Factors Influencing The Purchase Of Counterfeit Goods.

Research methods in social sciences

Submitted to: Miss Talat Wizarat

By: Wardah Kanwal Laraib Nawaz Arsalan Salahuddin

Table of Contents 1. Acknowledgement 2. Abstract 3. Introduction 4. Methodology & Limitations 5. Theoretical Background: Brand image Brand personality 6. Analysis 7. Conclusion 8. References

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Thanks to the Almighty for giving us strength and courage which enabled us to take this task to completion, without his help this would have been an impossible task. Thanks to Ms. Talat Wizarat who was constantly there to guide us and help us out in the reports compilation. Our token of thanks to all the students at IBA and other interviewees for all the support and coordination provided. It was a real pleasure working with them. It would have been impossible to cover such a diverse topic in such a short span of time without their zeal. Our gratitude to the respondents, who participated enthusiastically in the research work and sacrificed their precious time for us.

ABSTRACT Purpose - Counterfeiting has become a significant economic phenomenon. Increased demand for Counterfeit branded products (CBPs) make the study of determinants of consumers CBPs purchase behavior more worthwhile than ever before. Existing studies have largely neglected brand inuence on consumer purchase behaviour of CBPs. This research seeks to examine the impact of perceived brand image, direct and indirect effects (mediator and moderator effects) of product involvement and product knowledge on consumer purchase intention of counterfeits in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting. Design/methodology/approach - The current study tests the conceptual model and hypotheses developed based on the existing literature. Four focus groups (ranging from six to eight participants in each group) are used to construct the research instrument. The conceptual model and hypothesis are tested with survey data from 100 consumers all over pakistan. Findings - This research is the first in the literature on counterfeits to establish that perceived brand Personality plays a more dominant role in explaining consumers' purchase intention of CBP than other inuential factors (e.g. Benefit and product attribute). Involvement/knowledge has no significant inuence on counterfeit purchase intention. Evidence of involvement as a moderator does not exist. Brand image is not a mediator of the effects of involvement/knowledge on purchase intention. Research limitations/implications - This research only investigates one brand of one product Category (watches) in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting, although this has not prevented the emergence of significant results. Practical implications - The results of this study hold important implications for both practitioners and academics. They help to alert practitioners to the factors that truly affect consumer proneness of CBPs, for example, brand personality. For academics, they demonstrate that brand inuence should not be further ignored in the study of consumer behaviour in relation to CBPs. Originality/value - This research is one of the few which investigate CBP not only as a product but, more importantly, also as a brand - a counterfeit brand.

INTRODUCTION Counterfeit products are those bearing a trademark that is identical to, or indistinguishable from, a trademark registered to another party and infringe the rights of the holder of the trademark . Counterfeiting has existed for a long yet, the phenomenon has only been a serious concern for legitimate manufacturers since the 1970s. It is estimated that the value of counterfeit goods in the global market grew by 1,100 per cent between 1984 and 1994 (Carty, 1994; Blatt, 1993). The International Chamber of Commerce states that counterfeits account for 8 per cent of world trade (Freedman, 1999). Globally, the sales of counterfeit products are estimated to be about $300 billion (Gentry et al., 2006). Clearly, counterfeiting has become a significant economic phenomenon in the last two decades . Despite the fact that selling and manufacturing counterfeits are considered to be crimes in some countries, for example, the US and the UK , past research suggests that about one-third of consumers would knowingly purchase counterfeit goods regardless of the potential consequences associated with counterfeits. Since demand is always the key driver of a market, a number of researchers have argued that consumer demand for counterfeits is one of the leading causes of the existence and upsurge in growth of the counterfeiting phenomenon. A number of researchers have called for investigation of consumer behavior and counterfeits. Nevertheless, the academic literature displays a strong focus on the supply side, while that of the demand side - why consumers knowingly buy counterfeits - still appears to be scarce. The limited number of studies which searched for answers to why consumers knowingly purchase counterfeits mainly examined variables such as perceived price benefit , psychographic characteristics , product features , demographic variables , and social inuences. When looking at theoretical concepts that explain why consumers purchase counterfeits, traditional profiling approaches based on psychographic variables seemed to fall short in their explanatory power . Moreover they have failed to take underlying brand aspects into account, regardless of the fact that the decision to buy counterfeit branded products (CBPs) not only represents a product choice decision, but also presents a brand decision. Thus, consumer research that focuses on symbolic aspects of CBPs is required to fruitfully advance research in this area . This paper attempts to take a fresh look at the demand side of counterfeiting. The current research aims to investigate the effects of self-assessed product knowledge, product involvement, and consumers' perceived brand image of CBPs, as well as the interaction between these variables on consumer purchase intention of CBPs. It is worth highlighting at this juncture that, in contrast to previous research, for example, Wee et al. (1995), Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000) and Albers-Millers (1999), who examined counterfeits from a product perspective only, this research is one of the few studies which brings brand aspects into the investigation of counterfeits. Inclusion of brand aspects in the current study is considered to be a significant contribution to the literature, given that, if branded products did not attract consumers, counterfeiting would not be an issue. Therefore, this research is to measure consumers' perceptions of CBP as a product, and also as a brand - a counterfeit one - which results in providing a deeper insight into the causes of

