As franchising continues to grow across New Zealand, one structural mistake continues to undermine network performance: Designing franchise systems around head office convenience rather than franchisee success.
That’s the view of franchise specialist Tereza Murray, Principal of TMPlus, who says misalignment at the foundation level is one of the most common (and costly) issues she sees in both emerging and established networks.
“A franchise structure should be designed to make it easier for your franchisees to succeed, not easier for head office to manage,” Murray says.
According to Murray, many founders design their franchise model around how the business currently operates, rather than how franchise partners will realistically work day-to-day.
“Most franchise partners are great at what they do. They’re strong operators and brilliant with customers. They know how to deliver the product or service,” she say.
“But most of them aren’t natural administrators.”
Despite this, many systems still require franchisees to manage marketing execution, billing, reporting and compliance tasks, functions that can create inconsistency across the network and distract from revenue-generating activities.
“If you want franchisees focused on what they’re good at, serving customers and building the brand, you have to lift the weight of what they’re not good at,” Murray says.
For franchise owners and potential franchisors, this may mean reconsidering where responsibility sits. Centralised billing, automated reporting systems and head office-led marketing campaigns (with structured local input) can all reduce friction and improve clarity.
“The goal is always the same: Reduce friction so performance can rise.”
Structure vs control
When franchise networks experience tension, disengagement or declining compliance, Murray says the instinctive response is often to tighten control.
“Some franchisors come to us because they’re experiencing tension across the network. Franchisees are disengaged. Compliance is slipping and getting harder to enforce. The culture feels strained.
“They assume they need more control. In reality, what they need is better structure and stronger systems.”
Rather than increasing oversight, she advises reviewing role clarity. Franchisees should focus on revenue-generating activity and customer experience, while head office owns systems, standards and brand consistency.
Franchisors who realign in this way often report improved retention, stronger unit economics, better culture and reduced operational friction, outcomes that ultimately strengthen the brand.
The key question for every franchise model
Whether launching a new franchise or reassessing an established one, Murray believes the most important question isn’t legal or financial, it’s practical and human.
“What do your franchisees need to succeed?” she says.
“Start there. Build the model around that. When franchisees thrive, the whole system thrives.”
She argues that successful networks are those that centralise complexity, remove operational bottlenecks and design systems around the real capabilities of the people delivering the brand on the ground.
“When you do this, everything improves; performance, royalties, culture, retention and long-term brand value,” Murray says.
“It’s not just about control. It’s about enabling success at the front line.”
A reset is not a weakness
For established franchisors, reviewing and updating systems can feel uncomfortable, but Murray says delay is often more damaging than change.
“Markets shift. Franchisee profiles shift. Technology changes. If your franchise model hasn’t evolved in five years, it’s probably overdue for review,” she says.
“Refreshing your structure doesn’t mean starting over. It means future-proofing your brand and doing right by the people who are growing it with you.”
In franchising, structure is strategy. And when the system supports franchisee success, the entire network benefits.
Other Articles
