by Mike Masnick

Filed Under:
counterfeit, promotion, study

Study Shows Counterfeit Buyers Frequently Buy Real Products Later

from the acta-what-now? dept

As the negotiations over the ACTA treaty continue in secret, one of the more frustrating aspects is how defenders of ACTA repeatedly conflate "counterfeit goods" with "copyright infringement." Witness Senator Evan Bayh's nonsensical response to being asked about ACTA, where it becomes clear quite quickly that he's unfamiliar with the most basic information on the subject. He switches back and forth between counterfeiting and copyright as if they're the same thing, and seems to think that any treaty on the matter must be good.

But, an even more annoying part of all this is the use of fear mongering over "counterfeit goods" as some huge problem that has to be solved, when the evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. The copyright lobbyists are using the cover of some mythical massive counterfeiting problem to push for unnecessary and potentially dangerous copyright law changes, but even the counterfeiting claims are suspect. In the past, we've noted that both the GAO and the OECD have noted that the "problem" of counterfeiting has been massively inflated by lobbyists.

And, a new study suggests that even the counterfeit goods that do get sold aren't really a huge problem to the original manufacturers (thanks to Dave Barnes for sending this in) -- if there a problem at all. In a study that was actually carried out by a former brand manager at LVMH, it was discovered that people don't view counterfeit goods as a substitute to the real goods. People aren't being tricked -- they know they're buying counterfeits, and others know that they have counterfeit goods as well:
"Consumers are a lot smarter than we may give them credit for -- just because you've got a nice fake doesn't mean you're going to get away with it."
But, even more importantly, it looks like counterfeit products often act as a stepping stone to get people to go forward and buy the original version:
"The counterfeit actually served as a placebo for brand attachment," she said. "People were becoming increasingly attached to the real brand even though they never possessed it at all."

Forty-six percent of the counterfeit-bag owners bought the authentic products within two and a half years, she said. Shoppers were willing to pay $786 for a real luxury bag....
So, for all the reports of "harm" done by counterfeit products, here's a study suggesting that it actually helps build brand loyalty, and appears to often lead to the counterfeit buyer later buying a massively expensive real offering in a relatively short time frame. As some are noting, this suggests that the counterfeit goods act as advertising for the real goods. These are the sorts of things that would probably be useful to discuss with those negotiating ACTA. If only those discussions weren't all happening behind closed doors due to "national security" issues.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Richard (profile), 7 Dec 2009 @ 9:57am

    Fundamental Difference

    A counterfeit is an inferior copy of a physical item presented as the original.
    It is usually trademark infringement - but NOT copyright infringement.
    It disadvantages the buyer since they pay over the odds for an inferior product.
    Hence it is fair to represent anti-counterfeiting measures as being in the public interest.

    If, however, the buyer knows that they have a cheap rip off then arguably no harm is done to anyone.

    Copyright infringement (in the digital age) usually involves making an exact copy of the original. It is NOT a fake and not a loss to the buyer - except insofar as (with software) he loses out on support, after sales etc. It is pretty close to being mutually exclusive with counterfeiting.

    Conflating the two is an unforgiveable abuse of logic - regardless of your opinion of either "offense".

    The only possible excuse is harking back to the days of analogue piracy when pirate tapes (VHS or audio) were of inferior quality.

    These days I suspect only "movie theatre camcordings" manage to fall into both categories simultaneously - but personally I don't think that they are a real problem. The movie industry uses the pirate camcorder myth as an excuse to bang on about piracy in front of its customers - with mainly counterproductive effects. (Since the warnings started appearing on the screen I have decided not to go to the cinema again - except out of regard for another family member's wishes).

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.