18/8 Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salons Franchise Warning

18/8 Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salons overstates the success of its franchises and understates its franchise failures, according to a franchise owner who provided this anonymous complaint.  We invite others to validate or dispute this claim – and share their opinions of the Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salon franchise, the Griff’s Shave Bar franchise, and franchisor Ultimate Franchises Inc.

(UnhappyFranchisee.ComWould you like to see further investigation and reporting on 18|8 Fine Men’s Salon franchise?  Contribute here:

18|8 Fine Men’s Salon Franchise Investigation (GoFundMe page)

Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salons – How Many Open / Closed / Rebranded? is an anonymously submitted guest post penned by a current or former 18/8 franchise owner.

Scott Griffiths 18/8 SalonsWe have not verified the claims made herein, and invite readers and the company to validate or dispute this and other complaints regarding the 18/8 Fine Men’s Salon franchise or the sister concept Griff’s Shave Bar.

The writer believes all information and numbers to be accurate, but invites readers to verify independently and draw their own conclusions.

Here’s the Guest Post:

Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salons – How Many Open / Closed / Rebranded?

Submitted by An 18/8 Franchise Owner.

In a recent Forbes interview (dated 6/13/18), franchise CEO (Chief Exaggerating Officer), Scott Griffiths severely overstates franchise success, open location count, and units in development of the 18/8 Fine Men’s Salon franchise chain.

Scott Griffiths is also the principal of Ultimate Franchises Inc. and the sub-brand Griff’s Shave Bar.

The premise of the article is how the financial crisis helped 18|8 Fine Men’s Salons grow faster through franchising than it would have organically.

While franchising has helped the 18|8 brand grow in store count in recent years, the rapid closing of locations throughout the country has led to many franchisees losing their life savings.

Griffiths states in the article, “Since franchising, 18|8 Fine Men’s Salons has grown to nearly 100 locations, with more than 150 in development.”

Eighteen Eight’s own website only lists 61 operating locations. Where are the other 39?

In a recent internal call with franchisees, Griffiths claims 75 open locations.

Did he mean “nearly” 75?

Where is the truth?

24 18/8 Fine Men’s Salons Have Closed

Eighteen Eight FranchiseBy our count, 24 stores have closed, including Irvine Westpark, which was once the highest grossing location in the country.

1. Irvine, CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salon-irvine-2)

2. Westlake Village, CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/eighteen-eight-fine-mens-salon-westlake-village)

3. San Rafael, CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salon-san-rafael)

4. Walnut Creek, CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-walnut-creek-walnut-creek-2)

5. Culver City, CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-culver-city-culver-city-5)

6. La Jolla, CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-la-jolla-la-jolla-2)

7. Little Italy (San Diego), CA (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-broadstone-little-italy-san-diego)

8. Washington, DC (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-washington)

9. Coral Gables, FL (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salon-coral-gables)

10. Bethesda, MD (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-bethesda-bethesda)

11. Maple Lawn, MD (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-maple-lawn-fulton-2)

12. North Baltimore, MD (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-greenspring-baltimore-2)

13. St. Louis Park, MN (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-st-louis-park-st-louis-park-2)

14. Bedminster, NJ (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-bedminster)

15. Westwood, NJ (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-westwood)

16. Florham Park, NJ (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-florham-park-florham-park)

17. Edgewater, NJ (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-city-place-edgewater-edgewater)

18. Livingston, NJ (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-livingston-livingston)

19. Woodbury, NJ (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-woodbury-woodbury)

20. Beachwood, OH (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-beachwood-beachwood-2)

21. Avon Commons, OH (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-avon-commons-avon)

22. Lake Oswego, OR (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-lake-oswego-lake-oswego-4)

23. McKinney, TX (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-mckinney-mckinney)

24. Fort Worth, TX (https://www.yelp.com/biz/18-8-fine-mens-salons-fort-worth-fort-worth)

19 Eighteen Eight Salon Locations Have Rebranded

Griff's Shave BarIt appears that 19 Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salon locations have rebranded:

