Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Counterfeiting is a widespread practice throughout the world. The conventional wisdom is that it affects branded goods negatively. In this paper, however, we suggest that counterfeiting may actually benefit certain luxury brands. By means of two studies, we show how the market presence of luxury counterfeit items can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for original brands. In Study 1, we show that the presence of luxury counterfeits can increase consumers’ willingness to pay for well-known original brands, but not for lesser-known ones. Brand awareness plays a moderating role in the positive relationship between counterfeiting and willingness to pay (WTP). In Study 2, we address the psychological mechanisms that explain this increased willingness to pay. The results show that consumers’ (a) pleasure at being envied, (b) pleasure in distinguishing themselves, and (c) perception of the quality of the original goods fully mediate the relation between the presence of counterfeit in the market and consumers’ WTP for originals. We subsequently discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of the two study results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The basic assumption that underlies the following theoretical discussion is that fakes are “imperfect” imitations of the original items. This consent not to violate the prescription of the “rarity principle” (Veblen 1899) underlies conspicuous consumption.

  2. Counterfeiting for lesser-known luxury handbags is a rare phenomenon. As reported by Han et al. (2010) counterfeiters tend to copy loud well-known luxury handbags. However here this tendency is mainly cited for theoretical reasons; it highlights a specific condition affecting the relationship between the presence of counterfeits in the market and consumers’ WTP.

  3. A review of the literature suggested these constructs as relevant for our analyses. In addition, a qualitative study based on an online qualitative survey with 79 consumers integrated this review. Analyses of the texts resulted in support for the three constructs identified. Two additional minor themes emerged (consumers’ pleasure in rewarding the company that produces the genuine goods and consumers’ positive feelings for behaving fairly) cited by a limited number of respondents. These themes have not received particular attention in the counterfeit literature and we decided not to consider them for further analyses. Details on the qualitative study are available from the authors upon request.

  4. This approach measures consumers’ hypothetical rather than actual WTP and can thus generate hypothetical bias, which the economic literature has defined as the bias induced by a task’s hypothetical nature (Harrison and Rutstrom 2008). Approaches that can elicit actual WTP (see, e.g., Wertenbroch and Skiera 2002) were difficult to use with the present design. In addition, as recently reported by Miller et al. (2011) hypothetical approaches can generate mean WTP estimates that are not significantly different from actual WTP. However, it is important to acknowledge that an actual or hypothetical WTP generated with these methods may not always be accurate because it may differ from the WTP shown in real consumer purchases. We will discuss this issue again in the limitations.

  5. The measure for skewness for this variable (+1.3) was acceptable for psychometric purposes and, consequently, we did not transform this measure.

  6. The main effect of brand awareness was significant in the analyses—F (1, 97) = 29.15, p = .000, ω 2 = .11—but not the main effect of market availability of counterfeits—F (1, 97) = .58, ns, ω 2 = .001. It should not be surprising that there are relatively small effect sizes in theory testing experimental research as this was also noted by Fern and Monroe (1996, p. 98). We have to specifically take into consideration that the dependent variable is multiply determined and, consequently, the effect of any single cause is limited. Further studies could investigate other relevant factors at work here.

  7. Both the covariates were significantly related to the consumers’ willingness to pay: F(1, 97) = 24.79, p < .000 for expertise with the luxury market and F(1, 97) = 4.37, p < .05 for subjective SES.

  8. The greater willingness to pay in Study 2 than in Study 1 could be justified given the different samples used (non-student respondents in Study 2 vs. student respondents in Study 1).

References

  • Barnett, J. M. (2005). Shopping for Gucci on Canal Street: reflections on status consumption, intellectual property, and the incentive thesis. Virginia Law Review, 91, 1381–1423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekir, I., El Harbi, S., & Grolleau, G. (2010). The strategy of raising counterfeiters’ costs in luxury markets. European Journal of Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10657-010-9142-6.

  • Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, J., & Ward, M. (2010). Subtle signals of inconspicuous consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 555–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, B. (2008). Strategies to detect and reduce counterfeiting activity. Business Horizons, 51, 191–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (2011). Estimating the global economic and social impacts of counterfeiting and piracy. Available at: http://www.iacc.org. Accessed January 10, 2012.

  • Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997). Snobs, bandwagons, and the origin of social customs in consumer behavior. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 32(3), 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Castro, J. O., Balkin, D. B., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Can entrepreneurial firms benefit from product piracy? Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • El Harbi, S., & Grolleau, G. (2008). Profiting from being pirated by ‘pirating’ the pirates. Kyklos, 61, 385–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fern, E. F., & Monroe, K. B. (1996). Effect-size estimates: issues and problems in interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, E., Adler, N. E., Kawachi, I., Frazier, A. L., Huang, B., & Colditz, G. A. (2001). Adolescents’ perceptions of social status: development and evaluation of a new indicator. Pediatrics, 108, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Counterfeit-product trade. The American Economic Review, 78, 59–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. C., & Drèze, X. (2010). Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, W. A., & Putler, D. S. (1996). Hits and misses: herd behavior and online product popularity. Marketing Letters, 7, 297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, G. W., & Rutström, E. E. (2008). Experimental Evidence on the Existence of Hypothetical Bias in Value Elicitation Methods. In C. R. Plott & V. L. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Anticounterfeiting Coalition (2010). The truth about counterfeiting. Available at: http://www.iacc.org. Accessed January 30, 2010.

  • Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (2001). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 91, 424–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leibenstein, H. (1950). Bandwagon, snob, and Veblen effects in the theory of consumers’ demand. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 64(2), 183–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midler, P. (2009). Poorly made in China: an insider’s account of the tactics behind China’s production game. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. (2011). How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, XLVIII, 172–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., Umesh, U. N., & Stem, D. E. (1993). Antecedents of the attraction effect: an information-processing approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naìm, M. (2005). Illicit: how smugglers, traffickers and copycats are hijacking the global economy. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands? The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 485–497. North-Holland, 727–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penz, E., & Stottinger, B. (2008). Original brands and counterfeit brands—do they have anything in common? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(2), 146–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raustiala, K., & Sprigman, C. (2006). The piracy paradox: innovation and intellectual property in fashion design. Virginia Law Review, 92(8), 1687–1777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritson, M. (2007). Fakes can genuinely aid luxury brands. Marketing, 25 July.

  • Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Parrott, W. G., & de Mendoza, A. H. (2010). I fear your envy, i rejoice in your coveting: on the ambivalent experience of being envied by others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 842–854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (1993). The passions: emotions and the meaning of life. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staake, T., Thiesse, F., & Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian, K. T., Bearden, W. O., & Hunter, G. L. (2001). Consumers’ need for uniqueness: scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urbany, J. E. (1986). An experimental examination of the economics of information. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2011). The envy premium in product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(6), 984–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of leisure class. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 228–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitwell, S. (2006). Brand piracy: faking it can be good. Brand Strategy, 1–3.

  • Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value-based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 26(7), 625–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., Kim, Y. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, J. T. (2005). How a luxury monopolist might benefit from a stringent counterfeit monitoring regime. International Journal of Business and Economics, 4(3), 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and the three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. Finally, the authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the MIUR Grant PRIN 2008N579SS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business and Management, LUISS Guido Carli, Viale Romania, 32, 00197, Rome, Italy

    Simona Romani

  2. Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, University of Macerata, Via Armaroli, 9, 62100, Macerata, Italy

    Giacomo Gistri

  3. Department of Marketing, Bocconi University, Via Röntgen, 1, 20136, Milan, Italy

    Stefano Pace

  4. Euromed Management, Domaine de Luminy, BP 921, 13288, Marseille Cedex 9, France

    Stefano Pace

Authors
  1. Simona Romani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giacomo Gistri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefano Pace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Gistri.

Appendices

Appendix 1—Scenarios for experimental manipulation

Gucci: world premiere of the new autumn-winter collection in Italy

Florence –

The Italian Gucci, one of the groups in the luxury sector in recent years that has a good rate of growth despite the crisis, today announced its launch schedule of the new line of accessories preview (bags, belts, sunglasses etc.) in the U.S. and Italian markets.

