ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In recent years, there has been an important debate on the harmful effect of counterfeits on luxury brands. Marketing literature states that fake luxury products negatively affect consumers’ perception of the genuine brand. Contrarily, some studies have reported that fake alternatives do not necessary lower genuine brand product evaluations, providing some interesting evidence on single theoretical constructs referring to attitudes, perceptions or behaviors. The aim of this study is to deepen the investigation into this phenomenon and try to shed some light on the effects of counterfeit awareness on genuine brand users’ and on potential users’ customer-based brand equity (CBBE). Results show that counterfeits have no negative effect on consumers’ perception of the luxury brand. Moreover, a positive shift on the six blocks of CBBE pyramid is observed in consumers who are aware of the existence of a fake alternative. The innovative nature of these findings is supported by a detailed data analysis and the managerial implication discussion.
Content may be subject to copyright.
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Veronica Gabrielli
Department of Communication
and Economy, University of
Modena and Reggio Emilia, Viale
Allegri 9, Reggio Emilia, Italy
E-mail: veronica.gabrielli
anybody to have and show the luxury
brand without spending a great amount of
money. In this sense, counterfeits could be
considered a hidden competitor for original
The practice of product counterfeiting is
one of the most relevant problems of the
luxury goods market. Fake products allow
Original Article
Does counterfeiting affect luxury
customer-based brand equity ?
Received (in revised form): 21 st November 2011
Veronica Gabrielli
is an Assistant Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy). Her primary research interests are
consumer behavior, branding and marketing communication.
Silvia Grappi
is an Assistant Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy). Her primary research interests are
consumer behavior and branding.
Ilaria Baghi
is an Assistant Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy). Her research interests concern consumer
behavior and consumer s decision making.
ABSTRACT In recent years, there has been an important debate on the harmful effect
of counterfeits on luxury brands. Marketing literature states that fake luxury products
negatively affect consumers perception of the genuine brand. Contrarily, some
studies have reported that fake alternatives do not necessary lower genuine brand
product evaluations, providing some interesting evidence on single theoretical
constructs referring to attitudes, perceptions or behaviors. The aim of this study is
to deepen the investigation into this phenomenon and try to shed some light on the
effects of counterfeit awareness on genuine brand users and on potential users
customer-based brand equity (CBBE). Results show that counterfeits have no
negative effect on consumers perception of the luxury brand. Moreover, a positive
shift on the six blocks of CBBE pyramid is observed in consumers who are aware of
the existence of a fake alternative. The innovative nature of these fi ndings is supported
by a detailed data analysis and the managerial implication discussion.
Journal of Brand Management advance online publication, 24 February 2012;
doi: 10.1057/bm.2012.6
Keywords: customer-based brand equity ; counterfeit ; luxury brand ; genuine brand
consumers ; potential consumers
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
the brand and its image are frequently
more important than the product itself
( Virgneron and Johnson, 2004 ; Mendel et al ,
2006 ). Luxury brand image has become a
strategic key element, allowing the com-
munication of symbolic meanings shared by
consumers. Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000)
suggest that the product should not only
be unique, but it must also be accepted,
recognized and admired by others. The
DNA of a luxury brand is the symbolic
desire to belong to a superior class ( Atwal
and Williams, 2009 ). In addition to the key
social function, Kapferer and Bastien sug-
gest that a luxury brand should have a very
strong personal and hedonistic component
( Kapferer and Bastien, 2009 ) in order to
reach consumers hearts and minds. The
hedonistic and aspirational dimension is not
enough to make a brand a luxury brand;
consumers must also identify it as superior
in quality and performance. According to
Penz and St ö ttinger (2008) , luxury brands
embody an image of products that is deep
seated in the mind of the consumer, which
is based on specifi c associations such as
excellent quality, premium price and exclu-
sivity. People s motivation toward buying
luxury goods has been investigated from
two different perspectives. The fi rst one
considers the luxury brand demand as a way
of gaining social approval by the possession
of a product that embodies exclusive value,
meanings and images ( Bushman, 1993 ).
On the other hand, the second perspective
considers people s demand for prestige
products as a way of improving their self-
esteem and self-confi dence ( Silverstein and
Fiske, 2000 ; Mendel et al , 2006 ).
People s aspiration for social approval is
one of the most important drives that
explain the intention to buy counterfeit
luxury product ( Wilcox et al , 2009 ). Fake
products allow anybody to have and to
show off luxury brands without spending
a great amount of money. In this sense, it
has been often underlined that counterfeit
and luxury brands. Marketing literature
lacks investigations into how the presence
of the counterfeit alternative on the market
could infl uence the perception of the gen-
uine luxury brand in the minds of users and
non-users. The aim of the present study is
to investigate how the brand equity of
a luxury brand is affected by consumer
awareness of the existence of the fake
option on the market. Moreover, the intent
is to understand which dimensions of the
customer-based brand equity (CBBE) could
be infl uenced by the awareness of the exist-
ence of fake alternatives. The infl uence
of counterfeit is not supposed to damage
the CBBE, but rather improve consumer
belief about the luxury brand and concur
to protect and enhance users and non-
users perception of brand equity.
The market for luxury goods has seen spec-
tacular growth over the past 50 years. As
a result, luxury brand management has
become an important area of marketing and
of particular interest to practitioners. One
of the most exhaustive defi nitions of luxury
goods is the one from Vickers and Renand
(2003) , who suggest that luxury goods can
be differentiated from normal or non -
luxury goods by the extent to which they
exhibit a distinctive mix of three important
dimensions: instrumental performance, in
terms of functionalism, experientialism and
symbolic meanings. It is argued that this
approach is important as it gives marketing
practitioners involved in luxury goods
insight into identifying relevant marketing
activities, particularly in the area of brand
management. The brand strategy has a
key role in the luxury market as these are
products that must be associable with an
exclusive brand image and superior brand
equity. Dubois and Duquesne (1993) pro-
pose that many consumers purchase luxury
goods principally to satisfy an appetite
for symbolic meaning. In this perspective,
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?
goods are a hidden competitor for original
and luxury brands. Past research has exam-
ined the demand side of product counter-
feiting ( Cordell et al , 1996 ), the consumption
practices ( Gistri et al , 2009 ) and consumers
attitudes toward counterfeit luxury pro-
ducts ( Dubois and Paternault, 1995 ). How-
ever, marketing literature does not clarify
exhaustively how consumers change their
evaluation of original brands as a conse-
quence of the existence of a counterfeit
version. A recent study by Commuri (2009)
investigates, from a behavioral perspective,
consumers reactions to the loss of exclu-
sivity and prestige linked to the spread of
counterfeit versions of luxury products.
The author identifi es three behavioral strat-
egies: the ight , the total abandonment of
the original brand; the reclamation , the con-
tempt toward the counterfeit version of the
genuine good; and the abranding , in other
words the disappearance of any evidence
of the brand.
In the mainstream of marketing literature,
the opinion has been consolidated that
copied products not only ruin the special
status of the original brand, but also con-
tribute to a loss of exclusivity and unique-
ness because of the increased availability of
cheap imitations ( Fournier, 1998 ; Hellofs
and Jacobson, 1999 ; Commuri, 2009 ).
Fournier suggests that counterfeits have the
potential to unsettle the most prestigious
luxury brand dimension: its inaccessibility
( Fournier, 1998 ). As a consequence, con-
sumers perception of the genuine brand
image is said to be damaged and diminished
by the existence of a fake but accessible
Contrariwise, some recent studies ( Nia
and Zaichkowsky, 2000 ; Hieke, 2010 )
revealed that the supposed damage of the
fake product to the original brand percep-
tion is not so guaranteed. All of these studies
reveal some stimulating insight that doubts
the mainstream opinion that counterfeit
damages the genuine brand, but they are
unable to provide a clear in-depth vision
of the role of counterfeit in shaping con-
sumers perception of the brand.
The purpose of Nia and Zaichkowsky’s
study (2000) is to explore the perceptions
and attitudes of original luxury brand
owners toward counterfeit luxury goods.
The respondents believed that counterfeits
are inferior products and that ownership of
original luxury products is more prestigious
compared with counterfeit luxury goods.
Moreover, results show that respondents
indicated that the value, satisfaction, and
status of original luxury brand were not
decreased by the wide availability of coun-
terfeits ( Nia and Zaichkowsky, 2000,
p. 485 ). Further, the majority of respond-
ents disagreed that the availability of coun-
terfeits negatively affects their purchase
intentions of original luxury brand. The
study by Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000)
reveals some important insights about the
effect of counterfeits on consumers per-
ception of the genuine brand, but their
results provide a partial view on this phe-
nomenon. The authors investigate only the
intention to buy and an overall attitude
toward the original brand. Moreover, the
focus is strictly on consumers of luxury
brands without taking into consideration
the potential consumers who know the
brand and its fake alternative.
Another signifi cant contribution to
counterfeit effects on brand derives from a
recent empirical study by Hieke (2010) .
This study reveals, contrary to the expecta-
tions, that the mere exposure to counterfeit
does not induce a decrease either in the
brand s perceived degree of luxury or in
the consumers attitude toward the original
product. In her discussion of results, the
author stresses the importance of enlarging
the perspective of analysis on counterfeit
effects in order to deepen the comprehen-
sion of this phenomenon. The present
study goes in this direction following some
of Heike s suggestion: to consider not just
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
various situations or circumstances (that
is, breadth of brand awareness). Keller states
that this basic-level reply to the funda-
mental question Who are you? is that the
brand is known by people and suitable to
enter into their consideration set for a spe-
cifi c product class or customer need.
The salience block could be involved in
the counterfeit phenomenon as the large
number and models of copies available on
the market and the high conspicuousness
of the logo on fake products can signifi -
cantly alter the visibility of the brand and
its knowledge.
The second level of the pyramid relates
to the meaning of the brand, and thus it
replies to the ideal question: What are
you? . After having reached a good brand
recall and recognition (the previous step),
consumers are able to develop specifi c
brand association that should be positive,
unique and favorable ( Keller, 1993 ). Brand
meaning can be composed, on the one
hand, of considerations at a functional,
rational and performance-related level, and,
on the other, of considerations related to a
hedonic, abstract and affective level. For
this reason, the second level of the pyramid
a single exposure to counterfeiting, but
rather a long-term experience of fake prod-
ucts; to analyze a wider brand evaluation;
and to refer not only to actual consumers,
but also to non-users.
The overall brand model adopted for
this study is the CBBE Pyramid conceptu-
alized by Keller (1993, 2001, 2009) . Keller
defi nes the CBBE as the differential effect
of brand knowledge on consumer response
to the marketing of the brand ( Keller,
1993, p. 8 ). Following this conceptualiza-
tion, in order to reach the maximum degree
of brand equity, a brand should successfully
reach six different steps, making up the
six blocks of the pyramid: salience, per-
formance, imagery, judgment, feelings and
resonance ( Figure 1 ).
At the base of the pyramid, there is the
block of brand salience . It corresponds to
some aspects of brand awareness, which is
the consumers awareness of the existence
of the brand and their ability to easily recall
or recognize it (that is, depth of brand
awareness), and to properly evoke it under
Figure 1 : CBBE pyramid.
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?
is split into two different sides: the left one
refers to the fi rst dimension, called per-
formance; the right one corresponds to the
second one, called imagery.
Keller describes the performance dimen-
sion as the overall evaluation of the product
or service s ability to meet consumers
functional needs. It refers to product char-
acteristics (primary and supplementary ones
in addition to style, design and price), reli-
ability, durability, serviceability, effective-
ness, effi ciency and empathy in service
delivery. For luxury products, some of
these evaluations could be considered as
hygienic factors, as the high price level leads
one to believe that these products are top
quality. The effectiveness and empathy in
service delivery could play an important
differential role, for example in purchasing
advice and in post-purchasing assistance.
Counterfeit stresses the importance of func-
tional performances as it puts alternatives
on the market, positioned at a signifi cantly
different price level, highlighting the value-
for-money issue.
The imagery block refers to psychological
and social needs. It is particularly focused
on user profi les of a brand, not merely in
terms of demographic factors or purchase
and usage situations, but also in terms of
personality and values. Brand and the user s
personality characteristics could be very
interesting aspects for luxury products; con-
sumers may believe, in fact, that exhibiting
a luxury product could help them reveal
their personality and social status. Counter-
feits represent the attempts by users of fake
goods to assume some of these personality
traits thanks to an illegal copy, feeding the
others perception of the social desirability
of this brand, and highlighting the authentic
personality coherence between genuine
consumers and the brand.
The third level of the pyramid corre-
sponds to an increase in a consumer s reac-
tion to the brand, ideally replying to the
question: What about you? This level is
also split into two sides: the cognitive and
the affective. The former is called Judg-
ments, and the latter is called Feelings.
The Judgements block summarizes con-
sumers opinions about the brand in terms
of quality, credibility, consideration and
superiority. These judgments are the result
of the previous step, in particular the cog-
nitive block of performance. The overall
CBBE model adopts an incremental per-
spective: in order to reach the subsequent
level, a brand needs to have consolidated
the previous blocks. For luxury brands, the
judgment of superiority plays a central role
because of the uniqueness of the brand.
Being exposed to the counterfeit phenom-
enon could even increase the perception of
individual desirability of a brand, and there-
fore its superiority, in particular in com-
parison with other luxury brands.
