Louise Proctor - Dissertation - Final

Fake It ‘Till You Make It. Can Consumption of Counterfeit Goods Benefit Brands

in the Long Run?

Louise Mary Proctor 130009107

A dissertation submitted to the University of St Andrews Management School for the degree of

Master of Letters, Marketing.

Supervised by Mr William Barlow.

22nd August 2014

I

I hereby certify that this dissertation, which is approximately 15,000 words in length, has been composed by me, that it is a record of work carried out by

me and that it has not been submitted in any previous application for a higher degree. This project was completed by me at the University of St Andrews

from May 2014 to August 2014 towards fulfilment of the requirements of the University of St Andrews for the degree of M.Litt Marketing under the

supervision of Mr William Barlow.

22nd August 2014

___________________________________

II

Abstract

Over recent decades, as the world has become increasingly globalised, and as

international trade levels have increased rapidly, so too has global trade in

counterfeit goods. Both public and private institutions have carried out extensive

research into counterfeit trade in terms of calculating the size of the problem, and

understanding the negative externalities it can cause to businesses and consumers

alike. However, little research has been carried out into possible positive

externalities of such an issue.

This dissertation explores the topic of counterfeit luxury goods from the consumer’s

perspective. Through in-‐depth, semi-‐structured interviews, the researcher explored

the experiences, feelings and beliefs that participants held about counterfeit luxury

goods and how they related to their experiences, feelings and beliefs about genuine

luxury goods, in order to identify links and propose possible theories.

The transcripts were analysed using grounded theory from which a number of

themes emerged. In conjunction, these themes indicated a theory that would

suggest that consumption of counterfeit goods could, through increased brand

awareness, brand associations and future sales, benefit luxury brands in the long-‐

term.

III

Contents

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................. II

Contents ............................................................................................................... III

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Symbols, Signalling and Reference Groups ............................................................... 3 2.2 Envy ....................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 The Culture of Counterfeit ...................................................................................... 13 2.4 Research Question ................................................................................................. 20

3. Methodology .................................................................................................... 22 3.1 Limitations of the Methodology ............................................................................. 26

4. Findings and Discussion .................................................................................... 28 4.1 Theme 1 – The extent to which peer groups and reference groups influence consumers into making particular fashion choices. ...................................................... 28 4.2 Theme 2 -‐ The extent to which envy plays a role in the consumption of branded goods. .......................................................................................................................... 32 4.3 Theme 3 – The extent to which consumers perceive fake luxury goods to be different to genuine luxury goods. ............................................................................... 36

4.3.1 The Buying Process ................................................................................................ 36 4.3.2 The Quality ............................................................................................................ 38 4.3.3 The Psychic Differences. ........................................................................................ 39

4.4 Theme 4 – The extent to which consumption of a fake luxury item can enduringly satiate the feeling of wanting to own the real luxury item. .......................................... 41

4.4.1 Situations ............................................................................................................... 42 4.4.2 Degree of Care Taken ............................................................................................ 42 4.4.3 Length of Use ......................................................................................................... 44 4.4.4 Intention to Repair Damage .................................................................................. 45

4.5 Theme 5 – The extent to which the perception of genuine luxury goods is harmed or improved by consumption of fake luxury goods. .......................................................... 47

4.5.1 Brand Perception ................................................................................................... 47 4.5.2 Brand Noticeability ................................................................................................ 49

4.6 Theme 6 – The extent to which consumption of fake luxury goods increases consumption or intention to consume genuine luxury goods. ...................................... 50

4.6.1 Take more notice ................................................................................................... 50 4.6.2 Fake or Genuine .................................................................................................... 51

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 53 5.1 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 57 5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 57

Bibliography ......................................................................................................... 59

Appendix 1 ........................................................................................................... 67

Appendix 2 ........................................................................................................... 71

1

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, as the world has become increasingly globalised and the

value of global trade has grown exponentially (WTO, 2013). In line with this increase

in global trade, there has also been a sharp rise in counterfeit trade, which at an

estimated value of $600 billion per year, equating to 5-‐7 percent of global trade (ICC,

2014).

The extent of the growth in counterfeit trade has become a worrying trend in many

industries, especially those in which counterfeit products pose a significant threat to

human health such as pharmaceuticals and vehicle parts. However, in industries

where the risk to human health is reduced, is counterfeit trade always a bad thing?

The genesis of this topic originates from the researchers own experience as a study

abroad student in China, where she was witness to the ubiquity of counterfeit

products available for sale. There she found the lack of education about and

enforcement of intellectual property law combined to provide situational context in

which almost any durable good could be bought either as a genuine item or a fake

version of it. It was within this situation, that the researcher and her fellow

colleagues first began buying fake goods. Through observation and reflection of her

own consumer behaviour and that of her colleagues the researcher noticed an

increased attachment to the luxury brands they were buying into, even if they only

had the fakes at that time; and the formation of intention to buy the genuine version

of the brands they were buying into, when the funds became available.

2

There are many arguments that suggest that counterfeit trade is bad for business

such as damage to the brand image and loss of trade. However, as time went on, the

researcher found that these traditional arguments were being challenged by her

lived experience.

In addition to the observations made by the researcher, there has also a slow

rumbling of change within the fashion industry, online bloggers reporting that

brands such as Dolce and Gabbana have becoming increasingly reluctant to involve

themselves in the process of pressing charges against producers of fake goods as

they feel the existence of and trade in such products do not actually represent a loss

to the company (Salmon, 2007); although this line of action has never been

confirmed by the company.

This dissertation will explore the consumption of counterfeit luxury goods in relation

to the consumption of genuine luxury goods using primary qualitative data. The

relationship is explored through a series of semi-‐structured, in-‐depth interviews,

which have been transcribed, coded and analysed using grounded theory. The

analysis of the data suggests that, contrary to arguments against counterfeit trade,

such products could in fact, be of benefit to luxury brands in the long term, through

increased brand awareness and future sales.

3

2. Literature Review To understand why someone would resort to buying counterfeit luxury goods, it is

important to first understand some of the reasons why people desire luxury goods,

and how they make their purchase decisions, because “the fashion goods market is

characterised by the fact that demand is determined not only by instrumental factors

such as product quality but also by positional factors such as social status” (Barnett,

2005). Additionally, according to Patrizio Bertelli, CEO Prada “To be counterfeited is a

symptom of success. If we weren’t copied and counterfeited it would mean that the

Prada and Miu Miu labels weren’t desirable” (Meichtry, 2002)

This Literature review has been divided into three key sections that the researcher

has deemed to be central to understanding the issues surrounding consumption of

both genuine and fake luxury goods. The three key themes are:

1. Symbols, Signalling and Reference Groups.

2. Envy.

3. The culture of counterfeit.

2.1 Symbols, Signalling and Reference Groups

“Knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally, we regard our

possessions as part of ourselves” (Belk, 1988: 139). In his seminal paper on

consumer behaviour, Belk (1988), using various evidences, describes just how

important consumer behaviour is in the broader context of human existence. The

paper shows how possessions help us to “learn, define and remind ourselves of who

4

we are, […] where we are from, and where we are going “ (Belk, 1988: 160). Over the

past few decades, studies have furthered this assertion showing how people use

their possessions in such a way that they become integral to their identity and

facilitate membership of particular consumption cultures (Celsi, Rose and Leigh,

1993; Dittmar, 1994; Kozinets, 2001).

Taken as a whole, Belk’s (1988) paper explores consumption behaviour under many

differing situations and points in time. However, one of the most interesting

assertions comes in the section on maintaining multiple levels of self in which

possessions as symbols of group membership are discussed. By using and consuming

certain symbols, one can identify with a particular group of people, or even help to

identify a group as new trends emerge (Boorstin, 1973).

Whilst the ‘uniforms’ of different groups are not necessarily formal, there are

similarities that one can observe and so make assumptions about people, and the

groups they belong to (Belk, 1986). In the paper, Belk describes the phenomenon of

Yuppies, who were well-‐dressed young professionals, known for their style and big

mobile phones. They were a ubiquitous group in society at the time of the article

being written.

Whilst this has now become an out-‐dated example, it is an occurrence that can still

be observed today, albeit with modern fashions being worn. In looking around St

Andrews, one can see a high prevalence of students wearing items such as Barbour

Jackets and Hunter wellington boots, using their iPhone 5 and working on their Mac

5

Books. Such uniforms allow people to make quick assumptions about the person,

their family background and friendship group (Howlett et al., 2013). Questions such

as, “will I be likely to fit in with this group of people?” can be answered quickly

without the need to ask probing questions about past experiences and beliefs.

This is the view of the outsider looking in on the consumer of particular symbols. But

this is a concept that can also be described from the opposite point of view, in that

one can wear or use certain symbols to signal to the people around them, that they

belong to a particular group or social class or hold a certain status “signifying our

prestige to others” (Desmond, 2003: 170). This allows the consumer to benefit from

a “halo effect” associated with the brands they consume (Perez, Castano and

Quintanilla, 2010: 219).

Erving Goffman (1951) explains that such symbols can have categorical significance,

whereby the item “serves to identify the social status of the person (who owns it)”

(295). They can also have expressive significance in that the owner uses the item to

“express their point of view, style of life and cultural values” (295). These differing

types of significance can occur separately or in conjunction. With reference to luxury

goods, this is an assertion that has been shown to have relevance in many countries

around the world. Hennigs et al. (2012: 1018) determine that “financial, functional,

personal, and social dimensions of luxury value perceptions are similar in different

cultures and countries”.

6

However, reasons for purchase can vary; from being a self esteem and ego-‐boosting

tool (Sivanathan and Pettit, 2010), to the expectation that with a luxury price tag,

comes increased quality (Plassmann et al., 2008), or even as a instrument to aid in

ones redefinition of the self, through life stages such as the ‘midlife crisis’ (Morris,

1995).

However, Goffman (1951: 296) goes onto concede that, as status symbols are

distinct items, it is “possible that they can be employed in a ‘fraudulent’ way, so that

the user can signify a status that they do not in fact possess”. Here we see that

perhaps due to envy, people resort to using fraudulent or counterfeit goods.

Whilst Goffman’s paper identifies class symbols in more general terms, using

symbols such as military medals and art, other studies have looked at the

phenomena of using luxury goods to signal status or personal attributes and show

membership of a particular group or reference group (Han, Nunes and Dreze, 2010;

Wang and Griskevicius, 2014).

But what is a reference group? In its most basic form, one could say that a reference

group is the group or individual one compares themselves to; a comparison that has

a significant effect on ones behaviour in terms of decision making (Bearden and

Etzel, 1982: 184; Hyman, 1942).

Reference groups can be categorised into three specific groups, these are classified

as Informational Reference Groups, Utilitarian Reference Groups, and Value-‐

7

Expressive Reference Groups (Park and Lessig, 1977: 102-‐3). Park and Lessig

identified these three different types of reference group through reviewing previous

work on reference groups, and finding patterns within the body of literature.

Value-‐Expressive groups are characterised by the need to improve ones own self-‐

concept by associating with reference groups one sees in a positive light, or

alternatively disassociating from reference groups that would be undesirable

(Kelman, 1961; Park and Lessig, 1977). For a time, Burberry had the misfortune that

their potential consumers were disassociating themselves from the brand due to the

‘Chav’ connotations associated with the traditional Burberry Plaid (Bothwell, 2005).

Wall and Large (2010: 1103) created an aspirational hierarchy of brand consumption

to show how people can be influenced by their reference groups.

Each group is influenced by those just above them. However, as we move down to

“the Crowd” we see an acceptance of mixing counterfeit goods with genuine goods

to achieve the desired ‘look’.

