Re: Arthur Murray difficulties Posted by anymouse 11/11/2010 9:27:00 AM
"Again, each studio is independantly owned, and the obligation by each studio is normally up to the franchisee.
I have worked for both A/M and F/A in past yrs , and there are decent and good owners, and some that are otherwise.
One should not use a broad brush to decribe the whole organisation ."
This claim always struck me as pointing out the fallacy of the whole idea.
What's the point of having a brand name - and paying a premium for it - if those in the know will then point out that each individual franchise location is different, some being good and some unfortunately not so much?
I've always felt that ballroom teachers must be evaluated as individuals. Sometimes that meant taking from people who happened to own franchise studios, but such fact was never relevant to the decision - in effect owning the franchise location was their "day job" unconnected to their real teaching role which was entirely separate from the commercialized offerings available to walk ins at the reception desk.
A natural extension of this is that one is a student of a specific teacher sought out for one purpose or another, not of the studio where they happen to be operating on any given day.