In addition to judgments, on the affec-
tive side of the pyramid, there is the Feelings
block that summarizes the emotional reac-
tion to the brand in terms of warmth, fun,
excitement, security, social approval and
self-respect. Some of these feelings origi-
nate at an individual level, whereas others
are based on a social level (that is, social
desirability and appreciation by other con-
sumers who aspire to possess and consume
this brand). For this reason, the consump-
tion of luxury products usually induces
positive emotions in users. It is reasonable
to hypothesize that counterfeit feeds the
emotional side of consumption in these
consumers who can afford the original
The fourth level of the pyramid is the
block of Resonance. It is at the top of the
pyramid because it corresponds to the
highest level of commitment by consumers.
People with a high level of resonance have
developed a strong relationship and a per-
sonal identifi cation with the brand. This
block is particularly relevant for companies
because it corresponds to an intense and
active effort from consumers in favor of
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Therefore, the research questions are:
Does counterfeit have a role in shaping
consumer brand equity? Could the CBBE
of the affected brand be different in con-
sumers who are more aware of the coun-
terfeit phenomenon in comparison with
consumers who are less aware of it? Which
blocks of the CBBE pyramid are affected
by the existence of counterfeits? In light of
the CBBE pyramid description and the
above considerations, we propose the fol-
lowing hypotheses :
Hypothesis 1: Among genuine brand con-
sumers and non-brand consumers,
counterfeit awareness has a positive
impact on CBBE.
Hypothesis 2: The positive effect of coun-
terfeit on CBBE is stronger for genu-
ine brand consumers in comparison
with non-brand consumers.
The study was conducted online. A mes-
sage was posted to several online forums
and blogs directly related to luxury brands
and fashion. The message explained the
purpose of the research and provided a
link to the questionnaire. The question-
naire was composed of several questions
referring to the different dimensions of
the CBBE pyramid. Respondents were
asked to state their degree of agreement
with a list of statements on a 7-point
Likert scale. Moreover, three different
items were introduced to measure res-
pondents awareness of the level of coun-
terfeit affecting the brand ( I can recognize
a fake X product ; The brand X is one of the
most affected by counterfeit ; I often read news
about product X counterfeiting ). Items were
randomly mixed in order not to induce
any kind of dimension categorization.
Some of the items were formulated in a
reverse manner in order to check results
the brand. Intensity means how much a
consumer feels an attitudinal attachment
toward the brand and a sense of community
among other adopters or lovers of a brand.
Activity means how much a consumer is
disposed to behave in favor of the brand
(for example, repurchase the brand, positive
word of mouth, search for news). To inves-
tigate the effect of counterfeit in terms of
resonance could be an interesting point of
view because genuine consumers, and even
prospect ones, could provide effective help
to companies in contrasting this phenom-
enon. In particular, a genuine consumer
who is strongly aware of the counterfeit
phenomenon could develop a sense of
protection toward the brand hurt by fakes,
increasing his resonance and actively acting
in favor of it.
The CBBE model is suitable to give an
overall view of what resides in consumers
mind about a brand, and thus it could be
effective in analyzing the effect of counter-
feit on the brand affected by this phenom-
enon. In particular, the perspective adopted
in this article is focused on people who are
not directly involved in fake consumption,
but who are exposed to this phenomenon:
actual genuine brand users and non-brand
users. These consumers are very interesting
for companies as they could alter their per-
ception of the brand, and consistently their
behaviors, in light of their counterfeit
exposure and awareness.
The assumption of this article is that
actual and potential consumers play a central
role in defi ning, preserving and feeding the
brand equity. In this CBBE process devel-
opment, they should be aware of counterfeit
affecting the brand: they read news about
fakes, they probably know someone who
consumes fakes, and they have probably read
information about how to detect a copy.
This individual frame, shaped by different
degrees of awareness about the counterfeit
phenomenon, interacts with each consumer
brand perception and could alter it.
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?
When available, items were taken from
previous studies. In particular, some
items were drawn from the Washburn
and Plank study (2002) , especially those
referring to salience and resonance . The
other items were inspired by Keller’s ana-
lytic description (2001) of each pyramid
block. Consumers were asked to refer
to a specifi c brand: Louis Vuitton (LV).
The choice of this brand is due to the
presence of this brand at the top of the
list of luxury brands and of the list of
brands hit by counterfeiting. The fi nal
part of the questionnaire was composed
of questions aimed at classifying consumers
in terms of brand usage and counterfeit
awareness of the Louis Vuitton brand,
together with socio-demographic charac-
teristics questions.
Adult respondents were thus approached
randomly online, and asked to complete
the questionnaire, which took approxima-
tely 15 min. A fi nal sample of 187 inter-
viewees was obtained. The participant
sample has the following characteristics:
30 men (16.4 per cent) and 157 women
(83.6 per cent); 72.5 per cent between
18 and 35 years of age, 21.7 per cent bet-
ween 36 and 45 years of age, 2.6 per cent
between 46 and 55 years of age, and 3.2
per cent over 55 years of age.
First of all, we will demonstrate the multi-
dimensional structure of the CBBE con-
struct, examining the six different factors
that contribute to its formation. Then, we
will analyze the difference in the CBBE
structure among different kinds of con-
sumer. In detail, we will categorize respond-
ents into different groups based on: (i) their
kind of brand consumption (that is, non-
brand users versus genuine brand users), (ii)
their awareness of the level of counterfeit
affecting the brand; we will examine the
differences among these consumers in order
to test Hypotheses 1 and 2.
Analysis of the structure on the CBBE
The fi rst purpose of this study was to
examine the structure of CBBE. Therefore,
a factor analysis was performed on data
before further analysis. The principal com-
ponent analysis was rotated by an oblique
procedure and factors were identifi ed from
eigenvalues greater than 1. Any item with
a factor loading greater than 0.50 on their
focal factor and not higher than 0.25 on
another was retained. The analyses revealed
six factors, accounting for 73.15 per cent
of the total variance (see Table 1 ). All the
reliability coeffi cients exceeded the min-
imum standard for reliability ( Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994 ).
The validity of the measures was then
examined through a confi rmatory factor
analysis (CFA) ( Bollen, 1989 ; Bagozzi and
Foxal, 1996 ). Results ( Table 2 ), as inter-
preted by the goodness-of-fi t measures,
show that the model fi ts the data well, con-
rming the convergent validity character-
istic of the measures (
2 / d.f. (836.12 / 362)
= 2.31; RMSEA = 0.07; SRMR = 0.05;
NFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.96; CFI = 0.96). The
correlations between the dimensions,
obtai ned through the CFA, are presented
in Table 3 .
A second-order CFA was then con-
ducted to assess possible hierarchical rela-
tions among the fi rst-order factors, that is,
the possibility of a second-order factor was
investigated. Structural equation modeling
was used to assess the factors relationships.