8

One also needs to be cognizant of the way in which reference groups affect our

behaviour, particularly consumer decision making, and under what circumstances;

according to Richins (1994: 506) “The meanings of cultural symbols are shaped and

reinforced in social interchanges, and individuals with similar enculturation

experiences tend to have considerable similarity in the meanings they attach to these

symbols”.

Bourne (1957) identified differences in purchase decisions for different types of

goods (necessities and luxuries), and the manner in which they are consumed

(publicly or privately). This has created a matrix of 4 different situations in which

purchase decisions can be made: Publicly consumed necessities, privately consumed

necessities, publicly consumed luxuries and privately consumed luxuries. Defining

publicly consumed luxury goods as “a product consumed in public view and not

commonly owned or used. In this case, whether or not the product is owned and also

what brand is purchased is likely to be influenced by others”, Bourne (1957: 219)

describes the situation on which participants will be questioned.

It could also be said that these products are consumed in order to signal something

about ones self to those around them. The “tendency to purchase goods and

services for the status or social prestige value that they confer to their owners”

(Eastman, Goldsmilt and Leisa., 1999: 41).

Bourne’s work has been used as a basis for many further studies looking into the

concept of reference groups. Most interestingly, reference groups seem to be at

9

their most influential in situations that involve publicly consumed luxury goods

(Bearden and Etzel, 1982; Childers and Rao, 1992).

Han, Nunes and Drez (2010: 17) take this topic further by creating a Taxonomy based

on level of wealth and the need for status.

Within the taxonomy, the most relevant sections involve the people who are

classified in the groups that require or want to achieve a higher degree of status, the

Parvenus and the Poseurs. The paper details the Poseurs as having less disposable

income than the Parvenus, but still in need of status, often taking cues from

Parvenus by trying to emulate their fashions. This situation leaves the poseurs in a

state where they are likely to buy counterfeit goods. It is because of this reasoning,

that the most critical selection of people to interview within this research will be

current students, and those who have entered the job market within the last 5 years.

Within this group of people, there is an expectation that whilst they are aspirational,

they do not yet have a high level of disposable income to buy all of their ‘uniform’ in

a genuine manner, yet still want to appear to be a part of a particular class or group

of people.

10

Other work has looked into the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic

aspirations. Where intrinsic aspirations and goals are sought in order to fulfil ones

achievement and meaning needs similar to the self-‐actualisation goals detailed by

Maslow (1943), extrinsic goals are concerned with how one feels other people

perceive them and induce a feeling of desire for praise and rewards (Kasser and

Ryam, 1996).

This seems to be a continuation of the work of Veblen, who first coined the phrase

“conspicuous consumption” whereby one spends their economic capital on luxury

goods, which due to their high price, high quality and low utility, are seen to be a

social statement, and consumed in order to display the economic power of the

consumer (Veblen, 1899). Veblen’s assertion was tested by Truong (2010), who

found that extrinsic aspirations correlated in a positive manner with the conspicuous

consumption of luxury goods (663).

However, just because one aligns themselves or associates with a particular group,

does not always mean that they are against, or dissociative to other groups (Han,

Nunes and Dreze, 2010).

As a theme within my research, and a basis for questioning the participants later, it

will be important to first establish with the participants, to which socio-‐economic

group they would classify themselves, and who they see their reference group as

being. It is perhaps through these classifications that they see certain goods to be

aspirational/cool/in-‐demand.

11

2.2 Envy

How can this understanding of symbols, signalling, and reference groups assimilate

with behaviour patterns in a situation where a consumer becomes likely to buy

luxury counterfeit goods?

One explanation could come in the research that has been done into the emotion of

envy. Defined as “a feeling of pain a person experiences when he or she perceives

that another individual possesses some object, quality, or status that he or she

desires but does not possess” (Schimmel, 2008: 18). It is a negative form of social

comparison in which you feel that somebody else has or does something better than

you (Alick and Zell, 2008).

In his paper Benign Envy, Belk (2011) discusses the different types of envy that one

can feel, and how they can effect consumer decision making with reference to

branded goods. Belk sees that there are two different types on envy, malicious and

benign. For a person feeling the emotion of malicious envy, in a situation where they

see a person who owns a product that they want, their aim is deny the owner of

their possession, or “level them down”(117). On the other hand, with benign envy, a

person feeling this emotion would, on seeing somebody else who owns the desired

good, aim to find a way of obtaining a version of said good, in order that they too

can be like the owner. In this case, they want to “level up” (117).

Within consumer behaviour, as an emotion, it is evoked when one’s rival (or perhaps

role model) has a possession that is better than one’s own (D'Arms and Kerr, 2008).

12

Envy of somebody with a better status than one’s self however, is at it’s most

powerful when there is not a significant distance in the level of status perceived

(Festinger, 1954).

Interestingly Parrott and Mosquera (2008)describe envy as a social emotion, in that

often, one will envy a group of people who have ‘better’ possessions than one

currently owns. This feeling has also been described as status anxiety “The more

people are similar to us, the more we can really gage their success in a certain area

[…] our natural tendency is establish a pecking order” (Carlin, 2005: 46) reflecting

Festinger’s 1954 assertion.

This is a feeling that can occur in many different spheres, such as in an academic

sense, comparing grades amongst class mates, on the sporting field, or most

relevant to this literature review – in the comparison of possessions, specifically,

luxury goods (Carlin, 2005). In order to resolve this feeling of being left-‐out or

behind, people like to “jump on the bandwagon” this is where people “desire to

purchase a good in order to conform with the people they wish to be associated with

[…] in order to be fashionable or stylish, or to appear to be ‘one of the boys’”

(Leibenstein, 1950: 189).

Belk (2011) goes on to discuss how people are often envious because they don’t

quite have the economic power to “level themselves up” and so outlines a number

of strategies one could undertake in order to overcome the envy. These include

buying “Populuxe” goods (Hine, 1987), which are made from cheaper materials, or

13

“Opuluxe” goods (Twitchell, 2002: 63), which are the diffusion lines of luxury brands,

that bring their brand to the mass market, for example See by Chloé and the Versace

range at H&M.

Consumers could also forgo necessities by trading-‐off adequate nutrition, comfort

and safety for the status and prestige they desire (Belk, 1999; Ger, 1992). However,

the strategy that correlates best with this study is through the purchase of

counterfeit goods or “genuine fakes”, which are copies of such good quality, that

they are almost indistinguishable from the real branded good (Chadha and Husband,

2006: 269, 273). Belk (2011) contends that in buying such goods, one hopes to

achieve the same feeling of status without the constraints of the purchase price of

the real branded good.

Conversely, Chadha and Husband (2006: 59-‐60) propose a caveat to this behaviour,

in that only those from higher socio-‐economic backgrounds can pull off this

behaviour without being questioned “the rich can buy fakes with relative impunity as

people assume they are real, but the not so rich have to be careful”. It is for this

reason that the participants in this study will be required to identify as socio-‐

economic backgrounds A, B, and C1, or middle class or above.

2.3 The Culture of Counterfeit

“Inside Louis Vuitton’s sleek flagship store on New York City's Fifth Avenue,

customers are ogling the now ubiquitous Murakami Speedy, a monogram handbag

14

that sells for $1,500 and is carried by such A-‐list celebs as J. Lo and Reese

Witherspoon. Four blocks south, the same bag — or what looks like it, anyway — can

be had for $35.” (Betts, 2004).

According to the International Chamber of Commerce, worldwide counterfeit trade

is worth an estimated $600 billion per year. This accounts for 5-‐7% of world trade

(ICC, 2014; Yar, 2005). Given that the 1988 estimate was $60 billion (Grossman and

Shapiro, 1988: 79), this represents a phenomenal increase of an estimated 900% in

the counterfeit goods trade over the past 26 years, which is expected to continue

growing (Perez, Castano and Quintanilla, 2010). It has also been estimated that

counterfeit goods account for 22% of clothing and shoes within Europe, a statistic

that has not been helped by the free movement of goods and services within the

European Economic Area, as once they enter the market, they can be moved freely

between member states (Blakeney, 2009; Wall and Large, 2010: 1097).

Looking at the UK, Ledbury Research (2006: 5) estimated that in 2005, 6 million

people or 12% of the population had bought a branded fake luxury item and 48%

had bought a look-‐a-‐like item, which are readily available to shoppers who are ‘in

the know’ (Aldridge, 2014).

This rapid growth in the counterfeit market has been facilitated by an increase in

globalisation and advances in technology over the past few decades (Wall and Large,

2010: 1096). With no indication of slowing down, it is becoming a huge problem for

governments who both incur cost through detection and lack of tax income, and

15

businesses, who often make the case that they will loose both sales and brand

reputation (Commuri, 2009; Hogan, Dunn and Crutcher, 2013).

Defined as “any unauthorized manufacturing of goods whose special characteristics

are protected as intellectual property rights (trademarks, patents, and copyrights)”

(Cordell, Wongtada and Kieschnick, 1996: 41). This definition is encompassing of all

types of counterfeit activity from airplane parts and pharmaceuticals to books and

luxury goods. Wall and Large (2010: 1098) argue that a distinction should be made

between goods that are safety-‐critical, such as airplane parts which are of “immense

public concern” and non-‐safety-‐critical goods such as luxury fashion items due to the

“different levels and combinations of public and private interests that are involved”

(1095). Essentially, policing of counterfeit goods should concentrate on areas where

the dangers are most apparent i.e. potential loss of life through faulty mechanics or

drugs.

The scope of the counterfeit definition has been broadened and developed upon by

Lai and Zaichkowsky, (1999) and Chaudhry and Zimmerman (2008) who have

identified different ways in which intellectual property rights can be infringed:

counterfeiting, piracy, imitation and the ‘grey’ area. Some of these definitions are

useful in my research, although in certain aspects of the definitions can be

contradictory of what I intend to use them for.

The method of imitation does not play a large role within this study, as these brands

are often similar, but without the branding to marks to set them out as status

16

symbols. This is a tactic that has, in the past, been employed by high street shops,

such as Primark (Veevers and Fortson, 2006) in their bid to cash in quickly on current

trends.

However, the other three methods all play a role within this study. Lai and

Zaichkowsky define counterfeit as a “100% direct copy which usually has inferior

quality, although not always” (180). These are often luxury or status goods that are

“goods for which the mere use or display of a particular branded product confers

prestige on their owners, apart from any utility deriving from their function”

(Grossman and Shapiro, 1988: 82).

Next, the authors outline piracy. This method of counterfeiting is similar to that

described above, but the customer is usually aware that the product they are buying

is genuine. This description fits much more closely with my concept of counterfeit of

luxury brands. However, Lai and Zaichkowsky go on to explain that such goods are

generally low quality, badly packaged and low price. This aspect does not fit with the

concept of counterfeit used in this study, as the luxury goods being bought by

participants are, in general, of high quality.

The final method is the grey area. This is where the licensed manufacturer creates

additional products to those ordered, selling them on, on the black market. In this

situation, the consumer may or may not know the provenance of the goods they are

buying, and so unable to make a distinction. This links to the concept of genuine

fakes, as described by Chadha and Husband (2006).

17

Whilst these descriptions provide an excellent basis for understanding different

types of counterfeit and all methods have sections from which knowledge can be

taken, none concisely fit the type of counterfeit explored in this study, which is well

produced luxury counterfeit, of which the consumer is aware, and not being fooled.

Therefore it is important that one should distinguish that counterfeit products,

specifically luxury branded goods can be either “deceptive” where the producer is

able to successfully pass the product off as genuine, or “non-‐deceptive”, where the

“consumer knows or strongly suspects that the product is counterfeit” (Grossman

and Shapiro, 1988: 80; Bloch, Bush and Campbell, 1993).

The majority of the literature concerning the counterfeit goods industry lies on the

supply-‐side of the problem. Focussing on the producers of such goods and the scope

and extent of their activity (Green and Smith, 2002; Chaudhry, 2006) and the ability

of different countries to comply with and enforce international Intellectual Property

Rights laws such as the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS) (Chaudhry, 2006; Correa, 2000: 103) and the damage they are

undoubtedly doing.

There is a much smaller, but growing, body of work concerning the demand side of

the problem, establishing the consumer view, especially in non-‐deceptive situations.

Even within this area of research only a small proportion takes an impartial view,

18

allowing the possibility that perhaps not all aspects of counterfeit (within the luxury

segment) are bad for the brand in the long term.

A recent report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2013) with over 1000 UK based

participants within a range of ages, geographical locations and socio-‐economic

backgrounds found that whilst 96% of under fifty-‐fives thought that consumption of

counterfeit goods was morally wrong, 40% of people in the A,B,C1 socio-‐economic

demographic admitted to sometimes buying counterfeit clothing and accessories.

Showing that whilst people know it is wrong, they will make such purchases – even if

they have the ability to purchase the genuine product. This is consistent with the

findings of Prendergast et. al (2002), who, in profiling consumers of counterfeit

branded apparel, found that the most prevalent buyers were white collar, tertiary

educated, 25-‐34 year olds. Both of these studies would support the view that

consumers often think of counterfeiting as a victimless crime, in that they don’t take

other parties, such as the manufacturer into account when making their purchase

decision (Tom et al., 1998).

In trying to understand the motives and experiences of buyers of counterfeit luxury

goods Renée Richardson-‐Gosline (2009) followed 112 American purse party

attendees over a two-‐year longitudinal study (these are parties similar in style to

Tupperware parties, the only difference is the products for sale are counterfeit

luxury goods rather than food storage solutions). Over the course of the study, she

found that “46% of purse party attendees bought an authentic product over the

course of the study” (38). This finding has also been found in other studies Ledbury

19

Research (2006: 7) found that of those people who bought a fake luxury good item,

68% also bought a genuine luxury item. This is much higher than the national

average as a whole, where 43% of people bought a genuine luxury item.

Richardson-‐Gosline (2009) explored how the consumers felt that as the product was

fake, it was not really an extension of the self, in accordance with Belk’s (1988)

paper. Participants often admitted to others that the product they are carrying is

actually a fake. It would seem that there is perhaps a cognitive dissonance being felt

(Festinger, 1957), in order to resolve, the consumers first admit that the bag is not

authentic, secondly, in order to retain the status, they progress to purchasing an

authentic version.

In comparing the ownership of genuine and counterfeit luxury goods, Turunen and

Laaksonen (2011) found that genuine and counterfeit luxury goods both have “social

and personal functions” and that consumers of both types want to be associated

with certain groups of people. One of the main factors of differentiation was that,

while genuine and counterfeit goods both foster feelings of attachment to a brand,

with the counterfeit goods, there is a lack of a psychological sense of authenticity,

which is “dependent on the consumers own perception, because it is not inherent in

the product” (472).

Perhaps it is due to this lack of authenticity that firstly, as pointed out by Richardson-‐

Gosline (2009) – counterfeit products did not become part of the extended self, and

20

secondly, in order to achieve the feeling of authenticity, a high degree of counterfeit

consumers also consume genuine luxury.

It is here that we see, contrary to the orthodox anti-‐counterfeit argument, that

rather than lose brand sales, counterfeit can actually help build brand awareness

and foster attachment to a brand, leading to consumers purchasing genuine luxury

goods (Whitwell, 2006). It would also seem that many brands are cognizant of this

theory, and in fact do not involve themselves in the prosecution of manufacturers of

counterfeit goods (Wall and Large, 2010: 1104; Salmon, 2009).

2.4 Research Question

In conclusion to this literature review, the researcher has identified a number of key

topics that require investigation, in order to be understood more fully. To gain a

deeper understanding, the researcher will explore the topics through guided and

semi-‐structured interviews. The specific topics are:

1. The extent to which peer groups influence or pressure consumers into to

making particular fashion choices.

2. The extent to which envy plays a role in the consumption of branded goods.

3. The extent to which consumers perceive fake luxury goods to be different to

real luxury goods.

4. The extent to which consumption of fake luxury goods can enduringly satiate

the feeling of wanting to own a luxury item (envy).

5. The extent to which the perception of luxury branded goods improved by

consumption of fake luxury goods.

6. The extent to which consumption of fake luxury goods increases

consumption or intention to consume genuine luxury goods.

21

It is hoped that through exploring these topics with participants through a semi-‐

structured interview technique, the researcher will be able to answer the following

research question:

Can Consumption of Luxury Counterfeit Goods Benefit luxury Brands in the Long

Run?

The next stage of this research will detail the research methods to be utilised in this

study, including the research strategy, method of data collection, sample selection,

method of analysing the results and the role of the researcher.

22

3. Methodology

The research undertaken in this dissertation has been designed to investigate the

theme of consumption of counterfeit goods and establish whether it can lead to

purchase and use of genuine luxury goods. This has been done utilising an

interpretive approach, in which the researcher analysed qualitative one-‐on-‐one

interview data, through Grounded Theory, a “systematic, yet flexible set of

guidelines for analysing qualitative data in order to construct theory ‘grounded’ in

the data themselves” (Charmaz, 2006: 2).

A qualitative approach was taken and the data has been analysed using an

interpretivist approach (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), as the researcher aims to

understand the perspective of the participant’s consumption experiences of

counterfeit luxury goods ‘as it is’, by exploring their own subjective experiences and

feelings (Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Silverman, 2000).

Basing the dissertation within an interpretivist paradigm was deemed to be

necessary because the aim of this dissertation is to the understand ‘how’ and ‘why’

the participants behave in the way they do, rather than looking the ‘where’ and

‘when’, which would have warranted a more qualitative approach and would have

been restrictive; furthermore, it would not have allowed for deeper explorations of

the participants’ answers (Silverman, 2000).

23

The study presents excerpts from interviews carried out during Summer 2014 with

ten participants, each of whom were recruited through the researcher’s personal

network. The participants were aged between 22 and 40, and educated to a

minimum of a bachelor’s degree, having studied for at least one of their degrees

within the British Isles. A synopsis of the participants can be found in Table 1. The

interviews took place both in person, and via Skype, in a place of the participant’s

choosing. Due to the potentially sensitive nature of the questions being asked in the

interview, all participants have been afforded full confidentiality, with pseudonyms

being used to conceal identities where appropriate.

Table 1: Participant Synopsis Name Age Who are they?

Peter 22 A British, final-‐year undergraduate student, who spent a year in China for his study abroad programme

Jenny 26 An American graduate student. Currently completing her degree in the UK, this is the furthest and longest time she has been away from home.

Kate 26 Currently living in London, although originally from Ireland, she is currently working in retail, whilst she finds the ‘perfect job’.

Sue 24 An Irish graduate student, currently completing her masters degree part-‐time, in order that she can work and study.

Rae 24 A Chinese graduate student, based at a British University. Ali 27 A recent graduate from Greece. She completed a degree in

international relations and now lives in Geneva. She didn’t like working in her ‘chosen’ field, but she does enjoy the international atmosphere in Geneva, and so now works in events.

Kay 25 An Irish-‐American student. Currently working as an Intern, she will be returning to her graduate studies in Ireland next year.

Jane 40 A Consultant Paediatrician and mother of two boys under Five. Jess 26 A British primary school teacher, who has just completed her year

with ‘newly qualified teacher’ status. Milly 24 A German graduate student, based at a British university. She is

anxious to finish her degree and find a ‘real’ job.

The participants were interviewed using a guided and semi structured interview

technique (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008; Longhurst, 2010), in order to establish a

24

conversation driven by a common purpose (Eyles, 1988). Such a method was utilised

because it provides an “opportunity for the researcher to probe (the interviewee)

deeply, in order to uncover new clues, open up new dimensions of a problem and to

secure vivid, accurate inclusive accounts that are based on personal experience”

(Burgess, 1982: 107).

The participants were interviewed individually in a private setting or via Skype, with

sessions lasting from 35 minutes to an hour. In order to successfully interview

participants an interview schedule was created using the research topics identified

through the literature review and documented at the end of that chapter.

For each research topic, a question guide was compiled which included main

questions, sub questions and possible topic question prompts, which can be found in

Appendix 1. The schedule was created in a way that allowed the questions to be

asked in multiple different ways, tailored to the individual participant and their style

of answering (Easterby-‐Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008). The interviewer guided

the conversation, but the interviewee was able to reply relatively freely, giving their

personal opinion about the topics being questioned (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Briggs,

1986). This method allowed the interviewer the scope to “not follow an exactly

outlined schedule” and “ask further questions in response to significant replies”

(Bryman and Bell, 2011: 467, 205) in order to fully understand the participant’s

meaning.

25

The interviews were all recorded and transcribed verbatim, in order that they could

be accurately analysed using grounded theory.

Grounded theory methodology was founded by Glaser and Strauss (1967). The

methodology is used for the “development of a well integrated set of concepts

which provide a theoretical explanation of the social phenomena being studied”

(Glaser and Strauss, 1990). The approach allows for theories of patterns to emerge

from the data presented, rather than testing pre-‐existing hypothesis. Grounded

theory has been chosen as the tool by which the data will be analysed because,

whilst it has been found that consumers of fake luxury often migrate to consumption

of genuine luxury (Richardson-‐Gosline, 2009), there is insufficient research that aims

to appreciate the underlying reasons that cause this phenomenon to occur.

Following a split between Glaser and Strauss regarding the correct approach to

grounded theory methodology, there has been controversy regarding the model,

and what the correct process should actually entail (Charmaz, 2000). A comparison

of the key differences as described by Onions (2006), can be found in Appendix 2.

After careful consideration of the different methods, the research described in this

paper has adopted the Straussian methodology. This method was selected in favour

of the Glaserian method because it allows the researcher to start with a ‘general

idea’ in order to guide the interviews, and a more structured coding technique, were

deemed to be of importance due to constraints in time and resources.

26

3.1 Limitations of the Methodology

Due to the constraints of time, money and manpower, the size of this sample in this

study is small, predominantly female and all belong to the researchers personal

network. Therefore, this is not a representative sample, and so does not have

external validity (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Consequently the results identified

cannot be extrapolated to the general population. However, this is an issue that

would primarily affect research in which cause and effect relationships need to be

established. But a further issue with small samples with regard to grounded theory is

the ability to reach saturation. Whilst the data collected would suggest that

saturation was reached, this would have been more easily confirmed with a larger

selection of participants.

The research has taken care that all participants be interviewed either in a place of

their choosing, interviews are an unnatural activity that doesn’t form part of the

participant’s normal routine. The participants may therefore display demand

characteristics whereby they either consciously or unconsciously change their

behaviour and answers to fit with what they think the interviewer wants to hear

(Orne, 2009). “The aim of depth interviews is to uncover the meanings and

interpretations that people attach to events (or in this case objects). It follows that

there is no one ‘objective’ view to be discovered which the process of interviewing

may bias. However there is a very real concern about interviewers imposing their

own reference frame on the interviewee, both when the questions are asked and in

the interpretation of the answers” (Easterby-‐Smith, Thorpe and Jackson, 2008: 147)

27

Following the interviews a further problem can come in the transcription quality.

