Consumer Demand for Counterfeit Goods

Gail Tom, Barbara Garibaldi, Yvette Zeng, and Julie Pilcher

California State University, Sacramento

ABSTRACT
Research on counterfeiting has focused on the supply side, with scant attention to consumer demand for counterfeit goods. Anticounterfeiting efforts would benet from the identication of the segment(s) of consumer counterfeiting accomplices, consumers who knowingly purchase counterfeit products. This article reports on three studies, conducted at ea markets and malls, that attempted to identify consumer accomplices. Study 1 investigated prepurchase factors, Study 2 focused on factors active during purchasing, and Study 3 concentrated on postpurchase factors. The results suggest the existence of a typology of consumer accomplices, sly shoppers who purposely purchase counterfeit goods to demonstrate their consumer shrewdness and economically concerned shoppers whose intentional purchase of fake goods is driven by economic concerns. Implications for marketing practitioners are discussed. 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Counterfeiting is a serious problem that has quadrupled over the past decade at a cost of over 200 billion dollars to U.S. business (Yang, 1995). The phenomenal growth of counterfeiting, the production of copies packaged with trademarks and/or labeling, to seem to a consumer the genuine article (Kay, 1990) is a serious economic, social, and political problem that threatens the lives of unsuspecting consumers, wreaks economic havoc, and weakens consumer condence in manufactured/ branded products. The topic of counterfeiting has generated a substantial body of scholPsychology & Marketing 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vol. 15(5):405421 (August 1998) CCC 0742-6046/98/050405-17
405

arly discussion, research, and thought. The majority of the research on counterfeiting has focused attention on the supply side (e.g., Bamossy & Scammon, 1985; Bush, Bloch, & Dawson, 1989; Carty, 1994; Olsen & Granzin, 1992; Onkvisit & Shaw, 1989) with scant research addressing the demand side of counterfeiting (Bloch, Bush, & Campbell, 1993; Cordell, Kieschnick, & Wongtada, 1996; Wee, Tan, & Cheok, 1995), that is consumer accomplices who engage in aberrant consumer behavior (e.g. Babin & Babin, 1996; Hassay & Smith, 1996; Nataraajan & Goff, 1992) and deliberately purchase counterfeit goods. It can be argued that counterfeiters are good marketers because they have found a need and are nding a way to fulll it (McDonald & Roberts, 1994). In many cases of selling of fake products, the main purpose does not seem to deceive consumers but to satisfy them (Arellano, 1994). To develop techniques that effectively combat the problem of counterfeiting, it is necessary to determine and identify the existence of the segment(s) of consumer accomplices who purchase counterfeit goods. Not all consumers buy counterfeit goods, and among those who do buy counterfeit goods, there are most likely differences in the frequency of purchase and differences in the importance and/or satisfaction of product attributes by product category. The present study, consisting of three phases, was designed to attempt to identify counterfeit-product-prone consumers and the product attributes that attract them. Part 1 investigated prepurchase factors, Part 2 focused on factors active during purchasing, and Part 3 concentrated on postpurchase factors. Data for each phase of the study were collected at different locations and times in a large metropolitan city located in northern California.

PART I: PREPURCHASE PHASE A common tenet in the consumer behavior literature, supported by numerous ndings (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein 1977; Lutz, 1975; Yi, 1990) is that attitude inuences consumer choice. Part 1 of the study investigated the extent that the prepurchase variable attitude distinguishes between consumers who do not purchase counterfeit goods from those who do. Methodology Consumer attitude toward counterfeiting for three different areas was measured with the use of a 5-point Likert-type scale for 13 statements. Two items measured consumer attitude regarding the effect of counterfeiting on the U.S. economy and the economic health of manufacturers of legitimate goods. Consumers who buy counterfeit goods may not re-

406

TOM ET AL.

