Chapter 1: Is Multi-Store Management Really a Success?

—Before increasing the number of stores, you should read the contract

In the world of convenience store owners, multi-store management is sometimes spoken of as a form of success.

Two stores are better than one.
Three stores are better than two.
Owners with many stores are amazing.
Owners entrusted with additional stores by headquarters are excellent.
If your family is helping, your future is secure.
If your child is involved, they will be able to take over.

There is an atmosphere like that.

I am also very familiar with that atmosphere.

When the topic turns to multi-store management, headquarters representatives and managers also speak in a very positive tone.

“It’s reassuring that you’re doing this as a family.”
“If your son joins in, your future is clear.”
“With this kind of track record, how about another store?”
“Owners who can be entrusted with multiple stores are limited.”

When told this, it doesn’t feel bad.

Rather, it makes you feel like you are being recognized as an owner.

I am valued by headquarters.
I am different from ordinary owners.
My store can be left to my family.
If I train employees, I can continue as a company.
If I increase the number of stores, it will become an asset for the future.

You want to think so.

However, I have a strong sense of discomfort here.

This is because I feel that a very important premise is missing when considering multi-store management.

That is,

Is that store really your own asset?
Is that contract really one that can be left to your family?
Is that multi-store management really structured in a way that can be continued as a company?

That is what I mean.

Multi-store management is easily talked about as simple addition

Multi-store management is easily talked about as very simple addition.

One store makes this much profit.
Then two stores will double it.
Three stores will be even bigger.

You want to think that way.

However, actual multi-store management is not such a simple matter of addition.

As the number of stores increases, management costs rise.
Travel time increases.
Interpersonal problems also increase.
It depends on the quality of store managers and supervisors.
Inconsistencies in employee training will emerge.
Labor management becomes more complex.
Emergency responses increase.
More aspects become invisible to the owner themselves.

Things that were visible to your own eyes with one store become harder to see from the second store onwards.

If you increase to three or four stores, they become even harder to see.

And to fill in the parts that have become invisible, many owners rely on "people."

A talented store manager.
A right-hand person.
Family.
Employees.
Long-term part-time staff.

However, is that truly a system?

Relying on people and managing through a system are different things.

The danger of multi-store management is not the increase in the number of stores itself.

It is that the number of stores continues to grow while you lack a system to visualize the things that have become invisible.

Why Headquarters Recommends Multiple Stores

There is a rationale on the headquarters' side for recommending multi-store management.

They want to entrust it to a talented owner.
It is faster to have existing owners expand than to find new owners.
They want to maintain the store network.
They want to fill regional gaps.
Headquarters also wants to entrust it to someone they can trust.

This is understandable.

I do not mean to say that headquarters recommends multiple stores with malicious intent.

In fact, among the field staff at headquarters, there are people who truly care about the franchisees.

Having worked in this industry for over 20 years, I know that many headquarters employees act with a sense of mission.

However, there is one thing we must not forget here.

What is convenient for headquarters and what is happy for the franchisee owner do not necessarily align.

This is it.

The headquarters looks at the store network.
The headquarters looks at sales.
The headquarters looks at the operational capabilities of existing owners.
The headquarters looks at whether they can be entrusted with additional stores.

However, that is not all that owners should be looking at.

How much money remains for the company?
Will there be any time left for yourself?
Is your family being dragged into it too much?
Can you take responsibility for the lives of your employees?
Can you withstand labor risks?
Can that business truly be continued under the contract?

You must look at all of this.

Is multi-store management an asset that can be left to your family?

Here, I have one major question.

Is multi-store management truly an asset that can be left to your family?

When the number of stores increases, it may look at first glance as if your assets are increasing.

You have three stores.
You have five stores.
The sales scale is large.
There are many employees.
There are staff members.
Your family is also involved.
You are also being evaluated by the headquarters.

From the outside, it might look like a respectable business.

However, what is the status of the contract at its root?

At the very least, in the Seven-Eleven contract that I am familiar with, the parties to the contract are Seven-Eleven Japan and the individual owner.

Of course, I cannot make definitive statements about the contract details of other chains.

However, at least when it comes to Seven-Eleven, this point is extremely important.

You are operating stores.
You are hiring employees.
Your family is helping out.
Your staff is growing.
You have multiple stores.
The sales scale is large.

Even so, what lies at the root of it all is, ultimately, the contract with the headquarters.

And if that contract is strongly tied to the individual owner, multi-store management cannot be called an 'accumulating asset'.

It is not something that can be inherited like real estate.
It is not something that can be freely transferred like stocks.
It is not something that can be naturally passed on as a business like a regular company.

I suspect that there are surprisingly many owners who overlook this.

Is 'my family can inherit it' really written in the contract?

In the world of convenience store owners, there is a story that is whispered as if it were true.

“Family members can take over.”
“It’s fine if it’s your children.”
“You can pass it on within a certain degree of kinship.”
“It’s safe if your wife or son is involved.”
“If relatives are involved in the store, things will work out in the future.”

These are the kinds of things people say.

I, too, have felt that atmosphere many times.

Field representatives and managers sometimes speak as if taking over is a perfectly normal process.

However, there is something you must absolutely verify here.

Does the contract actually say that?

This is the point.

The representative said so.
Other owners are saying so.
I’ve heard that for a long time.
Apparently, it’s fine if it’s a relative.
Apparently, you can pass it on within a certain degree of kinship.

These are not contracts.

Anything not written in the contract is not something the owner can claim as a matter of right, at the very least.

I believe you must not misunderstand this point.

Read the contract before increasing the number of stores.

When encouraged to manage multiple stores, owners naturally become optimistic.

I am recognized by the headquarters.
I am being evaluated.
If I run one more store, I can grow even bigger.
I might be able to leave something for my family.
If I train employees, I might be able to incorporate.

I understand those feelings.

However, there is something you must do before that.

That is to read the contract.

Who are the parties to the contract?
Can the contractual status be transferred?
What is written regarding inheritance or succession?
Is the headquarters' consent required?
Are the conditions for consent clearly stated?
Does it say that family or relatives can automatically take over?
Does it really say that you can pass it on within a certain degree of kinship?

If it is not clearly written in the contract, then at the very least, it is not an “automatic right.”

Leaving this point ambiguous,

Thinking things like "We're fine because we have a son," "We're safe because we're a family business," "The headquarters won't easily cut us off because we own multiple stores," or "The representative said it seemed fine"

is dangerous.

The words of a headquarters representative are not a contract. The atmosphere on the ground is not a contract. Rumors among owners are not a contract.

What remains in the end is the contract.

I will continue this next time.

This time, I wrote about how if you are considering multi-store management, you should first read the contract.

So, what happens if a representative says, "It's fine"?

"It would be good if your son takes over," "It's reassuring that your family is involved," or "I think you can pass it on within a certain degree of kinship."

How much can these words be trusted?

And what happens to the family or employees if the owner suddenly passes away during the contract period?

Next time, I will delve a little deeper into this.

The title will be,

"That person said so" does not work with headquarters

.