The fi t statistics of the model were subse-
quently examined. The fi ndings revealed
that, in terms of model design, it is possible
to assume six fi rst-order latent factors (feel-
ings, resonance, salience, performance,
imagery and judgments), refl ecting a
second-order factor (CBBE) (see Figure 2 ).
This model s goodness-of-fi t is satisfactory:
2 / d.f. (884.55 / 371) = 2.38; RMSEA = 0.08;
SRMR = 0.06; NFI = 0.94; NNFI = 0.96;
CFI = 0.96. Therefore, the second-order
CFA confi rmed that the six factors were
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
consumers who declare not to purchase /
consume the products of the brand (that is,
non-brand users); the second group is com-
posed of respondents who declared to
purchase / consume the genuine products of
the brand (that is, genuine brand users).
Then, we distinguish respondents consid-
ering also their awareness of the level of
valid and refl ect a second-order factor
Analysis of the difference of the
CBBE structure among consumers
In order to reach the objectives of this study,
we can distinguish our sample into two dif-
ferent groups: the fi rst group includes all the
Table 1 : Results of factor analysis
Factors and items Factor
Eigenvalue Variance-explained
coeffi cient
Feelings 12.17 29.00 0.94
Peaceful 0.78
Sentimental 0.83
Amused 0.77
Excited 0.83
Enthusiastic 0.80
Safe 0.86
Self-assured 0.74
Admired 0.80
Accomplished 0.79
2.96 13.30 0.94
X would be my fi rst choice 0.68
I consider myself to be loyal to X 0.72
I belong to X lovers 0.78
I like to be seen as a consumer linked to X 0.79
I keep myself informed about X news 0.74
I am willing to positively talk about X 0.60
Prominence 2.28 12.26 0.85
I know what X looks like 0.70
I can recognize X among other competing brands 0.84
I am aware of X 0.76
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X 0.84
I have diffi culty in imaging X in my mind (r) 0.62
Performance 1.51 7.08 0.81
Services by X to customers are of high quality 0.76
X takes care of its customers 0.72
X looks after consumers interests 0.76
Imagery 1.30 6.57 0.71
Those consumers who possess LV have a certain personality 0.72
You can always wear an X product with ease 0.77
LV products give to you a certain personality 0.65
Judgments 1.09 4.93 0.88
X is unique 0.58
X products have some characteristics absent in competing
X products are better than competing ones 0.57
Total variance explained 73.15
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?
counterfeit affecting the brand. Splitting on
the median value (5.00) of this variable, and
considering at the same time the distinction
between genuine brand users and non-brand
users, we obtained four different groups of
respondents . Table 4 summarizes the means,
standard deviations and t -tests for the latent
constructs of the model for these different
groups of consumers.
Results show that, within the group of
consumers who do not purchase / consume
the brand (that is, non-brand users),
respondents with a high perception of the
level of counterfeiting affecting the brand
rate the brand higher in salience, perform-
ance and resonance compared with the
respondents with a low perception of the
level of counterfeiting. Results support
Table 2 : Results of the confi rmatory factor analysis
Factors and items Factor loading SMC (R
Peaceful 0.82 0.67
Sentimental 0.79 0.62
Amused 0.76 0.58
Excited 0.85 0.71
Enthusiastic 0.84 0.70
Safe 0.84 0.71
Self-assured 0.70 0.50
Admired 0.79 0.62
Accomplished 0.80 0.64
X would be my fi rst choice 0.84 0.70
I consider myself to be loyal to X 0.86 0.74
I belong to X lovers 0.90 0.82
I like to be seen as a consumer linked to X 0.89 0.80
I keep myself informed about X news 0.84 0.70
I am willing to positively talk about X 0.81 0.66
I know what X looks like 0.65 0.42
I can recognize X among other competing brands 0.82 0.67
I am aware of X 0.77 0.60
I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of X 0.86 0.74
I have diffi culty in imaging X in my mind (r) 0.60 0.36
Services by X to customers are of high quality 0.85 0.73
X takes care of its customers 0.89 0.80
X looks after consumers interests 0.56 0.31
Those consumers who possess LV have a certain personality 0.52 0.27
You can always wear an X product with ease 0.74 0.54
LV products give to you a certain personality 0.76 0.57
X is unique 0.79 0.63
X products have some characteristics absent in competing offerings 0.88 0.77
X products are better than competing ones 0.82 0.68
2 / d.f. (836.12 / 362)=2.31; RMSEA=0.07; SRMR=0.05; NFI=0.94; NNFI=0.96; CFI=0.96.
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Table 3 : Correlation value (Sig. two-tailed)
Feelings Resonance Prominence Performance Imagery Judgments
Feelings 1
Resonance 0.63** 1
Prominence 0.32** 0.40** 1
(0.00) (0.00)
Performance 0.33** 0.41** 0.43** 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Imagery 0.39** 0.23** 0.35** 0.36** 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
Judgments 0.59** 0.63** 0.45** 0.41** 0.37** 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00)
* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001.
X recognition
X awareness
X recall
X users’
X wearing
X personality
Service quality
Take care of
X looks like
X imagination
First choice
Positive word-
Figure 2 : Confi rmatory factor analysis factor loadings ( t -value) the model hypothesizes six fi rst-order factors explained by one
second-order factor, CBBE (measurement error terms omitted for simplicity).
2 / d.f. (884.55 / 371) = 2.38; RMSEA=0.08; SRMR=0.06; NFI=0.94; NNFI=0.96; CFI=0.96.
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?
Hypothesis 1. Therefore, among the non-
brand users, the more you consider the
brand liable to counterfeit practices, the
more you rate it high in salience, perform-
ance and resonance, and, in addition to
that, the more you are disposed to behave
in favor of it. Considering the group
of consumers who purchase / consume the
brand (that is, genuine brand users), res-
pondents with a high perception of the level
of counterfeit affecting the brand rate the
brand higher in all of the dimensions, except
salience. Results support Hypothesis 2.
A point worth noting is that the largest
gap between the two groups concerns
the resonance of the brand: within the
genuine brand users, the more you consider
the brand liable to counterfeit practices, the
more you are disposed to behave in favor
of it (for example, to positively talk about
the brand; to keep oneself informed about
the brand) and, in addition to that, the
more you rate it high in imagery, perform-
ance, judgment and feelings.
This study is embedded in the current
debate about the effect of counterfeit on
luxury brands. Mainstream marketing
literature states that this phenomenon
hardly hurts copied brands. Some studies
have reported that fake alternatives did not
necessarily lower genuine brand product
evaluations, providing some interesting
evidence for specifi c theoretical constructs
referring to attitudes, perceptions or behav-
iors. The present research attempts to high-
light the effects of counterfeit awareness
on the CBBE of genuine brand users and
potential users. A positive shift on the six
blocks of CBBE is supposed.