1. Ocotillo, AZ

2. Waterfront, AZ

3. Newport Beach, CA

4. West Hollywood, CA

5. Dublin, CA

6. Brea, CA

7. Huntington Beach, CA

8. Campbell, CA

9. Roseville, CA

10. Mountain View, CA

11. Laguna Niguel, CA

12. Closter, NJ

13. Jersey City, NJ

14. Mamaroneck, NJ

15. Cool Springs, TN

16. Plano, TX

17. Flower Mound, TX

18. Richardson, TX

19. Bothell, WA

6 Other 18/8 Franchise Locations Have Been Taken Over by Corporate

6 other former franchise locations have had operations taken over by 18|8 corporate;

1. Anaheim Hills, CA

2. Lake Forest, CA

3. Centennial, CO

4. Annapolis, MD

5. Princeton, NJ

6. Powell, OH

The franchise page of the eighteeneight.com franchise website states:  “Total Investment Range is $291,851 – $513,639 for a single 18|8 Fine Men’s Salon.”

Considering all store closures, rebrands, and corporate takeovers, this equates to $14.3-$25.1 million in lost investor value. This total does not include resales that have netted the original owner negative value.

Scott Griffiths claims 150 units in development.   In the first 6 months of 2018 alone, over 2 dozen locations have either closed or rebranded, while only 2 new locations have opened.   In an amazing twist of irony; the recent Forbes article is titled “Growth Stories: How the Financial Crisis Caused This Business To Grow Ten Times Faster.”

Share your personal Growth Story with 18|8 Fine Men’s Salons in the comments.

[End of Guest Submitted Content]

See how many locations Ultimate Franchises, Inc. claims to have as of July, 2017.  See Item 20 for location and sales information, and the exhibits for a list of current and former franchise owners:

18/8 Fine Men’s Salons Franchise Disclosure Document 7/17



NOTE:  We invite all parties discussed to share corrections, clarifications, explanations, rebuttals, and alternative points of views.  Franchisors, franchisees, employees and others discussed here can leave comments below or submit rebuttals and clarifications via email to UnhappyFranchisee[at]Gmail.com. 

Opinions and representations expressed are those of the parties alone; do your own research and make up your own mind.  We are a discussion site and invite all opinions from all points of view which can be left as comments or submitted to UnhappyFranchisee[at]gmail.com for possible publication.  Anonymous commenting is fine.  Please consider supporting our effort with a contribution to Unhappy Franchisee.




Contact UnhappyFranchisee.com

TAGS:  18/8 Fine Men’s Salons,  18/8 Fine Men’s Salons franchise, 18/8 Salon franchise opportunity, 18/8 Fine Men’s Salons franchise complaints, Eighteen Eight Salon franchise, Eighteen Eight Salon franchise, Griff’s Shave Bar franchise, Ultimate Franchises Inc., franchise complaints, Scott Griffiths,  W. Scott Griffiths, Ron Love, Loretta Hwong Griffiths, , Brigitte Love Thewes, Mark Elson, unhappy franchisee

291 thoughts on “18/8 Eighteen Eight Fine Men’s Salons Franchise Warning

  • January 17, 2019 at 7:40 am

    The Feds must look into these thieves. They are Con Aritsts that steal your money & paint this picture of everything rainbows and unicorns. Scott Griffiths has money in off shore accounts and everyone around him is just as responsible as him. SOMEONE OUT THERE must know how to get these guys arrested, it’s been going on long enough. Our lives are ruined because of these thieves, it’s time for payback.

  • January 17, 2019 at 11:18 am

    Jennie, please take a few minutes to file a complaint with the California Dept. Of Business Oversight, and your state’s equivalent oversight body. If the federal government reopens some day, you may want to contact the SBA office of the Inspector General, who is rumored to have a quiet investigation going out of their San Diego office. One might also research Scott Griffiths crime(s) alleged at the local level by calling the Orange County Sheriff substation in Aliso Viejo, CA, which serves his adjacent community of Laguna Niguel. These are really bad people, though. So be careful. Once they are cornered, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that these criminals will become violent.

  • January 17, 2019 at 11:45 am


    How many of you would be willing to contribute $$$ to a coordinated information campaign that would spread the word via the media & Internet and also coordinate complaints to multiple relevant state and Federal agencies?

