KUMON: “Why I Sold My Kumon Franchise”
April 26, 2010
According to the Kumon tutoring services franchise website, “One of the largest and most established franchise businesses in the world, Kumon has nearly 250,000 students enrolled at more than 1,500 individually owned and operated Math & Reading Centers in U.S. and Canada alone.”
As we reported in the post KUMON Franchise Owner Complains of Overexpansion, some franchise owners of Kumon North America are increasingly disturbed by what they see as burdensome new regulations, encroachment and intentional oversaturation by their parent company.
David Joseph, an outspoken owner who has posted his concerns on UnhappyFranchisee.com as well as his own blog, recently decided to sell his franchise and leave the Kumon system.
He explains why below:
“I received requests to explain why we decided to sell our Kumon center. There were several factors that led to our decision to sell but ultimately we decided to pursue an opportunity that gave us the best chance to meet our personal and professional goals.
“We took ownership of our center in December, 2005. Shortly after we took over the center, we saw the potential for further growth and found ourselves thinking about moving to a larger space. The estimated cost to build out a larger space was $40,000 while remodeling the current space was approximately $10,000. We weighed the pros and cons and opted to move to a larger space because we saw long term potential with our business. After receiving approval from Kumon franchising, we opened our new larger space in November 2006. The space was zoned commercial office, had good visibility, and was in close proximity to several shopping plazas. Kumon was so delighted by our new space that a member of the franchising team suggested that we sign a 10 year lease to reduce our rent. We instead chose to sign a 5 year lease to be in better alignment with Kumon’s 5 year franchise agreement. Enrollment grew 80% in the new space over a period of 2.5 years. Business was good and we generated a nice profit. The $40,000 investment paid back very quickly.
“In February 2009, we received notification that Kumon’s 2010 franchise agreement (FA) will require centers to be located in space zoned for commercial retail; with the caveat that Kumon can grant exceptions. In addition, Kumon corporate had the right to change a center’s hours of operation if Kumon corporate deemed it beneficial for the community. We were concerned about the language and asked how the new language will impact our business. The head of franchising explained that it was not Kumon’s “intent” for our center to be impacted by the language in the 2010 FA. Unfortunately, a business can not make long term decisions based on the “intent” of Kumon’s franchising department. We knew, based on the experience of other owners, that it was not easy to find a new location. We also knew from other owners that Kumon corporate did not help identify new locations or help address zoning issues. We did not like facing the possibility of having to spend more money on moving to a new location. Just 2 years earlier, we spent $40,000 on building out a new larger space. We also did not like Kumon corporate having the power to dictate hours of operation. After all, we are owners, not Kumon employees. The changes to the 2010 FA really made us consider selling the business.
“Another issue that factored into our decision to sell was Kumon’s changing furniture requirements. In early 2009, the regional leaders visited our center and declared that we did not have approved Junior Kumon furniture. However, we purchased the Junior Kumon Kit from Kumon in 2005. It turns out that the furniture to which the regional leaders were referring was the same table we already had but with a different laminate top and chairs that were black instead of blue. Although this may seem like a minor issue, we felt this was another example of Kumon changes that may lead to additional costs to an owner. At this point we began seriously wondering how many Kumon changes were in store and the costs we could incur because of those changes.
“We then started hearing about new franchise locations being placed in close proximity to existing successful centers; some new locations were less then 2 miles away. We thought that Kumon was changing their market penetration targets and was trying to implement a saturation strategy. There were already 5 Kumon centers within a 5 mile radius of our center according to Kumon.com. We were concerned about the possibility that another center could be placed within 2 miles of our center. It turned out Kumon corporate had plans to aggressively expand the number of centers in North America and in some areas, increased target market penetration rates.
“At this point, we thought selling the center was our best option. Within 2 years of expanding our center, Kumon changed zoning requirements, furniture standards, and market penetration targets. We also felt that Kumon corporate did not respect the amount of money current owners already invested in their business. If Kumon did respect the amount of money invested by owners, subsidies and assistance would have been offered to owners that are impacted by Kumon changes. We thought our best move was to cash out.
