with interest; the holder would also be entitled to keep any warrants or special rights, even if they voted against the merger and tendered their shares. Even more significantly, they could vote yes to the merger and still redeem their shares. In effect, this gave sponsors a green light on any merger partner they chose. It also made SPAC IPOs a no-lose proposition, effectively giving buyers a free call option on rising equity prices. As the Fed’s low-rate, easy-money policy propelled the stock market higher for over a decade, it was just a matter of time before SPACs came back into vogue. And so they have, with unprecedented force. 

Hedge funders may be the enablers of the SPAC boom, but they certainly aren’t the only ones getting rich. In September, a billionaire-sponsored SPAC called Gores Holdings IV said it would give Pontiac, Michigan–based entrepreneur Mat Ishbia, owner of mortgage lender United Wholesale Mortgage, a $925 million capital infusion, which would value his company at $16 billion. If the deal is completed, Ishbia’s net worth will rise to $11 billion, making him one of the 50 richest people in America. “I never knew what a SPAC was,” Ishbia admits. “I felt like it was a more efficient process.”

uncaptioned
SPAC MVP: United Wholesale Mortgage’s Mat Ishbia won a national basketball championship with Michigan State twenty years ago but missed his only shot in the finals. His first attempt at the SPAC game could be a slam dunk. Jacob Lewkow for Forbes

There are also the sponsors, underwriters and lawyers who create SPACs, each taking their pound of flesh from the deals. Sponsors, who pay underwriting and legal fees to set up and merge SPACs, normally wind up with a generous shareholder gift known as the “promote”—roughly 20% of the SPAC’s common equity after the IPO. 

Alec Gores, the private equity billionaire who helped take United Wholesale Mortgage public, has listed five SPACs and raised over $2 billion. In the United Wholesale Mortgage deal, Gores and his partners are entitled to purchase $106 million worth of “founder shares” for $25,000, or $0.002 a share. Gores’ private equity firm hasn’t raised a new fund since 2012. With easy scores like this, why would he? 

Among SPAC sponsors, few can match Chamath Palihapitiya’s frenetic pace. Palihapitiya, 44, is a former Facebook executive who founded Silicon Valley venture capital firm Social Capital in 2011. With his venture business slowing down, Palihapitiya has recently turned to the public markets. In the span of 37 months, he has raised $4.3 billion in six New York Stock Exchange–listed SPACs that go by the tickers IPOA, IPOB, IPOC, IPOD, IPOE and IPOF. The founder’s stock he has received for his “promote” will amount to no less than $1 billion, by Forbes estimates. In late 2019, Palihapitiya used one of his SPACs to take Virgin Galactic public. Two other deals have already been announced: mergers with home­buying platform Opendoor at a $5 billion valuation and with medical-insurance company Clover Health at $3.7 billion. Palihapitiya and Gores point out that they intend to invest hundreds of millions via private placements in their deals.  https://c4087b1b1645d1a0dc9c9c6154fc97c6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

Of the $65 billion raised in SPAC IPOs so far in 2020, Forbes estimates that all told, sponsors like Gores and Palihapitiya should net more than $10 billion in free equity. Great for them, but terrible for the rest of the shareholders. In fact, by the time the average SPAC enters into a merger agreement, warrants afforded to hedge funds, underwriting fees and the generous sponsor’s promote eat up more than 30% of IPO proceeds. According to the study of recent SPACs by Ohlrogge and Klausner, a typical SPAC holds just $6.67 a share in cash of its original $10 IPO price by the time it enters into a merger agreement with its target company. 

“The problem with the typical founder-shares arrangement is not just the outsized nature of the compensation or the inherent misalignment of incentives, but also the fact that the massively dilutive nature of founder stock makes it difficult to complete a deal on attractive terms,” says billionaire Bill Ackman. 

A handful of billionaires like Ackman are structuring fairer deals with their SPACs. In July, Ackman raised a record $4 billion SPAC called Pershing Square Tontine Holdings. He’s shopping for deals, but his shareholders will face much less dilution because his SPAC has no promote. 


“A handful of billionaires are structuring fairer deals with their SPACs. but most SPAC deals don’t come with benevolent billionaires attached.”