    If you would be interested in exploring the idea, send a confidential email to the administrator of this site at UnhappyFranchisee[at]Gmail.com. No obligation… just gauging interest and soliciting input


  • January 23, 2019 at 2:00 am

    Smart zees learned a long time ago to question Scott & company at every turn. Those who closed their stores before they drained their life savings were smart. There was never any substance behind this franchise. In hindsight, we know there is a reason that corporate only built four stores, including the one they closed in the Del Amo mall that they were not forthcoming about, like everything else, to the would-be investing zees. Future zees asked, but it is clear, like so many other statements leading up to their decision to invest, the reasons given were simply not true. It is clear now why that they were racing to sell so many franchises in spite of being advised to build slowly (quality first).

    One of the more significant untrue statements made by 18|8 and St. Gregory channeled as their representative is that this was employee staffed model. (They followed up at 18|8 U before folks had signed their personal guarantees to build their store.) Even though they sold it this way, their own master stylists were contractors. They repeated this “employee model” over and over such that virtually all franchisees heard this on the various discovery days held over the years. Corporate even developed employee commission scenarios based on what you charged for services. Selling this as an employee model ensured that they could not run afoul of any legal challenges. The funny thing is after multiple corporate officers confessed in various sidebar conversations that they indeed had contractors at the master level after franchisees had already purchased development rights, they also kept denying it in other circles. Over and over they told potential franchisees 18|8 was an employee model but did not mention that their own largest revenue producing group, master stylists, were contract laborers. Sold one thing, did another. They never came clean on this aspect of talking out of both sides of their mouth. The problem for corporate on this subject is that are so many witnesses these statements and that was one of the main pillars in the model sold.

    I do hope that Scott, and what few remaining enablers like Chris Brown and Andrew Hulse, who for some reason are choosing to spend much of their working years in service to 18|8, will develop a conscience in spite of any financial conflict of interest when talking to fellow franchisees. Scott, Brigitte, as original officers, do the right thing. Come clean. Look at yourselves in the mirror. The gig is up. This whole thing was all a house of cards from the start. Franchises are supposed to have low failure rates in return a percentage of the gross, but the 18|8 foundation was shaky, at best, from the start leading to the state we are in. Quit taking a portion of the amount we pay for vendor products/services (rebates) etc. that you haven’t advised us of, though required. (Yes, Scott, a number of times the vendors, unhappy with you, have admitted to struggling franchisees of the cut you get.) Cut your royalty fees. (When you consider the undisclosed rebates you get from us, it makes the profit-killing 8% you get look even more absurdly high.) Do what you can so the remaining franchisees that trusted in you do not lose their life savings. Think of them. Put meaning behind those hollow statements about caring for our success on the Big Hug calls. Admit to the obvious that lays bare for all to see. This would be a start to the healing those who believed you so much they decided to sign personal guarantees and invest their savings.

  • January 25, 2019 at 3:35 pm

    Does anyone know who Scott’s new lawyer is?

    I called Timothy Dillon’s office to discuss the letter from GoCap and they told me that they no longer represent Scott Griffiths or Ultimate Franchises. I had a lawyer friend look up some court docs on the recent lawsuits and found that Tim Dillon as well another lawyer from Irvine have recently asked to be relieved from representing Ultimate Franchises due to unpaid legal fees. Seems like Scott lost big on a couple cases, can’t pay his lawyers, and has no legal representation at this point.

  • January 29, 2019 at 3:01 pm

    I truly believe in Karma. The bottom line is that we must continue to bring awareness to this sham of a franchise. We must ALL remain diligent with posting on this site and any other sites that will inform potential investors of these thieves, liars, con-artists. I do not wish anyone to go through what I and other good faith franchisees have gone through with this disgusting 18/8, Ultimate Brands garbage. They ALL need to be investigated. Every single one of them need to be investigated and arrested. If not, Karma will have a field day on them and anyone around them. What other sites are people posting on? Thank you to Unhappy Franchisee for keeping us alive and bringing awareness. KARMA.

  • January 30, 2019 at 12:26 pm

    Joe Curler,

    Could you please provide additional information on the Del Amo Mall Corporate store? Was it a corporate owned location that was not disclosed in the FDD due to poor performance? When was it opened and disposed of by corporate?