alize the economic damage that their activity causes legitimate manufacturers. They may not stop to think that their purchase of counterfeit goods hurts the U.S. economy via job loss, increases in the trade decit, et cetera. Nor may they be aware that their contribution to counterfeiting may very well be funding organized crime and other illicit activities such as prostitution. Three statements were included to determine consumer attitude concerning the legality of manufacturing, selling, and buying of counterfeit goods. Previous research provides some support that consumer attitude toward the lawfulness of purchasing counterfeit products negatively inuences consumer intention to purchase counterfeit products (Cordell, et al., 1996; Swinyard, Heikki, & Kau, 1990). Five statements were included to assess the extent that consumers participated in counterfeit activities as a method to express their anti-bigbusiness attitudes. Consumers who view big business as charging exorbitant prices to exacerbate snob appeal may buy counterfeit versions of the legitimate product to express their negative perception of big business. Three statements were designed to determine consumer assessment of the quality of counterfeit goods. Consumers who willingly buy counterfeit products may judge them to be comparable to the legitimate product more so than consumers who choose not to buy counterfeit goods. The more similar consumers judge products to be, the more similar will be their preference for them (Lefkoff-Hagius & Mason, 1993). A question was included that asked respondents to indicate whether they had ever knowingly purchased counterfeit goods. Respondents were also asked to provide demographic data. Generalizing from previous ndings that attitude inuences consumer behavior, Hypothesis 1 tests the validity specically to consumer purchase of counterfeit goods.
Hypothesis 1: Consumers who have purchased counterfeit products hold attitudes more supportive of counterfeiting than consumers who have not purchased counterfeit goods.

Participating in the study were 129 consumers, 79 from the mall, where consumers would be unlikely to encounter counterfeit goods, and 50 from the ea market, where consumers would be more likely to nd counterfeit goods (Higgins & Rubin, 1986). Researchers approached participants and asked them to participate in the study by answering a questionnaire. Results The results of the comparison of the attitudes and demographic differences among consumers who stated that they have purchased counterfeit goods and those who stated that they have not will be presented,

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

407

Table 1. t-test of Attitude toward Counterfeiting by Consumer Past Purchase of Counterfeit or Legitimate Products. Group Means Attitude Statements
a

Counterfeit 3.14 2.9

Legitimate 3.7 3.1

Counterfeit products do not hurt the U.S. economy. Counterfeit products hurt the companies that manufacture the legitimate product. I like counterfeit goods because they demonstrate initiative and ingenuity on the part of the counterfeiters. I buy counterfeit products because counterfeiters are little guys who ght big business. Buying counterfeit products is a way to get back at uncaring and unfair big business. People who buy counterfeit products are committing a crime. People who sell counterfeit products are committing a crime. People who manufacture counterfeit products are committing a crime. Buying counterfeit products demonstrates that I am a wise shopper. I like buying counterfeit products because its like playing a practical joke on the manufacturer of the noncounterfeit products. I buy counterfeit products because the prices of designer products are unfair and gouge. Counterfeit products are just as good as designer products. I would buy counterfeit products even if I could easily afford to buy noncounterfeit products.
a b

2.27* .09

3.06**

3.9

4.45

2.01*

3.95

4.32

3.59**

3.47

4.23

2.61** 2.03* 2.25* 2.10* 2.43*

3.28 3.34 3.34 3.12 3.75

2.54 2.81 2.76 4.2 4.25

4.25**

2.97

3.92

3.10** 5.34**

3.27 3.31

4.10 4.37

Scale: 1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 neutral, 4 disagree, 5 strongly disagree. df 127 *p .05. **p .01.

followed by a presentation of an analysis comparing the attitudes and demographic differences among consumers who were surveyed at malls and those surveyed at ea markets. Consumers Who Stated that They Have Knowingly Purchased Counterfeit Goods and Those Who Stated that They Have Not. As the t test results presented in Table 1 show, consumers who stated that

408

TOM ET AL.

they have never knowingly purchased counterfeit goods hold attitudes signicantly less supportive of counterfeiting than consumers who stated that they have knowingly purchased counterfeit goods. Both groups expressed similar attitudes only on one statement. These ndings support Hypothesis 1. Approximately 39% of the sample stated that they have knowingly purchased counterfeit products; 61% stated that they have never knowingly purchased counterfeit goods. The proportion of men and women did not differ between the two groups. However, the consumers who indicated previous purchase of counterfeit products are signicantly younger (mean age 29 years) than consumers who indicated that they have never purchased faked goods (mean age 39 years) (t 3.13, df 125, p .01). Consumers Surveyed at Malls and Those Surveyed at Flea Markets. Consumers surveyed at ea markets hold more positive attitudes toward counterfeiting than consumers surveyed at malls.1 However, the distinction in attitude is more marked when the demarcation is between consumers who are and are not counterfeit accomplices than it is by location of the consumer. Demographically, consumers who were surveyed at ea markets are younger (mean age of 31 years versus mean age of 39 years) (t 2.64, df 127, p .01) and have less formal education (chi square 23.5, df 2, p .001) than those surveyed at malls. Discussion In general, the results support a halo/horn effect (e.g., Festinger, 1957; Mizerski, Golden, & Kernan, 1979) and clearly distinguishes the attitudes between consumers who reported prior purchase of counterfeit goods from those who reported that they had never knowingly purchased counterfeit goods. The ndings indicate that compared to consumers who have not knowingly purchased counterfeit products, consumers who have knowingly purchased counterfeit products do so because they perceive them to be as good as the legitimate products. For consumer accomplices, the purchase of counterfeit products is also an expression of their anti-big-business sentiments. Supporting previous research (Cordell et al., 1996), consumer accomplices express more lax attitudes towards the lawfulness of counterfeiting than consumers who have not knowingly purchased fake goods. Both consumers who reported that they have knowingly purchased counterfeits and those who have not agreed that counterfeit products hurt manufacturers of legitimate products. However, compared to consumers who reported
1

For the sake of brevity, detailed statistical results are not reported. Interested readers may contact Gail Tom for details of the statistical analysis.

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

409

that they have not knowingly purchased counterfeit products, consumer accomplices do not believe that counterfeit products hurt the U. S. economy as a whole. The nding that there are more consumer accomplices at ea markets than at malls, and that they hold attitudes more supportive of counterfeiting, suggest that ea markets may be an effective retail outlet to target the consumer accomplice segment.

PART 2: PURCHASE PHASE In Part 2 of the study, consumers were presented with an opportunity to purchase counterfeit products in a simulated shopping experience. The purposes of Part 2 of the study were (a) to assess the proportion of consumers who, when given the opportunity to purchase either a counterfeit or legitimate version of consumer goods, would choose to purchase the counterfeit item; (b) to determine their product attitudes; and (c) to obtain demographic characteristics. Methodology As in Part 1, data for Part 2 of the study were collected both in a shopping mall (n 232), and at a ea market (n 203). The products selected for this study are frequently counterfeited. CDs and software were selected to represent products that have a greater functional component, and t-shirts and purses represented products that have a greater fashion component (Greenberg, Sherman, & Schiman, 1983). Appearance and visibility are not particularly salient for functional products such as music CDs and computer software, but they are critical to fashion items such as t-shirts and purses. For each product, a legitimate version and a counterfeit version of the product was available, appropriately labeled as counterfeit or legitimate, and priced (legitimate t-shirt $20, counterfeit t-shirt $3; legitimate software $40, counterfeit software $8; legitimate CD $15.99, counterfeit CD $4; legitimate purse $240, counterfeit purse $25). Researchers approached consumers and asked them to participate in the study. Those who agreed were asked to select one of the product categories, examine both the counterfeit and legitimate versions of the product, and then indicate on the survey whether they would purchase the legitimate or counterfeit version of the product. Participant attitudes toward the counterfeit and legitimate versions of the product were measured with the use of a multiattribute format (e.g., Bettman, Capon, & Lutz, 1975; Fishbein, 1983; Mazis, Ahtola, & Klippel, 1975). This model provides information on consumer ratings of both product-attribute importance and product-attribute satisfaction. Thus, it provides a methodology to diagnose consumer attitude. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of ve product attrib-

410

TOM ET AL.

utes: durability/quality, brand/image, style/appearance, functionality, and price for their selected product, with the use of a 5-point Likerttype scale (5 very important, 4 important, 3 neutral, 2 unimportant, 1 very unimportant) and to rate their satisfaction for each of the ve product attributes for both the counterfeit version and the legitimate version of the product with the use of a 5-point Likert-type scale (5 very satisfactory, 4 satisfactory, 3 neutral, 2 unsatisfactory, 1 very unsatisfactory). These ve product attributes were selected to represent salient attributes for the products. Brand/image, price, and style/appearance are the forte of counterfeit fashion goods. Consumers who buy fashion counterfeit goods are attracted by the opportunity to buy branded products that communicate the desired prestige of the legitimate product at a substantially lower price. Quality/durability and functionality are attributes more critical to functional products. For example, it is important to buy computer software that not only performs as it promises, but also will not damage the owners computer. The general expectation that consumer attitude would inuence consumer preference is tested in Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2: Consumers who preferred the counterfeit/legitimate version of the product should have a more positive attitude toward the version than its alternative.

However, as in previous studies (Granbois & Summers, 1975), it was expected that consumer ratings of product-attribute importance and product-attribute satisfaction ratings would differ by product. Demographic data such as age, education, household income, and gender were also obtained. Results When presented with the opportunity to select either the counterfeit or legitimate version of the product, 32% of the consumers selected the counterfeit version and 68% opted for the legitimate version. However, the preference for the counterfeit or legitimate versions differed by product category. The counterfeit t-shirt was the most popular (42% stated a preference for the counterfeit t-shirt) and the counterfeit software the least popular (17% stated a preference for the fake software). The counterfeit purse and counterfeit CD were preferred by 31% and 30% of the respondents, respectively. Consumer attitude for the legitimate product and the counterfeit product indicate that overall, consumers have a more positive attitude toward the legitimate version of the product than toward the counterfeit version. However, consumers who prefer the counterfeit version of the product have a more positive attitude toward the counterfeit version, and consumers who prefer the legitimate version of the product indicate

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

411

Table 2. t-test of Product Attribute Importance Score by Consumer Preference for Counterfeit or Legitimate Versions of the Specied Product. Means of Groups Product Software t-shirt Attributea Style Price Brand Function Durability Price Durability t 2.27* 3.13** 2.51* 2.45* 4.75** 3.81** 3.13** df 48.19 26.51 137 137 75.3 137.8 102 Counterfeit Preference 3.0 4.7 2.8 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.2 Legitimate Preference 3.4 4.0 3.3 4.1 4.7 3.8 4.7

Purse

aScale: 1 very unimportant, 2 unimportant, 3 neutral, 4 important, 5 very important. *p .05. **p .01.

a more positive attitude toward the legitimate version of the product. These results support Hypothesis 2.1 Consumers who preferred the counterfeit/legitimate version of the product did have a more positive attitude toward the preferred version than its alternative. The multiattribute attitude model provides an opportunity to analyze the product attribute importance and product attribute satisfaction components that make up the attitude for the product. The analysis indicates that in general, compared to consumers who stated a preference for counterfeit goods, consumers who stated a preference for legitimate goods rated the product attributes brand, function, and durability as more important, whereas consumers who stated a preference for counterfeit goods rated price as more important than did consumers who stated a preference for legitimate goods.1 However, as Table 2 shows, the importance of the product attributes differ by product category. In general, consumers who stated a preference for legitimate goods indicated a greater satisfaction with legitimate goods than counterfeit goods for all product attributes, except price.1 Consumers who stated a preference for counterfeit goods indicated greater satisfaction with the durability/quality of legitimate versions of the product than with the counterfeit version and greater satisfaction with the prize of counterfeit goods than legitimate goods.1 However, as the results of Tables 3 and 4 show, consumer rating of product-attribute satisfaction differs by product category. By and large, there is greater satisfaction with the price of the counterfeit version of the product. A comparison of the demographic variables between consumers who stated a preference for the counterfeit and those who stated a preference for the legitimate version of the product reveals that consumers who stated a preference for the counterfeit product tend to be younger (mean age is 28.4 years) than consumers who stated a preference for the legitimate good (mean age is 35.4 years) (t 3.44, df 430, p .01), earn
412 TOM ET AL.

Table 3. t-test of Product-Attribute Satisfaction Score by Consumer Preference for Counterfeit Version of the Specied Product. Means of Groups Product CD Software Attributea Price Brand Style Function Durability Price Price Brand Durability Price t 2.65* 3.9** 4.9** 9.55** 9.93** 2.8** 9.56** 3.21** 3.46** 8.91** df 30 73 73 73 73 73 59 32 32 32 Counterfeit Satisfaction 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.1 3.0 4.0 4.6 3.6 3.7 4.5 Legitimate Satisfaction 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.6 4.6 3.4 2.4 4.0 4.4 2.0

t-shirt Purse

aScale: 1 very unsatisfactory, 2 unsatisfactory, 3 neutral, 4 satisfactory, 5 very satisfactory. *p .05. **p .01.

less income (chi square 15.4, df 6, p .017), and have less education (chi square 16.87, df 3; p .007). These demographic trends hold true across product categories, but there are variations. Signicant differences were found for the following. Consumers who stated a preference for the counterfeit CD are younger (mean age is 28.4 years) than those who did not (mean age is 35.4 years) (t 4.22, df 107, p .01). Compared to consumers who stated a preference for the legitimate

Table 4. t-test of Product Attribute Satisfaction Score by Consumer Preference for Legitimate Version of the Specied Product. Means of Groups Product CD Software t-shirt Attributea Price Style Function Brand Style Function Durability Brand Style Function Durability Price t 2.8* 3.86* 7.16* 7.12* 6.03* 4.1* 7.54* 4.46* 2.76* 4.37* 10.4* 5.5* df 73 58 58 81 81 80 82 69 70 69 70 69 Counterfeit Satisfaction 4.0 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1 4.1 Legitimate Satisfaction 3.6 3.8 4.3 4.0 4.2 3.9 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.8 2.8

Purse

aScale: 1 very unsatisfactory, 2 unsatisfactory, 3 neutral, 4 satisfactory, 5 very satisfactory. *p .01.

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

413

t-shirts, consumer accomplices have less education (chi square 8.25, df 3, p .04). Finally, consumers who stated a preference for the counterfeit version of designer purses earn less income than those who stated a preference for the legitimate designer purse (chi square 16.7, df 6, p .01). A chi-square analysis was performed to determine if preference for counterfeit or legitimate goods vary by location of the survey revealed no signicant differences, although there was a trend (chi square 2.81, df 1, p .09) for a larger portion of consumers surveyed at ea markets to state a preference for counterfeit goods (29% of the respondents surveyed at the mall and 36% of the respondents surveyed at the ea market selected the counterfeit version of the product) than consumers surveyed the mall. Discussion The results of Part 2 of this study indicate that in general, consumers evaluate the legitimate version of the product as superior to the counterfeit version. However, more importantly, consumers who stated a preference for the counterfeit/legitimate version of the product evaluated their selection as superior to the one that they did not select. The nding that product-attribute importance scores and productattribute satisfaction scores differed between consumers who stated a preference for counterfeit goods and those who stated a preference for legitimate goods suggest that consumers who buy counterfeits and those who buy legitimate products are two different segments who seek different types of products. Consumer Accomplices The ndings suggest two segments of consumer accomplices. One segment of consumer accomplices perceived the counterfeit and legitimate products as high-parity products, rating the counterfeit as comparable to the legitimate version. Consumer accomplices who opted to buy the fake t-shirt rated it as comparable to the legitimate counterpart in terms of brand, durability/quality, and function, and superior in price. Consumers who stated a preference for the counterfeit CD rated it as superior in price to the legitimate CD and comparable in terms of brand, durability/quality, and function. Thus, this segment of consumer accomplices may think of themselves as sly shoppers, who are getting counterfeit products comparable to their legitimate counterparts, but at bargain prices. Some of the attitudes expressed by consumer accomplices in Part 1 may reect the attitude held by the sly shopper, for example, Buying counterfeit products demonstrates that I am a wise shopper. Counterfeit products are just as good as designer products. I would

414

TOM ET AL.

buy counterfeit products even if I could easily afford to buy noncounterfeit products. Another segment of consumer accomplices perceived the fake and legitimate goods as low-parity products, rating the counterfeit as inferior to the legitimate version of the product on one or more product attributes. However, they still indicated a preference for the counterfeit product maybe because its superior price made the product affordable or worthwhile to them. The results show that consumer accomplices who opted for the counterfeit software rated the fake version of the software as inferior in style, function, durability/quality, and brand to its legitimate counterpart, but superior in price. Perhaps software priced at $8 is economically affordable, whereas software price at $40 is not affordable, or in their opinion, not fairly priced. Consumer accomplices who stated a preference for the counterfeit purse rated it as inferior to the legitimate version on brand and durability/quality. However, a $240 designer purse maybe beyond their economic limits, whereas a $25 version is not. Or these consumer accomplices may feel that $240 is an outrageous price for a purse and that an inferior counterfeit $25 purse is more reasonable. For this segment of consumer accomplices, economic concerns may explain their preference for the fake version of the product. The demographic nding that consumer accomplices have signicantly lower income than consumers who stated a preference for legitimate products provides some support for the existence of an economically concerned consumer accomplice segment. Some of the attitudes expressed by the consumer accomplices in Part 1 may reect the attitude held by economically concerned consumers: I buy counterfeit products because the prices of designer products are unfair and gouge. Consumers Who Stated a Preference for Legitimate Products The results suggest two segments of consumers who stated a preference for the legitimate versions of the product. One segment of these consumers may be guided by risk-aversive behaviors. This segment of consumers perceives counterfeit and legitimate products as low-parity products. For example, consumers who stated a preference for the legitimate version of the designer purse rated the fake designer purse as having the better price, but apparently the superior price did not compensate for the fake purse inferior rating on brand, style, function, and durability. A risk-aversive consumer orientation may also explain the stated consumer preference for the legitimate versions of the t-shirt and software. For risk-aversive consumers, it is more prudent to spend more money and get superior products than to waste their money for inferior products. Among consumers who stated a preference for legitimate products, another segment may be guided by ethical considerations. These con-

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

415

Table 5.

Typology of Consumer Orientation Toward Counterfeit Goods. High Product Parity Sly shoppers Ethical shoppers Low Product Parity Economically concerned shoppers Risk-averse shoppers

Consumer Orientation Preference for counterfeit goods Preference for legitimate goods

sumers perceived counterfeit and legitimate products as high-parity products. They rated the fake versions as comparable to their legitimate counterparts on product attributes, but still prefer the legitimate version that cost more, perhaps because it is unethical to do otherwise. Thus, for example, consumers who preferred the legitimate CD rated the fake CD as superior to the legitimate CD on price and comparable to the legitimate version on all the other attributes. Yet they still stated a preference for the legitimate product knowing they were paying more. Taken together, these ndings suggest the classication of shopper orientation illustrated in Table 5. This classication, like other shopper typologies (e.g., Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Stone, 1954) recognizes that consumers have different attitudes toward shopping. This typology suggests that anticounterfeiting efforts need to adopt different strategies for the sly consumer accomplice and the economically constrained consumer accomplice. To move sly consumer accomplices not to buy counterfeit goods would require that they be convinced that buying counterfeit was not in their own self-interest (e.g., the counterfeit designer sunglasses do not have the UV coating protection that the legitimate products have). To move economically constrained consumer accomplices not to buy counterfeit goods would require the provision of legitimate versions at reasonable prices. For example, once the price of videotaped movies came down to reasonable levels, the market for counterfeit tapes decreased signicantly. In passing, it is interesting to note that consumer accomplices differ from consumers who stated a preference for legitimate products, not only in their shopper orientation, but also in their perception of some of the counterfeit products. For example, consumer accomplices perceived the t-shirt as a high-parity product, whereas consumers who stated a preference for the legitimate products perceived the t shirt as a lowparity product.

PART 3: POSTPURCHASE PHASE The purpose of Part 3 of the study was to determine if consumer propensity to purchase counterfeit goods was related to their satisfaction with counterfeit goods. As in Part 2, the products investigated in this

416

TOM ET AL.

study were selected to represent fashion and functional products: watches, designer clothing, designer purse, perfume, software, CD, videos, and tape recordings. As in Parts 1 and 2, the data for Part 3 of the study were collected at both a mall (n 142) and a ea market (n 126 respondents). Methodology Participants were intercepted and recruited to take part in the study by completing a one-page survey. The rst question asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they had knowingly purchased counterfeits of the listed products. The second question asked them to rate their satisfaction with the listed counterfeit items, with the use of a Likert-type scale with 1 very satisfied to 5 very dissatisfied. The third question requested them to indicate their future intention to purchase counterfeit versions of the listed products, with the use of a Likert-type scale with 1 definitely yes to 5 definitely no. Participants were also asked to indicate where they had purchased their counterfeit products and to provide some demographic data. Results Approximately 38% of the sample indicated they had knowingly purchased one or more counterfeit products. However, ownership of counterfeit goods varied by product class: CDs (20%), designer clothing (49%), perfumes (35%), purses (21%), software (26%), tape recordings (30%), videos (25%), watches (29%). A larger proportion of the consumers surveyed at ea markets (46%) admit to have knowingly purchased counterfeit items than consumers surveyed at malls (31%) (chi square 8.69, df 1, p .003). Not only did a larger proportion of consumers surveyed at ea markets report previous purchase of counterfeit goods, the results also indicated that compared to consumers surveyed at malls, consumers surveyed at ea markets also indicated that they bought signicantly more counterfeit designer clothes, perfume, and watches, and reported greater future willingness to purchase counterfeit designer clothes, perfume, purses, and watches.1 The results from the survey question asking respondents to indicate the retail outlets where they have purchased counterfeit goods (ea markets, 36%; street vendors in the U.S., 17%; store in the U.S., 25%; outside of the U.S., 14%.) conrmed the availability of counterfeit goods at ea markets. Three regression analysis were performed for the entire sample, and for the subsets of consumers surveyed in malls and those surveyed in ea markets to determine the value of the variable satisfaction with counterfeits as a predictor for future intentions to purchase counterfeits. For both the entire sample and for the subset of consumers surveyed at

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

417

ea markets, satisfaction rating is a signicant predictor for all products. For consumers surveyed at malls, consumer satisfaction with the counterfeit products is a signicant predictor for CDs, perfumes and purses.1 Demographic analysis indicates that consumers who admit to purchasing counterfeit goods are younger (t 3.45, df 223, p .01), mean age 28.1 years versus a mean age of 34.3 years, and earn less income (t 2.3, df 164, p .05), $37,323 versus $49,896. The ndings of Part 3 suggest that among consumers who admit to knowingly buying counterfeits, there may exist a loyal subsegment who intend to purchase counterfeit goods in the future. Apparently, this loyalty to counterfeit goods is based upon their satisfaction with the counterfeit products they have purchased in the past. It is quite possible that this segment of loyal consumer counterfeit accomplices may actually seek out retail outlets that carry counterfeit goods.

GENERAL DISCUSSION The results of all three studies reveal that a sizable proportion of consumers are accomplices to the purchase of counterfeit goods. The greater proportion of consumer counterfeit accomplices reported in Parts 1 and 3 than Part 2 may be explained in part by the different format of the questions asked. Parts 1 and 3 measured consumer purchase of counterfeit products over time and for a variety of products, whereas Part 2 measured consumer purchase of counterfeit for one product and at one point in time. Given the different nature of the measurements, it is not surprising that the proportion of consumer accomplices reported in Parts 1 and 3 are greater and more similar to each other than that revealed in Part 2. The proportion of consumer accomplices found in this study is similar to that reported in other studies. For example Bloch, Bush, and Campbell (1993) reported that over one-third of their sample would knowingly purchase counterfeits. The proportion of consumers who indicated that they have previously purchased counterfeit goods, those consumers who willingly selected the counterfeit version of the product over the legitimate version, and those who indicated a willingness to purchase counterfeit products in the future varied by product class. Counterfeit versions of products with a greater functional component and a lesser fashion component were selected less frequently than products with a lesser functional component and a greater fashion component. These ndings, together with the ndings that consumer ratings of product attribute importance scores and product attribute satisfaction scores differ by products, suggest that the problem of counterfeiting needs to be examined on an industry/product category basis.

418

TOM ET AL.

The results of the three studies indicate that consumers who are accomplices to the purchase of fake goods can be distinguished from consumers who are not. Consumer accomplices hold attitudes more supportive of counterfeiting and are sufciently satised with fake goods to purchase them again in the future. Economically concerned consumer accomplices prefer counterfeit goods because the price of counterfeit goods are below that of even the price-competitive retail outlets (e.g., mall outlet stores, off-price department stores, warehouse stores). Sly shoppers prefer counterfeit goods because buying counterfeit goods demonstrate their shrewdness to outsmart, circumvent, and beat the system. In addition to attitude and shopper orientation, consumer accomplices differ demographically from consumers who are not accomplices. Consumer accomplices are younger, less educated, and earn less income than consumers who stated that they have not or do not purchase counterfeit products. The ndings of this study provide both comfort and cause for concern. On the one hand, there is some comfort in the nding that the majority of consumers have never purchased counterfeit goods, did not choose counterfeit products when offered the opportunity to buy counterfeit goods, and expressed no future intention to purchase counterfeit goods. On the other hand, a signicant proportion of the population willingly and knowingly purchases counterfeit goods. It appears that the 80/20 rule may extend to counterfeit products. The general idea suggested by this rule, that a small segment of the population accounts for a large proportion of the sales, may describe consumers of counterfeit products. Efforts to limit counterfeiting may be more effective if they are targeted at this counterfeit-product-loyal subsegment of consumers.