According to Poland (2002), This is an essential element of the process, and the

ramifications, if not done correctly, can cause differences in interpretation of the

data when being analysed and coded for the grounded theory analysis. It is for this

reason that the transcription will be verbatim, including pauses in speech, slang and

colloquial uses of language.

A further problem can arise in the researcher’s analysis and coding of the transcripts.

This is a process that is highly reliant on the researcher’s interpretation of the data,

and the analysis that is made can be deemed to be highly subjective (Charmaz,

2006). Therefore, it is deemed by the researcher to be essential that all interviews,

transcription, coding and analysis are done by the same person, to ensure that the

interpretation is true to the participants meaning. However, this comes with

problems too, in that it can be difficult to detect researcher induced bias. This is a

difficult issue to counteract, and so it is important that in carrying out the study, the

researcher is cognizant of these issues and works in a reflexive manner, in order to

be aware of their own biases and limit them as far as possible.

28

4. Findings and Discussion

Following the literature review, the researcher identified six key themes that

warranted further investigation. Here the findings are grouped by those themes,

which can be found on page 20.

4.1 Theme 1 – The extent to which peer groups and reference groups

influence consumers into making particular fashion choices.

In order to understand why people might be interested in buying fake luxury goods,

it is first important to understand why they have an interest in luxury brands in the

first place, and to find out how these interests are formed. By analysing the

interview transcripts for who and what influenced the participants opinion of fashion

brands and the style choices they make, it transpired that there were a number of

different factors that participants viewed as being a source of inspiration to their

own fashion and style choices.

Through coding, these sources of inspiration have been arranged into two types of

influence, firstly, the accessible influences, such as friends and people in general.

Such influences were deemed to be accessible in a physical sense, in that they can be

viewed in person, and a monetary sense, in that the influences were often easily

attainable with regards to cost. The second category is the inaccessible influences

such as magazines and TV shows. The magazines and TV shows were deemed to be

more inaccessible, both because of a physical distance, in that featured trends and

items could not be touched, and with a monetary difference, as many of the

29

participants inferred that such goods were out of their current price range. Within

the interviews, most participants described various influences in both categories.

When asked who or what influenced her style, Jane, a professional mother of two

replied:

Jane. What would influence my choices, hmm, I suppose… seeing

things in magazines, or seeing other people, you know, you just spot

them on the street. Yeah probably magazines really, or possibly

celebrities… things like that. If you see them carrying a bag or wearing

something nice, it intrigues you… you wonder where they got it.

Here Jane acknowledges both accessible and inaccessible influences. However, the

inaccessible influence is dominant in her answer. An alternative view was given by

Milly, a graduate student, who again, references both accessible and inaccessible

influences, but the emphasis in this case is on the accessible influences.

Milly. The people who surround me, kind of like, influence me. I mean,

it doesn’t necessarily mean that I want the exact things that I see

people wear, but it kind of like… yeah it’s just it influences you. I would

say the most influential is has got to be someone… hmm, you know,

well maybe, I would say my friends. Actually my friends, because, I… in

particular look at them and kind of like notice whether they change

their style, or not. So this influences me. Yeah, the surrounding people

at school, at home or my friends. […] But yeah, it can be everything

and anything. It can be online, like on Facebook, or I don’t know… in an

online shop. It can also be in a magazine, so there’s a lot of variety.

Both Jane and Milly referenced sources of inspiration that are both accessible and

inaccessible. However the emphasis in each case was different, an occurrence that

was representative of the participants in the study. Where Jane was highly

influenced by the inaccessible celebrities in the magazines, Milly spoke about how

30

her friends were her major influence, noting that whilst she would take notice of and

be inspired by her friends, she wouldn’t want to outright copy them.

With reference to accessible influences, it became clear in discussion with the

participants, that where they say friends or peers influence them, this is not

combined to create one homogeneous style. In fact participants would alter their

appearance for different groups of people, depending on how they fit into their lives.

The participants would present multiple ‘faces’, often noting differences between

their ‘work self’ and ‘home self’.

Peter. Yeah, definitely, well when I’m at university, err, it’s a lot more

casual wear. But when I had a recent internship, err, the dress code for

that was smart casual, or like business casual, you know? […]Like a

good shirt, some nice trousers or chinos. It’s sort of a smart, but not

too smart, erm, and also it was, it looked, well what I thought looked

good.

But interestingly, many also noted adaptations between the different groups to

which they were members in their ‘home’ life.

Kay. I just think because most people want to fit in… like where I grew

up, in North Carolina, people… most of my friends were wearing really

nice, or well, like more expensive clothes… like J.Crewe, and Seven

Jeans and Juicy Couture, so I would wear that too. And like here, in

Ireland, most of my friends will have like have stuff from Primark and

Dunns, so that’s where I get most of my clothes from now. But I think

that I do actually just kind of, I wear the brands that my friends like to

wear. Like, whether that’s expensive, like my friends at home, or not.

31

Through the process of interviewing, it became clear that reference groups, both

accessible and inaccessible, played a large role in influencing the fashion choices of

the participants, showing that people feel the need to conform and fit in

(Leibenstein, 1950).

32

4.2 Theme 2 -‐ The extent to which envy plays a role in the consumption of

branded goods.

In undertaking the research, the participants, were asked how they felt if other

people had an item of apparel that was new or better than the items they currently

owned. It was important for the researcher to gain an understanding of the

participant’s feelings in this situation, as it was felt that such conditions could be a

precursor to their buying of fake goods. In attempting to understand the deeper

feelings experienced by the participants, the researcher is provided with an insight

into one possible aspect of why people resort to buying fake goods.

Throughout the interview process, variations of the emotion of envy were commonly

expressed when thinking about coming into contact with people who had better

apparel than they currently owned. However, it became apparent through analysis

of the text that the feelings being described were much more akin to the definition

of benign envy. According to Belk (2011: 124), benign envy is:

“A consumer envy, which is characterised in its distinction from ‘envy

proper’ because it lacks a sufficiently malicious nature. Rather than

being motivated by a desire to cause the other person to loose their

possessions, benign envy inspires the envier to purchase the

equivalent of the same possession […] in order to level themselves

up”.

33

Kate, an Irish graduate student, studying in the UK, expressed this concept most

succinctly. When asked in her interview to elaborate on her feelings of envy, she

replied:

Kate. Well, I just think… going back to those couple of items, it’s like,

when you really want something, it’s like you’re jealous, but it’s not

quite as strong or like… mean as the generally used word. It’s like… I

don’t want to take it off someone; I just want to have my own version

of it. I guess it’s like a mild jealousy, is how I’d describe it. I mean it’s

not the errm… if I can’t have it… it’s not like I wish that my friends can’t

have it either, it’s just that I’d like one for myself.

Through analysis of the transcripts, it became clear that this feeling of benign envy

led the participants on to one of two courses of action. The first course of action led

to an act, which through coding became known as ‘the product buy-‐in’. In this case,

the participants would, within a relatively short period of time after feeling the

benign envy, find a way to purchase the item in order to satiate the feeling of envy.

Kay. Yeah, I probably felt envy, because then once I realised how

expensive Lulu Lemon is, I was kind of like bummed, like ‘oh my

gosh… I can’t afford that’. […] I was envious of the people who had

the brand initially, until I bought into it, and I belonged to it.

Because now I’m like, really familiar with the brand, and it’s not like,

I see it, and I don’t feel envy as such, because I don’t see it as a

group I don’t belong to. It’s something that I’ve like ‘claimed’, I think

because, there’s a Lulu Lemon shop in the city where I’m from, and I

always go in there when I’m home. And I don’t, I don’t buy much,

errm, but I just feel, I take ownership of the brand. And because it’s

34

American, when I see other people wearing it here, I feel like, pride,

because that’s like my brand and like country. But yeah, when it first

came out, I think I was a bit, yeah, probably envious, yeah.

However, if they took the second course of action the participants were either forced

to or felt strongly that they should put off buying the product that caused them to

feel envious. The participants involved in the study were predominantly current

students or recent graduates with very little disposable income available in order to

easily afford such products. A recurring theme emerged in this situation, whereby

participants felt that they should put off such purchases of genuine luxury goods until

they had better finances in place.

Peter. One of my friends in Geneva, he’s got a nice Bulgari… real

Bulgari watch, it’s really nice. I think it’s something I’d aspire to have

in the future, but at the moment, I don’t.

Researcher. So you want to buy something like that in the future?

Peter. Yeah, I would want it, but it’s not something at the moment

that need to have. I’d rather spend that much money on other

things, where I can get more for my money. Like, in terms of

clothing, I could get like, five shirts in Zara, for like the price of one

designer shirt, you know? […] Sometimes, if I’ve bought a genuine

(luxury) item, there is a bit of guilt in the back of my mind. I think…

well, what else could I have spent that money on? From this one

thing, I could have spent it on something different, or because it’s

obviously a lot more expensive, I could have got, like potentially a

lot more for my money.

Researcher. So do you ever wish that you had items that you see

other people have?

35

Peter. Yeah, definitely, but at this current time, I don’t have the

funds, to buy them; I don’t have that kind of money to spend on one

specific item. I’d rather spread that money amongst a range of

cheaper items that I can afford.

When talking to Peter, a current student with little disposable income, the thought

of buying a genuine luxury item at its recommended retail price induced feelings of

guilt or shame. Due to current lack of disposable income, it would mean giving up

other ‘essential’ items. It was this lack of disposable income that led Peter and many

of the other participants to try ‘fake luxury’. A phenomenon that seemed to occur

most often when the participants were on holiday. Perhaps being abroad, the

participants held themselves to a different, personal, moral code of conduct. In

Peter’s case, he spent a year studying in China, where the availability, ease and

temptation to buy such goods was extremely high.

36

4.3 Theme 3 – The extent to which consumers perceive fake luxury goods to be different to genuine luxury goods.

Within the interviews, the participants were each asked about their thoughts on the

differences between fake luxury goods and genuine luxury goods. Through the

coding process, it became clear that the participants found differences in three key

areas, the buying process, the quality of the item that they bought and the psychic

feelings inspired when using the item.

4.3.1 The Buying Process

All participants found that the process of buying the fake luxury goods and the

genuine luxury goods to be vastly different. In most cases, the participants detailed

their experiences of buying fake bags, often in holiday locations such as ports on a

cruise or at various locations in Asia. Some other participants also detailed their

experience of buying fake goods online. Many of the participants contrasted the

experience of buying the real thing with their experience of buying a fake, showing

stark contrasts.

Kate. Thinking about when I bought my fake Mulberry bag. It was from

a market in Shanghai. When you go in, there are so many people

shouting at you, trying to get your attention. I’d been a few times, so I

knew what the different stalls sold. […] Initially, the vendor wanted the

equivalent of about €350, so I said “no way!”, and walked away. He

chased after me, and after 10 minutes of haggling, I got the price down

to €30. The vendor just stuck the bag into a plastic bag, and started

shouting out for his next customer.

37

This experience whereby Kate detailed the process of buying a fake, was echoed by

most participants. The act of buying a fake good seemed to be devoid of anything

special and in fact, rather than being a neutral experience was actually viewed as a

somewhat negative event. Kay described her memory of this unpleasant experience:

Kay. I remember the experience was really chaotic and stressful; there

was no pleasure in the experience like there is when you get the real

thing.

