Journal of Consumer MarketingA Matter of Love: Consumers´ Relationships with Original Brands and Their Counterfeits:Raquel Castaño Maria Eugenia Perez
Article information:To cite this document:Raquel Castaño Maria Eugenia Perez , (2014),"A Matter of Love: Consumers´ Relationships with Original Brands and TheirCounterfeits", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 6/7 pp. -Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-05-2014-0970
Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 22:27 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 69 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Marc Fetscherin, Dipayan Biswas, (2014),"What Type of Relationship Do We Have With Loved Brands?", Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 6/7 pp. -Gail Taylor, Shuk#Ching Liu, Tsan#Ming Choi, (2009),"Consumer attitudes towards brand extensions of designer#labels andmass#market labels in Hong Kong", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 4pp. 527-540Rajagopal, (2006),"Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decisions",Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10 Iss 3 pp. 56-65
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
A Matter of Love: Consumers´ Relationships with Original Brands and Their
Counterfeits
1 Introduction
Although the reports on the magnitude of global counterfeit trade tend to be
numerous and are characterized by a lack of updated data and sound methodology, the
economic global impact of counterfeit items is undeniable (Staake et al., 2009). The most
often cited study, provided by the OECD, estimates that global sales of counterfeit products
represent up to 5-7 percent of all world trade (Kent, 2011).
For manufacturers of original products, loss of sales is not the only consequence of
counterfeiting; it can also harm their brands’ reputation (Wilcox et al., 2009). For
consumers, unwittingly buying counterfeits means receiving poor-quality goods for the
value they associate with the original (Gratz, 2003). In contrast, consumers may
deliberately choose to purchase counterfeit products and, according to Ang et al. (2001),
become “willing collaborators” (p.219).
The present study empirically shows that consumers who voluntarily consume both
original and counterfeit luxury goods transfer the symbolic personality traits of the original
brand to their counterfeit. Results also show that consumers experience significantly higher
coincidence between their personality traits and those of the original brand and also
experience stronger overlap between their overall self-concept and the original brand´s
concept than with the counterfeit´s. Finally, confirming the conclusion by Aaron et al.
(1995) that love is the merging of the lover and beloved, consumers express stronger love
for the original brands than for their counterfeits.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
The present research makes contributions to the extant literature on several
frontiers: First, whereas previous research on counterfeits has explored why and how
consumers choose counterfeits instead of original brands, we went further to show
empirically that the symbolic attributes of luxury brands are transferred to their
counterfeits. Second, this investigation provides new insights into the different
relationships consumers form with luxury brands and their counterfeits. Consuming
branded counterfeit products makes consumers experience contradictory feelings;
externally, counterfeits allow them to represent the image of a wealthy consumer, but our
results showed that, internally, consumers perceive that they overlap significantly less with
the counterfeit than with the original brand. Finally, our research makes a theoretical
contribution to the brand relationship literature by applying the self-expansion model
originally proposed by Aron and Aron (1986) to the explanation of consumer brand
relationships with original brands and their counterfeits, thus showing that love underlies
the relationship with the original brand, but not with the counterfeit.
The motivation to conduct this research also relies on its value regarding the
subjects of brand management and marketing strategy. Our findings evidence the
perceptions of consumers who buy both originals and illegal copies regarding
counterfeiting. This serious worldwide menace is today stealing a considerable percentage
of international legal commerce and has the potential to erode brand equity. By helping to
understand how consumers develop close relationships with brands, we expect to contribute
to the generation of successful marketing strategies to counteract counterfeiting. Brand
managers should emphasize the authenticity and uniqueness of the luxury brand in all of the
brand’s components, focusing on distribution and communication in order to build the
brand. These activities should evidence counterfeits´ inability to care for a long-term
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
relationship. We would like to express that, when consumers perceive that a brand’s
personality traits coincide with their own, they develop a powerful connection with the
brand, one which can evolve into an enduring relationship of satisfaction and love
contributing to the construction of brand equity.