REFERENCES
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888 918. Arellano, R. (1994). Informal-underground retailers in less-developed countries: An exploratory research from a marketing point of view. Journal of Macromarketing, 14, 21 35. Babin, B. J., & Babin, L. A. (1996). Effects of moral cognitions and consumer emotions on shoplifting intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 785 802. Bamossy, G., & Scammon, D. L. (1985). Product counterfeiting: Consumers and manufacturers beware. In E. C. Hirschman & M. B. Holbrook (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 12, pp. 334 340). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Bellenger, D., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1980). Proling the recreational shopper. Journal of Retailing, 56, 77 92. Bettman, J. R., Capon, N., & Lutz, R. J. (1975). Multi-attribute measurement

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

419

models and multi-attribute theory: A test of construct validity. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 1 14. Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer accomplices in product counterfeiting. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10, 27 36. Bush, R., Bloch, P., & Dawson, S. (1989). Remedies for product counterfeiting. Business Horizons, 32, 59 65. Carty, P. (1994). Fakes progress. Accountancy, 114, 44 46. Cordell, V. V., Kieschnick, R. L., Jr., & Wongtada, N. (1996). Counterfeit purchase intentions: Role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. Journal of Business Research, 35, 41 53. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fishbein, M. (1983). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233 240. Granbois, D. H., & Summers, J. O. (1975). Primary and secondary validity of consumer purchase probabilities. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 31 38. Greenberg, C. J., Sherman, E., & Schiman, L. G., (1983). The measurement of fashion image as determinant of store patronage. In W. R Darden and R. E. Lusch (Eds.), Patronage behavior in retail management (pp. 151 163). New York: North Holland. Hassay, D. N., & Smith, M. C. (1996). Compulsive buying: An examination of the consumption motive. Psychology & Marketing, 13, 741 752. Higgins, R. S., & Rubin, P. H. (1986). Counterfeit goods. Journal of Law & Economics, 29, 211 230. Kay, H. (1990, July). Fakes progress. Management Today, pp. 54 58. Lefkoff-Hagius, R., & Mason, C. H. (1993). Characteristics, benecial, and image attributes in consumer judgements of similarity and preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 100 110. Lutz, R. J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modication of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 49 59. MacDonald, G., & Roberts, C. (1994). Product piracy: The problem that will not go away. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 3, 55 65. Mazis, M. B., Ahtola, O. T., & Klippel, R. E. (1975). A comparison of four multiattribute models in the prediction of consumer attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 38 52. Mizerski, R. W., Golden, L. L., & Kernan, J. B., (1979). The attribution process in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 123 140. Nataraajan, R., & Goff, B. G. (1992). Manifestations of compulsiveness in the consumer-marketplace domain. Psychology & Marketing, 9, 31 44. Olsen, J. E., & Granzin, K. L. (1992). Gaining retailers assistance in ghting counterfeiting: Conceptualization and empirical test of a helping model. Journal of Retailing, 68, 90 109. Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1989). The international dimension of branding: Strategic considerations and decisions. International Marketing Review, 6, 22 34. Stone, G. P. (1954). City shoppers and urban identication: Observations on the social psychology of city life. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 36 45. Swinyard, W. R., Heikki, R., & Kau, A. K. (1990). The morality of software piracy: A cross cultural analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 9, 655 664.

420

TOM ET AL.

Wee, C., Tan, S., & Cheok, K. (1995). Non-price determinants of intention to purchase counterfeit goods. International Marketing Review, 12, 1 46. Yang, C. (1995, September 11). Out! Out! Damned Knockoffs. Business Week, p. 6. Yi, Y. (1990). The indirect effects of advertisements designed to change product attribute beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 7, 47 64. Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to. Gail Tom, School of Business Administration, California State University, Sacramento, Sacramento, CA 95819 (Tomgk@ sbaserver.csus.edu).

COUNTERFEIT GOODS

421