The purpose of this paper is to explore underlying motivations relating to the purchase of counterfeit luxury brands. Due to an increased demand for counterfeit goods in the luxury sector, understanding the motivations and determinants of counterfeit purchasing behaviour is becoming increasingly important for both academics and managers (Wee et al 1995; Perez et al 2010; Bian and Moutinho 2011). Counterfeit products rely on original brand features and leverage the brand’s evocative power and symbolic values, even if they don’t possess its intrinsic attributes and original materials. Therefore, consumers might choose a specific brand (and the associated brand values) and in the meantime compromise on the functional values of the product itself, because they are attracted more towards the symbolic features of recreating a brand experience (Gentry et al. 2001). This “brand importance” in counterfeit consumption represents for Grossman and Shapiro (1988) the possibility for consumers to “unbundle the quality and prestige attributes of branded products”, so that counterfeit consumers can “enjoy the status of displaying a prestigious label without paying for a high-quality product” (Grossman and Shapiro, 1988, p.98).

Wiedmann et al (2012, p. 554) highlight the need to “examine the reasons why consumers choose the counterfeit over the authentic product,” arguing that an understanding of counterfeit purchase behaviour has to be informed by an understanding of the motivational value dimensions related to genuine luxury brands and goods. This paper uses their luxury value framework to explain the values related to counterfeit consumption.

This study focuses on European consumers of luxury products, specifically Italians and Germans. Using a qualitative research approach we were able to evaluate consumers’ multidimensional luxury and counterfeit consumption decision making patterns. Since counterfeit is ultimately an illegal trend, there was a risk that consumers might not want to discuss their perspectives in front of other peers (Bryman and Bell, 2007). Hence, in order to avoid the appearance of potential bias linked to social desirability issues, this research has been structured around in-depth interviews. These semi-structured interviews were informed by existing literature (Saunders et al., 2009). Overall, the sampling frame had to exhibit different socio-demographic psychographic characteristics, so to give a more widespread overview on the response type. Therefore, the sample consisted of consumers with a differentiated educational and employment background and different lifestyles. All respondents were domiciled in larger cities, which increased the possibility for previous interaction with the counterfeit market. Analysis focused on the key themes and patterns that that emerged throughout the interview process (Yin, 2011).

Findings have shown how there are major differences in how German and Italian respondents value and engage with counterfeit consumption. Indeed, the research has underlined the presence of varied counterfeit value dimensions that are linked to a consumer’s own luxury values (Wiedmann et al., 2012). Moreover, while luxury consumption is motivated by a consumer’s intrinsically and extrinsically driven desires, counterfeit consumption has been assessed to be motivated more by the values attached to the financial or functional dimensions of a counterfeit product, which complies with past researches on consumer’s value consciousness and on the possibility to engage with short-term trends without the economic investment of purchasing a genuine product (Geiger-Oneto et al., 2012).

The research outcome emphasises how consumers from both countries are stimulated to engage with counterfeit goods according to the values they attach to. Since the evaluated consumers are mainly also active luxury goods purchasers, who therefore are aware of and can recognise the difference between a genuine and non-genuine good, it appears as restrictive and ineffective to highlight differences between luxury and counterfeit goods. Additionally, as highlighted by Hieke (2010) and Hart et al. (2004), the more consumers grow familiar with purchasing counterfeit goods, the more they reduce dramatically the consideration they have for the illicitness of this purchase behaviour.

The contribution of this study is twofold; theoretical and managerial. Using Wiedmann et al’s (2012) framework we develop theory by delineating motivations of counterfeit buying behaviour. We present practical suggestions to managers for mitigating against the negative impact of counterfeiting on legitimate luxury brands.

• Juliette Wilson(University of Strathclyde)
• Beverly Wagner(University of Strathclyde)
• Anne-Flore Maman Larraufie(SémioConsult & ESSEC)