As far as the politicizing goes, it’s mostly because most people don’t know what you just said. They see “McDonalds” and don’t think of local franchises; they think Big McD (corporate/the whole company).
I think the other point of controversy is that franchises typically aren’t allowed to sub-lease, so to speak, the name/brand. They represent corporate, basically, and anything they’d do that may harm the reputation would not be viewed favorably by the higher ups. I’m not clear on the franchise agreements, but it wouldn’t be out of the question for those to be revoked / refused to renew if a particular location was causing headaches for the main brand.
As far as the politicizing goes, it’s mostly because most people don’t know what you just said. They see “McDonalds” and don’t think of local franchises; they think Big McD (corporate/the whole company).
I think the other point of controversy is that franchises typically aren’t allowed to sub-lease, so to speak, the name/brand. They represent corporate, basically, and anything they’d do that may harm the reputation would not be viewed favorably by the higher ups. I’m not clear on the franchise agreements, but it wouldn’t be out of the question for those to be revoked / refused to renew if a particular location was causing headaches for the main brand.