consumer proneness of CBPs from an academic perspective. From a managerial perspective, a more comprehensive understanding of the determinants of counterfeit purchase will contribute to the literature and may help marketers set up more refined and more effective marketing strategies. This research provides a platform for more conceptual and theoretical research on the study of symbolic and expressive brands/benefits/needs effects on behaviour in counterfeits related research settings. Counterfeiting appears in different forms, as deceptive, non-, and blur counterfeiting . With deceptive or blur counterfeiting, the consumer is either not aware or unsure of the fact that he/she is purchasing a counterfeit rather than the original product and cannot be held accountable for this behavior. This work limits its scope to non-deceptive counterfeiting, where consumers intentionally purchase . The choice of the non-deceptive counterfeit context is considered important, as only under these circumstances might consumers' perceptions of counterfeits reect their demand for these products. After presenting the theoretical background, we describe our research methods and results. We then discuss our research findings and explore their implications for management and for future research. Finally, we examine the limitations of our study.

METHODOLOGY Brand selection This research investigates counterfeit Rolex watches. This study focuses on this brand because Rolex is a well-known and long-established brand, and thus familiar to the target respondents. This brand is on the list of the most counterfeited brands (Poulter, 2006) and the counterfeits of this brand are available for use as stimuli. Additionally, Rolex is on the list of International Luxury Brands (Dubois and Paternault, 1995), which is likely to induce a wide range of involvement levels and knowledge level across individuals. Procedure and sample This study was conducted in karachi, Pakistan. The reasons for the choice of Pakistan are because the Pakistan is perceived to be one of the main recipients of counterfeits in the world (Kay, 1990), and counterfeits are widespread in karachi according to the Trading Standards officials. The first author contacted, by mail, 20 randomly selected supermarkets from a list of supermarkets located in karachi , to request help in studying consumer purchase behavior of CBPs. Four supermarkets gave permission and provided full support to the researcher for data collection. Two of the supermarkets are relatively small and are located in residential areas. The other two are medium-sized stores. One supermarket is located in a shopping centre and is perceived as a relatively expensive supermarket, with the other one being located at the edge of the city and being well known for its low price strategy. We collected the data at the supermarket entrances rather than in the supermarkets to avoid lengthbiased, inviting every tenth shopper who passed the data collection points to participate in the study. In order to avoid respondent bias, the research proceeded over a 14-day period that included weekends and weekdays, as well as covering all of each supermarket's opening hours. Taking into consideration that not every consumer has experienced counterfeits, this research adopted a stimulus-based approach, rather than a memory-based method. Specifically, before asking participants to fill out the research questionnaire, we presented the CBP samples to respondents for examination. A stimulus-based approach ensured both that the respondents were all familiar with the examined CBPs and also that the largest possible sample size was attainted. A total of 56.4 per cent are male and 43.6 per cent are female. Some 58.8 per cent of the participants have an educational attainment lower than degree level, with 26.8 per cent having a bachelor's degree and 14.4 per cent having a Master's degree or higher. The age breakdown of the sample is: 21.2 per cent, under 20 years old, 24.3 per cent, between 21 and 30, 19.6 per cent, between 31 and 40, 20.2 per cent, between 41 and 50, and 14.6 per cent, 51 and above.

LIMITATIONS There are several factors that may limit the generalizability of the findings in this research. There are four limitations inherent in this approach. First, the sample size is not enough to be persuasive. This research includes 100 students; however, participants are needed to obtain more generalizable results. Second, it is clear that people have specific attitudes following their experience in purchasing luxury or counterfeit products. People who have purchased only luxury goods tend to avoid purchasing counterfeit products. Peoples previous experience in purchasing original luxury goods or counterfeit luxury goods should be considered. Moreover, even though there are various kinds and qualities of counterfeit goods, this study is limited to specific level and categories of product. More brands and products with different quality could be included in future studies. Lastly, the products in the experiments were presented only in photos. As it is difficult to distinguish between counterfeit and original goods through photographs, using real items wouldve beeen more meaningful.

THE ROLE OF BRAND IMAGE Theoretical background Brand image Since it was first introduced formally into the marketing discipline by Gardner and Levy (1955), communication of a brand image to a target segment has been regarded as an important marketing activity. Particularly, it became commonplace in consumer behaviour research from the 1980s. The trend has never faded ever since. Nevertheless, brand image has been assigned different meanings from the day it was introduced into the marketing discipline. Conventionally, brand image was defined differently according to different research focus , due to lack of a firm base or foundation on which the concept can be built. Researchers tend to use brand image and other brand related constructs interchangeably, for example, brand identity. cautioned against a "brand image trap" in brand identity and brand management literature and illustrated that brand image and brand identity are different concepts, although both of them are drawn from associative network theory. "Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist aspires to create or maintain" , it represents what the brand stands for and implies a promise to customers from the organisation's members, whereas brand image is "how a brand is perceived by consumers" , which stands for the set of brand associations in consumer memories. This study adopts Aaker's (1996) brand image definition. Brand image is important because it contributes to the consumer's deciding whether or not the brand is the one for him/her and it inuences consumers' subsequent buying behaviour , thereafter brand equity . A well-communicated brand image should help to establish a brand's position, insulate the brand from competition, enhance the brand's market performance, and therefore plays an integral role in building longterm brand equity . The product attributes, the benefits/consequences of using a brand, and brand personality are the three key components of the brand image . The following provides conceptualization of these constructs as well as related hypotheses. Brand personality The brand personality factor enables a consumer to express his/her own self or specific dimensions of the self . It serves as a symbolic function and helps consumers differ from or integrate themselves with others. It also projects the brand's values and creates an image of the brand's typical user , which might be the ideal image of the consumer. This brand information may actually encourage the use of a given brand as a self-expressive device by consumers who hold a similar position and want to present a similar image or ideal self . Previous research suggests that favourable brand personalities are a central driver of consumer preference and usage , as consumers are more likely to associate them with a desired group, or ideal self-image . There has been little research conducted as to whether or not the brand personality of an original brand can be transferred to CBP, or how and to what extent brand personality is transferred to CBP. However, as symbolic attributes are captured by brand name, and by its nature CBP is not only a product, but more importantly it is a brand - a counterfeit one that bears a brand name of an original branded product, it is rational to assume that existing brand theory can be applied to CBP. Thus, the authors predict that when CBPs are perceived to process positive and favourable brand personalities they are more likely to be purchased.

ANALYSIS The analysis for this research was conducted through the software SPSS 16.0. We have looked at the responses that we have received from our questionnaire and judged the importance of brand equity in the purchase of counterfeits from that. Our descriptive analysis is as follows: [In the following tables, 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree] It is expensive Frequency Percent Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 2 3 9 25 51 90 2.2 3.3 10.0 27.8 56.7 100.0 Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 2.2 3.3 10.0 27.8 56.7 100.0 2.2 5.6 15.6 43.3 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of the people strongly agree that Rolex watches are expensive. The packing is good Frequency Percent Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 3 2 11 49 25 90 3.3 2.2 12.2 54.4 27.8 100.0 Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 3.3 2.2 12.2 54.4 27.8 100.0 3.3 5.6 17.8 72.2 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of the people agree that the packing of the Rolex Watch is good. The watch is waterproof Frequency Percent Valid 1 2 3 4 4 3 20 42 4.4 3.3 22.2 46.7 Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 4.4 3.3 22.2 46.7 4.4 7.8 30.0 76.7