Returning to Kate’s interview, she went on to contrast her experience in the fakes

market with her experience of buying a genuine luxury item, which seems to be the

complete antithesis of her prior buying experience:

Kate. Last Christmas I bought a Prada purse for my Mum. The store

was so nice. You can browse, and the staff were great. They greet you

as you come in, but then let you have a look around. If it looks like you

need assistance they’ll ask if you’re looking for anything specific. So

when I said I was looking for a gift for my Mum, they recommended a

purse, and brought the different options that were available. Then

when I picked the style I wanted, they wrapped it with the nice,

perfumed tissue paper, and put it in a box which went in a gift bag

with a bow. It’s like, even the experience is luxury.

As Kate described in the second scenario, the process of buying the genuine luxury

good is one that is full of rituals (Dion and Arnould, 2011). From the welcome and

help provided by staff, to the wrapping of the goods, which in tern extends the

buying process to Christmas morning, when the present would have carefully been

unwrapped by her mother. This is immensely different to the way in which the fake

bag was haggled over, and eventually thrown into a carrier bag so that the vendor

38

could move on to the next customer. Jess continued to elaborate on this difference

in the buying process

Jess. (Buying a fake) takes the whole pleasure and importance out of

the experience. There’s like a ritual involved with buying the real thing,

and just, I treasure the thing I buy. It means so much more… and then

when it’s fake… it just doesn’t mean… the meaning is gone. It’s just an

item.

4.3.2 The Quality

The quality of fake luxury goods in comparison to genuine luxury goods was

described extensively in most interviews. However through the coding process, it

became apparent that there was no consensus amongst the participants, who were

split on their perception of the quality of the fake goods. Some of the participants

described situations in which they felt that fake items were of good quality, or

perhaps looked to be of good quality. Whereas the other participants described their

perception of fake luxury goods as being of inferior quality in comparison to the

genuine items. A final group of participants held views in between these two view

points, conceding that fakes, like all things have a range of qualities available to the

consumer, as described by Ali, a recent graduate from Greece, who spoke about her

experience of buying fakes in Mykonos:

Ali. So they have many, many bags. And what they tell you is they have

different categories of fake. So… I don’t know like in different price

ranges, like: €50, €200, and then €500… for a bag that originally cost

like €2000. So then it’s up to you to decide which one you take.

Because of course, the one that is €50 is not very good quality, and

39

doesn’t look real, to most people. But the €500 one, it’s like come on!

Nobody could tell that it’s fake. Like, the people who come on holiday

to Mykonos, they can probably afford to buy the real thing, and they

probably have lots of the real thing… So when they get these fake bags

or whatever… nobody questions it… it’s like why would you even think

it’s fake.

4.3.3 The Psychic Differences.

Having discussed with the participants how the fake luxury goods and genuine luxury

goods differed in terms of the buying experience and the tangible qualities, it

seemed pertinent to the researcher that, in order to gain a deeper understanding of

these issues, the intangible or psychic differences should also be explored.

Interestingly, the researcher discovered that the participants described much more

similar accounts in this instance, than they did when describing differences in the

physical differences between fake and genuine luxury goods.

The coding process revealed that the feelings participants had when wearing a

luxury item varied substantially between genuine luxury goods and fake luxury

goods. Where the genuine luxury item would inspire feelings of pride and

satisfaction, the fake item would lead to feelings of self-‐consciousness, guilt and

dishonesty. These feelings, when carrying a fake also seemed to intensify when they

were able to compare it to the experience felt when using a genuine item. When

asked if she felt differently about carrying a fake luxury good in comparison to a

genuine luxury good, Sue, a graduate student, currently completing her degree part-‐

time, replied:

40

Sue. It’s been a while since I last had a fake. But before (she had a

genuine) it would have never crossed my mind, I wouldn’t have cared.

But now, I’ve a few bags that are real. And I suppose, now that I’ve had

real nice designer bags… It’s like, tss, you know, when you go for a fake

one, it’s like, you’d be more… self conscious… well not self conscious,

but you kind of think about it. If I was carrying one of those bags today,

I reckon it’d be on my mind like. I think before, because I’d never had a

real bag, it didn’t bother me. I think it’s only when you’ve actually had

a real one too, that you can tell there is a difference. Before you’ve

owned a real bag, it just feels good, like you think it’d be nice to have

the real thing… but carrying the fake doesn’t cause you any bother. It’s

like it’s the next best thing, and it’s… you think it’s good enough

anyway. You don’t realise you’re missing that feeling of authenticity,

till you’ve actually had an authentic bag. I’d say maybe that’s why I

don’t use my fake bags now… I’ve a few real ones, so I… I guess I don’t

get the same feeling when I carry a fake.

Sue’s sentiment was echoed by Jenny, an American graduate student, who said:

Jenny. With genuine goods, because you’re getting a quality product, I

feel like you can feel an honesty and a prestige in it, that you don’t get

or like feel when you get a fake. And I think that when you wear the

fake, it kind of makes you look, or even feel tackier, even if it’s a really

good fake, and most people couldn’t tell it’s fake, you just get that

feeling. It’s like you’re trying to keep up with the Joneses, but you’re

just not. You know?

There is little research discussing this issue of the way consumers feel carrying fake

versus genuine luxury goods. However, the sentiment has been discussed in various

online forums whereby the conclusions of these online forums seem to match the

responses given in this study (Bassine, 2009; Mannering, 2012).

41

4.4 Theme 4 – The extent to which consumption of a fake luxury item can enduringly satiate the feeling of wanting to own the real luxury item. One of the purposes of the interview process was to discover if there are any links

between the purchase of fake luxury and genuine luxury goods. To do this, the

researcher wanted to establish how the participants used their items, both genuine

and fake, in order to find any points of difference. Through exploring the ways in

which the items were used and treated by the participants, it was hoped that

behaviour patterns could indicate whether or not the desire to own a luxury item

has been satiated by the purchase and consumption of fake luxury goods in an

enduring fashion.

Many participants spoke about how they like to look after their own property. One

participant in particular, Sue, saw a bag, whether fake or real, as a vessel to carry her

possessions; her primary concern was that it was fit for the purpose of carrying the

contents. When asked if she would be less careful with a fake bag, she replied:

Sue. No, because I actually have money and stuff like that inside. Like

say if the bag was robbed. Whether it was fake or real, I’d be upset …

but mainly about the contents.

However, Sue was the only participant to view the question in this way. Through the

in-‐depth interviews, different patterns of usage did emerge between real and fake

luxury items within four key areas. Firstly, the situations in which the items were

used, secondly, the degree of care taken with the items, thirdly, the length of use, in

terms of it’s place in the participants wearable wardrobe and finally, the intention to

repair the item if damage occurred to it.

42

4.4.1 Situations

When looking at the situations in which the participants would use the fake and

genuine items, it appears that where genuine items are reserved for special

occasions, the fake versions were used in much more mundane occurrences. For

example Kate spoke about how she and her friends who completed a study abroad

programme in China, all came back with fake luxury bags:

Kate. I used the bag as a college bag, and a couple of other people who

were out in China, had similar bags too. We all were using these very

high-‐end bags for everyday, college use. I just don’t think that had I

bought the real thing, it would have been used like that. […] All of us

girls suddenly came back with amazing collections of designer bags.

[…] But it was kind of obvious that we didn’t all just suddenly win the

lottery, you know!

This willingness to use the fake versions of bags in more mundane situations, rather

than save and savour the use, as they would do if the bag were genuine, was

intimated in many of the interviews. This shows an instant distinction made in the

mind of the wearer that a fake luxury good is not equal to a genuine luxury good,

even where the fake looks to be as good as the real bag.

4.4.2 Degree of Care Taken

The second area in which differences in usage could be identified was with the

amount of care taken in order to keep the bag in its original state. Whilst many

participants mentioned looking after their possessions, differences were identified

43

between the care they took of genuine luxury goods in comparison to the fake luxury

goods. It would seem as though many of the participants used the fake in a similar

fashion to goods that they might buy in a High Street shop, rather than a designer

good. When asked if she would treat a real luxury good differently to a fake one,

Milly replied:

Milly. Yes, I would care much more about the real one, because it’s

much more expensive. So I would not just throw it down when I come

home. Maybe I would hang it up and be more careful of it, I wouldn’t

want to scratch the leather or anything. And I would probably only use

it on special occasions, which ends up making it even more special in

your head… whereas the fake one for example, I would use it when I

go to university. I would put food and things like that in the bag, and

sometimes it might leak, and to be honest, I might be a bit mad at

myself it happened, but not for too long. But if I had the real one, I

probably wouldn’t use it for university, but if I really had to, there is no

way I would put food, or anything that might leak inside it. Yeah, I

would care much more about a real one.

Here we can see that in the consumer view, the fake product does not warrant the

same amount of ‘care’ as the genuine version. With a genuine version of the product,

which more truthfully conveys the brand identity, the participant may have viewed it

as an extension of herself (Belk, 1988); as she mentions, she would never put food in

the genuine version. However, with the fake version, she does not extend this

courtesy.

44

The use of fakes in many cases was inconsistent with the participants self image, so in

order to rectify this dissonance in themselves, they resort to telling people that the

bag is actually fake in order to rectify these feelings (Festinger, 1957).

Jess. Yes, definitely, errm, I’ve done it before, where I’ve had a fake

and I just feel like, I almost have to tell people it’s fake…. I just feel a

bit more… I don’t know, I don’t feel as honest.

4.4.3 Length of Use

Along with less care taken in preventing damage to the fake luxury goods, it also

became apparent, that in a similar manner to those who use fast fashion, the

participants often expressed how they did not use a fake item for as long as they

would have used it, had it been a genuine version.

Jane. I haven’t used it (the bag) for as long as I would have done if I

had spent hundreds on a bag, you know? I probably used it more as…

yeah… I used it more in terms of daily wear when I first got it, whereas

I might have saved for more special occasions, but I also moved on

from it quicker than I would have done if it had been the real thing…

Because it wasn’t such a big investment, the price wasn’t too much. So

I probably didn’t carry or use it for as long as I would have done if I’d

laid out a load of money for it… yeah.

The way in which Jane refers to her bag is comparable to the way in which many

people view fast, throw-‐away fashion; whereby people spend less on their clothing

and accessories, and rather than mend or store the items, consumers just disregard

45

them once their use has been fulfilled (Tibbetts, 2008). With lower investment has

come a feeling of lower attachment to the product and sense that the item should be

looked after carefully.

4.4.4 Intention to Repair Damage

A final point of difference that came to light through the interviews follows on from

the perception of fake luxury goods as fast fashion, in that where a consumer has

damaged a fake luxury good, the intention to fix the item should it be damaged is

much lower (McCartney, 2013). In her interview, Jenny spoke about a Louis Vuitton

bag that she had received as a gift; initially thinking it was a genuine item. However,

when it broke, she asked the gift giver where the item had been bought in order to

fix it, but on finding out the item was a fake, her opinion of the bag and intention to

repair it shifted dramatically.

Jenny. Yeah, I don’t know what I did with it. I don’t think I had it

repaired, at least I don’t think I had it repaired. My grandma might

have sewed it for me, but I didn’t take it anywhere to be mended. I

didn’t put any real effort into fixing it, like I would have done if it was

real. I don’t think I wore it again; I probably just threw it out.

Taken as a whole, the four points of difference show that on balance, the participants

do not view fake luxury goods a true substitute for the genuine items. There is a

disposable nature to the fakes that does not seem to exist when participants spoke

about the genuine goods. This would indicate that fake goods may not enduringly

satiate the feeling of wanting to own a genuine luxury item.

46

This assertion was summed up most succinctly by Jess, who when asked if her fake

stopped her feeling envious of people with the real thing, replied:

Jess. No. No it didn’t, not at all!