Billionaire hedge fund mogul Daniel Och, backer of unicorn startups Coinbase, Github and Stripe via his family office, recently raised $750 million in a SPAC IPO called Ajax I but reduced its promote to 10%. His investing partner in Ajax, Glenn Fuhrman, made billions in profits running Michael Dell’s family office; the SPAC’s board includes an all-star lineup of innovators: Kevin Systrom of Instagram, Anne Wojcicki of 23andMe, Jim McKelvey of Square and Steve Ells of Chipotle. The group has pledged their personal capital into Ajax’s future deal. 

“We’re lowering the sponsor economics to make clear that this is not about promoting someone’s capital,” Och says. “It’s about investing our own capital, and then finding a great company that we can hold for a long period of time.” 

Most SPAC deals don’t come with benevolent billionaires attached. In fact, if history is any guide, the average post-merger SPAC investor is in for a fleecing not unlike the ones dealt out in the shoddy blind-pool deals peddled by those bucket shops of the 1980s and ’90s. 



According to NYU’s Ohlrogge, six months after a deal is announced, median returns for SPACs amount to a loss of 12.3%. A year after the announcement, most SPACs are down 35%. The returns are likely to get worse as the hundreds of SPACs currently searching for viable merger partners become more desperate. 

Problems are already surfacing in the great SPAC gold rush of 2020. 

Health-care company MultiPlan, one of the most prominent recent deals, may already be in trouble. Acquired by a SPAC called Churchill Capital Corp. III in a $1.3 billion deal, its shares plunged 25% in November after a short seller published a report questioning whether its business was deteriorating more than it let on. 

The Churchill SPAC is one of five brought to market by former Citigroup banker Michael Klein, which have raised nearly $5 billion. Klein and his partners now sit on stock holdings worth hundreds of millions, thanks largely to the lucrative promotes. Klein’s investment bank, M. Klein & Co., has made tens of millions of dollars in fees advising his own SPACs on their deals. In the case of MultiPlan, Klein’s bank earned $30 million in fees to advise Churchill to inject SPAC capital into MultiPlan. IPO proceeds, however, are now worth only 70 cents on the dollar.  https://c4087b1b1645d1a0dc9c9c6154fc97c6.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

“Coming out of the financial crisis there was all this talk about the expected outcomes when you have all these traders who have heads-they-win-tails-they-don’t-lose incentives, because it’s somebody else’s money,” says Carson Block, the short seller who called out MultiPlan. “Those incentive structures are alive and well on Wall Street in the form of SPACs.” 

Nikola Motor, the SPAC that broke the dam on electric-vehicle speculations, now faces probes from the Department of Justice over whether it misled investors when raising money. Its founder, Trevor Milton, is gone, and a much-hyped partnership with General Motors is in doubt. Shares have traded down 36% from where they stood when the SPAC merger was completed. 

Electric vehicles aren’t the only overhyped SPAC sector. So far 11 cannabis SPACs have either announced a deal or are searching for one. And in online gaming, there are no fewer than 10 SPACs in the works. 


Blank Checks For Billionaires 

SPACs were once shunned by savvy investors. Today they’re beloved by THE WEALTHIEST. 


It wasn’t long ago that fracking was all the rage on Wall Street, too, and SPAC IPOs provided quick and easy capital infusions. Energy private equity firm Riverstone Holdings issued three large SPACs—one in March 2016, for $450 million; then two more IPO’d in 2017, raising $1.7 billion—all intent on profiting from shale oil-and-gas investments. 

Riverstone’s Silver Run II SPAC acquired Alta Mesa Resources in 2018, but the company quickly went bankrupt, incinerating $3.8 billion of market capitalization on oil fields in Oklahoma. Its other two SPACs completed mergers, and now both are trading below $3 per share. 

Despite its dismal track record, Riverstone had no trouble raising $200 million in October for its fourth SPAC IPO, “Decarbonization Plus Acquisition.” Shale fracking is yesterday’s game, so Riverstone has moved on to clean tech. 

Hope springs eternal—especially when you can count on hedge fund money to back you up.