The line reflects the history and tradition of the fashion house and accentuates some particulars that made the fortune of its founder. From the production point of view, it wanted to maintain a highly crafted vocation, regarding attention to detail and selection of fabrics, while expanding the production scale because of the increasing appreciation of the market. So far it is the line of accessories (bags, belts etc.) that represents the real strength of the company. For the big launch, it has already been scheduled that new Gucci stores in Milan, Rome, Florence and Venice will be opened soon.

At the end of the text indicated above, as manipulation, we added the following:

  1. 1.

    Control condition

In a recent interview reported in the magazine, Vogue, Gucci’s CEO has declared that he is very proud of this new collection and he believes it will contribute to the brand plans to double their sales to €3.2 billion by the end of 2011.

  1. 2.

    Counterfeit condition

Meanwhile, on the sidewalks of large cities, close to the Gucci-owned shops, vendors have already appeared who sell fakes of Gucci’s new collection and they display them on sheets laid on the ground. However, in a recent interview reported in Vogue, Gucci’s CEO was quoted as saying that even consumers less experienced in luxury products are able to recognize the difference between fakes and the original products.

  1. 3.

    No counterfeit condition

Asked if he is worried about the danger of counterfeiting the brand, in a recent interview reported in Vogue, Gucci’s CEO stated that the products of the new collection have not yet been affected.

Appendix 2—Multi-item measures used in the study

  1. 1.

    General expertise (regarding luxury market)—measured on four seven-point semantic differential items (Adapted from Mishra et al. 1993).

    1. a.

      Know very little about/know very much about

    2. b.

      Inexperienced/experienced

    3. c.

      Uninformed/informed

    4. d.

      Novice buyer/expert buyer

Study 1: M = 3.71; SD = 1.15, Cronbach alpha = .95

Study 2: M = 3.61; SD = 1.31, AVE = .85; Cronbach alpha = .92; correlations (general expertise/quality perception) = .23 (p < .01); (general expertise/consumers’ pleasure at being envied) = .30 (p < .01); (general expertise/consumers’ pleasure in distinguishing themselves) = .33 (p < .01).

  1. 2.

    Quality perception—measured on three seven-point semantic differential items (adapted from Sprott and Shimp, 2004).

    1. a.

      All things considered, I would say this product has:

      poor overall quality/excellent overall quality

    2. b.

      This product has:

      very poor quality/very good quality

    3. c.

      Overall, this product is:

      poor/excellent

Study 2: M = 4.75; SD = 1.22, AVE = .85; Cronbach alpha = .94; correlations (quality perception/consumers’ pleasure at being envied) = .24 (p < .01); (quality perception/consumers’ pleasure in distinguishing themselves) = .41 (p < .01).

  1. 3.

    Consumers’ pleasure at being envied—measured on seven-point scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree (adapted from Rodriguez Mosquera et al. 2010).

    1. a.

      To own this genuine Gucci handbag makes me feel very good because I know that other people would like to have it but they cannot because of its high price.

    2. b.

      To purchase this genuine Gucci handbag makes me feel the positive sensation of being envied by other people that cannot afford it.

    3. c.

      To purchase the genuine Gucci handbag gives me the pleasure of being envied by other people who love luxury products but cannot afford them.

Study 2: M = 3.02; SD = 1.74, AVE = .76; Cronbach alpha = .94; correlations (consumers’ pleasure at being envied/consumers’ pleasure in distinguishing themselves) = .65 (p < .01).

  1. 4.

    Consumers’ pleasure in distinguishing themselves—measured on seven-point scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree.

    1. a.

      Owning a genuine Gucci handbag distinguishes me from others who, while they desire one, will never possess one.

    2. b.

      Purchasing a genuine Gucci handbag gives me the positive sensation of belonging to a high social status.

    3. c.

      Owning an original Gucci handbag gives me the pleasure of distinguishing myself from other people who love luxury products but cannot afford them.

    4. d.

      Owning this original Gucci handbag satisfies my desire to stand out from the mainstream.

Study 2: M = 3.75; SD = 1.45, AVE = .77; Cronbach alpha = .94.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Romani, S., Gistri, G. & Pace, S. When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands. Mark Lett 23, 807–824 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9190-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9190-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation