Tony White recently shared something that caught my attention: "Franchising is supposed to be the opposite of doing it alone. But most operators end up isolated." That line lands because it highlights a gap many franchise brands do not want to admit.

In his post, Tony points out what operators often experience after signing: a manual, compliance calls, and conferences where everyone pretends things are fine. Then reality hits. Payroll gets tight, a manager quits, reviews dip, foot traffic falls, and the operator realizes there is nobody to call who truly understands. The system delivers process, but not people.

"The system gave them process and an ops manager who has 20 other franchisees to deal with. What they needed was people."

I want to expand on Tony's idea because it is more than a cultural complaint. It is an operating model problem. Many franchise systems are built to scale standards, not support. And when support is treated as an afterthought, performance suffers across the network.

The hidden cost of operator isolation

Franchising is sold as leverage: a proven model, brand awareness, training, buying power, and a "network." But in practice, many franchisees run their location like an island.

Isolation is costly in at least four ways:

Slower problem solving. When an operator is stuck, they waste days testing guesses instead of borrowing what already works.
Lower resilience. The hardest part of franchising is rarely the grand opening. It is month 7, when early momentum fades and the owner realizes the business needs management systems, hiring pipelines, and relentless local marketing.
More preventable mistakes. Simple issues repeat across locations: mispriced labor schedules, weak manager training, inconsistent lead handling, vendor confusion, seasonal demand swings.
Emotional burnout. Owners do not quit only because margins are thin. They quit because they feel alone and embarrassed to admit they are struggling.

Tony describes the moment clearly: when operators cannot make payroll, when a manager quits, when customers stop coming, they have nobody to call who understands. That is the real churn risk, long before a contract ends.

Why "support" often becomes manuals and monitoring

Most franchisors are not trying to be cold. They are trying to be consistent. The problem is that consistency is easier to scale than community.

A typical franchise support stack includes:

Training modules and playbooks
Field visits focused on compliance
Ticketing systems for questions
Quarterly conferences heavy on celebration and light on troubleshooting

These tools matter, but they are not a substitute for peer-to-peer problem solving. A field ops manager supporting 20 to 60 units is structurally unable to be the always-on thought partner franchisees need. Even the best ops teams become bottlenecks.

And there is another uncomfortable truth: franchisees sometimes avoid asking for help because they worry it will be used against them. If every conversation feels like an audit, people stop sharing what is really broken.

Tony White's core point: franchise the support structure

Tony White argues that the best systems do not just franchise a business model. They franchise a support structure.

That shift is powerful because it reframes the goal. The goal is not "did everyone follow the process" but "did everyone get better." And the fastest way to get better is to connect operators who are living the same problems.

"When franchisees have genuine peer support, they solve problems faster, stay longer, and perform better."

Let me make this practical. If you are a franchisor, what does a franchised support structure actually look like?

The building blocks of real peer support

1. Operator cohorts that meet monthly (and stay tactical)

Tony mentions operator cohorts where franchisees meet monthly to solve real problems together. The key is the agenda.

A good cohort meeting is not a status update. It is a working session:

One operator brings a current challenge (for example: "My GM just resigned")
The group asks clarifying questions
Two or three peers share what they tried, what worked, and what failed
The operator leaves with a short action plan and someone to follow up with

Cohorts work best when they are small enough for trust (6 to 10 people) and stable long enough to build relationships.

2. Pairing new franchisees with battle-tested operators

Tony calls out pairing new franchisees with experienced operators who survived the hardest part. This is mentorship, but it should be structured.

Make it specific:

A 90-day buddy system for first-time owners
A checklist of common "first year" potholes
Two scheduled calls per month plus ad hoc texts
Clear boundaries: mentor shares playbooks and patterns, not confidential unit economics

This accelerates competence and reduces the shame that keeps owners quiet.

3. Market-based circles for multi-unit operators

Tony also points to connecting multi-unit operators in the same markets to share what is actually working. Market matters because hiring pools, competitors, ad costs, and seasonality differ by region.

Market circles can share:

Recruiting channels that convert locally
What pay bands are necessary this quarter
Which promotions cut through right now
Vendor recommendations and regional pitfalls

This turns "the network" into something real, not just a logo on a slide.

4. Safe channels to tell head office what is broken

One of Tony's sharpest points is the need for channels where operators can tell head office what is broken without consequences.

This is where many brands fail. They fear feedback will turn into a revolt. But silence is not harmony. It is suppressed reality.

Practical options include:

Anonymous issue collection with public prioritization
A franchisee advisory council with rotating seats
Postmortems after failed initiatives (run like a learning review, not a blame session)

When operators believe honesty is safe, the franchisor gets better data and can fix systemic issues earlier.

The "tail wagging the dog" fear (and why it backfires)

Tony notes that many franchisors avoid building these structures because they worry the franchisee tail will start wagging the franchisor dog.

I get that fear. A franchise brand needs standards. It needs brand integrity. It cannot let every unit improvise.

But Tony's "rub" is right: if you do not create healthy structures for operator voice, the tail still wags. It just wags louder, in backchannels, private groups, and angry calls. Criticism does not disappear. It goes underground and becomes more corrosive.

Peer support is not about letting franchisees run the brand. It is about helping franchisees run the business.

What to measure if you take this seriously

If you are building a support structure, measure outcomes, not activity.

A few useful signals:

Time-to-resolution on common operational issues
Franchisee retention and multi-unit expansion rates
Participation rate in cohorts and mentorship (plus qualitative value ratings)
Field support load (peer support should reduce repetitive tickets)
Early warning indicators: cash flow stress, staffing churn, local marketing consistency

The strongest networks create a flywheel: the strong lift the struggling, the struggling learn faster, and the whole network compounds.

A simple takeaway for franchisors and operators

Tony White ends with a line worth repeating: if your franchise system feels lonely, it is not because operators need to try harder. It is because the system was built to scale operations, not support.

If you are a franchisor, the opportunity is to design community like you design operations: intentionally, with cadence, leadership, and accountability.

If you are a franchisee, the lesson is to seek or help create peer connection early. The best operators are not just good at execution. They are good at building relationships that keep them learning when things get tough.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Tony White. View the original LinkedIn post →