“Selling the center was a whole other ordeal, mainly because of Kumon franchising. We know we are not the only ones disappointed with the franchising department because we’ve been contacted by other franchisees (existing and potential) that are having issues with Kumon franchising in the NJ/PA area. I will not get into details, but let’s just say the leadership, professionalism, and skill sets in Kumon franchising is lacking. I’m sure there are some people within franchising that have the requisite skills, unfortunately we did not have the pleasure of dealing with those people during our sale. I may share details on our experience at another time. We have already sent a detailed account of our experience to leadership functions within Kumon corporate. I encourage the people that contacted me to share your experiences with the franchise department with Kumon leadership.
“My intent in writing this post was to explain why we decided to sell our center, not to dissuade people from buying a Kumon franchise. We did not believe that putting more money into this business was wise for us. We were concerned about a corporate organization that did not seem to value the investment made by Kumon owners. We also thought we could find opportunities that were better investments in terms of time and money. Once we opened ourselves up to selling the center, a better opportunity did present itself. In the end, we decided to pursue the better opportunity and sell our center. We could not be happier about our decision.
“Please feel free to continue to contact me if you have Kumon questions, need a different perspective, or just need to vent.
“Wishing everyone the best of luck,
“David Joseph”
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE KUMON TUTORING FRANCHISE? WHAT DO YOU THINK? SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
Failure Rates of the 10 Most Popular Franchises
April 26, 2010
Failure Rates of the 10 Most Popular Franchises What are the failure rates of the 10 most popular franchise opportunities? Read more
TACO DEL MAR: Ex Franchise Owner Blasts Franchisor, Master Developer
April 16, 2010
Is the Taco Del Mar franchise a great opportunity to gain the support of a franchisor dedicated to franchise owner profitability… or is it an unmitigated disaster?
It depends on whom you ask.
Taco Del Mar: “great franchise partnerships create great successes.”
The Taco Del Mar franchise website states:
“Taco Del Mar believes that great franchise partnerships create great successes. We have built our organization in order to develop positive and profitable relationships with our franchisees… We begin each day focused on franchise profitability… We developed our system to return the highest ROI to the franchisee in the shortest time… We believe in you.”
Taco Del Mar: A franchise “disaster.”
Former Maryland Taco Del Mar franchise owner Suzanne Todd has a different opinion, calling her experience with the company a “disaster.”
According to a Wall Street Journal story, Todd claims she was recruited as a franchise owner by Master Developer and franchisee Thomas Murphy, who told her Taco Del Mar was the “next Subway.” She claims Taco Del Mar executives “lured her to join the team by predicting future positive financial returns,” and “‘placed a great deal of pressure” on her to sign a franchise agreement before the prices increased.”
She signed in April 2007, paid a $20,000 franchise fee and opened her Frostburg, MD restaurant in December 2007.
Claims her Master Developer “doomed her… restaurant to failure.”
Todd claims her own Master Developer Murphy doomed her restaurant to failure by his alleged “ineptitude” and non-compliance with the system he was representing:
She blamed Murphy’s “ineptitude” as a master developer, deeming his flagship restaurant a failure that then doomed her own restaurant to failure. Why’s that? Well, Todd said Murphy’s branch had food that “was not up to standard” because it didn’t rely on the chain’s recipes. The branch used supplies from the wrong brands, handing out Cinnabon cups, Subway paper products, and – gasp – Wal-Mart-brand tortilla chips. And customers had even filed health safety complaints regarding food poisoning alleged to have resulted from eating there.
Franchisee Todd contends that the franchisor provided inadequate sources for food and supplies, and poor support especially in advertising. The Maryland Attorney General’s office accused Taco Del Mar of violating Maryland law with regard to the offer and sale of the franchises. The state and the franchisor struck a deal in February 2009 that gave Todd the option of rescinding her franchise agreement. She jumped at the chance and her branch closed that same month.
Taco Del Mar bankruptcy halts arbitration proceeding.
Suzanne Todd initiated an arbitration proceeding against Taco Del Mar for $500,000. The proceeding was halted, along with all other “creditor actions,” when Taco Del Mar Franchising Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in January, 2010.
According to the WSJ article, Taco Del Mar blamed its bankruptcy on “ several years of financial losses it experienced on poor expense management, lawsuit expenses and its selection of ‘poor franchisees and poor sites’ for its new restaurants.”
Despite its troubled past, Taco Del Mar and its Master Developers continue to promote the Taco Del Mar franchise opportunity on its franchise website.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? IS TACO DEL MAR A GREAT FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY DESIGNED FOR FRANCHISEE PROFITABILITY? OR IT A FRANCHISE “DISASTER”?
logo: Taco Del Mar