47

4.5 Theme 5 – The extent to which the perception of genuine luxury goods is harmed or improved by consumption of fake luxury goods.

In order to establish any links between consumption of fake luxury goods and real

luxury goods, the researcher wanted to see if the consumption of fake goods had

any influence on the way in which consumers perceived genuine luxury brands, as

damage to brand reputation is one of the key reasons cited by luxury goods

companies as a way in which counterfeits damages their brands (OECD, 2007).

Within the interviews, participants were questioned about how their perception of

the genuine brand had changed after consuming a fake good, and if they took any

more notice of the brand in general.

4.5.1 Brand Perception

All participants described how their perception of luxury brands either hadn’t

changed, as they still viewed the brand in a positive light, or, their perception of the

brand was actually enhanced. In Jess’s case, when asked whether her fake Mulberry

bag had affected the way in which she thought about the genuine Mulberry brand,

she replied:

Jess. No, I don’t think so, no. I still think about them as this thing I want

one day. Because I think I’ve always known about and wanted the real

thing, and I still want them. So just getting the fake didn’t change that

perception. It might have changed my perception of fakes though, I

know that the quality isn’t there, it isn’t really worth getting, like you

might as well just wait and save up… because you’d do that whether

48

you bought the fake or not. So there’s no point in getting it really…

might as well just wait a bit, and get the better version.

In this case, Jess, a newly qualified teacher, had always liked the brand, and the fake

bag she bought had no impact on this perception. Whilst the fake was of an inferior

quality to the genuine item, she recognised that this was no fault of the genuine

brand, and so it did not change her perception. This is contrary to the argument that

is often made, in that fakes harm brand image (OECD, 2007). Jess’s answer was

representative of many participants within the study; however, for those who didn’t

say that they felt there was no change in their perception, they said that their

perception of the brand had actually improved.

Jenny. Yeah, having a fake yeah, it’s improved my opinion, in that it

makes you realise what you’re not getting, compared to when you like,

get the real thing. It’s that feeling of honesty and integrity you get

when you wear it, either you saved for it, or it was a present.

Jenny’s answer was typical of a number of participants in the study, who intimated

that due to the fakes inferior quality, their perception of the genuine brand, in

comparison improved. Whilst one can see there is a difference in language used by

the participants, through the coding process, it was felt that the root meaning from

both types of answers were similar, with the outcome being that fake versions did

not effect the participants feelings or perceptions about the genuine brand.

49

4.5.2 Brand Noticeability

In addition to considering whether fakes had any effect on the perception, it also

seemed pertinent to the researcher to ascertain whether consumption of fake goods

had any effect on the amount that participants noticed luxury brands. Again,

answers were divided in a similar fashion, with some participants feeling that they

noticed brands, in particular the brand they had bought a fake version of,

approximately the same amount. Other participants felt that their consumption of

fake goods had led them to take more notice of the brand.

Kate. Errm, I just feel like I take more notice of the brands, especially

the ones I’ve had fake versions of. I’ve worked near Bond Street. And

I’m so aware of all the different brands. I take so much notice of the

different displays and look at what’s new and on trend. I guess you

could say, I knew about the brands, but the fake made me more

aware, especially for Mulberry. And now that the brand has my

attention… the more I notice it, the more I want it. So I guess it kind of,

it began a process of wanting. Whether that’s a good thing or bad

thing, I don’t know.

Kate was aware of the brand prior to her purchase of the fake version, but it would

seem that the fake has helped to reinforce her brand associations (Keller, 1993). As

she has said, she takes more notice of the brand, and the more she sees the brand,

her associations are again reinforced. On the other hand, some participants felt that

they bought their fake because they knew their brand, as Jane remarked:

Jane. Err, no, no I don’t think it did no. I have always been interested in

designer labels, and I bought the fakes because I recognised the

brands.

50

4.6 Theme 6 – The extent to which consumption of fake luxury goods increases consumption or intention to consume genuine luxury goods. As a conclusion to the interviews, all participants were asked to reflect on their

purchase behaviour with regards to genuine luxury goods, as a result of having

consumed their fake luxury good(s). Participants were asked about whether they

were more interested in luxury brands, whether they imagined themselves owning a

genuine luxury item, and if they had bought, or, as many of the participants are still

students or recent graduates, if they had any intention to buy genuine luxury goods

in the future.

4.6.1 Take more notice

In reflecting on how their consumption of fake luxury goods had affected the

amount of notice that they gave the brand; the prevailing sentiment among

participants was that they now took more notice, as described by Ali when asked if

she was more aware to the brand after having the fake.

Ali. Err, yeah, I think so… instinctively you do so… yeah, yeah… when

you see an advert in a magazine or pass by a shop. Even if it’s like, just

to compare… but then you see what your fake bag is lacking even

more, so you’re even more aware of how fake it is.

In addition to noticing the brand more, Ali also notes that as a result she is better

able to see the fake bag’s inferior qualities, a form of negative reinforcement

(Skinner, 1938). This has lead to her current view in which she no longer wants to

buy fakes, and whilst she can’t yet afford the real thing yet, she aims to buy one, one

day. Ali’s response was similar in meaning to Kate, who again, after having

51

consumed the fake, awareness of the genuine brand was increased to such an extent

that she is no longer satisfied with the fake, she would rather own the real thing.

Kate. Yeah, I mean, I think… I think it’s improved my awareness of

different brands. Errm, and it’s made me want the real thing more. I

kind of came to the realisation that, yeah, in the short term the fakes

are cute, but long term, I want the real thing. The way I see it, is the

fake was just like a stepping-‐stone. It tested the water, so if I like the

brand, eventually, I’ll get the real thing.

As she recalls, this started a process of wanting, and rather than the fake version

satisfying her initial interest in the brand, it made her want the genuine version

more.

4.6.2 Fake or Genuine

At the conclusion of the interview, the participants were asked to picture themselves

in the future, and think about the possibility of buying the genuine products or the

fake products, both in terms of a desire, and the actual intention to buy.

Jenny. Errm, yes! I would want to have the real thing now. I’ve fantasy

searched for Louis Vuitton, on the Internet, errm, I still wouldn’t buy

just yet, and it’s too expensive for me right now. But it would make

me, for right now; look at the more affordable luxury, like Kate Spade

and Coach. So I would still want the authentic thing. But start with the

‘lower level’ luxury and work my way up. Try to get something in my

price range.

52

Milly. Yes, I would say so, emm, I think it really affected my wish to

buy a real one… And it also made me think more often about it. […] I

mean, the wish for it got stronger, and I knew I would feel better if I

got a real one. But the fake didn’t make me feel better or worse about

the brand… I always felt it was a good brand, I just wanted it more.

The majority of the participants in the study were students, and so intention to buy

in the near future would be an unfair question. Therefore, asking about their desire

and intention to buy a genuine luxury good in the future is a more relevant and

realistic question to ask, as the participants are able to take presumed future wealth

into account. The overwhelming outcome to this line of questioning was that whilst

many didn’t see the possibility of owning such a good as a possibility in the near

future, it was something they aspired to. Whilst a cause and effect relationship

cannot be determined, it has been interesting to note that many of the participants

became more interested in, and perhaps the intention to buy a genuine luxury good

has been strengthened by their consumption of fake goods.

53

5. Conclusion

Through analysis of the interview transcripts, this study has uncovered a number of

interesting points within the six key themes. But taken together, what does it all

mean, and what conclusions can be drawn for academics and practitioners alike?

Within Theme 1 it was found that people are influenced into buying products from a

number of sources. Whilst not directly linked to consumption of counterfeit goods,

this is a point that needs to be understood by practitioners, in that where brands

generally place an emphasis on marketing activities they themselves carry out, it

should also be recognised that consumers of the products carry significant influence,

and perhaps should be seen as brand ambassadors by the brands they choose to

consume.

This is an interesting point to note, as many of the participants later went on to

admit that they and their friends would have difficulty in distinguishing a ‘good’ fake

from the real thing, especially where they weren’t able to compare the two items

directly. Therefore, it could be inferred that luxury brands may gain positive

incidents of brand awareness from consumption of both fake and genuine luxury

goods.

Within the first theme participants were also shown to want to assimilate into

different groups by adapting their ‘uniform’ to fit in with different group norms. In

returning to Kay’s quote on page 30, Consumers could feel pressure to assimilate

54

into groups where their spend on such uniforms is greater than the consumers

budget. Whilst not exhaustive of all circumstances this could be indicative of one

such situation in which consumers might choose to buy a fake.

However, this could also be linked to the feelings of benign envy, expressed in

Theme 2 of the Findings and Conclusion; whereby all the participants to some extent

felt envious of other people who had possession that they currently didn’t. It

seemed that where participants had the funds available to buy the product and

satiate the feeling of envy, they would do so. But where money was an issue for the

participants, as it was in many of the cases presented in this study, as there was a

predominance of students within the group of interviewees, they would resort to a

different behaviour. Firstly, they could remain feeling envious, and possibly save for

the item over time, or move on. Secondly, they could try and find an alternative High

Street option. Finally, they could buy a fake item. It seemed that this final behaviour

would be exhibited predominantly when the participants were on holiday, or away

from home. This could be for a number of reasons, firstly such goods can be found

more easily in other countries, where enforcement of intellectual property laws is

not as stringent as it is in the participants home country. An alternative explanation

could be that as the participants are away from home, they are willing to display

more risky behaviours that they would not do at home.

However, the evidence in this study could also contradict this assertion in that

consumers often felt compelled to admit that the fake item wasn’t genuine when

asked about it. Here, we can see that there are multiple factors at play when

55

consumers buy into fake products leading to a cognitive dissonance in which

consumers feel that they need fix the mistake of buying fake items.

All of the participants taking part in the study had consumed fake luxury goods at

some point in time, and so were able to identify various types of differences

between the fake luxury good and the genuine luxury good. Interestingly, whilst

participants often felt that the fake items could be very close in physical appearance

to the genuine item, the way in which the items made them feel were completely

different. The participants never felt completely comfortable carrying the fake items;

rather than satiating the feeling of envy they had been feeling, many participants

spoke about how wearing or carrying such a product would make them feel

disingenuous and guilty. There were also incidents of confession, where the

participants had been asked about the items, and rather than passing them off as

the genuine item, they seemed to feel that a confession of the items origin was

required in-‐order to atone for the bad behaviour they had displayed in buying the

fake.

Whilst counterfeit trade will constantly be a worrying phenomenon for luxury

brands, these findings should be encouraging for a number of reasons. Firstly, the

majority of the participants had bought items that to the untrained eye appeared to

be the genuine article. Whilst no sale has been made initially, the item does help to

build brand awareness both in the consumer themselves and those around them,

through exposure to the people the consumer comes into contact with. Additionally,

analysis of the transcripts showed that the consumer of the fake good was able to

56

build and foster strong brand associations. This has helped the majority of the

participants in the study form the intention to purchase such an item in the future,

because their attention and interest in the brand had been sparked. As explored in

Theme 6, many of the participants explained how their interest in the brand and

intention to purchase a genuine version of their fake product had increased as a

result of consuming the fake. Yet the fake wasn’t enough to overcome the feelings of

envy and satisfy the need that had been formed to buy the item. This is especially

interesting in cases where the participants hadn’t formed the intention to buy a

genuine luxury item prior to consuming a fake good. In this case, rather than loose

the brand a sale, the fake has actually, in the long term, gained brand a sale that

they may not have otherwise made.

