👞 🏢Emm n’ Ess takes a walk in Ronald Mc Donalds shoes💰🍟 Fiona van Iersel MSc Marketing — King's College London Module: International Marketing (7QQMO500X) Date: 16 July 2025 https://keats.kcl.ac.uk/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=763776 👞 🏢Emm n’ Ess takes a walk in Ronald Mc Donalds shoes💰🍟 Submitted: 16 July 2025 8:05 PM I understand this assignment is framed to explore market entry modes using established theory. However, I believe M&S’s evolving strategy mirrors something even more telling — a pivot toward the McDonald’s-style franchise model, where the business is less about selling products and more about controlling the real estate and brand platform behind them. As McDonald’s early financial strategist, Harry Sonneborn, famously explained: “You’re not in the burger business. You’re in the real estate business” (Kroc, 1977, cited in Love, 1986). The company owns or controls property, licenses the brand, and earns income from partners — offers M&S a hedge across multiple commodities, from retail products to land and lease income. This is increasingly visible across M&S operations: • In the UK travel and forecourt sector, M&S stores are franchised to SSP, Moto, and BP, who run operations under license, while M&S supplies products and maintains brand control (Marks & Spencer Group plc, 2024). • M&S has franchise agreements in international territories like the Channel Islands and Gibraltar, operated by SandpiperCI, where M&S oversees branding and supply chains, but not day-to-day operations (SandpiperCI, 2024). • In some retail parks, such as Sprucefield (Northern Ireland) and Fosse Park (Leicester), M&S acts as anchor tenant or owner, benefiting from associated property income streams (Fosse Park, 2024). These asset-light moves support what Dunning (2000) called the resource-leveraging logic of multinational firms — minimising investment risk while maintaining strategic control over brand and distribution. It’s also in line with modern franchising theory, where firms monetise brand equity and distribution networks rather than relying purely on owned-and-operated formats (Grant, 2016). So, while M&S still wears the uniform of a retailer, it increasingly plays the game of a franchise-holding property strategist — just like McDonald’s. ⸻ Re: 👞 🏢Emm n’ Ess takes a walk in Ronald Mc Donalds shoes💰🍟 Submitted: 29 July 2025 10:36 PM Thanks so much — I’m so happy you vibed with the McDonald’s analogy! I mean, if M&S is going to go global, why not channel a brand that’s mastered the art of selling the same burger joint in 119 countries… with just enough local condiments (Kotler & Keller, 2016)? About your question — does the asset-light strategy limit agility or enhance sustainability? I guess thats the “internationalisation trade-off”. So quick brain storm: 🪙 Sustainability Through Risk-Dilution By franchising and partnering, M&S dodges the sunk-cost sinkholes they famously swan-dived into in France and Germany (Business Week, 1998; Financial Times, 1999). This is ehat Dunning’s OLI framework is about I think cuz they retain ownership advantages (like brand equity), while outsourcing location-specific headaches and internalization risks (Dunning, 1988). I Think of it as sipping Champagne on the balcony while someone else handles the plumbing in your restaurant. 🌍 Agility… or the Lack Thereof? Here in lies the rub: franchisees aren’t exactly known for pivoting fast. Big old lumbering beasts. In fast-evolving markets like India or Gen-Z China, speed matters. Zara can flip a trend in three weeks. M&S Might take six months and a board meeting (Mintel, 1999). It’s the Transaction Cost Theory “catch-22” (i hate the book BTW)— lower control (Anderson & Gatignon, 1986) means greater local variability, which could water down responsiveness when trend volatility spikes (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1989). 🎛️ oh and then theres The Adaptation Wildcard McDonald’s works globally because of asset-lightness, and because it engineers uniformity with calculated precision. I always wanted to work there to see how they calculate even the lay out and movement of employees to efficiency to get fries that taste the same from Tokyo to Timbuktu (Porter, 1985). If M&S wants that same global fluency, they’ll need franchise governance tighter than their underwear section which is not great at the moment the under wire of the Bra I have in from them did not survive the second wash and will be binned tonight!!! . That’s standardization vs adaptation in action (Johanson & Vahlne, 2009; Hofstede, 1984). Too loose and the brand gets diluted; too tight and you end up serving Yorkshire pudding in Singapore. So… is this strategy more agile or more sustainable? I think More sustainable in middle-risk markets — franchising de-risks and hedges. • ⚠️ buuuut Less agile in trend-driven zones — unless M&S overcomes the “slow-footed retailer” stereotype. Ultimately, it’s like trying to tour a rock band internationally without learning the local playlist. You can do it. But don’t be surprised when the audience walks out mid-encorel 424 words References Dunning, J.H. (2000) ‘The Eclectic Paradigm as an Envelope for Economic and Business Theories of MNE Activity’, International Business Review, 9(2), pp. 163–190. Fosse Park (2024) Fosse Shopping Park – Retailer Directory. Available at: https://www.fossepark.co.uk/ (Accessed: 16 July 2025). Grant, R.M. (2016) Contemporary Strategy Analysis. 9th edn. Chichester: Wiley. Kroc, R. (1977) Grinding It Out: The Making of McDonald’s. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Love, J.F. (1986) McDonald’s: Behind the Arches. New York: Bantam Books. Marks & Spencer Group plc (2024) Annual Report and Financial Statements 2024. Available at: https://corporate.marksandspencer.com (Accessed: 16 July 2025). SandpiperCI (2024) Our Partners – Marks & Spencer. Available at: https://www.sandpiperci.com (Accessed: 16 July 2025). 395 words