2. Conceptual Background and Hypotheses
2. 1 The Relevance of Brands
The use of brands to identify and differentiate products and services has benefited
both providers and consumers for a long time. When specific names and logos are
permanently associated with goods of a certain level of attributes and functions,
accountability is the result. Chevron concluded that “A brand is a covenant with the
consumer” (2001, p.28). According to Aaker (1997), brands may project definite
personality qualities, and consumers perceive and respond to these personality traits and
develop relationships with brands, making them a part of their lives (Fournier, 1998). In
doing so, consumers play an active role in building and keeping alive the relationship and
are considered as active co-producers of brand meanings. Through the use of imagery,
consumers tend to associate certain brands with certain types of people, in certain use
situations, and to identify with or disengage themselves from them. This supports
Kapferer’s conceptualization of brands as the essence and meaning of products defining
their identity (1992). Today, brands have become a way of life.
2.2 Perceived Brand Personality of Originals (and Their Counterfeits)
Consumers wanting to identify with the halo associated with status might acquire
prestige brands. According to Goffman (1959), people perform as actors in front of others.
Deighton (1992) exemplified this concept when he wrote, “Consumers may use products as
props, for example, when they buy particular brands to mark social status or self-concept”
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
(p. 367). Regardless of their economic status, consumers may feel attracted to luxury
goods, but many consumers do not have the financial means to buy them. For these
consumers, counterfeits might be a solution. Most research that has sought to understand
why consumers purchase counterfeits has focused on variables such as the socio-cultural
characteristics that facilitate counterfeiting (Bloch et al., 1993; Gentry et al., 2006; Nia &
Zaichkowsky, 2000; Wee et al., 1995) and the motivations behind deliberately consuming
counterfeits (Gentry et al., 2001; Perez et al., 2010; Wee et al., 1995; Wilke & Zaichowsky,
1999). However, little research has considered the underlying branding aspects of
counterfeiting, despite the fact that the decision to buy counterfeit luxury goods both
represents a product choice decision and implies a brand decision (Eisend & Schuchert-
Güler, 2006). An exception is a study by Bian and Moutinho (2011), who examined the
impact of perceived brand image on consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeits. These
authors found that perceived brand personality plays a more dominant role than other
influential factors, such as product attributes and benefits, in explaining consumers’
intention to purchase counterfeits. The brand personality factor is significant because it
enables a consumer to express him- or herself (Aaker, 1999; Hem & Iversen, 2002).
The trait approach to personality is one of the major theoretical areas in the study of
personality. A trait is defined as any distinguishing, relatively enduring aspect in which one
individual differs from another (Guilford, 1959). As Allport (1937) explained, traits result
in consistent and individual forms of behavior. According to Kapferer (2003), the
identification of traits has enabled researchers to develop further the theory of personality
by allowing the construction of personality scales. It has also been shown that consumers
attribute various descriptive human personality-like traits to different brands in a wide
variety of product categories, as was initially suggested by Aaker (1997).
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
The present study aims to extend previous work by proposing that, when consumers
purchase counterfeit products, the symbolic personality traits of the original brand are to a
great extent transferred to the counterfeit. For example, if a luxury brand has created
through marketing efforts a personality for itself defined as “exciting and sophisticated”
and a consumer familiar with this personality buys the brand´s counterfeit, we propose that
these symbolic benefits of excitement and sophistication would also be transferred to the
counterfeit. Following Goffman’s (1959) theory of self-presentation, we propose that
consumers transfer the symbolic benefits of the original brand to the counterfeit in order to
maintain and construct their social self-image. Following this logic, we hypothesize that:
H1. Consumers who buy original luxury brands and their counterfeits transfer their
perception of the symbolic personality traits of the original to the counterfeit.
Consumers of counterfeit luxury goods, however, know that they are not displaying
originals. Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000) found that the ubiquitous existence of counterfeits
does not decrease the brand value of original luxury brands among buyers of counterfeits.
Recently, Gino et al. (2010) showed that, although people buy counterfeit products to signal
positive traits, wearing counterfeit products makes individuals feel cheap and less
authentic. With this in mind, the next section addresses, from a brand relationship
perspective, the difference in the way consumers include original brands versus counterfeits
in their sense of self.
2.3 Consumer Relationships with Brands (and Their Counterfeits)
Previous research has addressed the fundamental questions of why and how
consumers form ongoing relationships with brands (e.g., Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004;
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Fournier, 1998). This work suggests
that at the core of all close brand relationships is an affective basis grounded in the concept
of love. Following this idea, we draw on the self-expansion model, a conceptual framework
originally proposed by Aron and Aron (1986), that describes how people think, feel, and act
in the context of close relationships. Much like in a relationship between people, the
relationships consumers form with brands are driven mainly by the desire to grow and
progress. The key sources of growth and expansion are derived from including some of the
qualities and characteristics of their brands in the self. The present work considers the self-
expansion model to identify how consumers incorporate original brands and their
counterfeits into their sense of self.
The self-expansion model suggests that, in a close relationship, the self’s structure
changes in such a way as to include the other in its very essence (Aron et al., 1991). One
way to examine this idea focuses on individuals’ patterns of response latencies when
making trait-related me/not-me decisions regarding traits previously rated for their
descriptiveness of self and of a close other. Across multiple studies, traits on which the self
matches a close partner, me/not-me responses are made more quickly than when a trait was
mismatched between self and partner (i.e., true for one but false for the other) (Aron et al.,
1991; Aron & Fraley, 1999; Smith et al., 1999). When including a close other’s identity in
the self, people may easily confuse their own personality traits with those of the other.
Research has shown that consumers seek to depict themselves through their brand
choices and tend to approach products with images that enhance their self-concept (Govers
& Schoormans, 2005); they also attempt to describe themselves through the personality
traits associated with prestige brands. But when counterfeits enter the equation, conclusions
become less definite; on one side, Nia & Zaichkowsky (2000) revealed that buyers of
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
counterfeits recognize that originals have a much higher quality than counterfeits, and
Perez et al. (2010) showed that consumers do not have the same feelings about counterfeits
as they do about original products. On the other side, Penz and Stottinger (2008) reported
that consumers’ perceptions of the quality and durability of both counterfeits and originals
were comparable, and Gentry et al. (2006) argued that, as the quality of counterfeits
increased, consumers had more problems distinguishing which was the original and which
was the counterfeit. Therefore, research among consumers who buy both originals and their
counterfeits is needed; its findings will go further than what has been previously found.
A variety of studies (Aron et al.,1991; Mashek et al.,2003) have confirmed the idea
suggested by the self-expansion model that individuals tend to assimilate the traits and
characteristics of the loved partner into their conceptualization of themselves. In other
words, the other’s resources are perceived as one’s own.
In the context of brand relationships, particularly trying to explain how consumers
include original brands and their counterfeits in their self-image, we posit that consumers
assimilate the symbolic traits and characteristics of the counterfeit branded products to a
much lesser degree than the symbolic characteristics and traits of the original brand,
experiencing lesser overlap of themselves as a person with the counterfeit. Internally,
consumers of counterfeit goods will always know that these products are not the originals.
Consuming counterfeits causes consumers to experience contradictory feelings (Ahuvia,
2005). Externally, counterfeits allow them to represent the image of a wealthy consumer.
Internally, however, consumers do not feel the same extent of attachment to the counterfeit
product (Perez et al., 2010). Thus, it seems that the consumers’ relationship with the
original brand plays a deeper emotional role in their understanding of who they are as
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
people than does their relationship with the counterfeit, which instead is rooted mainly in
convenience and social purposes.
On the basis of these arguments, we hypothesize the following:
H2a. Consumers perceive a stronger overlap between their overall self-concept and
the concept of the original brand than with the counterfeit´s concept.
H2b. Consumers perceive a higher degree of coincidence between their personality
traits and the personality traits of the original brand than between their personality
traits and the counterfeit´s traits.
The self-expansion model originally proposed by Aron and Aron (1986) integrates
views on the evolution of the self and the nature of love, with work on motivation and
cognition. Aron and Aron (1995) state that, although love encompasses emotions, it is
fundamentally motivational, since when people love, they are seeking an infinitely
expanding self. A major line of work developed from this model has focused on a predicted
increase in satisfaction in long-term relationships from joint participation in self-expanding
activities. In this research, we drew upon the self- expansion model to show how the
underlying mechanism of love differs in the relationship consumers have with original
brands versus the relationship consumers have with their counterfeits.
Brand love is a concept that appraises a satisfied consumer. It refers to the degree of
passionate, emotional attachment for a particular brand and is usually higher for hedonic
brands than for utilitarian brands. Brand love is linked to high levels of loyalty and positive
word of mouth (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006), and it is selective: among a vast number of
products or bands, very few are loved. These loved brands get to play a special role in
consumers’ understandings of who they are as people (Ahuvia, 2005). We propose that,
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
while consumers use both the original brand and its counterfeit to express themselves
socially, when they fall in love, it will be with an original brand. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
H3: Consumers experience significantly higher levels of brand love for original
brands than for their counterfeits.
3. Methodology
We conducted four studies with different samples in México, a country where
numerous exclusive stores selling international luxury brands coexist with branded
counterfeits that are frequently encountered in street markets, small shops, and personal
selling ventures. As a filter to choose participants, we established as a requirement that they
should own or have owned for a minimum period of six months an original luxury-branded
product (e.g., handbag, sunglasses, shoes, watch) as well as a counterfeit of that brand. The
study required that participants have enough means to buy an original luxury brand, thus
delimitating their status to the highest economic strata (A/B) in Mexico. This segment
represents 6.8% of the country’s population (AMAI, 2013). We strived to have a broad
spectrum of participants with respect to other demographic characteristics; therefore, our
samples included women and men, ages 16 to 73, including students and non-students.
Obtaining an adequate number of participants that satisfy our requirements and
were willing to participate in the research was not an easy task; therefore, we used
convenience samples. We attained the respondents for the studies in two ways: We began
by identifying personal acquaintances who satisfied our sample characteristics, then, using
the snow ball method, we asked them to recommend other possible candidates. Secondly, in
exchange for credits, we asked our college students from a private Mexican university to
suggest candidates who fulfilled the required characteristics. We intended to study the
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
perceptions of consumers who are very familiar with the tangible and intangible
characteristics of both the original brand and its counterfeit. We focused on fashion luxury
brands because of their hedonic appeal and symbolic benefits. We expected that, by
concentrating on this product category on consumers that have owned both originals and
counterfeits of the same brand, we could identify a context that sheds light on factors
crucial for theoretical development (Arnould et al., 2006).
4. Results
4.1 Transfer of personality traits of the original to the counterfeit (H1)
Study 1
Design and Procedure. We first asked participants (332 consumers, ranging in age
from 16 to 67, 64.8% female and 60% students) if they had ever owned an original luxury
brand product (e.g., original Gucci sunglasses) and its counterfeit; if they had, we asked
them to identify the brand and the category to which it belonged (e.g., sunglasses,
handbags, wallets, watches). We initiated the study by asking participants to complete
Aaker’s (1997) personality-of-self scale regarding their perception of their own personality.
On this scale, participants rated 42 randomly presented personality traits representing five
factors: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. We then primed
respondents by having them take a few minutes to write about the experiences of using an
original brand product and using the corresponding counterfeit product. After the writing
exercise, we asked respondents to complete the same scale (Aaker, 1997) regarding their
perception of the personality of the original brand and later with respect to the counterfeit
brand.
Analysis and Results. Regression analyses allowed us to examine the relationship
between the personality dimensions of the original brand and the personality dimensions of
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
the counterfeit. We conducted five univariate regressions, with the counterfeit brand’s
sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness as the dependent
variables and the same dimensions of the original brand as predictor variables. Results
showed that all personality dimensions of the original brand influenced the counterfeit; the
model was significant for sincerity (β = .35, t(326) = 4.98, p < .001), excitement (β = .22,
t(327) = 2.69, p =.007), competence (β = .30, t(326) = 3.66, p < .001), sophistication (β =
.26, t(327) = 3.08, p =.002), and ruggedness (β = .51, t(326) = 11.61, p < .001). In other
words, we found support for H1 by assessing that consumers transfer the personality
dimensions of the original brand to the counterfeit branded product.
While the results discussed above are encouraging, a shortcoming of Study 1 is that
participants were always asked about their perceptions regarding the original brand first and
about their perceptions regarding the counterfeit second. Because this could have caused a
bias in their perception, we conducted Study 2 to address this issue.
Study 2: Reverse Order
Design and Procedure. The same general procedures used in Study 1 were applied
in Study 2 to 187 participants, ranging in age from 17 to 61, of whom 64.9% were female
and 65.9% were students. Additionally, to test for ordering effects, two questionnaire
designs were used. In the first design, priming and questions about the original brands were
presented before performing priming and asking questions regarding the counterfeit brands.
The second design reversed this order.
[Insert table 1]
Analysis and Results. As in Study 1, the regression analyses in Study 2 allowed us
to examine the relationship between the personality dimensions of the original brand and its
counterfeit. Additionally, a dummy variable (reverse order = 1) was introduced. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
personality dimensions of the original brand were significant in four out of the five
regressions conducted; specifically, relationships were significant for sincerity (β = .24,
t(172) = 2.57, p = .002), excitement (β = .29, t(172) = 2.67, p = .002), sophistication (β =
.30, t(171) = 2.48, p < .001), and ruggedness (β = .40, t(172) = 5.50, p < .001), while for
competence, the relationship was not significant (β = .11, t(171) = .94, p > .10). The
dummy variable was not significant in any of the five regressions (p > .10).
These results revealed that, when the order of priming and questions was reversed,
most of the personality dimensions of the original brand were still transferred by consumers
to the counterfeit branded product, thus H1 was supported.
Therefore, we can conclude that the order in which the stimuli were presented to
consumers did not have a significant effect.
4.2 Overlap of Consumer´s Self-Image and Coincidence of Personality Traits with
Originals versus Counterfeits (H2a and H2b)
Study 3
Design and Procedure. Participants in this study included 138 consumers, ranging
in age from 17 to 73; 68.1% were female, and 66.2% were students. The same general
procedures of Studies 1 and 2 were used in Study 3, but respondents were divided into two
groups. Respondents in the first group were questioned only about the original brand, while
respondents in the second group were questioned only about the counterfeit.
Analysis and Results. In this between-subjects study, the t test revealed a significant
difference between the personality overlap of consumers with the original brand and the
personality overlap of consumers with the counterfeit (Moriginal = 3.06, Mcounterfeit = 2.39; t
(132) = 3.10, p =.002), confirming that consumers perceive a stronger overall overlap
between themselves and the original brand than with the counterfeit (H2a). Correlation
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
coefficients were used to assess whether consumers’ personality traits coincided more with
the original brand’s traits than with the counterfeit’s. Fisher’s z tests suggested that the
correlations were significantly different in magnitude for all dimensions: sincerity (z =
2.52, p =.006, one-tailed), excitement (z = 2.94, p = .002, one-tailed), competence (z = 2.68,
p = .004, one-tailed), sophistication (z = 1.79, p = .037, one-tailed), and ruggedness (z =
2.46, p = .007, one-tailed). This evidence demonstrates a stronger association between the
perceived personalities of the self and the original brand than between the perceived
personalities of the self and the counterfeit (H2b).
4.3 Consumers´ Brand Love: Originals versus Counterfeits (H3)
Study 4
Design and Procedure. The 332 participants of study 1 (ages 16 to 67; 60% students
and 65% female) were also asked to complete the scale for Brand Love (Carrol & Ahuvia,
2006), both for the original brand and for the counterfeit.
Analysis and Results. A one-way ANOVA revealed significant higher brand love
between consumers and the original brands than between consumers and the counterfeits
(F=425.895, P=.000) (H3). Because a close relationship is characterized by love, these
results lead us to the conclusion that consumers experience closer relationships with
original brands than with counterfeits.
5. General Discussion
Our research resulted in several important findings. First, consumers transfer the
personality dimensions of the original brand to the counterfeit, suggesting that counterfeits
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
benefit from the intangible characteristics associated with the original brand. This finding
helps to explain why consumers feel attracted to counterfeits.
Second, although consumers include both the original brand and its counterfeit in
their sense of self, they integrate the original brand into their identity to a higher degree and
report a stronger coincidence between the perceived personalities of the self and the
original brand than between the perceived personalities of the self and the counterfeit.
These conclusions coincide with those of Albert and Marunka (2013), as they express that
brand love development requires both identification and trust.
This investigation provides new insights into the different relationships consumers
form with brands (and their counterfeits). Externally, counterfeits allow consumers to
represent the image of a wealthy consumer, but internally, consumers of counterfeits do not
identify with the counterfeit products. It seems that the consumer relationship with the
counterfeits is rooted mainly in convenience and social purposes, rather than in feelings of
love.
6. Limitations and Future Research
First, while the present research suggests that consumers transfer the personality
dimensions of the original brand to the counterfeit and that counterfeits benefit from the
intangible characteristics associated with the original brand, future research could analyze
whether consumers are just projecting their own personalities onto both products but doing
so more with the original than with the counterfeit, or if the brand personality emerges in
part from the design of the product. Because the original and the counterfeit both have the
same design, they have similar brand personalities.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Second, this study provides evidence for overall self-inclusion of original and
counterfeit brands; future research may aim for more fine-grained findings to understand
how the original´s or the counterfeit´s resources, perspectives, and identity are transferred
onto the consumer’s self. Finally, the results of this research could be studied in
relationship to the independent vs interdependent self-concepts theory; this would allow for
an intercultural perspective.
7. Managerial Implications
Understanding how consumers develop a love relationship with a brand will guide
managers to facilitate this process. When consumers perceive that a brand’s personality
traits coincide with their own, they develop a powerful connection with the brand, which
can evolve into an enduring relationship that contributes to the construction of brand equity.
However, when sales of counterfeit products represent 5-7 percent of all world trade (Kent,
2011), the possibility of consumers developing a relationship with a counterfeit instead of
with the original brand becomes a threat, even more so when we consider that consumers’
choices are influenced by a mix of conscious and unconscious influences (Fitzsimons et al.,
2002).
Our study reveals that consumers incorporate the original brands into their sense of
self to a significantly greater extent than their counterfeits, developing a deeper relationship
with the original brands while having merely convenient relationships with the counterfeits;
thus marketing managers of original brands are best advised to build their efforts around the
idea of consumers’ love for the original brand, emphasizing the trust element of a love
relationship in order to encourage consumers to be “faithful” to the original brands (Noel &
Dwight, 2013). As Aron & Aron (1986, 1991) expressed in their self-expansion model, the
relationships consumers form with brands are driven mainly by their desire to grow and
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
progress, and the key sources of growth and expansion are derived from including some of
the qualities and characteristics of their brands in the self.
This research provides convergent evidence that beloved original brands are
incorporated into consumers’ “selves,” implying that, although people buy counterfeit
products to signal positive traits, internally they are always going to know that these are
fakes. Managers of original brands should, therefore, emphasize issues of authenticity and
congruence between consumers and their purchase decisions. The brand personality
measure can be used to assess whether there is congruence and “harmony” between
consumers’ senses of self and their original brands.
Because consumers’ gratitude increases their levels of trust and the development of
long-term relationships (Palmatier et al., 2009), managers of original brands should also
encourage the development of brand communities (Muñiz & O’Guinn, 2001), in which the
possession of the original brand could be viewed as a way to belong to an exclusive
community of people. Brand managers could develop a series of attractive activities in
which owners of the original products could be the only privileged participants. Such
interaction among brand lovers could lead to a co-creation of experiences related to the
brand that may reinforce the brand-customer relationship and could be used afterward for
its promotion. These activities should reflect a lifestyle of perfection, uniqueness, and
proud ownership that elicits others’ envy and reaffirms consumers’ choice of originals. For
example, managers should take further advantage of the Internet, promoting exclusive
blogs in which only owners of original products can participate, listening to their voices
and providing them opportunities to co-create both products and shopping experiences with
the original brands’ managers.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
References
Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(3), 258-266.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),
347-356.
Aaker, J. (1999). Brand personality: A path to differentiation. In R. Morgan (Ed.), Brands
Face the Future. New York: Research International.
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004).When good brands do bad. Journal of
Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.
Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers' identity
narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171-184.
Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: a Psychological Interpretation, Henry Holt & Co. New
York, NY.
Arnould, E., Price, L., & Moisio, R. (2006). Making contexts matter: Selecting research
contexts for theoretical insights. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative
Research Methods in Marketing. Northampton, Edward Elgar.
Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction
and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including
other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-53.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
63, 596-612.
Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self:
Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17(2), 140-60.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(2), 139-168.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and
knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and
indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 191-216
Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer accomplices in product
counterfeiting: A demand. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 27-36.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
Marketing Letters, 17, 9-89.
Chevron, J. (2001). The Monroe Doctrine of Branding. Brandweek.
Deighton, J. (1992). The consumption of performance. Journal of Consumer Research,
19(3), 362-372.
Eisend, M., & Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006). Explaining counterfeit purchases: A review and
preview. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2006(12), 123-138.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand
meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-89.
Fitzsimons, G. J., Hutchinson, J. W., Williams, P., Alba, J. W., Chartrand, T. L., Huber, J.,
Kardes, F. R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J. E., Shiv, B., & Tavassoli, N. T.
(2002). Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 269-
280.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.
Gratz, M. (2003, June). The threat of counterfeiting. Appliancemagazine.com, 42.
Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., & Shultz II, C. (2006). The effects of counterfeiting on
consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(3), 245-257.
Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., Shultz II, C., & Commuri. S. (2001). How now Ralph Lauren?
The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture. Advances in Consumer
Research, 28(1), 258-265.
Gino, F., Norton, M., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs
of faking it. Psychological Science, 21, 712‐720.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor
Books.
Govers, P., & Schoormans, J. (2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer
preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189-197.
Grubb, E., & Grathwohl, H., (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market
behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4), 22-27.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hem, L. E., & Iversen, N. M. (2002). Decomposed similarity measures in brand extensions.
Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 199-206.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and
Evaluating Brand Equity. London: Kogan Page.
Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Brand Management. Henry Stewart Publications. New York. NY.
Kent, M. (2011). Counterfeits and infringements: Problems and solutions. Venable.
Mashek, D. J., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 382-92.
Muñiz, A.M., O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research,
27(4), 412-432.
Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury
brands? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 485-97.
Noel A., & Dwight M. (2013). "The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships,"
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30( 3), 258 – 266.
Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkokk, J. R. & Kardes, F. (2009). The role of customer
gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1-18.
Penz, E., & Stöttinger, B. (2008). Corporate image and product similarity- Assessing major
demand drivers for counterfeits in a multi-country study. Psychology and Marketing,
25(4), 352-364.
Reimann, M., Castaño, R., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Bechara, A. (2012). How
we relate to brands: Psychological and neurophysiological insights into
consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 128-142.
Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self,
in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 873-82.
Staake,T., Thiesse, F. and Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: a
literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320-349.
Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness self-schema.
Psychology and Marketing, 14(2), 185-207.
Wee, C. H., Tan, S. J., & Cheok, K. H. (1995). Non- price determinants of intention to
purchase counterfeit goods. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 19-47.
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury
brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 247-259.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Wilke, R., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation and its effects on innovation,
competition, and brand equity. Business Horizons, 42(6), 9-18.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
Acknowledgement
The authors would especially like to thank Dr. Martin Reimann and the JCM review team,
for their advice and constructive feedback on our research.
Author Biographies
Raquel Castaño (Ph.D., Tulane University) is Professor of Marketing at EGADE Business
School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico. Her research focuses on the roles of emotion
and cognition in decision making. Examples of this research include the role of temporal
distance and mental simulation in the adoption of new products. Dr. Castaño’s research has
been published in the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology and
Marketing Letters.
Maria Eugenia Perez (Ph.D., Tulane University) is Associate Professor of Marketing at
EGADE Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico. Her research interests focus
on the relationship between brands and consumer behavior. Dr. Perez´s research has been
published in Qualitative Market Research, An International Journal, Journal of Product and
Brand Management, and Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics. Her
research has also been presented at international conferences.
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)
TABLE 1
Means and Significant Differences for Self-Inclusion
(Study 2)
Product Original Counterfeit t Sig.
Handbags
M = 4.13
SD = 1.444
n = 70
M = 2.20
SD = 1.235
n = 70
t(69) = 10.085 .000
Sunglasses
M = 3.87
SD = 1.563
n = 38
M = 1.97
SD = 1.026
n = 38
t(37) = 6.981 .000
Wallets
M = 3.33
SD = 1.496
n = 15
M = 1.80
SD = 1.082
n = 15
t(14) = 2.976 .005
Watches
M = 3.63
SD = 1.586
n = 16
M = 2.50
SD = 1.265
n = 16
t(15) = 3.000 .005
Note: One-tailed test
Dow
nloa
ded
by O
ND
OK
UZ
MA
YIS
UN
IVE
RSI
TY
At 2
2:27
08
Nov
embe
r 20
14 (
PT)