Results are consistent with the adopted
theoretical model: Keller s CBBE pyramid.
The mean rates of each block are descending
from the base to the top of the pyramid,
both for the genuine brand users sample
and for the non-brand users sample . In
order to comprehend whether the coun-
terfeiting phenomenon does alter the CBBE
of each sample of consumers, we split them
into two distinct groups: on the one hand,
those who do not have a great perceived
awareness of the counterfeit phenomenon,
that means they do not think that counter-
feit practices are signifi cantly addressed to
the investigated brand, they do not consider
themselves able to detect a copy, and they
are not interested in news about fakes prac-
tices; on the other hand, there are con-
sumers who are not directly involved in
fake consumption but who think to be
aware of this problem with reference to the
investigated brand.
Consistent with the fi rst hypothesis,
counterfeiting awareness does not weaken
CBBE, but rather it might strengthen some
Table 4 : Means (standard deviations) and t -tests for latent variables between groups
Non-brand users T-test (sig.) Genuine brand users T-test (sig.)
Low counterfeit
High counterfeit
Low counterfeit
High counterfeit
(N=77) (N=35) (N=21) (N=54)
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Prominence 4.43 ( 1.17) 5.36 ( 0.67) 5.21 ( 0.00) 5.38 (0.63) 5.58 (0.40) 1.54 (0.13)
Imagery 3.71 (1.35) 4.02 (1.65) 1.06 (0.29) 3.68 ( 1.37) 4.54 ( 1.33)
2.46 (0.02)
Performance 4.36 ( 0.99) 5.08 ( 1.06) 3.44 (0 .00) 4.64 ( 1.47) 5.43 ( 1.04) 2.57 (0.01)
Judgments 3.18 (1.40) 3.56 (1.37) 1.33 (0.19) 3.83 ( 1.38) 4.83 ( 1.40) 2.73 (0.01)
Feelings 2.16 (1.29) 2.62 (1.60) 1.49 (0.14) 2.78 ( 1.10) 3.62 ( 1.41) 2.46 (0.02)
Resonance 1.45 ( 0.59) 1.91 ( 0.84) 2.95 ( 0.00) 2.31 ( 1.20) 3.94 ( 1.75) 4.58 ( 0.00)
Note : Bold values are the signifi cant differences between groups.
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
sort of protection-behavior in favor of the
brand they love. Moreover, this positive
effect appears even among consumers who
simply consider themselves aware about
counterfeiting. It implies that the more they
consider that the brand is threatened, the
more they feel obliged to reward the brand
with their active engagement: for example,
they can confi rm their brand loyalty, or
they can activate a positive word of mouth
on behalf of the brand.
The results of this study are also innova-
tive and relevant because this kind of posi-
tive effect is not limited to genuine brand
consumers but also involves non-brand
users. They are very important for compa-
nies as well; in fact, all of them contribute
to the market by shaping and developing
the brand equity, and some of them could
be potential future genuine brand con-
sumers. Even for them, one of the most
important shifts owing to counterfeiting
awareness concerns resonance. Of course,
the main score of this dimension is lower
than the one for genuine brand consumers
because it is not fed by an active brand pur-
chasing loyalty. Of similar signifi cance is the
result that on this kind of consumer the
consequences of counterfeit practices are
not only at brand identity level (that is, sali-
ence) and at a meaning level (that is, per-
formance block), but also at the top level of
the pyramid, which implies consumers
These results could be particularly relevant
for policymakers and for managers. Com-
panies hurt by counterfeiting usually tend
to blind information about the extent of
the phenomenon and they mainly address
their effort on promoting legal actions
against counterfeiters. Doing so, they
underestimate the awareness of the phe-
nomenon within their actual and potential
consumers, and they waste the chance to
consumers perceptions, evaluations and
behavioral intentions. In particular, genuine
brand consumers show a signifi cant sensi-
bility toward counterfeiting information on
almost all of the CBBE dimensions.
Knowing that the brand they possess is
affected by counterfeit induces them to
think that this brand is well performing in
their needs fulfi lment and to consider it
better than competitors. The incessant
efforts made by counterfeiters to try to
effectively imitate the style and the quality
features of the genuine products (even the
warranty and the fi nishes) probably high-
light the uniqueness of the genuine product.
Moreover, the reactions of genuine brand
users to counterfeit awareness are not lim-
ited to the cognitive side of the brand
equity; they also concern the affective one.
Genuine brand consumers who know that
the brand they possess is copied believe that
this brand has a high potential in terms of
symbolic meaning. First of all, they are
aware that the usage of this brand could
reveal specifi c personality traits, such as
being stylish, cool or elegant. The more
a brand is imitated the more they perceive
that a great number of consumers who
cannot afford the genuine product aspire to
reach the same personality traits and to
communicate their membership to their
peers. Genuine brand users probably judge
this attempt as ineffective, and this belief
confi rms their right to an authentic social
approval, increasing their self-esteem and
self-confi dence. This assumption signifi -
cantly affects the emotions induced by the
brand: they feel more peaceful, safe, proud,
cheerful and accomplished.
The most important shift in CBBE high-
lighted by this research is at the top of the
pyramid: the resonance. This is positive
evidence for companies because it means
that the more relevant impact of counterfeit
practices is to deepen the sense of com-
munity in genuine brand consumers and
that this result induces them to activate a
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Does counterfeiting affect luxury customer-based brand equity?
involve effective allies in the fi ght against
counterfeiting. As a matter of fact, con-
sumers (both genuine brand consumers and
potential consumers) are more effective
than companies in arguing about a brand s
superiority, uniqueness and value added
within other consumers opinion. Some-
times managers lose sight of the possibility
to temporarily turn the counterfeit threat
into an opportunity. This means that in
addition to the legitimate legal actions to
stop the circulation of fakes, they could
even implement communication activities
in order to increase consumers awareness
of counterfeiting. From a cognitive per-
spective, it could be useful to measure the
extent of the phenomenon and to signal
how easily people can detect a copy, or to
stress the intrinsic inferior qualitative per-
formance of a fake. From a symbolic per-
spective, it could be useful to stress that the
desire to possess and exhibit an object with
a salient brand logo by fake users does con-
rm the inaccessibility of luxury products,
as fakes are only a fi ctitious way of joining
the elite. Luxury consumption is not merely
an economic matter, but even a personality
mirror. Fake users do realize that they are
not able to possess a genuine product, and
thus they never authentically reach the
emotional state induced by genuine luxury
product consumption. This consideration
is consistent with a higher sense of com-
munity developed within genuine brand
users who are aware of counterfeit prac-
tices. They declare they are more collabo-
rative toward brands. Companies could
exploit this disposition to promote brand
communities or other communication ini-
tiatives aimed at showing the active engage-
ment of genuine consumers.
The results of this study and the above-
mentioned managerial implication do not
assert that counterfeiting has an overall
positive effect on companies. It is an illegal
practice that threatens the profi t oppor-
tunity of the brand involved. This side of
the problem is irrefutable, and therefore it
is not the focus of this research. This survey
tries to explore whether, in addition to the
negative economic impact of counterfeit,
it is likely that companies could even bene t
from counterfeiting in terms of brand per-
ception and evaluation. From this breach,
supported by the empirical analyses, stems
a further question addressed to policy-
makers: What kind of action is suitable for
those companies for which the effects of
counterfeiting are only negative? We refer
to companies whose offering is placed at
the same price level as fakes, whose brands
are not so salient, and which do not benefi t
from the cognitive and symbolic leverage
effect shown in this article.
This study, of course, has got several
limitations. First of all, the analysis is focused
on only one brand and one country. This
choice is due to the intention to explore
the hypothesis in a bounded context. For
further research, it would be interesting to
include a wider range of brands affected by
counterfeiting and to conduct an inter-
country analysis, as the country of origin
and the ethnocentrism could affect these
Atwal , G . and Williams , A . ( 2009 ) Luxury brand mar-
keting, the experience is everything! Journal of Brand
Management 16 (5/6) : 338 346 .
Bagozzi , R . P . and Foxal , G . R . ( 1996 ) Construct vali-
dation of a measure of adaptive-innovative cogni-
tive styles in consumption . International Journal of
Research in Marketing 13 (3) : 201 213 .
Bollen , K . A . ( 1989 ) Structural Equations with Latent
Variables . New York: Wiley .
Bushman , B . J . ( 1993 ) What’s in a name? The moder-
ating role of public self-consciousness on the relation
between brand label and brand preference . Journal of
Applied Psychology 78 (5) : 857 861 .
Commuri ,
S . ( 2009 ) The impact of counterfeiting on
genuine-item consumers brand relationship . Journal
of Marketing 73 (May) : 86 98 .
Cordell , V . V . , Wongtada , N . and Kieschnick Jr , R . L .
( 1996 ) Counterfeit purchase intentions: Role of law-
fulness attitudes and product traits as determinants .
Journal of Business Research 35 (January) : 41 53 .
Gabrielli et al
© 2012 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-23IX Journal of Brand Management 1–14
Keller , K . L . ( 2001 ) Building customer-based brand
equity . Marketing Management 10 (2) : 14 19 .
Mendel , N . , Petrova , P . K . and Cialdini , R . B .
( 2006 ) Images of success and the preference for
luxury brands . Journal of Consumer Psychology 16 (1) :
59 67 .
Nia , A . and Zaichkowsky , J . L . ( 2000 ) Do counterfeits
devalue the ownership of luxury brands? Journal of
Product & Brand Management 9 (7) : 485 497 .
Nunnally , J . C . and Bernstein ,
I . H . ( 1994 ) Psychometric
Theory , 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill .
Penz , E . and St ö ttinger , B . ( 2008 ) Original brands
and counterfeit brands Do they have anything
in common? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7 (1) :
146 163 .
Silverstein , M . J . and Fiske , N . ( 2000 ) Trading Up: The
New American Luxury . New York: Portfolio .
Vickers , J . S . and Renand , F . ( 2003 ) The marketing
of luxury goods: An exploratory study Three
conceptual dimensions . Marketing Review 3 (3) :
459 478 .
Virgneron , F . and Johnson , L . W . ( 2004 ) Measuring
perception of brand luxury . Journal of Brand Manage-
ment 11 (6) : 484 506 .
Washburn , J . H . and Plank , R . ( 2002 ) Measuring brand
equity: An evaluation of a consumer-based brand
equity scale . Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice
10 (1) : 46 61 .
Wilcox , K . , Kim , H . M . and Sem , S . ( 2009 ) Why do
consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of
Marketing Research XLVI (April) : 247 259 .
Dubois , B . and Duquesne ,
P . ( 1993 ) The market for
luxury goods: Income versus culture . European
Journal of Marketing 27 (1) : 35 44 .
Dubois , B . and Paternault , C . ( 1995 ) Observations:
Understanding the world of international luxury
brands: The dream formula . Journal of Advertising
Research 35 (4) : 69 75 .
Fournier , S . ( 1998 ) Consumers and their brands: Devel-
oping relationship theory in consumer research .
Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March) : 343 373 .
Gistri , G . , Romani , S . , Pace , S . , Gabrielli , V . and
Grappi , S . ( 2009 ) Consumption practices of coun-
terfeit luxury goods in the Italian context .
of Brand Management 16 (5/6) : 364 374 .
Hellofs , L . L . and Jacobson , R . ( 1999 ) Market share and
customers perceptions of quality: When can fi rms
grow their way to higher versus lower quality?
Journal of Marketing 63 (1) : 16 25 .
Hieke , S . ( 2010 ) Effects of counterfeit on the image
of luxury brands: An empirical study from the cus-
tomer perspective . Journal of Brand Management
18 (2) : 159 173 .
Kapferer , J . and Bastien , V . ( 2009 ) The specifi city of luxury
management: Turning marketing upside down . Journal
of Brand Management 16 (5/6) : 311 322 .
Keller , K . L .
( 2009 ) Buildings strong brands in modern
marketing communication environment . Journal of
Marketing Communications 15 (2 3) : 139 155 .
Keller , K . L . ( 1993 ) Conceptualizing, measuring, and
managing, customer-based brand equity . Journal of
Marketing 57 (January) : 1 22 .
... 22 I can easily understand the subject through video. 23 I feel eager to get more and research this subject. 24 This method of study assists in rooting of information. ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this research is to propose a teaching method for the curriculum of Fashion advertising within Art inspiration (Doctoral Program). king Abdelaziz university. This made researchers to design an educational video to assess the effects of modern art trends on fashion advertising as well as enabling students to comprehend the information in few minutes. The research has followed the semi-experimental approach through an e-questionnaire to measure the effectiveness of this developed approach. The search sample was formed from. Doctoral program students in the Department of Clothing and Textile. The results showed that there are statistically significant differences in favor of the after test. The researchers recommended applying this proposed method to doctoral students and motivate them for self-learning by using different educational aids (SCL).
... 22 I can easily understand the subject through video. 23 I feel eager to get more and research this subject. 24 This method of study assists in rooting of information. ...
... A consumer's cognition, assessment, and prior experience result in liking and repeat purchase of NDCs (Bian and Moutinho 2011;Gabrielli, Grappi, and Baghi 2012;Sharma and Chan 2011;Yoo and Lee 2012). Consumers signal discernments about NDCs to the self and advocate externally to others (Castaño and Perez 2014;Gino, Norton, and Ariely 2010). ...
Extant research is equivocal on the positive and negative implications of counterfeits and is unable to offer an explanation for why purchase and use of counterfeits evoke mixed and contentious responses. We argue that the unreconciled claims about counterfeits are partially rooted in the divided logics of value, as articulated by the goods-dominant logic (GDL) versus service-dominant logic (SDL). We develop a conceptual understanding of non-deceptive counterfeits (NDCs) atop SDL axioms, along key extant research debates. Our examination of the theoretical GDL-SDL views of NDCs with a synthesis of 132 extant academic works, informs the adversarial orientation towards such products. We address extant debates using a content analysis of studies on NDCs. We offer propositions that link the theoretical relevance of evaluating outcomes of NDCs from an SDL perspective and provide foci for future research on this subject.
... It can be argued that when millennials experience resentment against luxury brands, counterfeit consumption is perceived as an act of endorsing the norm violating brand. This perception may be augmented when counterfeiting is perceived to enhance the luxury brand image (Gabrielli et al., 2012). As a result, millennials do not want to enhance the image of the luxury brands which they resent against. ...
Purpose This paper aims to theorize counterfeit luxury consumption among millennials from a generational identity perspective. Design/methodology/approach The paper proposes and tests a model of counterfeit buying behavior using an online survey of 467 millennial respondents. The study uses multi-item measures from the extant literature and uses the structural equation modeling technique to test the proposed hypotheses. Findings The findings reveal when millennials have a self-defining relationship with their generation, they tend to internalize the generational norm pertaining to counterfeit luxury consumption. Millennials’ counterfeit related values: market mavenism, postmodernism, schadenfreude and public self-consciousness contribute to their generational identity. Moreover, market mavenism, cool consumption and public self-consciousness establish counterfeit luxury consumption as a generational norm. Practical implications The findings of this paper suggest that the expertise and influence of market mavens can be used to deter counterfeit consumption. Moreover, luxury brands must communicate a cool image to offset the rebellious image of counterfeits. Further, from a standardization versus adaption standpoint, the generational perspective allows for the standardization of anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Originality/value The paper makes a novel contribution to the counterfeiting literature by demonstrating that millennials pursue counterfeit luxury brands when they pledge cognitive allegiance to their generation. The paper, thus, extends the identity perspective of counterfeit luxury consumption to group contexts. The authors also test and validate the role of descriptive norms in group contexts by introducing the construct generational norm to counterfeiting literature.
... While Gabrielli et al. (2012) report no negative effect on the perception of original brands, Wilcox et al. (2009) show that the presence of counterfeits reduces the desire to buy original items. Going further, Wilcox et al. (2011) have demonstrated that the presence of counterfeits increases consumers' desire for the originals only when consumers can identify the dissimilarities between originals and fakes. ...
The three essays of this thesis provide a conceptual framework to explain GCC affluent nationals’ luxury counterfeit consumption. The first essay examines the risks associated with such consumption and identifies the coping strategies used to deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance. The second essay explains the unexpected positive influence of consumers’ age on such consumption by the specific historical context of the GCC countries. The third essay reveals GCC consumers’ motivations to such consumption that were not mentioned in a literature usually concentrated on Western and Asian consumers.
Purpose This study aims to investigate the moderating role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) commitment in the relationships between antecedents and outcomes of consumer situational scepticism towards luxury brands. Design/methodology/approach The study used a questionnaire administered through a consumer panel, using established scales. A 2 (fictional, non-fictional) × 2 (low commitment, high commitment) factorial experimental design with four cells was implemented. Findings The results revealed that values-driven motives were associated with lower consumer situational scepticism, whereas egoistic-driven motives were linked to higher levels of consumer situational scepticism, regardless of the CSR commitment level of the luxury brand. However, the impact of strategic-driven motives and stakeholder-driven motives on consumer situational scepticism was only significant within the low commitment condition. Consumer situational scepticism was found to lead to lower brand resonance and resilience to negative information in both low and high commitment conditions. Originality/value This study contributes new knowledge by highlighting the crucial role of motives in shaping consumer perceptions, including scepticism, brand resonance and resilience to negative information, ultimately influencing consumer advocacy. The study further demonstrates that high commitment weakens the relationship between strategic-driven and stakeholder-driven motives and consumer scepticism. Moreover, high commitment also weakens the relationship between scepticism and the key outcomes examined in the study.
Purpose This study aims to examine the moderating role of principle-based entity (PBE) of luxury brands and its effect on perceived corporate social responsibility (CSR) motives, consumer situational scepticism and brand resonance. Design/methodology/approach Structural equation modelling using multigroup analysis was used. Data were collected through a consumer panel. Findings Values-driven motives lowered consumer situational scepticism (CSS) significantly more in PBE than non-PBE. However, egoistic-driven motives increased CSS significantly more in PBE than non-PBE. Stakeholder-driven motives and strategic-driven motives did not elicit CSS, contrary to prior studies in non-luxury brands. PBE status also weakens the relationship between CSS and brand resonance more than non-PBE status. Originality/value This study is the first to provide empirical insights into PBE status and its effects on perceived motives, CSS of CSR initiatives and its influence in consumer and management outcomes in luxury brands.
Amaç –Bu çalışma, tekstil ve moda pazarında lüks markaların ürünlerine karşı “değer-dışavurumcu” veya “sosyal-uyarlayıcı” tutumlara sahip müşterilerin sahte lüks moda ürünü satın alma niyetlerine ahlaki yargı ve marka dikkat çekiciliği algılarının aracılık etkilerini incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Yöntem –Türkiye’deki sosyal medya kullanıcıları arasında kolayda örnekleme yöntemiyle ulaşılan katılımcılara çevrimiçi bir anket uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen veriler göre, değer-dışavurumcu veya sosyal-uyarlayıcı tutum sahibi olarak ayrılan müşterilerin sahte lüks moda ürünlerini satın alma niyetleri üzerinde ahlaki yargı ve marka dikkat çekiciliği algılarının aracılık etkileriyle ilgili 14 hipotez Proses Makro 4.0 kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular –Ölçeklerin yapılan keşfedici faktör analizi ve hesaplanan Cronbach’s Alfa katsayılarıyla yapı geçerliliklerinin ve güvenirliliklerinin oldukça yüksek olduğu görülmüştür. Örneklemin (n=505) %30,7’sinin değer-dışavurumcu, %65,3’ünün de sosyal-uyarlayıcı tutum sahibi oldukları görülmüştür. Sosyal uyarlayıcı tutum sahiplerinin sahte lüks moda ürünlerini satın alma niyetlerinin değer-dışavurumcu tutum sahiplerinden daha çok yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Aynı zamanda, değer-dışavurumcu tutumun ahlaki yargı üzerindeki etkisinin anlamlı olmaması ve ahlaki yargının sahte ürün satın alma niyeti üzerindeki etkisinin anlamlı olması nedeniyle 2 hipotezin desteklenmediği, diğer değişkenler arasındaki ilişkilerin anlamlı olması nedeniyle 12 hipotezin desteklendiği görülmüştür. Tartışma –Ürün sahteciliği küresel ölçekte olduğu gibi Türkiye’de de ciddi bir sorun teşkil etmektedir. Özellikle, lüks moda markalarının ürünlerindeki yüksek fiyatlar ve marka dikkat çekiciliği gibi nedenlerle sahte lüks moda ürünü satın almanın daha az yadırgandığı bir zamanda sahteciliğin daha yükseleceği sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Tüketicilerin lüks moda ürünlerinin sahtelerini satın almayla ilgili motivasyonları arasında işlevsel tutumların da etkili olduğu ile ahlaki yargı ve marka dikkat çekiciliğinin görülmüştür.