Antoine Gara

Antoine Gara

I’m a staff writer and associate editor at Forbes, where I cover finance and investing. My beat includes hedge funds, private equity, fintech, mutual funds, mergers, and banks. I’m a graduate of Middlebury College and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and I’ve worked at TheStreet and Businessweek. Before becoming a financial scribe, I was a member of the fateful 2008 analyst class at Lehman Brothers. Email thoughts and tips to agara@forbes.com. Follow me on Twitter at @antoinegara

Eliza Haverstock

Eliza Haverstock

I’m an assistant editor at Forbes covering money and markets. I graduated from the University of Virginia with degrees in history and economics. More importantly, I covered breaking news for its student paper The Cavalier Daily, while also writing for the school’s underground satire magazine. Since then, I’ve worked at Bloomberg and Pitchbook News, writing about everything from plastic straws to pizza robots.

.

.

Bloomberg Markets and Finance

SPACs (special purpose acquisition companies, or “blank check” companies) have become all the rage on Wall Street in 2020. Sonali Basak explains how they work and why they have grown so popular.

What is a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC)? What is a blank check company? Should you invest in SPACs, and how do they work? Both a SPAC and blank check company are publicly-traded shell companies that raise collective investment funds through an initial public offering (IPO) in the form of a blind pool. The funds are placed into a trust until an acquisition is made or a predetermined period of time elapses and the fund is liquidated.

SPACs are increasingly being viewed as an alternative to the IPO process in particular for silicon valley companies since the failed WeWork IPO. Some recent SPAC mergers have been controversial such as Nikola Motors (NKLA) and Luckin Coffee (LKN). Many argue that these companies would not have made it through the traditional IPO process. We will also learn about Direct Listings, like the Spotify listing which is another alternative to the IPO process. Patricks’ Books: Statistics for Traders: https://amzn.to/3eerLA0 Financial Derivatives: https://amzn.to/3cjsyPF Corporate Finance: https://amzn.to/3fn3rvC Visit our website: http://www.onfinance.org Follow Patrick on Twitter Here: https://twitter.com/PatrickEBoyle Patreon Page: https://www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleO…

3 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Start a Franchise

3 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Start a Franchise

We all know that starting a business isn’t a one-size-fits-all sort of thing. What works for one person will not for someone else, and that’s a good thing. If there were only one solution, then everyone’s business would look the same.

We embrace that variable experience at Entrepreneur. It’s why, in addition to general guides on starting a business, we offer insight from experts in their respective fields, along with inspirational advice. We know you’re going to need a lot of resources to make your business successful.

So, while we take a lot of pride in putting together our Franchise 500 list, we also recognize that it isn’t the right path for everyone.

1. The cost to start a franchise

Not everyone has seven figures to spend on our No. 1 franchise, McDonald’s, which costs anywhere between $1,008,000 and $2,214,080 as an initial investment. But, for many of us, even paying the $2,095 for our cheapest Franchise 500 entry, Cruise Planners (No. 60) can seem overwhelming.

Most franchises offer help with financing (especially if you are a veteran of the military), but they also tend to have a minimum net-worth requirement. You can get estimates of both of these numbers on each Franchise 500 franchise page, but you can get a better sense of what you’ll need by directly contacting the franchise you are interested in.

Even if you have the liquid assets to get a franchise up and running, it doesn’t mean you are good to go. You also need to think about royalty fees and, depending on the franchise, employee salaries and maintenance costs. You can see that starting a franchise isn’t just something you do on a whim; it takes consideration, certainty and financial security.

What you can do instead: If you’re low on funds, you might consider starting out as a solopreneur, using your time as a substitute for money. This is actually an important step for many business leaders, because it forces them to learn about every role within your business.

When you’re finally ready to hire employees, you’ll know what traits and skills are most valuable and make better hiring decisions as a result.

2. The lack of independence as a franchisee

Running a franchise definitely comes with some independence. You will need to make plenty of important decisions, which can shape the culture and success of your business.

But the same things that are great about a franchise — the amount of support, experience and branding you receive for investing — also limit your options to a certain degree. If you run a McDonald’s franchise, it’s not like you are going to change the logo or decide on company colors or slogans: You’re going to sell Coca-Cola products and Big Macs.

These brands have become successful because people know what to expect from them. You can’t buy a longstanding franchise unit and expect to revolutionize everything. If you have the desire to make something totally new, then, franchising might not be for you.

What you can do instead: If you can see a problem within an industry and know how to fix it, see if you can monetize it. Many entrepreneurs work with what they know: solving problems they’ve come across in their daily lives. Maybe one day McDonald’s will end up paying to use your solution.

