If a kickback exists, that makes sense. But wouldn't the kickback have to be quite high to be worth the risk that McDonalds is opening themselves up to? I haven't looked at the Taylor financials, but the service contracts are supposedly 25% of their business, so a kickback is some % of that... but I'm having trouble seeing how it is worth the risk to McDonalds.
Which is why I think it has more to do with competition, and that there is no kickback. In that scenario, the incentive to McDonalds is that they can have more franchises that are successful, which means more money flowing back into the corporation. I imagine this gain would be higher than any kickback they could receive from Taylor.
EDIT>> I just realized that the competition scenario might not make any sense. Taylor wants service contracts. McDonalds wants the ability to make ice cream, and ideally have the machines work. The only way McDonalds is incentivized to not have the machines work is if there is either some leverage that Taylor has over McDonalds or if there is a kickback.
General franchisee revenue goes in a big bucket allocated across the entire corporation. A specific kickback might be going into one guy's pocket... If that one guy has sufficient political clout within the corporation, it could cause the present situation.
The thing that stands out to me is that apparently a lot of these "malfunctions" or "breakdowns" are not that at all, but safety features: "You overfilled the bin, so it can't automatically pasturize. I'm shutting off". So the fault ends up being on the Franchisee for using the machine wrong - and therefore the cost is on them.
Which is why I think it has more to do with competition, and that there is no kickback. In that scenario, the incentive to McDonalds is that they can have more franchises that are successful, which means more money flowing back into the corporation. I imagine this gain would be higher than any kickback they could receive from Taylor.
EDIT>> I just realized that the competition scenario might not make any sense. Taylor wants service contracts. McDonalds wants the ability to make ice cream, and ideally have the machines work. The only way McDonalds is incentivized to not have the machines work is if there is either some leverage that Taylor has over McDonalds or if there is a kickback.