Purpose Demand for fake physical and digital products is a global phenomenon with substantive detrimental effects on companies and consumers. This raises various questions and issues, such as whether there are generalizable explanations of purchase intentions. Design/methodology/approach This research is based on consumer samples from three different countries. This paper develops and tests a model based on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to explain both the demand for counterfeits and digital piracy. Respondents were questioned about physical products (e.g. clothing, accessories) from well-known brands and digital products (e.g. software, music). Findings Socially oriented motives such as embarrassment potential, ethical concerns and social norms explain the intention to purchase fake physical and digital products, while personally oriented motives (e.g. self-identity) have indirect effects but not a direct impact on purchase intention. Research limitations/implications As our results show, we find evidence for a general model – contributing and supporting our first and primary research goal of providing a theoretically robust model that bridges the gap between two streams of literature. Practical implications The fact that drivers of buying counterfeit physical and digital goods are similar across countries provides justification for companies and international organizations to bundle their efforts and thus leverage them more strongly on a global scale. Originality/value We provide a basis for consolidating future research on demand for counterfeits and pirated goods because underlying factors driving demand are similar across the three countries studied herein.
Luxury counterfeits are appealing to certain shoppers because they provide the signaling value of luxury brands at a lower price. Because of the myriad challenges facing policymakers and law enforcement, the stigma of using counterfeits has been diminishing and counterfeit sales have been on the rise. Research has been conducted on the characteristics of those more likely to purchase counterfeits, and investigations into the social and emotional motives that underlie counterfeit use have also been undertaken. Despite all of this attention, it is still unclear which levers can be utilized by law enforcement to enact demand-side limitations that will reduce the on-going proliferation of counterfeits. The chapter reviews the literature, particularly in marketing, in order to provide some insight to brand managers, policymakers, and law enforcement agencies who are attempting to curb counterfeit consumption.
Full-text available
Today luxury is everywhere. Everybody wants his products to be luxury. The concept of luxury is attractive and fashionable. There are luxury columns in all magazines and journals. There are TV shows on the business of luxury, and on luxury products and services. Even mass-consumption brands name many of their models ‘Deluxe’ or qualify their experience as luxurious. New words have been recently invented and promoted that add to the complexity: masstige, opuluxe, premium, ultra-premium, trading up, hyperluxury, real or true luxury, and so on. There is a confusion today about what really makes a luxury product, a luxury brand or a luxury company. Managing implies clear concepts and, beyond these concepts, clear business approaches and pragmatic rules. The aim of this paper is to unveil the specificity of management of luxury brands. Going back to fundamentals, one needs to distinguish it strongly from both fashion and premium or ‘trading up’. From this starting point, it sets out some of the counter-intuitive rules for successfully marketing luxury goods and services.
Full-text available
This research examines the impact of media depictions of success (or failure) on consumers' desire for luxury brands. In a pilot study and three additional studies, we demonstrate that read- ing a story about a similar/successful other, such as a business major from the same university, increases consumers' expectations about their own future wealth, which in turn increases their desire for luxury brands. However, reading about a dissimilar successful other, such as a biol- ogy major, lowers consumers' preferences for luxury brands. Furthermore, we examine the role of ease of imagining oneself in the narrative as a mediator of the relation between direction of comparison, similarity, and brand preference.
This research reports an independent assessment of a recently developed set of consumer-based brand equity measures. Yoo and Donthu (1997) developed a multidimensional, consumer-based brand equity scale comprised of four theoretically defined constructs and a separate multiple-item overall brand equity measure. The present research employed slightly modified items in a different context in an attempt to examine the robustness of the proposed scale. Subjects (n=272) responded to the brand equity scale for different brands and combinations of brands in a co-branding context. The results suggest that, while the Yoo and Donthu scale represents an adequate first step, further scale development is needed. Nevertheless, this scale development has brought us closer to a universally accepted measure of consumer-based brand equity.
The author presents a conceptual model of brand equity from the perspective of the individual consumer. Customer-based brand equity is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand. A brand is said to have positive (negative) customer-based brand equity when consumers react more (less) favorably to an element of the marketing mix for the brand than they do to the same marketing mix element when it is attributed to a fictitiously named or unnamed version of the product or service. Brand knowledge is conceptualized according to an associative network memory model in terms of two components, brand awareness and brand image (i. e., a set of brand associations). Customer-based brand equity occurs when the consumer is familiar with the brand and holds some favorable, strong, and unique brand associations in memory. Issues in building, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity are discussed, as well as areas for future research.
Market share can influence perceived quality through several different mechanisms, including signaling, creating network externalities, and inclusion as an attribute in consumers' quality functions. The direction of this potential effect is ambiguous. Making use of data on 85 different brands across 28 product categories, the authors explore the effect market share has on consumers' perceptions of quality and the extent to which category-wide and brand-specific factors moderate this effect.
To help marketers to build and manage their brands in a dramatically changing marketing communications environment, the customer-based brand equity model that emphasizes the importance of understanding consumer brand knowledge structures is put forth. Specifically, the brand resonance pyramid is reviewed as a means to track how marketing communications can create intense, active loyalty relationships and affect brand equity. According to this model, integrating marketing communications involves mixing and matching different communication options to establish the desired awareness and image in the minds of consumers. The versatility of on-line, interactive marketing communications to marketers in brand building is also addressed.
Although the definition of a ‘luxury’ brand is open for debate, the natural evolution of luxury, with luxury brands first being adopted by the affluent and wealthy before inevitably being translated and reinterpreted down to mass markets, raises new challenges for marketing strategists. Luxury brands need to stay in front of luxury consumers, through the discovery of new and different ways to give expression to their desires. This paper discusses the fundamental difference between communication and connection, and identifies a means of assuring the greatest long-term success for luxury marketers by connecting with the luxury consumer using brand-related experiences.