Counterfeit Goods Case Study

3201 Words7 Pages

INTRODUCTION Counterfeit goods are fake imitations and replicas of products carrying a brand name (Phau & Teah, 2009). These goods may include luxury brands from the fashion industry, electronics, software and pharmaceuticals. Usually these products are of a lower quality as compared to the original. Companies struggle to protect their goods from being copied since their name, logo, ideas and designs are copied and sold cheaply in the market. This is unethical and illegal (Chaudhry & Stumpf , 2011). Policy makers of countries have come up with various laws that include heavy fines and imprisonment for this act. However, these are limited to the supply side of the problem, which would include the producers, distributers, and marketers of counterfeit …show more content…

This could be favourable or unfavourable. Our attitude affects our behavior. Not only does our own attitude affect our behavior but also how one sees the behavior of his reference group towards a product (Matos, Ituasso, & Rossi, 2007). Consumer’s attitude towards counterfeit products can be described as the extent to which consumers are concerned with legitimacy and validity of the said products. If a consumer’s attitude, formed of his own views and the amount of agreement received by his reference group, is amicable with regards to counterfeit then there is high chance that they would purchase counterfeit goods (Phau, Sequeira, & Dix, …show more content…

Some consumers purchase counterfeit luxury brands for their social-adjustive function (e.g. to express themselves and/or to fit in) (Wilcox, Kim & Sen, 2009). If the social group the consumer desires to be a part of, disapproves of such consumption, the perceived social risk involved in the purchase of counterfeit product reduces consumer intention to purchase counterfeits. Consumers might refrain from using such goods because they might be afraid of the embarrassment they will have to face if it is detected that their belonging is not original (Chaudhry & Stumpf, 2011). Here, the consumption or purchase of the counterfeit will cause the individual to lose social capital from peers or society. When risk is activated consumers are more motivated to avoid negative consequences than to maximize utility (Mandel, 2003). However, Sinha and Mandel (2008) found that rising social risks and/or consequences of such utilization may not work for consumers who have high tolerance for risk (i.e. high optimal stimulation

Open Document