    Darby’s Dad- Curious to know what W. Scott’s alleged local area crimes consist(ed of… At this point nothing much would surprise me. Don’t understand why these guys are not being investigated/charged with felony wire fraud.


  • January 30, 2019 at 7:13 pm

    Thieves and liars. they knew how to take our money, they gave us no support. I hope they all rot in hell.

  • January 30, 2019 at 7:16 pm

    Liars, and thieves. I hope they all rot in hell.

  • February 2, 2019 at 5:10 pm

    I’m glad someone mentioned Andrew Hulse in here. He’s another two-faced bum. One minute he’s telling all the franchises how much he dislikes and distrusts Scott Griffiths, and then a couple months later he’s working for him. One minute he’s berating another franchisee about questioning his ‘integrity’ because he was in the Navy (as if that makes his integrity unquestionable), and the next minute he puts himself in the same division as Chris Brown.

    My analysis is that Hulse didn’t realize how badly he burned himself after opening an 18/8 in Minnesota after the franchise registration in that state got revoked (he invested a ton of money and resources in an asset that could not be resold as an 18/8), so he just decided to double down and be one of the scammers living off the backs of others. I’ll just pause there, since it’s bad enough for him to have to deal with Griffiths as a boss on a daily basis, while also pretending to be Mr. Integrity.

  • February 3, 2019 at 12:01 am

    Former Franchisee/Joe Curler,

    It was in the Irvine Spectrum Center 18|8 store that closed in 2008, not Del Amo. It’s a different situation and may not have required disclosure, not sure, but obviously would have been of interest to investors since it was still a version of an 18|8 and so many of those, in hindsight, have failed. This18|8 had a medspa. The FDD does note for the starting month for the other three 18|8 stores, as well as that they had operated continuously. Why not note the situation with 18|8 men’s salon that had the medspa under common management/ownership?

    See links below.


    The Del Amo closure is just another franchisee closed store.

  • February 4, 2019 at 4:47 pm

    188 Zee,

    Many thanks.

    Former Franchisee

  • February 5, 2019 at 9:03 pm

    Former Franchisee,

    Ok, now I am even more convinced that corporate should have been transparent about this store opening and closure. (Someone might want to take a picture of this yelp info before they take this down.) Some people who heard of this store inquired about it and said Scott dismissed it as being a different concept.

    Hum… All the reviews are about haircuts. When you read the review details, it sounds just like an 18|8. Maybe corporate hung their hat on not noting in the FDD because of it being closed for 3-years before they started franchising. Or, maybe another shell game with one of their legal entities. Below is a cut & paste on the yelp page. Ron Love only alludes to things in common with current 18|8s. Maybe I am missing something.

    What say you?

    From the business
    18|8 MEN’S Haircare and Grooming Services are the reinvintion of the barber shop providing hair and grooming services in a relaxing environment focused on the Unique needs of men.

    At 18|8, our stylists and staff provide the advice, solutions and consistency men deserve in a wide variety of services and treatments, including haircuts, hair coloring, MANicures, face treatments, scalp treatments and massage–all provided at semi-private stations. At 18|8 men can have a unique experience designed to meet their specific needs, rather than being an afterthought at a woman’s salon or settling for a clip-joint-quality haircut.

  • February 12, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    188 Zee,

    I agree 100% that “corporate” owned Spectrum location should have been disclosed in all FDDs issued post-closure. Fraud, fraud, fraud. No gentlemen or ladies at Ultimate Franchises and all of the other entities they go by in the past, present, or future. Scum.

  • February 13, 2019 at 2:49 pm

    I remember at 18/8 University, Ron Love telling us that we should cut paper checks to our employees instead of direct deposit, because sometimes employees do not deposit for a couple weeks or sometimes lose the check or forget to cash altogether.

    Looking back at these comments, it’s comical how desperate these people are, even at a micro level. Tiny pathetic losers. Cockroaches. I’m embarrassed to ever have associated with them.

  • February 23, 2019 at 1:47 pm

    So, below is the cost of goods sold %, by year, computed from the FDD for the 4 years the information was provided. What do you think the odds are the Costa Mesa and Westpark had 47.0% with Pasadena having the exact same % for exact same years for 3 of the 4 years? This just happened to be the same figure Lance told zees to use as a modeling assumption every single year? Imagine that. 11 of 12 computations from the FDD at 47.0% COGS.

    This business has fluctuating retail sales, different stylist levels with different price points for different services and high turnover. Let alone the % being the same 4 years YEARS in a row, has anyone has even had 4 MONTHS of COGS in a row at the exact down to the tenth %? Me neither.

    Pretty amazing. Just saying.

    Costa Mesa Pasadena WestPark

    2011 47.0% 47.0% 47.0%

    2012 47.0% 47.0% 47.0%

    2013 47.0% 52.0% 47.0%

    2014 47.0% 47.0% 47.0%

  • February 23, 2019 at 7:10 pm

    I’ve watched Griffith’s struggle with Excel. It was quite humorous. Just give this man a box of crayons. He’s more comfortable with a coloring book than a spreadsheet.

  • February 28, 2019 at 11:40 pm

    Chris Clown, interesting story. I believe he (Scott) felt like he was quite good at Excel. Ron Love mentioned how amazingly he was into detail with stats, numbers, spreadsheets. (I think that said more about Ron than it did Scott.)

    I understand when Scott presented the initial discussion of hair loss program roll-out, he had these ridiculous numbers on his spreadsheet with zero science behind of the numbers. Numbers just pulled out of thin air. A zee questioned him on his numbers, after requested input, and Scott got upset. If you are confident in your information, you don’t get upset by questions, you welcome it. If you are insecure, you are much more upset.

    Scott has always been a legend in his own mind as evident by how he instructed the PR firms to inflate Scott’s bio so much in store announcement, franchise sales material, etc.

  • March 3, 2019 at 10:52 am

    So, Scott has taken away from us current franchisees the contact information that with helps in reaching out to fellow franchisees. I guess he doesn’t want us helping our help fellow franchisees or getting their advice about what they did about certain situations. Nice. Maybe paranoia has set in.

    I thought we were the 18|8 family. Or, maybe that was just more hollow words at 18|8 U.

  • March 3, 2019 at 8:48 pm

    Observer of the Amazing,

    I believe the odds of every COGS ending in .0% (a more rounded number than say 0.4%) is 1 in 10 billion. There is a 10% chance a 2nd number ends in .0% when the first number ends in .0%. But the FDD has all 12 in a row calculated % to be 0.%!

    These seemed to be managed outcomes. Here is the math: 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% x 10x % x 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% x 10% = .0.0000000001%.

    Hum….yep, that is pretty amazing.

  • March 4, 2019 at 3:43 pm

    Thanks for the probability calculation, Lee.

  • March 4, 2019 at 6:52 pm

    Just because ZZ Top used the term “hum” doesn’t mean it’s Lee. Does it? Could be a misdirection.

    As a current franchisee, today I noted Ange sent a note forbidding us from purchasing American Crew’s new Acumen brand. Apparently, the kickbacks haven’t been negotiated yet.

  • March 5, 2019 at 8:51 am

    You just threw some serious shade at the FDD…..That calculation is the type of thing Attorney’s love. If you pulled those numbers from the FDD, specifically item 19, you really ought to take it to an attorney ASAP. Might be a get-out-jail-free card.

  • March 6, 2019 at 3:26 pm

    Brandon, many of us (the most fortunate) have already done just that. Everyone else should do the same.

    And just a heads up. Griffiths will do anything to avoid a courtroom. He’s already about 0 for 20 in legal battles and doesn’t even have a lawyer at this point.

  • March 15, 2019 at 7:41 pm

    I’m wondering how long this house of cards will remain standing. Still find this to be a great idea. But people got greedy. I feel like a fool for believing them. No crazy thoughts of making a fortune but thought it would bring in something.

  • March 17, 2019 at 5:22 pm

    Corporate his listed most of their locations for sale. Liquidation has begun.

    With the exception Lafayette, notice the extremely low revenue numbers. Well below anything stated in Item 19 of the FDD.