In combination, these points would indicate that rather than lose sales, the fake

products could in fact help to increase sales in the future. By buying into the brand,

but not obtaining the real version of the branded good, the consumer is left in a

dissatisfied state. Eventually after saving, or when funds permit, the majority of the

participants formed the intention to purchase the genuine item.

So does consumption of counterfeit luxury goods benefit genuine luxury brands in

the long term? From the evidence gathered and presented here, one could say that

yes, in certain circumstances counterfeit goods could benefit luxury brands in the

long term.

57

5.1 Limitations

As the topic of research for this study was inspired by the researchers own

experiences and observations, the study could be biased in the way that it has been

led, and the interpretation of the data. Additionally, the participants were taken

from the researcher’s personal network; and so there is an expectation that these

people may have similar life experiences and views. Therefore, in any future

research should continue in a way to ensure that either the researcher is unbiased in

their views, or cognizant of their biases and take appropriate measures to eliminate

the influence.

5.2 Recommendations

Following on from this research, there are a number of issues and recommendations

to be made.

Further research should look into establishing whether a cause and effect

relationship exists between the purchase of fake luxury goods, and whether it leads

to the purchase of genuine luxury goods. To establish validity, a wider and more

representative sample would be required. Further research should also be situated

within a different paradigm and take a positivist viewpoint in order to triangulate

this area of study. Such a method would be able to define any causal relationships

and gain an even deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

58

Through the analysis of the data presented in this case, the key theory to emerge,

based on the grounding in that data, would be that within the luxury goods industry,

the presence of counterfeits could benefit brands in the long run. This has significant

implications for practitioners, who may want to examine their current stance on

counterfeit. This may be a situation in which the best course of action is to do

nothing. Obviously, brands don’t want to promote counterfeit goods over their own

goods, but equally, they may want to leave the counterfeit industry alone for two

reasons. Firstly, whilst they do not make any profit from the industry directly, they

may benefit from the positive externalities such as brand awareness and future

sales. Secondly, they will not incur legal costs for prosecuting counterfeit

manufacturers and distributers. However, it would only be through long-‐term

monitoring that such theories could be proved.

59

Bibliography Aldridge, G. (2014) Counterfeit Street: Sunday Mirror Investigates Hidden 'Shopping Mall" of Fake Designer and Electrical Goods, 15 June, [Online], Available: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-‐news/counterfeit-‐street-‐sunday-‐mirror-‐investigates-‐3695230 [15 June 2014]. Alick, M.D. and Zell, E. (2008) 'Social Comparison and Envy', in Smith, R.H. (ed.) Envy: Theory and Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Barnett, J.M. (2005) 'Shopping for Gucci on Canal Street: Reflections on Status Consumption, Intellectual Property, and the Incentive Thesis', Virginia Law Review, vol. 91, no. 6, October, pp. 1381-‐1423. Bassine, Z. (2009) Would You Wear… Designer Knockoffs?, March, [Online], Available: http://www.collegefashion.net/would-‐you-‐wear/would-‐you-‐wear-‐designer-‐knockoffs/ [19 July 2014]. Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982) 'Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 9, no. 2, September, pp. 183-‐194. Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982) 'Reference Group Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions.', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 183-‐194. Belk, R.W. (1986) 'Yuppies As Arbiters of the Emergin Consumption Style', Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 514-‐519. Belk, R.W. (1988) 'Possesions and the Extended Self', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 15, no. 2, September, pp. 139-‐168. Belk, R.W. (1999) 'Leaping Luxuries and Transitional Consumers', in Batra, R. (ed.) Marketing Issues in Transitional Economies, Boston: Kluwer. Belk, R.W. (2011) 'Benign Envy', AMS Review, vol. 1, no. 3-‐4, December, pp. 117-‐134. Betts, K. (2004) 'The Purse Party Blues', Time, August. Blakeney, M. (2009) International Proposals for the Criminal Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights: International Concern with Counterfeiting and Piracy , 22 September, [Online], Available: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476964 [26 May 2014]. Bloch, P.H., Bush, R.F. and Campbell, L. (1993) 'Consumer “accomplices” in product counterfeiting: a demand side investigation', Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 27-‐36.

60

Boorstin, D.J. (1973) The Americans: The Democratic Experience, New York: Random House. Bothwell, C. (2005) Burberry versus The Chavs, 28 October, [Online], Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4381140.stm [20 May 2014]. Bourne, F.S. (1957) 'Group influence in Marketing and Public Relations', in Likert, R. and Hayes, S.P. (ed.) Some Applications of Behavioural Research, Basel: UNESCO. Briggs, C.L. (1986) Learning how to ask: A sociolinguistic appraisal of the role of the interview in social science research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods, 3rd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, R.G. (1982) Field Research: A Source Book and Field Manual, London: Allen and Unwin. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis -‐ Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life, Aldershot: Ashgate. Carlin, F. (2005) 'The Measuring Game: Why You Think You'll Never Stack Up', Psychology Today, vol. 38, no. 5, October, pp. 42-‐50. Celsi, R.L., Rose, R.L. and Leigh, W. (1993) 'An Exploration of High-‐Risk Leisure Consumption through Skydiving.', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1-‐23. Chadha, R. and Husband, P. (2006) The Cult of the Luxury Brand: Inside Asia's Love Affair with Luxury, London: Nicholas Brealey International. Charmaz, K. (2000) 'Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods', in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.S. (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edition, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory -‐ A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Chaudhry, P.E. (2006) 'Changing levels of intellectual property rights protection for global firms: A synopsis of recent U.S. and EU trade enforcement strategies ', Business Horizons, vol. 49, p. 463—472. Chaudhry, P. and Zimmerman, A. (2008) The Economics of Counterfeit Trade -‐ Governments, Consumers, Pirates and Intellectual Property Rights, Berlin London: Springer.

61

Childers, T.L. and Rao, A.R. (1992) 'The Influence of Familial and Peer-‐based Reference Groups on Consumer Decisions', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 19, no. 2, September, pp. 198-‐211. Commuri, S. (2009) 'The Impact of Counterfeiting on Genuine-‐Item Consumers' Brand Relationships.', Journal of Marketing., vol. 73, no. 3, May, pp. 86-‐98. Cordell, V., Wongtada, N. and Kieschnick, R.L.J. (1996) 'Counterfeit purchase intentions: Role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. ', Journal of Business Research, vol. 35, no. 1, January, pp. 41-‐53. Correa, C.M. (2000) Intellectual Property Rights, the WTO and Developing Countries: The TRIPS Agreement and Policy Options: The TRIPS Agreement and Policy Options for Developing Countries, London: Zed Books Ltd. D'Arms, J. and Kerr, A. (2008) 'Envy in the Philosophical Tradition', in Smith, R.H. (ed.) Envy: Theory and Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Desmond, J. (2003) Consuming Behaviour, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Dion, D. and Arnould, E. (2011) 'Retail Luxury Strategy: Assembling Charisma through Art and Magic', Journal of Retailing, vol. 84, no. 4, December, pp. 502–520. Dittmar, H. (1994) 'Material Possessions as Stereotypes -‐Material Images of Different Socioeconomic Groups', Journal of Economic Psychology, vol. 15, no. 4, December, pp. 561-‐p585. Easterby-‐Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R. (2008) Management Research, 3rd edition, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Eastman, J.K., Goldsmilt, R. and Leisa., F. (1999) 'Status Consumption in Consumer Behavior: Scale Development and Validation', Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, vol. 7, no. 3, Summer, pp. 41-‐52. Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008) Qualitative Methods in Business Research, London: Sage Publications Ltd. Eyles, J. (1988) 'Interpreting the Geographical World: Qualitative Approaches in Geographical Research', in Eyles, J. and Smith, D. (ed.) Qualitative Methods in Human Geography, Cambridge: Polity Press. Festinger, L. (1954) 'A theory of social comparison processes.', Human Relations, vol. 7, pp. 117-‐140.

62

Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Ger, G. (1992) 'The Positive and Negative Effects of Marketing on Socioeconomic Development: The Turkish Case', Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 229-‐254. Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine Publshing Co. Glaser, B. and Strauss, S. (1990) 'Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons, and Evaluative Criteria.', Qualitative Sociology, vol. 13, no. 1, Spring, pp. 3-‐19. Goffman, E. (1951) 'Symbols of Class Status', British Journal of Sociology, vol. 2, pp. 294-‐304. Green, R.T. and Smith, T. (2002) 'Executive Insights: Countering Brand Counterfeiters.', Journal of International Marketing, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 89-‐106. Grossman, G.M. and Shapiro, C. (1988) 'Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods', The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 103, no. 1, February, pp. 79-‐100. Han, Y.J., Nunes, J.C. and Dreze (2010) 'Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand Prominence', Journal of Marketing, vol. 74, no. 4, July, pp. 15-‐30. Hennigs, N., Wiedmann, K.-‐P., Klarmann, C., Strehlau, S., Godey, B., Pederzoli, D., Neulinger, A., Dave, K., Aiello, G., Donvito, R., Taro, K., Táborecká-‐Petrovičová, J., Santos, C.R., Jung, J. and Oh, H. (2012) 'What is the Value of Luxury? A Cross-‐Cultural Consumer Perspective.', Psychology & Marketing, vol. 29, no. 12, December, pp. 1018-‐1034. Hine, T. (1987) Populuxe, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Hogan, H., Dunn, G. and Crutcher (2013) Don't Underestimate The Harm Caused By Counterfeiters , 19 September, [Online], Available: http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Hogan-‐Counterfeiters.pdf [4 June 2014]. Howlett, N., Pine, K., Orakçioglu, I. and Fletcher, B. (2013) 'The influence of clothing on first impressions: Rapid and positive responses to minor changes in male attire', Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 38-‐48. Hyman, H.H. (1942) 'The psychology of status', Archives of Psychology, no. 269, pp. 94-‐102.

63

ICC (2014) Counterfeiting Intelligence Bureau, 30 May, [Online], Available: http://www.iccwbo.org/products-‐and-‐services/fighting-‐commercial-‐crime/counterfeiting-‐intelligence-‐bureau/ [30 May 2014]. Kasser, T. and Ryam, R.M. (1996) 'Further examining the American dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 280-‐287. Keller, K.L. (1993) 'Conceptualizing, Measuring and Managing Customer-‐Based Brand Equity', Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1-‐22. Kelman, H.H. (1961) 'Processes of Opinion Change', The Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, Spring, pp. 57-‐78. Kozinets, R.V. (2001) 'Utopian Enterprise: Articulating the Meanings of Star Trek's Culture of Consumption.', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 28, no. 1, June, pp. 67-‐88. Lai, K.k.Y. and Zaichkowsky (1999) 'Brand Imitation: Do the Chinese Have DIfferent Views?', Asia Pacific Journal of Management, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 179-‐192. Ledbury Research (2006) Counterfeiting Luxury: Exposing the Myths, [Online], Available: http://www.trendometre.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2008/11/counterfeiting-‐report-‐april-‐2006-‐edition.pdf [27 May 2014]. Leibenstein, H. (1950) 'Bandwagon, Snob, and Veblen Effects in the Theory of Consumers' Demand', Quarterly Journal of Economics. , vol. 64, no. 2, May, pp. 183-‐207. Longhurst, R. (2010) 'Semi-‐Structured Interviews and Focus Groups', in Clifford, N..F.S.a.V.G. (ed.) Key methods in geography, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Mannering, L. (2012) Carrying a Fake Designer Bag Makes You a Big, Fat Liar, 11 June, [Online], Available: http://thestir.cafemom.com/beauty_style/138838/carrying_a_fake_designer_bag [19 July 2014]. Maslow, A.H. (1943) 'A theory of human motivation', Psychological Review, vol. 50, no. 4, July, pp. 370-‐396. McCartney, J. (2013) Make do and mend? Nothing is built to last any more, 10 August, [Online], Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/interiorsandshopping/10234008/Make-‐do-‐and-‐mend-‐Nothing-‐is-‐built-‐to-‐last-‐any-‐more.html [27 July 2014].