Related: The 10 Best Franchises to Open in 2018

3. The passion you need to run a franchise

One of the most common attributes among successful entrepreneurs is focus. When they have a big idea or dream, they don’t let themselves get distracted with things that will not help them move forward. They perfect that idea and everything around it — from the product to the sales pitch and branding.

Starting a franchise can be a valuable investment, but it is an investment. It takes time, it takes money, it takes energy. Unless you already have experience running a franchise, you might not have time to focus on anything else. And that’s okay. But don’t simply assume you’ll still be able to pursue your dream project in your spare time. You might not have any spare time, and even if you do, you’ll be distracted.

What you can do instead: Try partnering with local businesses, who can sell or promote your product or service. That way, you can still enjoy the sort of branding and support you wanted from a franchise while building your big idea. It’s the best of both worlds.

Related: The 13 Fastest Growing Franchise Opportunities From Our Franchise 500 List

While these are a just a few things to consider before you start a franchise, there are also plenty of reasons why joining a franchise is a great opportunity, including working with an established brand and the support you receive.

Whatever the case, you’re going to need hard work to see success, so make sure you pick a path you believe in and go at it with everything you have.

By: Matthew McCreary

For your interest you can view the  step-by-step guide about starting a business here: https://www.finimpact.com/starting-a-business/

Source: https://www.entrepreneur.com

728x90-1-1-1-1

Why do people invest in franchises, and does it even make sense? We’ll cover that topic today on Franchise city. 1. The first benefit is Economies of scale and buying power. If you are investing in a franchise with some type of consumables, supplies, or inventory and this could be hamburgers, cleaning solvent, vehicles or advertising, because you are part of a larger buying conglomerate you will get very low pricing buying in huge volumes for dozens or hundreds of franchisees. Beyond your daily consumables, there are also often arrangements with insurance providers, leasing agents and other industry connections that the franchise has negotiated using this buying power that could ultimately save you a substantial amount of money over being an independednt. Some people make the blanket statement that paying royalties is just not worth it, and we see that often in comments, and in some cases they are correct. But in a solid franchise when you analyze and compare the royalties you pay vs the savings in consumables — you should see an equitable relationship. 2 Success Road map. With every franchise you receive an operations manual. In that manual, are the exact systems, processes & procedures involved in building that business. Many of these manuals are hundreds of pages long and will cover topics ranging from how to acquire customers to how to answer the phone. Now if any of you have ever started a business, you will appreciate how much is involved in getting set up: from creating your branding, to the business workflow, marketing, social media, human resources and employee recruitment training and retention, Client acquisition and retention, a CRM system, billing, accounting and receivables, real estate, sourcing vendors, advertising, where do you advertise your your grand opening. The list never, ever ends for a small independent business owner. And keep in mind, these are all things that are outside your core competency of knowing how to cook the burger or swing the mop or paintbrush. So having this manual that has been refined over many years and franchisees will save hours, days weeks and months of headaches trying to get your own independent business running. And not that it is impossible, people do it, but it is far from easy. Now a large part of that success roadmap are the systems and processes so let’s look at that. With exceptional franchises we will occasionally see independent companies actually signing up to become a franchise. So these are people already in the industry who own an independent shop and they buy into the franchise. This is a huge indicator to us; the franchise is good because this is a person who already knows the industry well, and yet they, as professionals see enough value to start paying royalties. And we often see this with gyms, converting from a private gym to a franchise, garages, painting companies, and others. There are franchises like property management that because of their software and capabilities, owners can more than quadruple the number of clients they had been managing on their own. And with gyms, garages and restaurants, don’t underestimate how difficult it is to have everything in place from the right branding to the right equipment or food, or appropriate pricing, advertising and promotions – as we mentioned previously there is so much to do and any of those things you don’t get right can take weeks to figure out. And the number one reason businesses fail is they run out of money because they didn’t figure everything out in time. Franchising gives you the manual and the ongoing support. Another major advantage is the marketing and advertising. Most franchises will have you pay into a co-op ad fee, usually one for regional and one for national. That money is pooled from all franchisees and obviously great prices are negotiated for these national ads. Your franchise , again if it is a good one, has retained a top marketing firm that knows exactly how to attract customers and the best ways to drive people to your location. With service based brands you will likely have a company that generates local leads for you through trade sites, Google ads or review sites. http://www.franchise.city – search hundreds of franchises #franchisecity #franchising
%d bloggers like this: