k Counterfiet Luxury Brand

Journal of Marketing ResearchVol. XLVI (April 2009), 247–259247

© 2009, American Marketing AssociationISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic)

*Keith Wilcox is a doctoral candidate in Marketing (e-mail:[email protected]), and Sankar Sen is Professor of Market-ing (e-mail: [email protected]), Baruch College, City Univer-sity of New York. Hyeong Min Kim is Assistant Professor of Marketing,Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University (e-mail: [email protected]). The authors thank Thomas Devanney and John Lee for theirassistance with stimuli design. Financial support from the Research Foun-dation of the City University of New York in the form of a PSC-CUNYgrant is gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the authors thank the threeanonymous JMR reviewers for their constructive guidance. ChrisJaniszewski served as associate editor for this article.

KEITH WILCOX, HYEONG MIN KIM, and SANKAR SEN*

This research demonstrates that consumers’ desire for counterfeitluxury brands hinges on the social motivations (i.e., to expressthemselves and/or to fit in) underlying their luxury brand preferences. Inparticular, the authors show that both consumers’ preferences for acounterfeit brand and the subsequent negative change in their prefer-ences for the real brand are greater when their luxury brand attitudesserve a social-adjustive rather than a value-expressive function. Inaddition, consumers’ moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption affecttheir counterfeit brand preferences only when their luxury brand attitudesserve a value-expressive function. Finally, the authors demonstrate thatthe social functions served by consumers’ luxury brand attitudes can beinfluenced by elements of the marketing mix (e.g., product design,advertising), thus enabling marketers to curb the demand for counterfeitbrands through specific marketing-mix actions.

Keywords: counterfeiting, luxury brands, attitude functions, social identity,advertising

Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit LuxuryBrands?

“Counterfeiting will become the crime of the 21stcentury.”

—James Moody, former chief, FBI Organized Crime Division

(International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition 2008)

Counterfeit goods are illegal, low-priced, and oftenlower-quality replicas of products that typically possesshigh brand value (Lai and Zaichkowsky 1999). The globalmarket for counterfeits today is estimated to exceed $600billion, accounting for approximately 7% of world trade(World Customs Organization 2004). The ethical caseagainst counterfeiting aside, its adverse effects on businessare well documented and many. For example, the U.S.Chamber of Commerce (2006) holds counterfeiting respon-sible for the loss of more than 750,000 U.S. jobs per year.Perhaps more dire, counterfeiting has also been linked to

the growing global threats of narcotics, weapons, humantrafficking, and terrorism (Thomas 2007). Not surprisingly,companies are allying with governments and enforcementagencies to devote unprecedented resources to tackle thisglobal problem (International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition2008).

The anticounterfeiting forces, however, seem to be fight-ing a losing battle, particularly in luxury goods markets, inwhich consumers often knowingly purchase counterfeits(Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000). Despite the efforts of mostluxury brand marketers, the International Chamber of Com-merce (2004) estimates that this industry is losing as muchas $12 billion every year to counterfeiting. This suggeststhat, at least in luxury markets, curbing the insatiable globalappetite for counterfeits is essential to winning the war oncounterfeiting (Bloch, Bush, and Campbell 1993). Yet aclear and actionable understanding of the motivationsunderlying consumers’ purchase of counterfeit luxurybrands (referred to hereinafter as counterfeit brands)remains elusive (cf. Zaichkowsky 2006).

Given that the market for counterfeit brands relies onconsumers’ desire for real luxury brands (Hoe, Hogg, andHart 2003; Penz and Stottinger 2005), insights into whypeople purchase luxury brands in the first place are particu-larly relevant to understanding the motives underlyingcounterfeit brand purchases. Much research suggests that,quality considerations aside, people typically consume suchbrands in the service of important social goals (Bearden

248 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, APRIL 2009

and Etzel 1982; Grubb and Grathwohl 1967). The centralpremise of this article is that these social motivations guidepeople’s propensity to consume counterfeit brands. Specifi-cally, we draw on the functional theories of attitudes (Katz1960; Shavitt 1989; Smith, Bruner, and White 1956) to pro-pose that both consumers’ desire for counterfeit brands andthe extent to which the availability of such counterfeitsalters their preferences for the real brands are determinedby the social functions underlying their attitudes towardluxury brands.

Next, we provide an overview of counterfeiting. We thenintroduce a framework for understanding how people’smotivations for consuming luxury brands affect their pref-erences for counterfeit brands. Next, we describe threestudies that test our predictions. Finally, we discuss theimplications of our findings and provide future researchdirections.

COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS

Lai and Zaichkowsky (1999) define counterfeits as ille-gally made products that resemble the genuine goods butare typically of lower quality in terms of performance, reli-ability, or durability. In contrast, pirated goods are productsthat are exact copies of the original and are typically lim-ited to technology categories, such as software. Counterfeit-ing is one of the oldest crimes in history. Perhaps the earli-est and most widespread form of counterfeiting is that ofcurrency. The counterfeiting of luxury products itself datesas far back as 27 BC, when a wine merchant in Gaul coun-terfeited trademarks on wine amphorae, selling inexpensivelocal wine as expensive Roman wine (Phillips 2005). Bythe thirteenth century, counterfeiting had become so com-mon that the copying of valuable trademarks was made acriminal offense punishable by torture and death in someEuropean countries (Higgins and Rubin 1986).

From the consumer’s perspective, counterfeiting can beeither deceptive or nondeceptive. Deceptive counterfeitinginvolves purchases in which consumers are not aware thatthe product they are buying is a counterfeit, as is often thecase in categories such as automotive parts, consumer elec-tronics, and pharmaceuticals (Grossman and Shapiro 1988).In other categories, however, consumers are typically awarethat they are purchasing counterfeits. This nondeceptiveform of counterfeiting, which is the focus of this research,is particularly prevalent in luxury brand markets (Nia andZaichkowsky 2000), in which consumers can often distin-guish counterfeits from genuine brands on the basis of dif-ferences in price, the distribution channels, and the inferiorquality of the product itself.

Notably, however, the quality of counterfeit products hasbeen steadily improving over the past several years,approaching, in a few cases, that of the real brand. This isattributable in substantial part to the shift by many luxurybrand marketers, in their quest for reduced productioncosts, to outsourced manufacturing. For example, some ofthe factories that produce outsourced luxury products haveadded a “ghost shift” to their production runs to makecounterfeit products, which they can sell at higher margins(Phillips 2005). Although the counterfeits thus producedcontinue to be typically constructed of inferior materials,they are often produced with the same designs, molds, andspecifications as the genuine brands (Parloff 2006). As a

result, in the case of many luxury brands, the counterfeit–genuine distinction is evolving from a dichotomy to moreof a continuum (Global Business Leaders’ Alliance AgainstCounterfeiting 2005).

Prior research has linked the decision to purchase coun-terfeit products knowingly to many factors, which Eisendand Schuchert-Guler (2006) classify into four categories.The first category, labeled “person,” includes demographicand psychographic variables, as well as attitudes towardcounterfeiting. For example, prior studies have found thatconsumers who purchase counterfeit products are of lowersocial status (Bloch, Bush, and Campbell 1993) and havemore favorable attitudes toward counterfeiting (Penz andStottinger 2005). Research linking consumers’ beliefs aboutcounterfeits to their purchase behavior (e.g., Gentry,Putrevu, and Shultz 2006) also falls under this category.The second category focuses on aspects of the product,such as price, uniqueness, and availability. Not surprisingly,consumers’ likelihood of buying a counterfeit brand isinversely related to the price of the genuine brand (Albers-Miller 1999). The third and fourth categories refer to thesocial and cultural context in which the counterfeit pur-chase decision is made, ranging from cultural norms (Laiand Zaichkowsky 1999) to the shopping environment(Leisen and Nill 2001). For example, consumers are likelyto purchase a counterfeit brand when they react more favor-ably to the shopping environment.

Of particular relevance to our investigation of theindividual-level motives underlying counterfeit brand con-sumption is research that goes beyond price to link counter-feit consumption to social motives, such as the desire tocreate identities, fit in, and/or impress others (Bloch, Bush,and Campbell 1993; Hoe, Hogg, and Hart 2003; Penz andStottinger 2005). Next, we develop a theoretical account of the role of such social motives in driving counterfeitconsumption.

THEORY AND HYPOTHESES

Functional Theories of Attitudes and Counterfeit Brands

Functional theories of attitudes (Katz 1960; Shavitt1989; Smith, Bruner, and White 1956) suggest that attitudesserve several psychological functions, such as helpingpeople organize and structure their environment (knowl-edge function), attain rewards and avoid punishments (utili-tarian function) and maintain their self-esteem (ego defensefunction). Attitudes also serve important social functions,such as allowing self-expression (value-expressive func-tion) and facilitating self-presentation (social-adjustivefunction). These social functions of attitudes have beenshown to underlie a broad range of consumer responses,including product evaluations (Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han1992), advertising message processing (Snyder andDeBono 1985), and even the interpurchase time of durables(Grewal, Mehta, and Kardes 2004).

Attitudes serving a social-adjustive function (i.e., social-adjustive attitudes) help people maintain relationships(DeBono 1987; Smith, Bruner, and White 1956). Whenconsumers have a social-adjustive attitude toward a prod-uct, they are motivated to consume it to gain approval insocial situations. Conversely, attitudes serving a value-expressive function (i.e., value-expressive attitudes) helppeople communicate their central beliefs, attitudes, and val-

Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands? 249

1Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han (1992) suggest that consumers focus most onquality when their attitudes serve a utilitarian function rather than a socialone. Conversely, our theorizing pertains to the differences among socialattitude functions in driving consumer focus on quality.

ues to others (Katz 1960). When consumers hold a value-expressive attitude toward a product, they are motivated toconsume it as a form of self-expression (Snyder andDeBono 1985). Prior research has indicated that con-sumers’ attitudes toward luxury brands may serve a social-adjustive function, a value-expressive function, or both(Shavitt 1989). For example, a person might purchase aLouis Vuitton bag because the brand reflects his or her per-sonality (i.e., self-expression) and/or because it is a statussymbol (i.e., self-presentation).

The functional theories implicate these multiple func-tions or goals served by attitudes, rather than merely atti-tude strength or valence, as key determinants of theattitude–behavior link (Shavitt 1989). More specifically,research by Snyder and DeBono (1985) suggests that con-sumers respond more favorably to image or product formappeals when they hold attitudes serving a social-adjustivefunction because such appeals are consistent with theirsocial goal of projecting a particular image in social set-tings. In contrast, consumers are more responsive to mes-sages that promote intrinsic aspects of products, such asquality or reliability (i.e., product function appeals), whenthey hold attitudes serving a value-expressive functionbecause such messages are more readily interpretable interms of their underlying values and dispositions.1 Weexpect that these differences carry over to luxury brandcontexts as well; that is, social-adjustive attitudes towardluxury brands will motivate consumers to consume suchproducts for form- or image-related reasons, whereas value-expressive attitudes toward luxury brands will motivatethem to consume such products for product function or,more specifically, quality-related reasons. Thus, comparedwith value-expressive attitudes, social-adjustive attitudestoward luxury brands should be associated with a greaterpreference for counterfeit brands because these aredesigned to look like luxury brands (i.e., high resemblancein terms of product form) but are typically associated withlesser quality (i.e., low resemblance in terms of productfunction).

Notably, this does not imply that value-expressive atti-tudes will always be associated with counterfeit avoidance.Given that consumers holding such attitudes are guided bytheir desire to maximize the consistency between the prod-ucts they consume and their central beliefs, attitudes, andvalues (Snyder and DeBono 1985), their preference forcounterfeit brands is also likely to vary with their valuesand beliefs regarding counterfeiting per se. In particular, agrowing body of research (Hoe, Hogg, and Hart 2003; Tomet al. 1998) suggests that consumers vary widely in theirbeliefs regarding the morality of counterfeit consumption.Thus, when consumers’ attitudes toward luxury brandsserve a value-expressive function, we expect their prefer-ence for counterfeits to be moderated by their moral beliefsabout counterfeit consumption: Consumers whose valuesystem dictates that such behavior is not necessarilyimmoral (i.e., favorable moral beliefs) will be more likelyto purchase counterfeit brands than those who believe thatsuch behavior is immoral (i.e., unfavorable moral beliefs).

Conversely, when consumers’ attitudes serve a social-adjustive function, their preferences for counterfeits shouldbe less susceptible to their moral beliefs because they areless likely to rely on their internal values in making suchdecisions. Formally, we predict the following:

H1: Consumers’ likelihood of purchasing counterfeit luxurybrands is greater when their attitudes toward luxury brandsserve a social-adjustive function than when their attitudesserve a value-expressive function.

H2: Consumers’ counterfeit purchase likelihood is more sensi-tive to their moral beliefs about counterfeit consumptionwhen their luxury brand attitudes serve a value-expressivefunction than when they serve a social-adjustive function.

Preference Change for Real Brand

Recent research (Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000) has ques-tioned the assumption implicit in most anticounterfeitingefforts that the availability of counterfeit brands diminishesdemand for the real brands. Based partly on consumer sur-veys, this research argues that in certain cultural, social, andmarket contexts, counterfeits can even enhance demand forthe real brands. Our individual-level psychological perspec-tive suggests that changes in consumers’ preferences for thereal brand, if any, after exposure to a counterfeit branddepend on the social functions underlying their luxurybrand attitudes.

How might exposure to a counterfeit brand alter con-sumers’ preferences for the real brand? When two productslook alike, such as the counterfeit brand and its real coun-terpart, they are often perceived as being similar (Shocker,Bayus, and Namwoon 2004). However, research on goal-derived categorization suggests that this is not always thecase; personal goals can have a strong influence on howconsumers categorize and compare products (Ratneshwar etal. 2001). When two products fulfill a salient personal goal,consumers judge them to be similar. However, when onlyone of the two products satisfies the salient goal, they seemless similar. Notably, even when the surface resemblancebetween the products is high, the lack of goal fulfillment byone product has a negative effect on similarity judgments.

When consumers’ attitudes serve a social-adjustive func-tion, self-presentation-related goals are likely to be salient.Because both a counterfeit brand and its real counterpartfulfill these important goals, the two products are likely tobe perceived as similar. Thus, the presence of the counter-feit brand will likely diminish preference for the real brandbecause the former dominates the latter on price. Con-versely, when consumers’ attitudes serve a value-adjustivefunction, their self-expression-related goals are likely to besalient. Because a counterfeit brand does not satisfy theseimportant personal goals, it is unlikely that consumers willperceive counterfeit brands as being similar to luxurybrands. Consequently, the dissimilarity between two prod-ucts makes it less likely that they will be compared onattributes such as price, even though they may have highsurface resemblance. In such a case, we expect that expo-sure to counterfeit brands will influence preference for thereal brand to a lesser degree, if at all. More formally,

H3: Exposure to a counterfeit brand has a more negative effecton consumers’ preferences for the real brand when theirluxury brand attitudes serve a social-adjustive function thanwhen they serve a value-expressive function.


Influencing Attitude Functions and CounterfeitConsumption

What determines the social function served by an atti-tude? Much research (DeBono 1987; Shavitt 1989) pointsto the individual consumer (i.e., personality traits) as theprimary driver of the functions served by attitudes in a spe-cific consumption context. Notably, however, situationalcharacteristics, such as the product category, brand posi-tioning, promotional cues, and social context, can play animportant role as well (Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han 1992). Ifconsumers’ propensity for counterfeit luxury goods varieswith the social functions underlying their attitudes, insightsinto the situational determinants of these functions couldallow a luxury brand marketer to go beyond the relativelyimmutable personality traits of its consumers to influencetheir demand for counterfeit brands through the marketingmix. Next, we discuss the roles of two specific aspects ofthe marketing mix, brand conspicuousness and advertisingcopy, in determining the attitude function–driven demandfor counterfeit brands.

Brand conspicuousness. Luxury brands vary in the extentto which their brand emblem or logo is conspicuous, ineasy sight of the user, and, more important, relevant tosocial others. The logos of some brands (e.g., Gucci) areprominent and ubiquitous, whereas those of others (e.g.,Marc Jacobs) are less discernible visually. We propose thatthe hypothesized attitude function–based differences inconsumers’ preferences for both the counterfeit and the realbrand (H1–H3) will be greater when the luxury brand’sproducts have greater brand conspicuousness. Why mightthis be so? Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han (1992) suggest thatbecause product categories vary in the extent to which theyhelp consumers achieve their goals, the category in a par-ticular consumption context restricts the functions that canbe served by consumers’ attitudes. At the same time, theypoint to certain brand-level features, such as a brand’sunique attributes or positioning within a category, as poten-tial determinants of the function served by consumers’product judgments or attitudes. Given that, over time, thesocial and cultural aspirations associated with a luxurybrand come to reside in its emblem or logo, we propose thatthe extent to which a luxury brand fulfills a consumer’ssocial goals (i.e., value expressive and social adjustive) islikely to depend on brand conspicuousness (Bearden andEtzel 1982). Indeed, luxury and exclusivity often exist atthe brand (e.g., Rolex) rather than the product-category(e.g., watch) level, making the conspicuousness of a branda particularly important determinant of the social functionsthat can be served by attitudes toward it. Specifically, whenthe brand is inconspicuous, consumers’ attitudes toward itwill be less able to serve a social function. As a result, insuch cases, the social attitude function–based differences incounterfeit consumption are likely to be minimal. Moreformally,

H4a: The attitude function–based difference in consumers’counterfeit purchase likelihood (i.e., H1) is greater whenthe brand is more conspicuous.

H4b: The moderating effect of consumers’ moral beliefs aboutcounterfeit consumption on the attitude function–counterfeit purchase likelihood relationship (i.e., H2) isstronger when the brand is more conspicuous.

H4c: The attitude function–based difference in the negativeeffect of exposure to a counterfeit brand on consumers’

preference for the real brand (i.e., H3) is greater when thebrand is more conspicuous.

Advertising copy. Advertising is a crucial vehicle forbuilding a luxury brand’s image and communicating itssocial/cultural meaning. We propose that the copy used insuch luxury brand advertising can also influence the pri-macy of the social function underlying consumers’ brandjudgments or attitudes. Support for this assertion comesfrom research documenting the influence of advertising-based contextual primes on the salience of consumptiongoals (Labroo and Lee 2006) and, more specifically, thefunctions performed by attitudes (Shavitt and Fazio 1991).This is also consistent with the broader literature on iden-tity salience (for a review, see Forehand, Deshpandé, andReed 2002), a state characterized by heightened sensitivityto identity-relevant information, that underscores the role ofenvironmental cues, such as visual images, words, andidentity primes in the media context, in differentially acti-vating specific social identities and associated consumptiongoals (e.g., self-expression versus self-presentation) withina consumer’s social self-schema.

Together, these research streams suggest that exposingconsumers of a luxury brand to advertising messages thatdifferentially prime the social goals associated with value-expressive versus social-adjustive attitudes could influencetheir preference for counterfeits. We expect that when con-sumers view an advertisement that primes social-adjustivegoals, they will be more likely to purchase a counterfeitversion of the brand than when they view a similar adver-tisement that primes value-expressive goals. We also expectthat the previously discussed moderating effect of con-sumers’ moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption (i.e.,H2) occurs only when consumers are exposed to a value-expressive, rather than a social-adjustive, advertisement. Inaddition, the counterfeit-based adverse change in con-sumers’ preferences for the real brand (i.e., H3) shouldoccur when consumers are exposed to a social-adjustive,rather than a value-expressive, advertisement.

H5a: Consumers’ likelihood of purchasing counterfeit brands isgreater when they are exposed to a social-adjustive adver-tisement for a luxury brand than when they are exposed toa value-expressive advertisement for that brand.

H5b: Consumers’ counterfeit purchase likelihood is more sensi-tive to their moral beliefs about counterfeit consumptionwhen they are exposed to a value-expressive advertise-ment for a luxury brand than when they are exposed to asocial-adjustive advertisement for that brand.

H5c: Exposure to a counterfeit brand has a more negative effecton consumers’ preferences for the real brand when theyare exposed to a social-adjustive advertisement for aluxury brand than when they are exposed to a value-expressive advertisement for that brand.

Next, we present three studies that are designed to testour predictions. In Study 1, we measure participants’ atti-tude functions toward luxury brands to demonstrate attitudefunction–based differences in their responses to counterfeitbrands. In Study 2, we replicate Study 1’s findings in anexperimental setting and examine the moderating effect ofbrand conspicuousness. Study 3 examines the efficacy of anadvertising-based manipulation of attitude function inobtaining the predicted differences in counterfeit and realbrand preferences.


STUDY 1: THE INFLUENCE OF ATTITUDEFUNCTIONS ON COUNTERFEIT PURCHASES

The purpose of Study 1 was to test H1 and H2 in a natu-ralistic, externally valid context. To do so, we measuredrather than manipulated the social functions underlying par-ticipants’ attitudes toward luxury brands and examined therelationship of these functions, in interaction with partici-pants’ moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption, to theirlikelihood of purchasing a counterfeit version of a productby their favorite luxury brand.

Method

Participants and procedure. Seventy-nine undergraduatestudents (56% female) at a large northeastern universitytook part in the study as part of a course requirement. Wefirst elicited participants’ attitude functions toward luxurybrands to assess the extent to which their attitudes servedvalue-expressive or social-adjustive functions. We thenasked them to indicate their favorite luxury fashion brand.We restricted participants’ responses to fashion brands toprevent them from selecting a luxury brand from an infre-quently counterfeited category, such as luxury cars. Wethen asked participants to rate how likely they would be topurchase a counterfeit version of a product by their favoriteluxury fashion brand. Finally, we asked participants to pro-vide their moral beliefs about counterfeit consumption(Moral Beliefs).

Measures. We assessed participants’ attitude functionstoward luxury brands on seven-point Likert scales (seeAppendix A). These included a four-item measure of value-expressive function (e.g., “Luxury brands help me expressmyself”; M = 3.44, α = .89) and a four-item measure ofsocial-adjustive function (e.g., “Luxury brands help me fitinto important social situations”; M = 3.73, α = .74),adapted from the work of Grewal, Mehta, and Kardes(2004). We counterbalanced the presentation order of thetwo sets of measures. We assessed purchase intent for thecounterfeit brand on a seven-point scale (1 = “would defi-nitely not purchase,” and 7 = “would definitely purchase”;M = 3.04). We measured moral beliefs in terms of partici-pants’ beliefs about people who purchase counterfeit prod-ucts on a three-item semantic differential scale (1 =“immoral,” and 7 = “moral”; 1 = “unethical,” and 7 = “ethi-cal”; 1 = “insincere,” and 7 = “sincere”; M = 4.09, α = .79)to minimize the likelihood of socially desirable responses(Fisher 1993) to a potentially sensitive issue. Because allmulti-item measures were reliable, we averaged the itemsto form a composite measure of each construct.