5 Total

21 90

23.3 100.0

23.3 100.0

100.0

The table above shows that the majority of the people agree that the watch is waterproof. It is swissmade Frequency Percent Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4 3 15 37 31 90 4.4 3.3 16.7 41.1 34.4 100.0 Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 4.4 3.3 16.7 41.1 34.4 100.0 4.4 7.8 24.4 65.6 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of the people agree that the watch is swiss-made. thematerialsaregood Frequency Percent Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 6 5 36 35 90 8.9 6.7 5.6 40.0 38.9 100.0 Cumulative Valid Percent Percent 8.9 6.7 5.6 40.0 38.9 100.0 8.9 15.6 21.1 61.1 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that the materials that are used to make the Rolex Watches are good. icangetthesizeiwant Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 9 9 22 25 25 90 Percent 10.0 10.0 24.4 27.8 27.8 100.0 Valid Percent 10.0 10.0 24.4 27.8 27.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 10.0 20.0 44.4 72.2 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that they can get Rolex watches in any size they want. theyhavethestyleilike Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4 4 23 34 25 90 Percent 4.4 4.4 25.6 37.8 27.8 100.0 Valid Percent 4.4 4.4 25.6 37.8 27.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.4 8.9 34.4 72.2 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches have the size they want theproductispractical Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 5 7 23 34 21 90 Percent 5.6 7.8 25.6 37.8 23.3 100.0 Valid Percent 5.6 7.8 25.6 37.8 23.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5.6 13.3 38.9 76.7 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that buying Rolex watches is practically feasible. Thequalityoftheproductmeritstheprice Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 6 14 16 36 18 90 Percent 6.7 15.6 17.8 40.0 20.0 100.0 Valid Percent 6.7 15.6 17.8 40.0 20.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.7 22.2 40.0 80.0 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that the quality of Rolex watches merits its price Inbuyingthisproductyougetvalueformoneyforthestatus Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4 4 18 38 26 90 Percent 4.4 4.4 20.0 42.2 28.9 100.0 Valid Percent 4.4 4.4 20.0 42.2 28.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.4 8.9 28.9 71.1 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches give value for money

Theproductisthestatementofyourselfimage Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4 4 18 42 22 90 Percent 4.4 4.4 20.0 46.7 24.4 100.0 Valid Percent 4.4 4.4 20.0 46.7 24.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.4 8.9 28.9 75.6 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches are a statement of ones self image Theproductbringsyouexclusivity Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 3 5 11 47 24 90 Percent 3.3 5.6 12.2 52.2 26.7 100.0 Valid Percent 3.3 5.6 12.2 52.2 26.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3.3 8.9 21.1 73.3 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches give you exclusivity. Thisproductcanhelpyouattractotherpeoplesattention Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 9 9 11 35 26 90 Percent 10.0 10.0 12.2 38.9 28.9 100.0 Valid Percent 10.0 10.0 12.2 38.9 28.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 10.0 20.0 32.2 71.1 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches can help you in getting other peoples attention Thisproductcanbringyouprestige Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 7 22 31 22 90 Percent 8.9 7.8 24.4 34.4 24.4 100.0 Valid Percent 8.9 7.8 24.4 34.4 24.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 8.9 16.7 41.1 75.6 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches can bring you prestige. Youcanthrowitawayafterawhile Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 35 17 14 16 8 90 Percent 38.9 18.9 15.6 17.8 8.9 100.0 Valid Percent 38.9 18.9 15.6 17.8 8.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 38.9 57.8 73.3 91.1 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people disagree that you can throw Rolex watches after a while Thisproductmaynotfunctionwell

Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 18 31 12 20 9 90

Percent 20.0 34.4 13.3 22.2 10.0 100.0

Valid Percent 20.0 34.4 13.3 22.2 10.0 100.0

Cumulative Percent 20.0 54.4 67.8 90.0 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people disagree that Rolex watches do not function well. cheerful Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 10 7 29 32 12 90 Percent 11.1 7.8 32.2 35.6 13.3 100.0 Valid Percent 11.1 7.8 32.2 35.6 13.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 11.1 18.9 51.1 86.7 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches make you cheerful. young Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 10 12 25 30 13 90 Percent 11.1 13.3 27.8 33.3 14.4 100.0 Valid Percent 11.1 13.3 27.8 33.3 14.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 11.1 24.4 52.2 85.6 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches make you look young. Independent Frequency Valid 1 2 4 2 Percent 4.4 2.2 Valid Percent 4.4 2.2 Cumulative Percent 4.4 6.7

3 4 5 Total

25 38 21 90

27.8 42.2 23.3 100.0

27.8 42.2 23.3 100.0

34.4 76.7 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches make you look independent. Reliable Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 3 4 19 34 30 90 Percent 3.3 4.4 21.1 37.8 33.3 100.0 Valid Percent 3.3 4.4 21.1 37.8 33.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 3.3 7.8 28.9 66.7 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches make you look reliable. Hardworking Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 7 7 23 36 17 90 Percent 7.8 7.8 25.6 40.0 18.9 100.0 Valid Percent 7.8 7.8 25.6 40.0 18.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.8 15.6 41.1 81.1 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches are for hard working people. Secure Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 6 10 22 32 Percent 6.7 11.1 24.4 35.6 Valid Percent 6.7 11.1 24.4 35.6 Cumulative Percent 6.7 17.8 42.2 77.8

5 Total

20 90

22.2 100.0

22.2 100.0

100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that people who have Rolex watches have a secure future. Successful Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 5 3 18 33 31 90 Percent 5.6 3.3 20.0 36.7 34.4 100.0 Valid Percent 5.6 3.3 20.0 36.7 34.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5.6 8.9 28.9 65.6 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that people who have Rolex watches are usually successful in life. Forleader Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 6 3 16 31 34 90 Percent 6.7 3.3 17.8 34.4 37.8 100.0 Valid Percent 6.7 3.3 17.8 34.4 37.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.7 10.0 27.8 62.2 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that Rolex watches are for leaders. Confident Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 11 30 38 Percent 6.7 5.6 12.2 33.3 42.2 Valid Percent 6.7 5.6 12.2 33.3 42.2 Cumulative Percent 6.7 12.2 24.4 57.8 100.0

Confident Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 6 5 11 30 38 90 Percent 6.7 5.6 12.2 33.3 42.2 100.0 Valid Percent 6.7 5.6 12.2 33.3 42.2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 6.7 12.2 24.4 57.8 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people strongly agree that Rolex watches are for confident individuals. Glamorous Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 4 3 13 34 36 90 Percent 4.4 3.3 14.4 37.8 40.0 100.0 Valid Percent 4.4 3.3 14.4 37.8 40.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.4 7.8 22.2 60.0 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people strongly agree that Rolex watches make you look glamorous Classic Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 7 3 17 28 35 90 Percent 7.8 3.3 18.9 31.1 38.9 100.0 Valid Percent 7.8 3.3 18.9 31.1 38.9 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.8 11.1 30.0 61.1 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people strongly agree that Rolex watches are classic. Ihaveboughtcounterfietwatchedatleastonceinthepast

Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 5 11 10 41 23

Percent 5.6 12.2 11.1 45.6 25.6 100.0

Valid Percent 5.6 12.2 11.1 45.6 25.6 100.0

Cumulative Percent 5.6 17.8 28.9 74.4 100.0

Total 90

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that they have bought counterfeit watch at least once in the past. Idonotmindpurchasingfakes Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 8 11 20 29 22 90 Percent 8.9 12.2 22.2 32.2 24.4 100.0 Valid Percent 8.9 12.2 22.2 32.2 24.4 100.0 Cumulative Percent 8.9 21.1 43.3 75.6 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that they do not mind purchasing fake watches.

Ipurchaseluxurybrandcounterfeitgoodsbecausetheyareavailable Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 7 11 20 31 21 90 Percent 7.8 12.2 22.2 34.4 23.3 100.0 Valid Percent 7.8 12.2 22.2 34.4 23.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 7.8 20.0 42.2 76.7 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that they buy luxury brands counterfeit good because they are available easily in the market.

Thebiggestreasontobuyacounterfeitisforitsbrandname Frequency Valid 1 2 3 4 5 Total 9 12 16 28 25 90 Percent 10.0 13.3 17.8 31.1 27.8 100.0 Valid Percent 10.0 13.3 17.8 31.1 27.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 10.0 23.3 41.1 72.2 100.0

The table above shows that the majority of people agree that the biggest reason to buy counterfeit goods is because of its brand name. Descriptive Statistics N Itisexpensive 90 Thepackingisgood 90 Thewatchiswaterproof 90 itisswissmade 90 thematerialsaregood 90 icangetthesizeiwant 90 theyhavethestyleilike 90 theproductispractical 90 Thequalityoftheproductm 90 eritstheprice Inbuyingthisproductyoug etvalueformoneyforthest 90 atus Theproductisthestatemen 90 tofyourselfimage Theproductbringsyouexcl 90 usivity Thisproductcanhelpyouat tractotherpeoplesattentio 90 n Thisproductcanbringyoup 90 restige Youcanthrowitawayaftera 90 while Thisproductmaynotfuncti 90 onwell Minimum Maximum Mean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 4.3333 4.0111 3.8111 3.9778 3.9333 3.5333 3.8000 3.6556 3.5111 3.8667 3.8222 3.9333 3.6667 3.5778 2.3889 2.6778 Std. Deviation .94809 .89310 .98179 1.02746 1.23434 1.27376 1.04074 1.09299 1.17315 1.02989 1.00087 .95752 1.27200 1.19904 1.38770 1.29674

cheerful 90 young 90 independent 90 reliable 90 hardworking 90 secure 90 successful 90 forleader 90 confident 90 glamorous 90 classic 90 Ihaveboughtcounterfietw atchedatleastonceinthepa 90 st Idonotmindpurchasingfak 90 es Ipurchaseluxurybrandcou nterfeitgoodsbecausethe 90 yareavailable Thebiggestreasontobuyac ounterfeitisforitsbrandna 90 me Valid N (listwise) 90

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

3.3222 3.2667 3.7778 3.9333 3.5444 3.5556 3.9111 3.9333 3.9889 4.0556 3.9000 3.7333 3.5111 3.5333

1.14977 1.19738 .98046 1.01450 1.12341 1.15254 1.08767 1.13968 1.17554 1.04248 1.19032 1.13968 1.23838 1.20112

1.00

5.00

3.5333

1.29996

The table shows the mean of the responses given by the respondents for each category.

CONCLUSION The study that we have conducted has shown us that although the brand power of the Rolex Watch is very high indeed but there is little to no connection between the strength of a brand and the purchase intention of the consumer with relation to counterfeits. This leads us to infer that there are other more powerful factors at work that have a profound impact upon the intent to purchase counterfeits. Unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this report to explore any of them in greater detail.

There are some important implications here. This shows us that consumers will not purchase counterfeit Rolex watches because of the brand name of Rolex on it because they will know that it is counterfeit even if no one else does. So companies should go about their advertising in such a way that shows the consumer the benefits of buying a Rolex watch and not just a watch that looks like a Rolex. Producers need to tap into the self esteem of the consumer and make them realize that a product is not just purchased for its functionality but for the other benefits that it brings with itself as well.

Surprisingly the research that we have conducted has proven most of our hypotheses as false. However this may be due to a lack of adequate research done on the subject or the constantly changing trends of the counterfeit branded products market. In any case, it can be seen that this is an area that needs to be given greater focus so as to produce beneficial results that will help the society at large.

On a final note, it must be mentioned that this study was only conducted in one segment of the branded counterfeit product market (watches). It may very well be that the hypotheses we have constructed are correct after all when placed in a different industry with different dynamics. In addition, if the study were to be conducted in a market where women are the prime market, the answers that we may receive may be totally different. Thus great care must be taken when using the results of this research as they cannot be generalized onto a greater or different population.

REFERENCES

OConnell, R and Bryce, J. (2006) Young People, well-being and risk on-line OECD (2008) The Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy, Paris: OECD. Noble, R.K. (2003) The Links Between Intellectual Property Crime and Terrorist Financing Muncy, J.A., & Eastman, J.K. (1998). Materialism and consumer ethics: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 137-145 Olsen, J.E., & Granzin, K.L. (1992). Gaining retailers assistance in fighting counterfeiting: Conceptualization and empirical test of a helping model. Journal of Retailing, spring, pp.90-109.