Selecting franchise partners: Tourism franchisee approaches, processes and criteria Levent Altinay a, * , Maureen Brookes a , Gurhan Aktas b a Oxford Brookes University, UK b Dokuz Eylul University, Turkey highlights < This paper responds to calls for research on tourism franchisee partner selection. < A qualitative study of a sample of Turkish franchisees identifies two distinct approaches used to select partners. < It identifies processes and criteria used by franchisees to select their franchisor partners. < It reveals how the processes and the selection criteria employed differ in each approach. < A framework of franchisee partner selection is developed and the implications of the study for franchisees identified. article info Article history: Received 17 July 2012 Accepted 31 January 2013 Keywords: Franchising Partner selection Partner-related criteria Task-related criteria abstract This paper identifies and evaluates the partner selection approaches, processes and criteria use by tourism franchisees to select their franchisor partners. A qualitative study of a sample of Turkish fran- chisees identifies the partner selection criteria and two distinct approaches used to select franchisor partners. The study contributes to our understanding of franchisee partner selection by demonstrating how the selection criteria, approaches and processes impact on franchisee satisfaction post contract signature. In addition, a framework that depicts the relationship between the criteria, approaches and processes is developed from the study. The study yields a number of implications particularly for pro- spective franchisees interested in joining a franchise network. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The high cost and risk of starting up new businesses and penetrating new markets is a major force that drives firms to work in partnership (Guilloux, Gauzente, Kalika, & Dubost, 2004; Tuunanen & Hyrsky, 2001). One type of partnership that has been growing in popularity in the tourism industry is business format franchising (Brookes & Roper, 2012; Cho, 2004; Mason & Duquette, 2008; Rodriguez, 2002). This popularity can be explained through the contribution of franchising to national economies in developed and emergent markets (Dant, Grunhagen, & Windsperger, 2011; European Franchise Federation (EFF), 2011; Wright & McAuley, 2011); through the transfer of knowledge and innovation from one tourism destination to another (Hjalager, 2007); through the contribution to local tourism development and the regeneration of local communities by stimulating entrepreneurship and innovation (Mason & Duquette, 2008); and by enabling tourists to travel to different tourism destinations without having to change their consumption behaviours (Scarpato & Daniele, 2003). In business format franchising, there are also complementary benefits that accrue to both franchisees and franchisors. Franchi- sees gain access to a proven brand concept and business system, and franchisors gain access to the franchisees’ local market knowledge (Brookes & Altinay, 2011). However, these benefits can also be the cause of tension between franchisors who want to maintain brand uniformity and franchisees who want the auton- omy to respond to local market demands (Weavin & Frazer, 2007). These tensions are compounded and exacerbated in geographically dispersed and differentiated markets (Cox & Mason, 2007). One of the most efficient and effective ways of reducing these tensions between franchisors and franchisees is to select the right partner (Brookes & Altinay, 2011; Doherty, 2009; Huang, 2006). More specifically, selecting the right partners can help to insure against the risk of franchisees’ opportunistic behaviour and the potential damage this can cause to brand uniformity and image (Fladmoe- * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: laltinay@brookes.ac.uk (L. Altinay), meabrookes@ brookes.ac.uk (M. Brookes), gurhan.aktas@deu.edu.tr (G. Aktas). Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman 0261-5177/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.01.016 Tourism Management 37 (2013) 176e185