Results

The three most frequently mentioned favorite luxurybrands, in order, were Louis Vuitton, Gucci, and Rolex. Notsurprisingly, some participants’ attitudes toward luxurybrands appeared to serve both social functions. The correla-tion between the value-expressive function measure and thesocial-adjustive function measure was .64 (p < .05). Con-versely, the correlations between these measures and themoral beliefs measure were low (value expressive = –.22,and social adjustive = –.09). To test H1 and H2, weregressed purchase intent on value-expressive function,social-adjustive function, moral beliefs, the value-expressive function × moral beliefs cross-product, and the

2Because the attitude function measures were correlated, we also rantwo separate linear regression models (one for value-expressive functionand one for social-adjustive function). The results replicated those of thefull model.

social-adjustive function × moral beliefs cross-product (F =7.42, p < .05, R2 = .33). We mean-centered all variables(Aiken and West 1991).

In line with H1, social-adjustive function was a signifi-cant, positive predictor of purchase intent (b = .42; t = 2.01,p < .05), whereas value-expressive function was not (b =–.09; t = .56, n.s.). In addition, the interactive effect ofmoral beliefs and value-expressive function was significant(b = .31; t = 2.11, p < .05), whereas that of moral beliefsand social-adjustive function was not (b = .04; t = .20,n.s.).2 To better understand the nature of the value-expressive function × moral beliefs interaction, we probedthe slopes of two regression lines (Aiken and West 1991):one for strong value-expressive function (one standarddeviation above the mean) and one for weak value-expressive function (one standard deviation below themean). As we expected, moral beliefs were a positive pre-dictor of purchase intent when the value-expressive func-tion was strong (b = 1.07; t = 3.35, p < .05) but not when itwas weak (b = .36; t = 1.39, n.s.). These results support ourprediction (H2) that participants’ purchase intent will bemore likely to vary with their moral beliefs when their lux-ury brand attitudes serve a value-expressive function thanwhen they serve a social-adjustive function.

In summary, this study provides evidence for our centralcontention that consumers’ likelihood of purchasing coun-terfeit brands varies predictably with the social functionsserved by their luxury brand attitudes. In Study 2, weundertake a more internally valid examination of our pre-dictions by controlling for both the brand participantsrespond to and the primary social function served by theirattitudes. In addition, we examine both how exposure to acounterfeit brand affects consumers’ preferences for thereal brand (H3) and the moderating effect of brandconspicuousness (H4).

STUDY 2: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF BRANDCONSPICUOUSNESS

In line with the objectives of this experiment, all partici-pants responded to counterfeit and real versions of the sameluxury brand. In addition, because our theorizing pits thetwo often-correlated social attitude functions against eachother, we chose to isolate the effects of each of these func-tions by measuring a trait-based determinant of the primarysocial function served by a consumer’s attitudes, includingthose toward luxury brands. Specifically, prior research hassuggested that in social contexts, the attitudes of low self-monitors serve predominantly a value-expressive function,whereas those of high self-monitors serve predominantly asocial-adjustive function (DeBono 1987, 2006; Spangen-berg and Sprott 2006). Therefore, in this study, we con-trasted the two social attitude functions of interest by exam-ining differences between high and low self-monitoringparticipants (Snyder 1974).

Method

Participants and design. One hundred thirty-eight femaleundergraduate students at a large northeastern universityparticipated as part of a course requirement. The experi-


3To ensure that participants’ purchase intent did not influence theirmoral belief responses, we reran this study, counterbalancing the order inwhich participants provided their moral beliefs and purchase intent. Mea-surement order did not affect participants’ moral beliefs or purchase intentand the hypothesis tests yielding equivalent results.

ment was a 2 (brand conspicuousness: logo versus nologo) × 2 (attitude function: value expressive versus socialadjustive) × 2 (moral beliefs: unfavorable versus favorable)between-subjects design.

Stimuli. Participants responded to color images of aLouis Vuitton handbag. The stimuli for both brand conspic-uousness conditions were created from the same image ofan actual Louis Vuitton handbag, which was digitallyaltered to have no discernible logo in the no-logo conditionand a large, prominent logo in the center of the product’sexterior in the logo condition (Appendix B). We selectedhandbags because it is a widely consumed, relevant cate-gory for our participant population and counterfeiting isextremely prevalent (Thomas 2007). In addition, this cate-gory is a public one so the role of social attitude functionsin the luxury brand purchase decision is, a priori, likely tobe high (Bearden and Etzel 1982). We selected Louis Vuit-ton as the brand because it is not only one of the mostwidely known luxury brands but also one of the most fre-quently mentioned favorite luxury brands among the femaleparticipants of Study 1. Finally, because this brand hashandbags with both highly visible and subtle logos, ourbrand conspicuousness manipulation was realistic andcredible.

Procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to oneof the two brand conspicuousness conditions in which theyviewed an image of the Louis Vuitton handbag with orwithout a logo. Participants in both conditions wereinformed that the handbag was a counterfeit version of anactual Louis Vuitton handbag that had been designed tolook exactly like the genuine version. Participants were alsotold that the counterfeit handbag was being sold at a pricethey could afford and were subsequently asked to providetheir purchase intent. We then assessed the effect of beingexposed to the counterfeit brand on participants’ prefer-ences for the luxury brand (H3) by having them indicatehow the information they had just learned (i.e., the avail-ability of the counterfeit) affected their desire to purchase agenuine Louis Vuitton handbag in the future. Finally, weelicited participants’ moral beliefs toward counterfeit con-sumption and their primary social attitude function throughself-monitoring.

Measures. We measured purchase intent using the Study1 item (M = 2.91). We assessed preference change forLouis Vuitton handbags (i.e., the actual brand) on a seven-point scale (–3 = “much less likely to buy,” 0 = “nochange,” and +3 = “much more likely to buy”; M = –.14).We assessed attitude function using the 25-item self-monitoring scale (Snyder 1974; M = 11.45, KR-20 = .72).We measured moral beliefs using the same three-item scaleas in Study 1 (M = 4.11, α = .88). We obtained these twomeasures after participants reacted to the luxury brand toensure that their mere elicitation did not influence thedependent variables.3 Notably, there were no differences foreither of the two measures (self-monitoring: MNoLogo =

11.40, MLogo = 11.50; t = .14, n.s.; moral beliefs:MNoLogo = 3.98, MLogo = 4.16; t = .78, n.s.) across the twobrand conspicuousness conditions, confirming theirintegrity as independent variables. In addition, there was nosignificant difference in moral beliefs between low andhigh self-monitors (moral beliefs: MLow = 4.01, MHigh =4.13; t = –.47, n.s.), verifying that responses to this sociallysensitive issue did not vary with the extent to which theyself monitor.

Results

We analyzed purchase intent and preference changeusing analysis of variance and analysis of covariance,respectively, with brand conspicuousness, attitude function,moral beliefs, and their interactions as independent factors(R2

Purchase Intent = .19, R2Preference Change = .14). Because the

predicted changes in consumers’ preferences for the realbrand (i.e., H3) are based on their broader, goal-based simi-larity assessments of the two brands (i.e., counterfeit andreal) rather than on their actual consumption of a counter-feit brand, we controlled for the obvious effect of purchaseintent on preference change by including it as a covariate(F(1, 129) = 4.28, p < .05) in the relevant analyses. Weobtained two levels of attitude function (value expressiveand social adjustive) and moral beliefs (favorable and unfa-vorable) by dividing the sample’s self-monitoring andmoral beliefs scores around their median values (Shavittand Fazio 1991). Comparable analyses using the continu-ous measures of these factors yielded equivalent results.

Purchase intent. Consistent with H1, the social-adjustiveparticipants had a higher purchase intent than the value-expressive ones (MValue Expressive = 2.48, MSocial Adjustive =3.31; F(1, 130) = 8.91, p < .05, ω2 = .05). In addition, inline with H2, the purchase intent of the value-expressiveparticipants varied significantly with their moral beliefs(MUnfavorable = 1.83, MFavorable = 2.95; F(1, 130) = 5.87, p <.05, ω2 = .04), whereas that of the social-adjustive ones didnot (MUnfavorable = 3.29, MFavorable = 3.42; F(1, 130) = .09,n.s.). Given our prediction regarding the moderating effectof brand conspicuousness (i.e., H4), however, it is not sur-prising that the overall (i.e., across the logo and no-logoconditions) attitude function × moral beliefs interaction wasnot significant at the .05 level (F(1, 130) = 2.35, n.s.).

As H4a predicted, the main effect of attitude function onpurchase intent was qualified by a significant attitude func-tion × brand conspicuousness interaction (F(1, 130) = 3.97,p < .05). When the handbag did not have a logo, there wasno difference in the purchase intent of the value-expressiveand social-adjustive participants (MValue Expressive = 2.24,MSocial Adjustive = 2.56; F(1, 130) = .48, n.s.). However,when the handbag had a logo, purchase intent was higherfor the social-adjustive participants than for the value-expressive ones (MValue Expressive = 2.54, MSocial Adjustive =4.14; F(1, 130) = 12.23, p < .05, ω2 = .07).

H4b predicted that moral beliefs would have a strongereffect on purchase intent of the value-expressive partici-pants when the product has a logo than when it does not.Consistent with this hypothesis (see Figure 1), we obtaineda significant interactive effect of attitude function, brandconspicuousness, and moral beliefs on purchase intent (F(1,130) = 5.75, p < .05). When the handbag had a logo, thevalue-expressive participants with unfavorable moral


Figure 1STUDY 2: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF ATTITUDE

FUNCTION, BRAND CONSPICUOUSNESS, AND MORAL

BELIEFS ON MEAN PURCHASE INTENT

A: Brand Conspicuousness = No Logo

B: Brand Conspicuousness = Logo

beliefs were less likely to purchase the bag than those withfavorable moral beliefs (MUnfavorable = 1.53, MFavorable =3.55; F(1, 130) = 9.91, p < .05, ω2 = .06). However, whenthe handbag had no logo, the value-expressive participantswith unfavorable moral beliefs were no different from thosewith favorable moral beliefs in their purchase intent(MUnfavorable = 2.13, MFavorable = 2.35; F(1, 130) = .11, n.s.).

Conversely, for the social-adjustive participants, the effectof moral beliefs on purchase intent was not significant ineither brand conspicuousness condition.

Preference change for real brand. In line with H3, expo-sure to a counterfeit brand resulted in a more negative pref-erence change when participants had social-adjustive atti-tudes than when they had value-expressive attitudes (MValue

Expressive = .00, MSocial Adjustive = –.27; F(1, 129) = 5.20, p <.05, ω2 = .03). Finally, in line with H4c, the main effect ofattitude function was qualified by a significant attitudefunction × brand conspicuousness interaction (F(1, 129) =7.34, p < .05). When the handbag had no logo, preferencechange did not vary across social-adjustive and value-expressive participants (MValue Expressive = –.15, MSocial

Adjustive = –.09; F(1, 129) = .08, n.s.). However, when thehandbag had a logo, preference change was more negativefor the social-adjustive participants than for the value-expressive ones (MValue Expressive = .25, MSocial Adjustive =–.55; F(1, 129) = 11.75, p < .05, ω2 = .07).

In summary, this study provided convergent evidence forour central contention that differences in the social func-tions performed by consumers’ attitudes affect theirresponses to counterfeit brands. In addition, the findings ofthis study were consistent with our assertion that the con-spicuousness of the luxury brand determines the ability ofboth its counterfeit and its genuine versions to serve thesocial goals of self-expression and self-presentation. Thegoal of our final study, which we describe next, is to inves-tigate the ability of another marketing-mix variable, adver-tising copy, to alter the relative salience of the goals associ-ated with each of the social functions underlying luxurybrand attitudes (H5).

STUDY 3: PRIMING ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS FORLUXURY BRANDS

In line with the objectives of this study, we manipulatedthe relative salience of the two focal social attitude func-tions through an advertising copy prime. Specifically, par-ticipants were shown an advertisement for a luxury brandthat primed either their value-expressive goals or theirsocial-adjustive goals. We expected that priming the goalsassociated with the two attitude functions would yield apattern of results similar to the prior studies (H5).

Method

Pretest. Forty-six undergraduate students (59% female)at a large northeastern university participated as part of acourse requirement. The pretest’s objective was to developtwo versions of an advertisement that would prime thegoals associated with either value-expressive or social-adjustive attitudes. We selected watches as the product cate-gory because they are publicly consumed by both gendersand the prevalence of counterfeiting is high. To minimizethe effects of brand familiarity on purchase intent, weselected a relatively unknown brand, Tissot, as our focalbrand. This was confirmed by our pretest, in which only sixof the participants had heard of the brand before the pretest.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of twoadvertising copy conditions, in which they reviewed eithera value-expressive advertisement or a social-adjustiveadvertisement for a Tissot watch. Both advertisements con-


tained a picture of a Tissot watch and a brief description ofthe company, after which the copy diverged by ad copycondition (see Appendix C). In the value-expressive ad con-dition, the advertisement urged participants to “wear a Tis-sot to express yourself, showcase your individuality andcommunicate your values.” This was followed by thetagline “You will know it is a Tissot.” In the social-adjustivead condition, participants were urged to “wear a Tissot toget noticed, be admired and enhance your social standing.”The tagline in this advertisement was “They will know it isa Tissot.” Each of the two advertisements had male (i.e.,picture of a male watch) and female (i.e., picture of afemale watch) versions, which were matched with respon-dent gender.

To gauge the effectiveness of our manipulation in prim-ing the goals associated with the two social functions, weassessed participants’ attitude functions toward the focalluxury brand, Tissot, using the same four-item value-expressive function (M = 3.45, α = .89) and social-adjustivefunction (M = 3.48, α = .90) measures used in Study 1(Appendix A). As we expected, participants who viewedthe value-expressive advertisement rated the Tissot brandhigher on the value-expressive function scale than thosewho saw the social-adjustive advertisement (MValue

Expressive = 3.84, MSocial Adjustive = 3.07; t(44) = –2.07, p <.05). Conversely, participants who saw the social-adjustiveadvertisement rated the brand higher on the social-adjustivefunction scale than those who saw the value-expressiveadvertisement (MValue Expressive = 2.81, MSocial Adjustive =4.15; t(44) = 3.31, p < .05). We also elicited participants’attitudes toward the advertisements using four semantic dif-ferential scales (1 = “likable,” and 7 = “not at all likable”;1 = “believable,” and 7 = “not at all believable”; 1 = “realis-tic,” and 7 = “not at all realistic”; 1 = “convincing,” and 7 =“not at all convincing”; M = 4.06, α = .76). Participants’attitudes toward the advertisements did not vary across thetwo ad copy conditions (F(1, 44) = .09, n.s.).

Participants and design. One hundred seventy-six under-graduate students (55% female) at a large northeastern uni-versity participated in the main study as part of a courserequirement. The experiment was a 2 (ad copy: valueexpressive versus social adjustive) × 2 (moral beliefs: unfa-vorable versus favorable) between-subjects design.

Procedure. Participants were randomly assigned to oneof two gender-appropriate ad copy conditions in which theywere shown either a value-expressive or a social-adjustiveadvertisement for a Tissot watch. After reading the adver-tisement, participants were shown a different picture of thesame Tissot watch and were told that it was a counterfeitthat was being sold at a price they could afford. They werethen asked to indicate their purchase intent for the counter-feit and the change, if any, in their preference for Tissotwatches. Participants then completed the moral beliefs andbrand familiarity measures. Finally, because previousresearch (Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000) has suggested thatcounterfeit consumption is often associated with positivefeelings of fun and excitement, we measured these associa-tions to control for their potential effect on the dependentvariables of interest.

Measures. We measured purchase intent as in the priorstudies (M = 2.88). We measured preference change for theTissot brand by asking participants to indicate how thecounterfeit changed their attitude toward Tissot (seven-

point scale: –3 = “much more negative,” 0 = “no change,”and 3 = “much more positive”; M = –.09). We measuredchange in attitude rather than purchase intent (as in Study2) because unlike in the case of the well-known and desir-able Louis Vuitton brand, we did not expect participants tohave an a priori purchase intent for Tissot, an unfamiliarbrand. We assessed moral beliefs using the same three-itemmeasure as in the prior studies (M = 4.10, α = .86). Therewas no difference in moral beliefs across the ad copy condi-tions (MValue Expressive = 4.05, MSocial Adjustive = 4.1; t = .55,n.s.). We assessed brand familiarity by asking participantsto indicate whether they had heard of the Tissot brandbefore this study (83% had not heard of the brand before).Finally, we measured respondents’ positive feelings towardcounterfeit consumption on a two-item semantic differen-tial scale (1 = “not fun,” and 7 = “fun”; 1 = “not exciting,”and 7 = “exciting”; M = 4.76, r = .87).

Results

We analyzed purchase intent and preference changeusing analyses of covariance, with ad copy, moral beliefs,and their interactions as independent factors (R2

Purchase

Intent = .13, R2Preference Change = .10). We included whether

participants had heard of the Tissot brand (purchase intent:F(1, 170) = 2.89, p < .10; preference change: F(1, 169) =.98, n.s.) and positive feelings toward counterfeiting (pur-chase intent: F(1, 170) = 13.64, p < .001; preferencechange: F(1, 169) = 1.66, n.s.) as covariates in both analy-ses to control for their confounding effect, if any. As inStudy 2, the preference change analysis of covariance alsoincluded purchase intent as a covariate (F(1, 169) = 4.50,p < .05). We obtained two levels of moral beliefs (favorableand unfavorable) by dividing the measure around itsmedian value. Parallel analyses using the continuous meas-ure yielded equivalent results.

Purchase intent. We anticipated that purchase intent forthe counterfeit watch would be greater when respondentsviewed the social-adjustive advertisement than when theyviewed the value-expressive advertisement (H5a). We alsoexpected that the effect of moral beliefs on purchase intentwould be greater when participants viewed the value-expressive advertisement than when they viewed the social-adjustive advertisement (H5b). Consistent with these expec-tations, we obtained a significant main effect of ad copy(MValue Expressive = 2.69, MSocial Adjustive = 3.07; F(1, 170) =4.04, p < .05, ω2 = .02) and a significant ad copy × moralbeliefs interaction (F(1, 170) = 5.58, p < .05). As Figure 2illustrates, participants who saw the value-expressive adver-tisement were less likely to purchase the counterfeit watchwhen they had unfavorable moral beliefs than when theyhad favorable moral beliefs (MUnfavorable = 2.14,MFavorable = 2.95; F(1, 170) = 4.85, p < .05, ω2 = .02). How-ever, the purchase intent of participants who saw the social-adjustive advertisement did not vary with their moralbeliefs (MUnfavorable = 3.21, MFavorable = 2.81; F(1, 170) =1.27, n.s.).

Preference change for real brand. H5c predicted thatpriming participants with a social-adjustive advertisementwould result in a more negative preference change thanpriming them with a value-expressive advertisement. As weanticipated, there was a significant main effect of ad copyon preference change (MValue Expressive = .05, MSocial

Adjustive = –.23; F(1, 169) = 4.68, p < .05, ω2 = .02). In other


Figure 2STUDY 3: THE INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF AD COPY AND

MORAL BELIEFS ON MEAN PURCHASE INTENT

words, the availability of the counterfeit had a more nega-tive effect on participants’ preferences for Tissot watcheswhen they were shown the social-adjustive advertisementthan when they were shown the value-expressiveadvertisement.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

This article contributes to our incipient but growingunderstanding of why consumers buy counterfeit luxurybrands. Across three studies, we provide convergent evi-dence that consumers’ desire for counterfeit brands rests onthe extent to which such brands fulfill the social goals guid-ing their luxury brand preferences. Importantly, thisresearch suggests that by understanding these social goals,it is possible to influence people’s counterfeit consumptionbehaviors.

Theoretical and Marketing Implications

Counterfeit consumption. This research advances ourtheoretical understanding of consumer responses to coun-terfeit brands by locating their desire for such brands in thesocial motivations underlying their attitudes toward luxurybrands. Specifically, we go beyond the obvious financialmotivation for buying cheaper versions of coveted brands todemonstrate that consumers’ likelihood of knowingly pur-chasing a counterfeit brand varies predictably and systemat-ically with the type of social function (i.e., value expressiveversus social adjustive) served by their attitudes toward thegenuine brands. An important question pertains to howthese social motives or attitude functions are related to theperson, product, and contextual antecedents of counterfeitconsumption, as articulated by Eisend and Schuchert-Guler(2006). Although consumers vary in the extent to which

their attitudes serve a particular social function, ourresearch also examines two product-related determinants:brand conspicuousness and advertising copy. A more com-prehensive delineation of the antecedents of the socialmotives underlying counterfeit luxury brand consumptionis a fruitful direction for further research.

Luxury products. This article also contributes to ourunderstanding of luxury brands by providing, for the firsttime (to the best of our knowledge), empirical evidence forthe distinct social attitude functions underlying their con-sumption. More specifically, by undertaking a theoreticalexamination of the role of such luxury brand–specific moti-vations in driving counterfeit consumption, this researchhas implications for how luxury brand marketers mightcurb the demand for counterfeits. Our research suggeststhat the way a luxury brand’s meaning is created throughadvertising and made accessible to consumers throughproduct design can affect consumers’ desire for counterfeitversions of the brand. For example, a prominently dis-played brand logo enables consumers to acquire and dis-play to others the brand’s aspirational associations, helpingthem fulfill their self-presentational goals even throughcounterfeits. Does this imply that marketers interested inreducing counterfeit consumption should make their brandsless conspicuous? The answer depends on the extent towhich such a decision would also diminish demand for thereal brand. Thus, at a minimum, what marketers need to dois to consider explicitly the extent to which the pluses ofbrand conspicuousness to their success are offset by theminuses of counterfeit consumption. Although we opera-tionalized a brand’s conspicuousness through its logo, it islikely affected by a broader set of stylistic elements (e.g.,the ubiquitous Gucci horse bit or the brand’s characteristicgreen and red colors) that are under marketers’ control.Thus, after marketers have determined the optimal level ofbrand conspicuousness, they can achieve it through a rela-tively broad set of creative product decisions.

This research suggests that marketers should also con-sider how the brand meaning they construct through theirpromotional activities influences counterfeit consumption.In Study 3, we demonstrated that consumers’ desire for acounterfeit brand varied systematically with the extent towhich a luxury brand advertisement primed their social-adjustive versus value-expressive goals. Thus, the preva-lence of advertisements linking luxury brands to aspira-tional lifestyles, connoting the brands’ status, may actuallyencourage counterfeit consumption. However, because suchmessages are likely to be important motivators of luxurybrand consumption as well, marketers again need to findthe optimal balance between establishing their own brandand inhibiting demand for counterfeits. This could beachieved through image-based advertisements that alsoappeal explicitly to the value-expressive motive for con-suming luxury brands. For example, Louis Vuitton recentlylaunched a “core values” advertising campaign (Louis Vuit-ton Moet Hennessey 2007) that uses images of iconic opin-ion leaders (e.g., Keith Richards, Mikhail Gorbachev,Catherine Deneuve) to associate the brand with life’s per-sonal journeys.

More generally, marketers could uncover the distribu-tion of social motives in their target population, identifypsychographic segments that vary in such motives, and create segment-appropriate communications that trigger


counterfeit-inhibiting goals. For example, people withsocial-adjustive motives may be less inclined to purchasecounterfeit brands after viewing image-based advertise-ments that depict the damage of counterfeit consumption onpeople’s social standing, such as losing the favorable opin-ion of friends or being rejected by important referencegroups. Similarly, people with value-expressive motivesmay be less likely to purchase counterfeit brands afterviewing information-based advertisements that discuss theethical issues associated with counterfeiting, such as itslinks to narcotics, human trafficking, and terrorism. Thesedistinct campaigns could then be deployed through specificmedia outlets that appeal to predominantly social-adjustiveor value-expressive segments, such as the fashion media,which is more image oriented than the news media, whichis more information oriented.

Finally, this research represents a step toward resolvingthe ongoing debate about whether the presence of counter-feits decreases consumer demand for luxury brands.Specifically, our findings suggest that the effect of counter-feiting on consumers’ preferences for a luxury brand islikely to depend on, among other things, the social func-tions served by their attitudes toward the brand. Althoughthe overall changes in preference for the luxury brands inStudy 2 (M = –.14) and Study 3 (M = –.09) are consistentwith prior findings regarding the nominal effects of coun-terfeiting (e.g., Nia and Zaichkowsky 2000), we find thatexposure to a counterfeit has a negative effect on con-sumers’ preferences for the luxury brand when their atti-tudes toward it serve a social-adjustive function. More gen-erally, our findings indicate that these adverse effects maybe in terms of not merely immediate lost sales but alsolonger-term erosion in brand equity.

Attitude functions. This article contributes to the func-tional theories of attitudes in two ways. First, we demon-strate that the functions served by attitudes toward oneobject (i.e., luxury brands) can influence consumers’ prefer-ences for other, albeit related, objects (i.e., counterfeitbrands). The importance of this finding is underscored byits potential to inform theoretical inquiry into marketingdomains such as that of brand extensions, brand alliances,and corporate branding. Second, we provide evidence thatthe functions served by consumers’ attitudes in a specificconsumption context are determined not just by the con-sumer (e.g., DeBono 1987) or the product category (e.g.,Shavitt, Lowrey, and Han 1992) but also by more subtlebut, importantly, controllable aspects of the marketing mix.Although we implicate brand conspicuousness and adver-tising message as marketer-based determinants of attitudefunctions in the luxury counterfeit consumption context, itwould be worthwhile for additional research to unearthother aspects of the marketing mix that can have a similarinfluence.

Limitations and Further Research

Most of the limitations of this research stem from theexperimental context used to test our predictions. Forexample, all the studies involved student participants, whomay be more inclined to purchase counterfeit productsbecause of both their financial situation and their greatersusceptibility to social influences. However, counterfeitbrands are not just attractive to low-income consumers;

those who can afford the genuine brands also buy counter-feits (Gentry, Putrevu, and Shultz 2006). Moreover, there islittle reason to believe that the relationship of students’behavioral responses to the functions served by their atti-tudes, including the extent to which they rely on their moralbeliefs, will differ significantly from other relevant popula-tions. In addition, participants were exposed to images ofcounterfeit brands rather than to the actual products. Giventhe importance of sensory evaluation to consumers’ prefer-ences for luxury, aesthetic, hedonic products, such as thosein our research, this could be one reason purchase intentwas relatively low across all the studies. Again, however,this would not be expected to alter the attitude function–based pattern of the results we obtained. If anything, inter-action with the actual product could be expected to bolsterthe goals associated with the different attitude functions,potentially strengthening our findings. Nevertheless, theexternal validity of our findings hinges on their replicationwith diverse populations using real products. Relatedly, it isunlikely that in the real marketplace, consumers’ encounterwith a luxury brand advertisement and their counterfeit pur-chase decisions would occur in as quick succession as it didin Study 3. Therefore, more naturalistic manipulations ofconsumers’ attitude functions over the long run may beneeded before marketers can implement the lessons of thisresearch. Finally, although we used an unfamiliar brand inStudy 3 for internal validity, the generalization of thatstudy’s findings to known, desired brands is an importantfuture research goal.

More generally, our research on the social motivesunderlying counterfeit luxury brand consumption points toseveral theoretically and managerially important researchdirections. For example, research suggests that the sym-bolic or social functions served by brands varies withconsumers’ self-views and socialization (Aaker, Benet-Martinez, and Garolera 2001). In other words, the extent towhich consumers’ attitudes toward luxury brands serve dif-ferent social functions is likely to vary across cultures. Forexample, compared with North America, Asia is home notonly to more counterfeiting but also to more collectivist(versus individualist) cultures, in which the social pressuresto both conform and save face are greater. Thus, the dynam-ics of counterfeit consumption might be different in Asia,where consumers are likely to use their greater expertisewith counterfeit brands (e.g., the different grades of coun-terfeit quality) in the service of meeting the stronger social-adjustive demands of their culture. Research into the rela-tionship between social attitude functions and culturalidentity, both within and across cultures, in the counterfeitconsumption context is essential to a richer understandingof the global demand for counterfeits.

The broader cultural context of counterfeit consumptionalso raises questions about the potentially positive out-comes of counterfeiting for the genuine luxury brands.Although our research demonstrates the detrimental influ-ence of counterfeiting on consumers’ desire for the genuinebrand, it is possible, particularly in markets in which thegenuine brand is not available, that exposure to counterfeitscould actually increase consumers’ awareness of and desirefor the genuine brand over time, creating pent up demandfor it. Thus, an elucidation of the micro and macro determi-nants of a positive spillover of counterfeiting to luxury


brand demand would not only enrich theories of counter-feiting but also help marketers fine-tune their global anti-counterfeiting efforts. In addition, given today’s geographi-cal mobility, the same consumers may behave differentlytoward counterfeit brands in different cultures. For exam-ple, a consumer that would not purchase counterfeits in hisor her home culture may readily do so when traveling tolocations where counterfeiting is rife. Thus, a broader con-sideration of other motives for counterfeit consumption,such as novelty, adventure, and souvenir seeking, examinedperhaps through the lens of attitude functions, social andotherwise, would provide a more complete understandingof this pervasive phenomenon.

Finally, how we define counterfeiting determines thescope and importance of this phenomenon. Although ourresearch considers only instances of illegal counterfeitingbased on trademark infringement (i.e., products that have aluxury brand logo), many mass-market brands, particularlyin the apparel industry (e.g., the Gap, H&M), typicallyderive their designs from innovative, high-end brands.Expanding the notion of counterfeiting to include suchessentially legitimate brands opens up a much broader andfascinating research domain, insights into which would beof much interest to marketers that suffer from such “trickledown” practices.

In conclusion, by examining the disparate social motiva-tions underlying the consumption of counterfeit luxurybrands, this research begins to articulate the individual andcontext-based influences on consumption behavior in thistheoretically and managerially significant domain. In doingso, it also raises several research questions, investigationsof which are essential to winning the global war oncounterfeiting.

APPENDIX A

Study 1 Measures

Value-Expressive Function (1 = “completely disagree,”and 7 = “completely agree”)

•Luxury brands reflect the kind of person I see myself to be.•Luxury brands help me communicate my self-identity.•Luxury brands help me express myself.•Luxury brands help me define myself.

Social-Adjustive Function (1 = “completely disagree,”and 7 = “completely agree”)

•Luxury brands are a symbol of social status.•Luxury brands help me fit into important social situations.•I like to be seen wearing luxury brands.•I enjoy it when people know I am wearing a luxury brand.

Study 3 Measures

Value-Expressive Function (1 = “completely disagree,”and 7 = “completely agree”)

•A Tissot watch would reflect the kind of person I see myself tobe.

•A Tissot watch would help me communicate my self-identity.•A Tissot watch would help me express myself.•A Tissot watch would help me define myself.

Social-Adjustive Function (1 = “completely disagree,”and 7 = “completely agree”)

•A Tissot watch would be a symbol of social status.•Wearing a Tissot watch would help me fit into important socialsituations.

•I would like to be seen wearing a Tissot watch.•I would enjoy it if people knew I was wearing a Tissot watch.

Appendix BSTUDY 2: STIMULI

A: No Logo B: Conspicuous Logo


Appendix CSTUDY 3: STIMULI

A: Value-Expressive Ad Copy B: Social-Adjustive Ad Copy

REFERENCES

Aaker, Jennifer L., Verónica Benet-Martinez, and Jordi Garolera(2001), “Consumption Symbols as Carriers of Culture: A Studyof Japanese and Spanish Brand Personality Constructs,” Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (3), 492–508.

Aiken, Leona and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression:Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

Albers-Miller, Nancy D. (1999), “Consumer Misbehavior: WhyPeople Buy Illicit Goods,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 273–87.

Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “ReferenceGroup Influence on Product and Brand Purchase Decisions,”Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), 183–94.

Bloch, Peter H., Ronald F. Bush, and Leland Campbell (1993),“Consumer ‘Accomplices’ in Product Counterfeiting,” Journalof Consumer Marketing, 10 (4), 27–36.

DeBono, Kenneth G. (1987), “Investigating the Social Adjustiveand Value Expressive Functions of Attitudes: Implications forPersuasion Processes,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 52 (2), 279–87.

——— (2006), “Self-Monitoring and Consumer Psychology,”Journal of Personality, 74 (3), 715–38.

Eisend, Marin and Pakize Schuchert-Guler (2006), “ExplainingCounterfeit Purchases: A Review and Preview,” Academy ofMarketing Science Review, 10 (10), (accessed January 2, 2009),[available at http://www.amsreview.org/articles/eisend12-2006.pdf].

Fisher, Robert J. (1993), “Social Desirability Bias and the Validityof Indirect Questioning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–316.

Forehand, Mark R., Rohit Deshpandé, and Americus Reed II(2002), “Identity Salience and the Influence of DifferentialActivation of the Social Self-Schema on AdvertisingResponse,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (6), 1086–1099.

Gentry, James W., Sanjay Putrevu, and Clifford Shultz II (2006),“The Effects of Counterfeiting on Consumer Search,” Journalof Consumer Behavior, 5 (3), 245–56.

Global Business Leaders’ Alliance Against Counterfeiting (2005),“Global Counterfeiting and Piracy: Update and BackgroundDocument,” paper presented at the 2005 World EconomicForum Annual Meeting, Davos, Switzerland (January 26–30.

Grewal, Rajdeep, Raj Mehta, and Frank R. Kardes (2004), “TheTiming of Repeat Purchases of Consumer Durable Goods: TheRole of Functional Bases of Consumer Attitudes,” Journal ofMarketing Research, 41 (February), 101–115.

Grossman, Gene M. and Carl Shapiro (1988), “Foreign Counter-feiting of Status Goods,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(February), 79–100.

Grubb, Edward L. and Harrison L. Grathwohl (1967), “ConsumerSelf-Concept, Symbolism, and Marketing Behavior: A Theo-retical Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 31 (October), 22–27.

Higgins, Richard S. and Paul H. Rubin (1986), “CounterfeitGoods,” Journal of Law and Economics, 29 (2), 211–30.

Hoe, Lee, Gillian Hogg, and Susan Hart (2003), “Fakin’ It: Coun-terfeiting and Consumer Contradictions,” in EuropeanAdvances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Darach Turley andStephen Brown, eds. Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch, 60–67.

International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition (2008), “Facts onFakes,” (accessed January 2, 2009), (available at http://www.iacc.org/resources/Facts_on_fakes.pdf).

International Chamber of Commerce (2004), “A Brief Overviewof Counterfeiting,” (August 28), [available at http://www.iccwbo.org/ccs/cib_bureau/overview.asp].

Katz, Daniel (1960), “The Functional Approach to the Study ofAttitudes,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (2), 163–204.

Labroo, Aparna and Angela Lee (2006),”Between Two Brands: AGoal Fluency Account of Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Mar-keting Research, 43 (August), 374–85.

Lai, Kay Ka-Yuk and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky (1999), “BrandImitation: Do the Chinese Have Different Views?” Asia PacificJournal of Management, 16 (2), 179–92.

Leisen, Birgit and Alexander Nill (2001), “Combating ProductCounterfeiting: An Investigation into the Likely Effectivenessof a Demand-Oriented Approach,” in AMA Winter Educators’Conference Proceedings, Vol. 12, R. Krishnan and M.Viswanathan, eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association,271–77.

Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessey (2007), “Exceptional People,Extraordinary Journeys: The New Louis Vuitton Core ValuesAdvertising Campaign,” The Magazine, (October 10), (accessedDecember 4, 2008), [available at http://www.lvmh.com].


Nia, Arghavan and Judith Lynne Zaichkowsky (2000), “Do Coun-terfeits Devalue the Ownership of Luxury Brands?” Journal ofProduct & Brand Management, 9 (7), 485–97.

Parloff, Roger (2006), “Not Exactly Counterfeit,” Fortune, 153(8), 108–112.

Penz, Elfriede and Barbara Stottinger (2005), “Forget the ‘Real’Thing: Take the Copy! An Explanatory Model for the VolitionalPurchase of Counterfeit Products,” in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 32, Geeta Menon and Akshay Rao, eds. Provo,UT: Association for Consumer Research, 568–75.

Phillips, Tim (2005), Knockoff: The Deadly Trade in CounterfeitGoods. Sterling, VA; Kogan Page.

Ratneshwar, S., Lawrence W. Barsalou, Cornelia Pechmann, andMelissa Moore (2001), “Goal-Derived Categories: The Role ofPersonal and Situational Goals in Category Representations,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10 (3), 147–57.

Shavitt, Sharon (1989), “Products, Personalities and Situations inAttitude Functions: Implications for Consumer Behavior,” inAdvances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, Thomas K. Srull, ed.Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 300–305.

——— and Richard Fazio (1991), “Effects of Attribute Salienceon the Consistency Between Attitudes and Behavior Predic-tion,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17 (5),507–516.

———, Tina Lowrey, and Sang-Pil Han (1992), “Attitude Func-tions in Advertising: The Interactive Role of Products and Self-Monitoring,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (4), 337–64.

Shocker, Allan D., Barry L. Bayus, and Kim Namwoon (2004),“Product Complements and Substitutes in the Real World: The

Relevance of ‘Other Products,’” Journal of Marketing, 68 (Jan-uary), 28–40.

Smith, Brewster M., Jerome S. Bruner, and Robert W. White(1956), Opinions and Personality. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Snyder, Mark (1974), “The Self-Monitoring of Expressive Behav-ior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (4),526–37.

——— and Kenneth G. DeBono (1985), “Appeals to Image andClaims About Quality: Understanding the Psychology ofAdvertising,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(3), 586–97.

Spangenberg, Eric R. and David E. Sprott (2006), “Self-Monitoring and Susceptibility to the Influence of Self-Prophecy,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 550–56.

Thomas, Dana (2007), “Terror’s Purse Strings,” The New YorkTimes, (August 30), A23–A23.

Tom, Gail, Barbara Garibaldi, Yvette Zeng, and Julie Pilcher(1998), “Consumer Demand for Counterfeit Goods,” Psychol-ogy & Marketing 15 (5), 405–421.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2006), “Counterfeiting and Piracy:Threats to Consumers and Jobs,” (accessed April 4, 2007),[available at http://www.thetruecosts.org].

World Customs Organization (2004), “Counterfeiting CongressCalls for Public-Private Co-operation,” news release, (May 26).

Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynn (2006), The Psychology Behind Trade-mark Infringement and Counterfeiting. Mahwah, NJ: LaurenceErlbaum Associates.

k Counterfiet Luxury Brand

Documents

Transcript of k Counterfiet Luxury Brand