Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Understanding counterfeit consumption

Understanding counterfeit consumption Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to create a framework for broadly understanding categories and motivations behind purchasing different counterfeit products. Design/methodology/approach – Focus groups provided qualitative data from 509 counterfeit purchases incidents by 95 informants. Findings – The most frequently mentioned motivation was the utility (35 percent) received from the good over the genuine article. The second, but negative, motivation was the perceived risk involved in the purchase (22 percent), whether it is physical or social risk. Social norms, confusion, and ethical concerns each represented about 10 percent of the motivations toward the purchase of counterfeit items. The least mentioned motivations to purchase, at less than 4 percent each, were culture, habit, and desire to explore. These factors were evident across a variety of 15 product categories, headed by electronics, such as DVDs and computer software. Practical implications – Through targeting negative motivations, such as perceived physical and social risks, businesses can devise strategies from a demand side perspective to overcome the problem of counterfeit consumption. Originality/value – Qualitative responses, over many product categories, provide a unique overview to the perception of counterfeit consumption. The finding that consumer ethics may depend on whether the activity benefits the society as a whole is worthy of additional discussion. The authors learn that when consumers thought their counterfeit consumption caused little or no harm, they do not see much ethical concern in their actions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics Emerald Publishing

Understanding counterfeit consumption

Download PDF
17 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/understanding-counterfeit-consumption-4TKTsvZdBi

References (44)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1355-5855
DOI
10.1108/APJML-11-2012-0121
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to create a framework for broadly understanding categories and motivations behind purchasing different counterfeit products. Design/methodology/approach – Focus groups provided qualitative data from 509 counterfeit purchases incidents by 95 informants. Findings – The most frequently mentioned motivation was the utility (35 percent) received from the good over the genuine article. The second, but negative, motivation was the perceived risk involved in the purchase (22 percent), whether it is physical or social risk. Social norms, confusion, and ethical concerns each represented about 10 percent of the motivations toward the purchase of counterfeit items. The least mentioned motivations to purchase, at less than 4 percent each, were culture, habit, and desire to explore. These factors were evident across a variety of 15 product categories, headed by electronics, such as DVDs and computer software. Practical implications – Through targeting negative motivations, such as perceived physical and social risks, businesses can devise strategies from a demand side perspective to overcome the problem of counterfeit consumption. Originality/value – Qualitative responses, over many product categories, provide a unique overview to the perception of counterfeit consumption. The finding that consumer ethics may depend on whether the activity benefits the society as a whole is worthy of additional discussion. The authors learn that when consumers thought their counterfeit consumption caused little or no harm, they do not see much ethical concern in their actions.

Journal

Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics – Emerald Publishing

Published: Jan 7, 2014

Keywords: Cultural influences; Perceived risk; Behavioural psychology; Brand confusion; Consumer ethics; Counterfeit

There are no references for this article.