Research: franchisees use AI independently of head office

Franchisees are using AI for their marketing, even when head office has yet to provide suitable materials. That is the finding of research by Franchise Business Review and Marvia, published via Emerce on 24 September 2026. For those operating in or considering the Dutch franchise market, the findings offer a reason to examine how well central brand support meets local marketing needs.

AI is not on everyone’s agenda in the same way

The research, involving 514 people from the franchise community, reveals a difference between franchisors’ and franchisees’ priorities. Franchisors place AI high on their agenda for the coming year. When asked about their own marketing priorities, however, franchisees barely mention AI, according to the publication. Yet they are already using the technology.

That distinction matters when interpreting the results. A low position on the list of priorities does not mean franchisees are doing nothing with AI. The applications described point instead to practical use: business owners are using the technology to create the marketing materials they need at that moment.

The most frequently cited use is creating content for which head office has never supplied a template. This is mentioned more often than writing social media posts, generating images or adapting existing templates. The publication does not provide separate percentages for these uses. However, their ranking makes clear that gaps in available materials are an important part of the picture.

Local relevance matters more than speed alone

Franchisees who created content independently of head office give three reasons for doing so. For 32%, the available materials did not suit their market. For 25%, approval did not arrive in time. A further 22% wanted to use something more personal.

These answers reveal different needs. Unsuitable materials call for a different solution from a campaign held up by approval delays. Nor is the desire for more personal communication automatically addressed by a shorter approval process. Franchisors would therefore benefit from discussing these reasons separately, rather than treating all independently created content as the same problem.

Franchisors place the emphasis elsewhere. When asked what prevents franchisees from using centrally supplied materials, they rank a slow approval process first. Both groups therefore identify speed as a stumbling block, but suitability for the local market ranks higher in the franchisee responses described.

This raises a specific question for franchise networks: is the main gap timely approval, or materials that work locally? The research does not provide an answer for each network, but it does show why these questions are not interchangeable.

Central marketing teams spend considerable time on adaptations

The research also highlights a time issue within central marketing support. More than half of marketing teams spend six hours or more each week manually adapting existing materials. One in five spends more than ten hours a week on this work.

These figures sit alongside the finding that franchisees create their own content when a suitable template is missing. They do not prove that AI can take over all of this manual work. Nor does the publication state how much time or money AI saves. They do, however, provide a reason to investigate which recurring adaptations could be better supported centrally.

Clear rules are another explicit concern. When asked what matters most once franchisees start using AI, 31% of franchisors cite guidelines on what is and is not permitted. Guidelines are therefore an identified priority, but the publication does not establish which approach works best. A rule governing use and a useful local template also address different needs.

What this means for the Dutch franchise market

The findings come from the report Franchise Marketing Insights 2026. The Emerce article was posted by Franchise Business Review and Marvia in its Industry Wire section. It is therefore a publication by the organisations involved, rather than a separate study of the Dutch market.

The published article provides no geographical breakdown of the 514 participants. It also lacks details on the split between franchisors and franchisees. The percentages should therefore not be read as figures relating exclusively to Dutch franchise networks or business owners.

For those operating in or considering the Dutch franchise market, the practical value lies mainly in the questions the research raises. What local content is missing? Where do approval processes slow down the work? And do franchisees know how much freedom they have to use AI? These topics can be discussed without applying the findings directly to the Netherlands.

Practical takeaway: first identify gaps in local materials and bottlenecks in the approval process. Then discuss clear rules for AI use, so that central brand support better matches what franchisees actually need.