A review of counterfeiting research on demand side: Analyzing prior progress and identifying future directions

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12115
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Author: Özge Kirezli,Özge Baruönü Latif,Melis Kaytaz Yiğit
• Date: 01 November 2018

DOI: 10.1111/jwip.12115

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A review of counterfeiting research on demand

side: Analyzing prior progress and identifying

future directions

Özge Baruönü Latif

1

|

Melis Kaytaz Yiğit

2

|

Özge Kirezli

3

1

DoğuşUniversity, Istanbul, Turkey

2

Avrasya University, Trabzon, Turkey

3

İstanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey

Correspondence

Melis Kaytaz Yiğit, PhD, Avrasya Üniversity,

Adnan Kahveci District, Rize Street, No:

266, Trabzon, Turkey

Email: meliskaytaz@gmail.com

Though its recent popularity on consumer preferences and

academic environment, history of counterfeiting dates back

to Romans. Such an ancient term has led researchers of this

study to illuminate the existing body of research on

counterfeiting through a content analysis; and identify

theoretical gaps and opportunities for further research from

marketing perspective. Based on these objectives, the

structure of the study is as follows. The first section of the

article provides some background information on counter-

feiting and following sections present the research method-

ology as well as report the main findings of 65 articles

published through last 37 years. The present study provides

a valuable systematic review and suggestions for further

research to the researchers interested in the motivations of

counterfeit consumption.

KEYWORDS

counterfeited branded product, counterfeited luxury brands,

counterfeiting, fake

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Branded products, especially in luxury segment, are attracting consumers’attention, for not just delivering the

functional value of the simplified decision-making or reducing risk, but also for creating an opportunity to appeal to

emotional or social benefits (Aaker, 2008). Social identity theory claims that individuals try to create both a positive

© 2018 The Authors. The Journal of World Intellectual Property © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

458

|

wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jwip J World Intellect Prop. 2018;21:458–480.

personal identity and a positive social identity which is a part of their self-meaning and perception of a certain social

group (Eisend, Hartmann, & Apaolaza, 2017; Goffman, 1959; Strauss, 2017). It is evidentthat, the meaning attached to

brands is growing either as triggered by internal sensitive needs or by external market driven demands. In that sense,

consumers choose brand meanings to relate themselves (Escalas & Bettman, 2005), to actualize their ideal self

(Swaminathan, Page, & Gürhan-Canku, 2007) or to empower or develop their current self through delivery of brand

promises via consumption (Malâr, Krohmer, Hoyer, & Nyfenegger, 2011). Moreover, Belk (1988) referred to

materialistic tendency of individuals to define themselves, and eventually these perceptions lead consumers to

choose brands or brand images that implicitly appeal to their identities (Sirgy, 1982).

This brand passion created a tension for consumers as financial crisis started affecting their purchase habits.

Individuals, who did not prefer waiving consumption of “brands”and their exaggerated meanings for consumer lives,

started to look for alternative solutions. However, this tendency initiated alternative markets such as counterfeit

markets. Demand for counterfeited products/brands is growing intensely in terms of variety, market size,

geographical dispersion, and sophistication (ICC, 2005; Staake, Thiesse, & Fleisch, 2012). So, it is considered as a

global economic and ethical problem leading countries, companies and associations to take preventive action in terms

of lawful, political, or administrative enforcements (Eisend & Schuchert-Güler, 2006). Companies are concerned with

the act of counterfeiting, not only because of the direct financial loss for the foregone sales, but also because it

violates the intellectual property rights and weakens the brand image (Gordon, 2002; Loken & Amaral, 2010; Sindico,

1999). The threat is substantial and critical enough to be analyzed under legislative authorities, yet the severe

protection of intellectual rights has now become the focus of international economic agreements and cooperations

such as the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in WTO, the European Union, and the North

American Free Trade Agreement (Eisend et al., 2017).

In 2008, the US government estimated the global market value of the counterfeit industry as $500 billion with a

growth rate of 1.700% (Chaudhry & Zimmerman, 2013). The value of counterfeit goods at worldwide was 1.7 trillion in

2015 (Corben, 2017). In the 2016 report of International Trademark Association it was revealed that the purchase of

counterfeited goods amounted to $460 billion in 2016 (Klara, 2017). According to INTA, by the year 2022, the value of

the counterfeiting products at worldwide could reach $2.3 trillion (International Trademark Association, 2017).

The top countries whose companies had their intellectual property rights infringed in the 2011–13 seizures were

the United States, whose brands or patents were affected by 20% of the knock-offs; then Italy with 15%, and France

and Switzerland with 12% each. Japan and Germany stood at 8% each followed by the UK and Luxembourg (Trade in

Counterfeit and Pirated Goods, 2016). On the supply side, the source countries for over two thirds of counterfeit

goods circulating in the EU are China, Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Ghana, India, Korea, Morocco, and Malaysia (Global

Trade in Fake Goods Worth Nearly Half a Trillion Dollars a Year, 2017). At the report of OECD and the European

Union Intellectual Property Office in 2017, China was again identified as the main selling point of counterfeited goods,

while Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, and Singapore were determined as distribution points (Salvatierra, 2017).

According to some researchers, such a dreadful picture of negative effects of counterfeit on global business life

eventually gave birth to some potential positive facts for companies. Besides original brands, consumers brand

exposure of counterfeits is proposed to increase brand awareness, as well as facilitating recognition and creation of

additional demand due to bandwagon and network effects, which is the effect of increasing use value as the number of

people using the product or service increases (Barnett, 2005; Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000; Staake, Thiesse, & Fleisch,

2009; Yao, 2005). Yet, these positive effects are not sufficient to undermine the negative effect of counterfeits on

business life.

This study has two key contributions. For comprehending and preventing negative effect on counterfeit products

on business world, there exist two mainstream perspectives. The restriction of production or supply of counterfeit

producer with the support of legislative or judicial authorities is serving for the primary perspective. On the other side,

understanding the consumer motives to weaken the purchasing patterns of counterfeit products might be the other

view. This study contributes comprehensively to understand the demand side as illuminating the personal or

situational factors shaping consumers’attitudes and intentions toward counterfeit products. As the researchers of this

BARUÖNÜ LATIF ET AL.

|

459