  • March 19, 2019 at 1:18 am

    Per the links:

    Store Revenue Asking Price Selling Reason Opened
    Lafayette $700,000 $200,000 Corp owned 2014
    Palm Springs $300,000 $100,000 Corp owned 2018
    Anaheim Hill $300,000 $90,000 Corp owned 2014
    Morristown $240,000 $75,000 Corp owned 2017
    Temecula $150,000 $50,000 Corp owned 2017
    Costa Mesa $195,000 $80,000 Corp owned 2014

    Corporate said there is never a reason to close a store. I don’t think they addressed if there was ever a reason to sell a store at a fraction of the total investment. Also, not clear how “corporate owned store” is a selling reason. I thought some of these were franchisee stores.

    Didn’t corporate say at one point they got a new investor? If so, wouldn’t they want to scoop these up? The ad states, “Fine Men’s Salons are a great business to own and operate! There’s a giant void that’s waiting to be filled..”

    One of the top stores has a starting asking price at an amount lower than the cost of construction by itself.

  • March 19, 2019 at 12:50 pm

    Palm Springs already sold out? Didn’t they open just a few months ago?

  • March 21, 2019 at 10:49 pm

    ==> “Special incentives from franchiser! Product and reduced royalties” <===


    Looks like there are even more 18|8s for sale. Some are discreetly not saying they are an 18|8 for some reason, but you call tell easily.

    Here is Peachtree Corners, for instance. They opened in 2017 and reflect annual revenue of $240K is shown. The asking price is $80,000.

    Several franchisees (including the now defunct board of advisors) suggested a couple of years ago to lower the royalty fees as a means to keep more stores of stores from closing. It wasn't accepted at the time. Things appear somewhat different now. Maybe all the current franchisees can get lower royalty fees since EVERYONE buying resale on the cheap are apparently getting lower royalties.

    Why wait? Appears to be worth asking for royalty fees now instead of waiting for the benefit to start with the new franchisee purchasing.

  • March 22, 2019 at 5:24 am

    Unbelievable that they sell these out for a fraction of their actual cost Especially the newer ones. Such a slap in the face after all the money spent on their “recommenced “ purchases and who to get them from. Always top of the line – always more expensive.

  • March 25, 2019 at 12:07 am

    (This is a repost. Not sure what happened.)

    Here’s a more inclusive list (19 stores) of the 18|8s for sale on bizbuysell.com. The site has a file (Franchise Maven Resales.xlsx) posted on it that can be downloaded listing all franchise resales. You just sort on Industry selecting Fine Men’s Salon. The annual revenue, per the file, is listed below in thousands. These amounts are before the 8% royalty. Looks like 6 of the stores may often be paying the higher minimum royalty amount unless an accommodation was made.

    Champion Forest, TX ($82),
    Lake Forest, CA ($105),
    East Cobb, GA ($115),
    McKinney, TX ($118),
    Memorial Green, TX ($142),
    Temecula, CA ($146),
    Peachtree Corners, GA ($192),
    Costa Mesa (Newport BLVD), CA ($195),
    Sugar Land, TX ($223),
    Morristown, NJ ($241),
    Burlington, MA ($292),
    Palm Springs, CA ($300),
    Glenview/Glenbrook, IL ($301),
    Anaheim Hills, CA ($303),
    Princeton, NJ ($314),
    Honolulu, HI ($322),
    North Scottsdale, AZ ($324),
    Lafayette, CA ($703),
    Lower Manhattan, NY ($888)

  • March 25, 2019 at 8:44 pm

    I did not realize that Corp 18/8 had taken over so many stores.

    So the model is;
    1. Sucker someone into buying rights to a territory and building at least 1 location
    2. Provided no support and bleed dry with high royalties
    3. Do not market at all
    4. Take over failing location for nothing
    5. List for resale
    6. Profit!
    4. Take over failing location for nothing
    5. List for resale
    6. Profit!
    4. Take over failing location for nothing
    5. List for resale
    6. Profit!

    That is not a typo. 4-6 just repeat. The desperation has really kicked in for Griffiths after losing multiple lawsuits, getting fired by 4 different lawyers for not paying the bills, and selling fake accounts receivable to a factoring company. Sorry Scotty boy, there’s no one left that wants to associate themselves with you and your toxic business practices.

  • March 26, 2019 at 10:18 am

    Danny, most of the locations on your list are still franchisee owned but NONE are making a dime. Two things I know for certain:

    1) Ultimate Franchises has hired a broker to try selling salons that wish to sell out. All the corporate locations sold (given) back to corporate are on this list. The rest have reached out to corporate, who has “offered” to use their broker in an attempt to find a buyer. My assumption is if a sale occurs, corporate will Avenatti the franchisee and keep the proceeds.

    2) At least one of the higher revenue salons on this has already sold to a separate party.

    3) Some potential suckers are still out there. I received a voicemail from someone in New York yesterday seeking a validation conversation. I’m calling him back today and will not hold back.

  • March 28, 2019 at 3:56 pm

    This is Sean Kelly, publisher of UnhappyFranchisee.Com.

    I am testing out a new sponsored investigation initiative that has worked really well so far. Email me for the details and the strategy behind it. UnhappyFranchisee[at]Gmail.com

    The story unfolding here is pretty shocking – and after running this site for 10 years, I don’t shock easily.

    I am willing to conduct interviews, gather and review your complaints, do original research and put this into a report that can be circulated to my franchisee attorney contacts, the business, trade and consumer media, state franchise regulators, The Federal Trade Commission and (if warranted) law enforcement, including the FBI.

    Here’s the GoFundMe page I just set up for the 18/8 Fine Men’s Salons Franchise Investigation Fundraiser

    Feel free to share and promote this link: https://www.gofundme.com/manage/Eighteen-Eight-franchise-investigation

  • March 28, 2019 at 5:18 pm

    Anyone that wants to see this through-please consider donating. We definitely will be.

  • March 29, 2019 at 1:50 pm

    Unfortunately I see salons on this list that were warned not to open. They ignored the red flags and warnings from existing and past Franchisees. I personally warned some of these to not open, cut their losses and accept they were frauded like others have. They don’t deserve what Scott did to them and their livelihoods. They however continued on which now they realize what a mistake it was.

  • March 29, 2019 at 2:59 pm

    @ADMIN the links are taking to me the general GoFundMe page

  • April 10, 2019 at 11:15 pm


    Another sad situation. Another store on the for sale list will be closing in a few more days. Others on the list are not far behind. At least one, if not more, on the list of stores above are already closed. Franchisees who closed, debranded, sold, still in the fold, or who gave their stores back to corporate all feel bad for other friends/investors who will have to live with the result of their savings being drained.

    18|8, for the vast, vast majority, has proven to be the gift that keeps giving in a sense, a bad sense. Hard to recover from $700K+ hit. And, to think, most of us were sold a 3-pak to build 3 stores in 3 years within just a few miles from another. It looks like since obviously there was no science involved, we now know, wild guesses (or worse to sell more territories) were made with the money of those who trusted them.

  • April 11, 2019 at 12:32 pm

    Mickey, to your point I drive up and down I-405 frequently and am amazed anyone would think the Lake Forest and Laguna locations would both thrive being a matter of minutes from each other. Same thing with Culver City and Playa Vista, Costa Mesa and Costa Mesa, etc etc etc. PT Barnum was right*. I was the sucker.

    *quote misattribution – he never said it but was credited with the quote

  • April 11, 2019 at 1:27 pm

    “CURTIS “CHIP” LOEB, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. ULTIMATE FRANCHISES, INC., a California corporation; ULTIMATE BRANDS, INC., a California corporation;
    2ULITIMATEBRANDS, a California corporation; W. SCOTT GRIFFITHS, an individual; LORETTA HWONG GRIFFITHS, an individual; RON LOVE,
    an individual; BRIGITTE LOVE THEWES, an individual; and DOES 1 – 20, unknown individuals and entities, Defendants.

    “…UF’s misrepresentations to other franchisees are currently the subject of civil actions pending before this Court and others.
    57. Since entering into the Area Development Agreement, Defendants, jointly or severally, have repeatedly been sued, in the following matters, for actionssimilar to those alleged herein:
    a. Harter v. Ultimate Franchises, Inc., Case No.: 30-2017-00934883;
    b. Teske v. Ultimate Franchises, Inc., Case No.: 30-2017-00946020;
    c. Marei v. Ultimate Franchises, Inc., Case No.: 30-2017-00943982;
    d. BIT Holdings Fifty-One, Inc., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-11010;
    e. Ultimate Franchises, Inc. v. Parsons, Civil Action No.: 17-cv-2153;
    f. Ultimate Franchises, Inc. v. Sachedina, Civil Action No.: 18-cv-97;
    g. Shaw v. Ultimate Franchises, Inc., Civil Action No.: 18-cv-2273”

    Does anyone know how many active or completed arbitrations there are or have been?

  • April 13, 2019 at 11:27 pm

    Below is an Indeed Review by an employee at one of the zee stores that corporate took over – Temecula. I really feel for the employee. They left this 1-star review on Indeed.

    Looks like various investors, landlords, vendors, contractors and employees have all had issues with expectations matching representations. Hopefully, things will work for the store, the zee who probably still has a personal guarantee since, unlike zees who trusted Scott enough that we signed personal guarantees, Scott won’t take over personal guarantees. (He was perfectly fine with all his investors signing personal guarantees.)

    Temecula is one of the stores listed for sale.


    18|8 in a nutshell
    Barber/Stylist (Current Employee) – Temecula, CA – April 6, 2019
    Coworkers were fantastic people loved the environment. The customers were even more amazing, where things became an issue is when I realized 18|8 could not make my paychecks or keep the water on. The shelves are bare with lack of product….these things are all signs of a business in trouble. I have been with this company for 1 month and I can’t even get paid.

    The concept is great, the atmosphere is fantastic, but a paycheck is usually the end result of work.

    Management had excuses for everything which I can appreciate but I need a paycheck.

  • April 17, 2019 at 10:39 pm

    Anyone know which of the salons listed for sale on biz buy sell.com are corporate owned (via original development or takeover from a franchisee) and which are still owned by a franchisee using corporate’s broker to try to sell?

    Also, Costa Mesa was one of the original three corporate owned salons listed in the FDD. Are the other two also listed for sale? Didn’t one to f those close and then corporate opened a new location?


  • April 18, 2019 at 4:42 pm


    There are two Costa Mesa locaitons.

    1. Costa Mesa Newport Blvd was opened by a franchisee and resold to a new franchisee. I don’t know if corp has taken control back from the second owner . Word of caution to anyone thinking of trying to sell with corp’s help; the original franchisee sale was facilitated by Corp and the seller had to threaten to sue corp to get paid out on the deal. So good luck getting paid if you are using corp’s broker to facilitate. Like everyone else here has echoed – these guys are complete snakes that will screw you at every turn.

    2. Costa Mesa Anton has always been a corp location. This is the one referenced in the FDD revenue section. Corp did have a deal to sell this location last year. That deal fell through because Scott Griffiths is an idiot and a liar and the former buyer is now suing corp himself (https://unicourt.com/case/ca-ora-haktan-yasar-kilic-vs-ultimate-franchises-883389)

    3. Pasadena corp was evicted for not paying rent. Reopened in a salon suite rental location. Corp said a new location was being built, but I don’t know if this ever happened.

    4. Irvine corp was evicted for not paying rent. Did not reopen. Corp tried to spin this like they were moving to location to Costa Mesa Anton. LOL. Here is the lawsuit regarding the Irvine location (https://unicourt.com/case/ca-ora-ticad-retail-properties-holdings-llc-vs-mana-concepts-inc-857317). Remember, this was the $1.2mil location in the FDD. How could you make that kind of revenue and get evicted?

    Does anyone know what location this eviction case refers to?
    It’s either the new Pasadena location or a corp takeover location somewhere near LA

  • April 19, 2019 at 11:33 am

    Former Franchisee,

    Thank you very much for the detailed information.


  • April 29, 2019 at 10:52 am

    It’s a shame to hear about Princeton. Another owner whose life savings were flushed down the drain. Does anyone know if the former owner MW who turned the keys over to corporate is still on the hook for rent or was he able to get out of the personal guaranty?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *