Counterfeiting: conceptual issues and implications for branding
| Published date | 16 September 2019 |
| Pages | 707-719 |
| Date | 16 September 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2017-1706 |
| Author | Bradley P. Evans,Richard G. Starr,Roderick J. Brodie |
| Subject Matter | Marketing,Product management,Brand management/equity |
Counterfeiting: conceptual issues and
implications for branding
Bradley P. Evans
Graduate School of Management, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, and
Richard G. Starr and Roderick J. Brodie
Department of Marketing, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to apply a broader perspective of branding to foster new insights and develop strategies to address product
counterfeiting.
Design/methodology/approach –A review of the counterfeiting and branding literature leads to the development of a new conceptual framework
that incorporates proactive, collaborative processes, in addition to the traditional product branding approach.
Findings –The integrative framework provides a basis to develop innovative, proactive strategies that complement traditional bra nding approaches
to address product counterfeiting. The complexity of an integrative framework (or network) offers more opportunities for the firm to co-create robust
meaning with multiple stakeholders. Identity elements are readily copied, whereas meanings are not. These strategies help to control counterfeiting
by developing deep and inimitable relationships between managers and other stakeholders in a marketing network.
Research limitations/implications –A research agenda is proposed to structure future studies on counterfeiting.
Practical implications –The framework outlines how to leverage collaboration between managers and brand stakeholders to complement
conventional approaches to control counterfeiting based on traditional product branding.
Originality/value –This paper contributes to the growing body of counterfeiting and brand protection literature by adapting and applying
contemporary integrative branding concepts, leading to novel strategies to address the issue.
Keywords Branding, Counterfeiting, Conceptual framework, Brand identity, Brand meaning, Brand protection, Integrative branding
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Product counterfeitingcreates a range of potential problems for
legitimate brands, including lossof sales and profits, consumer
dissatisfaction, safety issues, supply chain concerns and even
liability risks to the firm. Each of these factors can damage
brand equity (Wilsonet al.,2016).Companies typically combat
the production and distribution of counterfeit goods through
legal enforcement of trademark rights (Post and Post, 2008;
Stewart and Norwinski, 2011). Despite a sustainedincrease in
enforcement activities,the availability of counterfeits is growing
(OECD/EUIPO, 2016).This fact suggests that a reactive legal-
based approach is inadequate,and a broader proactive strategy
is needed.
Counterfeits derive their identity by mirroring legitimate
brands, thereby inextricably linking the fake to the original.
Because of this linkage, our conceptualization of brands
directly impacts how one understands counterfeits. To gain
better insight, a more explicitconceptualization of counterfeits,
brands, and how they interrelate is needed. This paper draws
upon newer perspectives on brands and demonstrates how
these can better inform our understanding of counterfeiting
phenomena.
There is a spectrum of activities that comprise product
counterfeiting and related fraudulent behaviors. Many authors
accept definitions similar to Cordell, Wongtada, and
Kieschnick (1996) who state that counterfeiting is “any
unauthorized manufacturing of goods whose special
characteristics are protectedas intellectual property (IP) rights,
or trademarks, patents, and copyrights”(p.41). This definition
explicitly relies on identity-based elements of a brand and
emphasizes physical attributes. The traditional identity-based
view of the brand views the producing firm as the creator and
owner of the brand, actively transmittingmeanings to relatively
passive brand-using consumers. This ignores the complex co-
creation of brandmeanings by active stakeholders through their
shared stewardshipof the brand (Merz et al., 2009).
A newer perspective suggests that the identity and meanings
associated with a brand are co-createdin a network and are not
owned by a single firm or actor (Brodie et al.,2017). Thus a
brand is a semiotic entity composed of shared associations
within a marketing network (Conejo and Wooliscroft, 2015).
The producing firm owns the trademark, but a network of
stakeholders (including the producing firm) develops brand
meanings from the relationships they develop with the brand.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
28/6 (2019) 707–719
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-12-2017-1706]
Received 15 December 2017
Revised 18 May 2018
18 September 2018
Accepted 25 November 2018
707
To continue reading
Request your trial