64

Meichtry, S. (2002) 'Special Courts to Put Fashion Fakes on Trial', International Herald Tribune, July. Morris, B. (1995) Executive Women Confront Midlife Crisis, 18 September , [Online], Available: http://ping.therapiebreve.be/documents/morris-‐1995.pdf [10 June 2014]. OECD (2007) THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY: Executive Summary, [Online], Available: http://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/38707619.pdf [25 July 2014]. Onions, P. (2006) 'Grounded Theory Applications in Reviewing Knowledge Management Literature"', Leeds Metropolitan University Innovation North Research Conference, Leeds , 1-‐11. Orne, M.T. (2009) 'Demand Characteristics and the concept of Quasi-‐Controls', in Rosenthal, R.a.R.R.L. (ed.) Artifacts in behavioral research, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Park, C.W. and Lessig, V.P. (1977) 'Students and Housewives: Differences in Susceptibility to Reference Group Influence.', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, no. 2, September, pp. 102-‐110. Parrott, W.G. and Mosquera, M.R. (2008) 'On the Pleasures and Displeasures of Being Envied', in Smith, R.H. (ed.) Envy: Theory and Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Perez, M.E., Castano, R. and Quintanilla, C. (2010) 'Constructing Identity Through the Consumption of Counterfeit Luxury Goods', Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 219-‐235. Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., Shiv, B. and Rangel, A. (2008) 'Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representations of Experienced Pleasantness ', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 105, no. 3, January, pp. 1050-‐1054. Poland, B.D. (2002) 'Transcription Quality', in Gubrium, J. and Holstein, J. (ed.) Handbook of interview research, London: Sage. Prendergast, G., Chuen, L.H. and Phau, I. (2002) 'Understanding Consumer Demand for Non-‐Deceptive Pirated Brands', Marketing intelligence & planning, vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 405 -‐ 416. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2013) Counterfeit goods n the UK -‐ Who is buying what, and why? , October, [Online], Available: http://www.pwc.co.uk/en_UK/uk/assets/pdf/anti-‐counterfeiting-‐consumer-‐survey-‐october-‐2013.pdf [15 May 2014].

65

Richardson-‐Gosline, R. (2009) The Real Value of Fakes: Dynamic Symbolic Boundaries in Socially Embedded Consumption, Harvard: Harvard University. Richins, M.L. (1994) 'Valuing Things: The Public and Private Meanings of Possessions ', Journal of Consumer Research , vol. 21, December, pp. 504-‐521. Salmon, F. (2007) Bogus Counterfeiting Statistics Spawn Protection Racket, 28 May, [Online], Available: http://www.felixsalmon.com/2007/05/bogus-‐counterfeiting-‐statistics-‐spawn-‐protection-‐racket/ [18 June 2014]. Salmon, F. (2009) Those weirdly persistent counterfeiting statistics, 2006 December, [Online], Available: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-‐salmon/2009/12/06/those-‐weirdly-‐persistent-‐counterfeiting-‐statistics/ [17 May 2014]. Schimmel, S. (2008) 'Envy in Jewish Thought and Literature', in Smith, R.H. (ed.) Envy: Theory and Research, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Silverman, D. (2000) Doing Qualitative Research -‐ A Practical Handbook, London: Sage. Sivanathan, N. and Pettit, N.C. (2010) 'Protecting the self through consumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities', Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 46, no. 3, May, pp. 564-‐570. Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis, New York: Appleton-‐Century. Tibbetts, G. (2008) 'Primark effect' lead to throwaway fashion turning up in landfill, 25 November, [Online], Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3516158/Primark-‐effect-‐lead-‐to-‐throwaway-‐fashion-‐turning-‐up-‐in-‐landfill.html [27 July 2014]. Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y. and Pilcher, J. (1998) 'Consumer Demand for Counterfeit Goods.', Psychology & marketing, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 405 -‐ 421. Truong, Y. (2010) 'Personal Aspirations and the Consumption of Luxury Goods', International Journal of Market Research, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 653-‐671. Turunen, L.L.M. and Laaksonen, P. (2011) 'Diffusing the Boundaries Between Luxury and Counterfeit', Journal of Product and Brand Management, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 468-‐474. Twitchell, J.B. (2002) Living It up : Our Love Affair with Luxury, New York: Columbia University Press. Veblen, T. (1899) The Theory of the Leisure Class, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

66

Veevers, L. and Fortson, D. (2006) Primark chic: Copies may spark legal battle, 5 November, [Online], Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-‐britain/primark-‐chic-‐copies-‐may-‐spark-‐legal-‐battle-‐422963.html [29 May 2014]. Wall, D.S. and Large, J. (2010) 'Jailhouse Frocks: Locating the Public Interest in Policing Counterfeit Luxury Fashion Goods', British Journal of Criminology, vol. 50, pp. 1094-‐1116. Wang, Y. and Griskevicius, V. (2014) 'Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women's Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women.', Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 40, no. 5, February, pp. 834-‐854. Whitwell, S. (2006) Brand piracy: faking it can be good, may, [Online], Available: http://www.intangiblebusiness.com/news/marketing/2006/05/brand-‐piracy-‐faking-‐it-‐can-‐be-‐good [1 June 2014]. WTO (2013) International Trade Statistics 2013, [Online], Available: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/its2013_e/its13_toc_e.htm [5 June 2014]. Yar, M. (2005) A Deadly Faith In Fakes: Trademark Theft and the Global Trade in Counterfeit Automotive Components, [Online], Available: http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Yar%20-‐%20A%20Deadly%20Faith%20in%20Fakes.pdf [25 May 2014].

67

Appendix 1

Interview Schedule

Introduction

Welcome to todays interview. As you know, the interview will, in some sections,

require you to discuss consumption of counterfeit goods. If you are uncomfortable

at anytime in the interview, just let me know, and we can move onto the next

question, or stop the interview all together.

So, to start, can you tell me about a fashion or luxury item you bought recently?

! Who

! What

! Where

! When

! Why

The extent to which peer groups influence or pressure consumers into to make

certain fashion choices.

• Can you describe who or what influences your style? And why?

! Friends

! magazines

! celebrities

! celebrity stylists

! tv

! What/who is the most important from the list, why?

• Is there an element of aspiration in these influences

! WAGS, Sloane Ranger/Kate Middleton, D4s, Chavs

68

• Is it important for you to “fit in”? with your peers?

! Or do you like to stand out, and be the first in your group to buy into a new

trend?

• Can you tell me if you change what you wear around different groups of

people? How?

! To friends

! To acquaintances/work or uni?

! To strangers

! Do you amend what you wear, depending on the people you will be around?

• Do you have any items of clothing or accessories that holds a lot of personal

meaning? If so, please can you describe what it is? Why does it hold such meaning?

! Does it help to create your personal image?

The extent to which envy plays a role in the consumption of branded goods.

• Can you explain how you feel when you see other friends or other people

similar to you, with goods that are either a new product, or category or of a better

“brand” than those that you currently own? Or if you don’t have a comparable

! Pandora bracelets, Barbour Jackets, Ray Ban Sunglasses,

! This can be anything, from new style of bag, to other trends, think back to

when skinny jeans became fashionable, or even perhaps when new iPhones are

released

• Do you ever find yourself ‘wishing you had items that your friends/peers/or

even celebrities own? How about with items that are out of your current price

range? envy

69

The extent to which consumers perceive fake luxury goods to be different to real

luxury goods.

• do you think there is any difference between genuine luxury goods and fake

luxury goods?

! Can you explain what the physical differences are?

! Can you explain what the psychic differences are?

• If you have bought a luxury item yourself, can you describe how did the

buying experience differs? To those items that you wouldn’t consider being luxury. Or

even a fake good.

! Make-‐up, shoes, clothes, jewellery, technology

The extent to which consumption of fake luxury goods can enduringly satiate the

feeling of wanting to own a luxury item (envy).

• . Can you tell me how you came to buy, or receive the item/s?

! Why did you want that particular item?

! Did you buy it yourself – request somebody else to buy it – just receive it as a

gift?

! Bought on holiday, or in own country?

! In terms of making the decision to buy, was it an impulse buy, or did you

think about it beforehand – explain

• Have you ever purchased a fake good because you were envious of other

people who owned the real version?

! If it wasn’t because of envy, can you explain why you wanted a fake version

of the item?

70

• Can you tell me about a post-‐purchase (or if the item was bought for you),

experience of consuming a fake luxury good vs. genuine luxury item like?

! Or how you would expect it to be if you did own a genuine luxury item?

• How does that experience differ to the way in which you consumed your fake

luxury good? Can you explain what was different?

! More or less careful with the item?... in comparison to the genuine item.

• Because you had a fake… Did it mean you wanted to own the real thing?

• (Whether or not it led you to consume a fake luxury good) Could you explain

In order to overcome these feelings (of envy), what did you do?

! If you initially consumed fake luxury did it reduce the feelings and was this an

enduring feeling, or did you still crave the real luxury good?

The extent to which the perception of luxury branded goods is improved by

consumption of fake luxury goods.

• Having owned or consumed fake luxury goods, can you tell me if this has this

affected the way in which you perceive genuine luxury goods?

! For the better or worse?

! Or no change?

! Why?

• If you think back to a time prior to your consumption of fake luxury goods, do

you perceive any difference in the way you feel about luxury brands?

! Do you take more or less notice?

! Is it more or less important?

71

The extent to which consumption of fake luxury goods increases consumption or

intention to consume genuine luxury goods.

• Do you think you are more interested in brands? As a consequence of

consuming a fake good?

! Why?

• Has the consumption of fake luxury goods made you think about or imagine

yourself owning the real version?

• Has it strengthened your intention to purchasing a genuine luxury good?

! Either in the short or long term

72

Appendix 2 Comparison of the two schools of Grounded Theory

‘Glaserian’ ‘Straussian’ Beginning with general wonderment (an empty mind)

Having a general idea of where to begin

Emerging theory, with neutral questions Forcing the theory, with structured questions Development of a conceptual theory Conceptual description (description of

situations) Theoretical sensitivity (the ability to perceive variables and relationships) comes from immersion in the data

Theoretical sensitivity comes from methods and tools

The theory is grounded in the data The theory is interpreted by an observer The credibility of the theory, or verification, is derived from its grounding in the data

The credibility of the theory comes from the rigour of the method

A basic social process should be identified Basic social processes need not be identified The researcher is passive, exhibiting disciplined restraint

The researcher is active

Data reveals the theory Data is structured to reveal the theory Coding is less rigorous, a constant comparison of incident to incident, with neutral questions and categories and properties evolving. Take care not to ‘over-‐conceptualise’, identify key points

Coding is more rigorous and defined by technique. The nature of making comparisons varies with the coding technique. Labels are carefully crafted at the time. Codes are derived from ‘micro-‐analysis which consists of analysis data word-‐by-‐word’

Two coding phases or types, simple (fracture the data then conceptually group it) and substantive (open or selective, to produce categories and properties)

Three types of coding, open (identifying, naming, categorising and describing phenomena), axial (the process of relating codes to each other) and selective (choosing a core category and relating other categories to that)

Louise Proctor - Dissertation - Final

Documents

Transcript of Louise Proctor - Dissertation - Final