BUTTERFLY LIFE: Unhappy Franchisee Interview With Matt Wilson, Franchise Owner
Read the Full Interview:
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Interview With Franchisee Matt Wilson
After attending a well-orchestrated sales seminar, Atlanta-area franchise owner Matt Wilson and his wife joined Butterfly Life with the dream of being their own boss, helping women improve their health, and getting a good return on their investment. Once they opened their club, they claim they received no help or support in overcoming their branding and marketing challenges. Their club closed in less than a year.
UnhappyFranchisee.com asked Matt to share the lessons of his experience, and his advice for prospective franchise owners.
UF: Matt, what was your background prior to joining Butterfly Life? Did you have industry experience?
MATT: My wife, who owned and operated our BFL franchise, has in excess of 20 years experience in a variety of customer service positions including 10 years with a major cellular communications company. For several years prior to our investment in a BFL franchise she was the office manager for a successful salon. For myself, I have 20 years experience working in a variety of sales, marketing, educational, technical and business management roles. Neither of us had experience in the women’s fitness industry, however, my wife has been a patron of competing club’s and national diet programs having lost 40 lbs as a result.
UF: When did you decide to join Butterfly Life? Describe the process.
MATT: After attending a franchise seminar in August 2006 in Atlanta, GA, conducted by Taylor Golob, Cheryl Hoke and via video conference, Mark Golob. Around the time of the seminar we were actively investigating a Curves franchise and saw a BFL seminar commercial on television. That led us to check out the company web site and sign up for the seminar. Taylor and Cheryl put on a first class, well rehearsed and choreographed sales seminar. Towards the end they incorporated connecting to Mark Golob via video conference, who delivered a rehearsed speech underscoring the points made by Taylor and Cheryl. When all was said and done it appeared the investment was a low risk, high return venture. Especially given that Atlanta was a burgeoning market for the brand and BFL appeared committed to developing the market for the long run.
The appeal for us and we believe with many investors, was with the prospect of being able to help women improve their health while being your own boss. The bonus was there was what seemed to be a good return on the investment. Reality was much different. CONTINUE READING
Read Other Butterfly Life Franchisee Interviews:
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Jeff Marks, Ex-Franchisee
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Carol King, Ex-Franchisee
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Linda McBride, Ex-Franchisee
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Julie Franco, Ex-Franchisee
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Lisle Head, Ex-Franchisee
BUTTERFLY LIFE: Michael Motes, Ex-Franchisee
WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
__________________________
FEATURED STORY:
TanWorld: Creating the Next-Generation Tanning Salon Franchise
OVERVIEW Interview with Tanworld V.P. Bob McQuillan
Visit FRANBEST’s: Unbiased franchise information, franchise interviews and detailed, searchable information on 400 franchise and business opportunities.
.
Franchisees, customers & experts vote for their favorite new franchises at Top New Franchise: Who’s hot. Who’s not.
Related Stories
POSTED IN: BUTTERFLY LIFE, xBuyer Beware
1 opinion for BUTTERFLY LIFE: Unhappy Franchisee Interview With Matt Wilson, Franchise Owner
carol cross
Sep 30, 2008 at 9:05 am
We see Sean, from these interviews with fallen franchisees of BFL, that the franchisees all believed there was LITTLE RISK involved in the investments. They were brought (in a devised “hard sell”) to sign long-term contracts that are malicious legal traps and that generally protect the franchisors from charges of fraudulent inducement to contract in arbitration and court actions brought by failed and destroyed franchisees.
The hard sell pre-sale process that suggests “earnings” and profits and little risk is SOP for the franchisors. The FTC’s lack of enforcement of illegal earnings claims made outside of the actual FDD and the contract is in keeping with federal regulatory poicy.
The FTC allows the franchisors to advertise and hype their franchises on the Internet and in the media but has taken franchisors out from under “Truth in Advertising Laws” and out from under the common law fraud statutes of the 50 States.
The RISK of the investment in franchises can be hidden because of the “constructive fraud” of the deceiving package of the government disclosure document (FDD) and the binding adhesory contract that acts as a red herring to OBSCURE the RISK of the investment in the franchise, whether a mature franchise or a new concept.
This FAILURE of Regulatory Policy and our Congress to protect franchisees and to, instead, SUBSIDIZE franchisors and the other special interests is a failure of democratic Capitalism. Our courts are tainted in the process but the “rich get rich” and the “poor get poorer” and “trickle down economics” claim their victims.
Let’s hope the BFL franchisees make a loud noise heard in the Halls of Congress.
Let’s hope that Matt Wilson understands that the government was complicit in that BFL knew that government regulation would permit them to OVERSEED and not to make timely disclosure of failure or unprofitability to new prospective buyers of the BFL franchise.
Apparently, our government only requires franchisors to be copmpetent enough to comply with the 23 items of disclosure mandated by the FTC Rule. If this means that franchisors use their contracts and regulation to lie, cheat and steal outside of contract, so be it?
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: