1 Introduction
Counterfeits have become a significant and impactful economic phenomenon (Bian,
2018). According to estimations from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (2016), the value of counterfeit and pirated products in the global market in 2013 accounted for 2.5% of world trade. The global value of trade in counterfeit and pirated products has seen an unprecedented increase in recent years and is worth a staggering half a trillion US dollars a year (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development 2016).
Various anti-counterfeiting measures, including diligent legal litigation, are often implemented to combat counterfeiting (Herstein et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, counterfeiting continues to thrive (Bian,
2018). Some researchers assert that consumer demand for counterfeits is a leading cause of the escalation of the counterfeit market (Wilcox et al.,
2009). Why consumers demand and willingly purchase counterfeits has attracted much research attention. Prior studies have identified both product (Tom et al. 1998) and brand features (Marticotte & Arcand,
2017) which draw consumers to counterfeits. Motives for counterfeit consumption have also been uncovered. For example, Bian et al. (
2016) demonstrate that desire for counterfeits hinges on psychologically oriented motives (“thrill of the hunt”, being part of a “secret society” and satisfying genuine interest). Focusing on the socially oriented motives, Wilcox et al. (
2009) instead reveal that consumers’ demand for counterfeits is greater when their luxury brand attitudes serve a social-adjustive (e.g. to fit in) rather than value-expressive function (e.g. to express themselves).
A clear and actionable understanding as to when and what personal values from Schwartz’s framework determine demand for counterfeit remains elusive. This knowledge gap is surprising as personal values, the normative beliefs about proper standards of conduct (Williams 1979), serve as the basis for the development of attitudes that lead to specific decisions and predict behaviours (Hilton,
2003). In the light of this knowledge gap and significance of personal values, our objectives are (1) to understand the implications of personal values as the determinants of counterfeit patronage, (2) to gain insights into how the effect of personal values varies across consumers of different counterfeit experiences and (3) to reveal underlying mechanisms of the value effect through testing the mediating role played by the construal level (Trope & Liberman,
2010).
Personal values from Schwartz’s framework and consumption represent a fast-emerging research area. Studies include values held by consumers (Wiedmann et al.,
2009), values and consumer well-being (Burroughs & Rindfleisch,
2002) and consumers’ values and ethical consumption (Doran,
2009; Stringer et al.,
2020). Prior research reports that consumer decisions concerning ethical consumption differ depending upon the values held by the decision-maker (Doran,
2009). Taking the lens of the seminal value theories (Schwartz & Bilsky,
1987), this research provides new insights into the salient determinants of counterfeit patronage. The findings will enrich counterfeit-related literature where research recognises the
unethical aspect of counterfeit consumption such as Bian et al. (
2016), who document the neutralisation strategies adopted by consumers in decision-making concerning
unethical consumption behaviour, and Wilcox et al. (
2009), who find that counterfeit purchase tendency varies with consumers’ moral beliefs about counterfeits only when their luxury brand attitudes serve a value-expressive function.
Drawing on the experience literature (Bagozzi,
1981), this research advances knowledge (e.g. Yoo & Lee,
2012) through unveiling the effects of personal values that vary depending on counterfeit experience. Moreover, diverging from the extant literature ascertaining motivational drives for counterfeit consumption, this research provides new insights, specifically the mediational role played by construal level which underlies the relationships between personal values and counterfeit patronage.
3 Discussion
This research generates novel findings as we reveal that self-transcendence values (but not other values) lessen counterfeit patronage. This effect is pronounced when consumers have low counterfeit experience. High counterfeit experience, however, mitigates the negative influence of self-transcendence values. We also identify construal level as the underlying mechanism which explains the negative effect of self-transcendence on counterfeit patronage. Additionally, our findings do not support the commonly shared concern of practitioners; that is, counterfeit experience increases counterfeit patronage.
3.1 Theoretical implications
This research contributes to the personal value and unethical consumption behaviour literature through unveiling the determinant roles played by personal values in explaining counterfeit consumption. Marketing literature provides empirical evidence to the notion that personal values significantly influence ethical consumption behaviour (Doran,
2009). To the best of our knowledge, until this current research, understanding of how personal values may dictate counterfeit consumption remains scarce despite personal values serving as the basis to predict behaviour (Hilton,
2003). Our findings particularly draw attention to the importance of self-transcendence in counterfeit consumption.
This research is also one of the first which sheds light on the moderating effect of counterfeit experience regarding the relationship between personal values and counterfeit patronage, thereby advancing the knowledge concerning the impact of counterfeit experience in purchase decisions.
Diverging from extant literature investigating motives for counterfeit consumption (Bian et al.,
2016; Wilcox et al.,
2009), this research provides new insights into the linkages between the normative standard of behaviour, cognitive mindset and counterfeit consumption. It represents one of the few which identifies personal values as an antecedent of the construal that consumers employ to make purchase decisions, thereby enriching the understanding of elements that influence construal (Trope & Liberman,
2010).
3.2 Practical implications
The findings of this research afford two pragmatic strategies. First, marketing endeavour needs to be placed in elevating the self-transcendence values (but not other personal values) since they have prominent power in reducing counterfeit patronage. Specifically, businesses could develop and deliver educational programmes jointly with schools, with the aim of enhancing the self-transcendence values of adolescents as adolescence is a key period for the formation of personal values which are developed over time and, once developed, are relatively stable (Muncy & Vitell,
1992).
Second, our findings suggest that strategies aiming to eliminate demand for counterfeits through exposing consumers to counterfeits and offering counterfeit trials, a typical behavioural influence approach, would need to be applied with caution. For example, Impact Planet, a charity in the UK, offers consumers opportunities to try and test a wide range of counterfeits. According to our findings, counterfeit experiences, although unlikely to increase counterfeit patronage directly, would eliminate the negative effect of self-transcendence on counterfeit consumption. Thus, counterfeit trials might not cast desirable outcomes.
3.3 Limitations and future research
This research has several limitations which offer avenues for further research. First, we captured overall counterfeit experience rather than specific experience obtained either intentionally or unintendedly. Disentangling the impact (both direct and indirect) of distinct counterfeit experiences represents an area of potential implications. Second, why some personal values do not explain counterfeit patronage is a challenging question that deserves research attention. Previous research shows that low (vs. high) self-esteem consumers tend to purchase inferior products (Stuppy et al.,
2020). Future research could identify how internal factors (e.g., self-esteem) influence counterfeit patronage when consumers hold different personal values.
Third, although not the focus of this research, the finding concerning the main effect of counterfeit experience which denies the commonly shared concern of practitioners, that is counterfeit experience, increases counterfeit patronage and, no doubt, inspires further debate. One possible explanation for this surprising finding is that the prominent allure pertaining to counterfeits, such as the “thrill of the hunt” and satisfying own interest (Bian et al.,
2016), is likely to diminish when counterfeits become easily accessible which, in turn, neutralises or substantially reduces demand. Thus, exploring influences of counterfeit experience on motives for counterfeit consumption represents an area of potential because this effort would probably dissect the seemingly inconclusive findings pertaining to the impact of counterfeit experience on consumer response. Finally, this research is limited to Thai consumers. A study across cultures might reveal intercultural differences that are relevant to heavily counterfeited global brands.
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.