CAPITULO II M ARC O TEORICO
2.3 Definic iones Conceptua les
This study has some limitations, but it also provides avenues for future research. Given its exploratory nature, the focus of this study was on achieving understanding, rather than on generalizing (Banister & Hogg, 2004). The main findings, therefore, must be
understood in the context of the study’s methodological trade-offs and limitations. This study did not specifically examine the product categories of counterfeits. Future research could be based on experimental studies investigating the impact of specific product categories and product information ambiguity on counterfeit consumption, and experimental methodologies could also investigate how to counter neutralization strategies. Similar to Wilcox et al. (2009), the findings suggest that counterfeit products serve a value-expressive function for some consumers. Such consumers like the style and appearance, so they do not care whether products are counterfeits or whether there is a logo embedded. Theoretically, it would be interesting to examine whether consumers really “don’t care,” as they claim, or whether such claims are neutralization techniques. This study was restricted to Chinese consumers only. Previous research suggests that certain traditional Chinese cultural values support counterfeit consumption (Wan et al., 2009). This suggestion should encourage future researchers to examine whether the findings of this study would be observed in other cultures/countries. Consumers increasingly desire and value authenticity in the post-modern marketplace (Rose & Woods, 2005; Beverland & Farrelly, 2010; Yuan, Liu, Luo, Nguyen & Yang, 2014). The fast surging demand for counterfeit products contests the notion of pursuing of authenticity in
consumption, as consumers do not find authenticity in the counterfeit (Rose & Wood; Liu, Yannopoulou, Bian & Elliott, 2015). The data of this research does not reflect on the authenticity aspect of counterfeits, thus, further research investigating consumers’
comparative responses to authenticity when probed as opposed to non-proved would be a valuable contribution.
References
Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A. C., & Tambyah, S. K. (2001). Spot the difference: Consumer responses towards counterfeits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3), 219– 235.
Antonides, G., & van Raaij, F. W. (1998). Consumer behaviour: A European perspective. Chichester: Wiley.
Assael, H. (2004). Consumer behavior—A strategic approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Audi, R. (2012). Virtue ethics as a resource in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2),
273–291.
Bamossy, G., & Scammon, D. (1985). Product counterfeiting: Consumers and manufacturers beware. Advances in Consumer Research, 12(1), 334–340.
Banister, E. N., & Hogg, M. K. (2004). Negative symbolic consumption and consumers’ drive for self-esteem. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 850–868.
Bekir, I., El Harbi, S., & Grolleau, G. (2013). How a luxury monopolist might benefit from the aspirational utility effect of counterfeiting? European Journal of Law and
Economics, 36(1), 169–182.
Belk, R., Fischer, E., & Kozinets, R. (2013). Qualitative consumer and marketing research. London: Sage.
Belk, R. W., Wallendorf, B. M., & Sherry, J. F., Jr. (1989). The sacred and the profane in consumer behavior: Theodicy on the odyssey. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 1- 38.
Bersoff, D. M. (1999). Why good people sometimes do bad things: Motivated reasoning and unethical behaviour. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 28–39.
Bhal, K. T., & Leekha, N. D. (2008). Exploring cognitive moral logics using grounded theory: The case of software piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 635–646.
Bian, X. (2006). An examination of factors influencing the formation of the consideration Set and consumer purchase intention in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2009). An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchase consideration. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368–378.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011a). Counterfeit and branded products: Effects of counterfeit ownership. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(5), 379–393.
Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011b). 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.
Bian, X., & Veloutsou, C. (2007). Consumers’ attitudes regarding non-deceptive counterfeit brands in the UK and China. Journal of Brand Management, 14(3), 211–222.
Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer “accomplices” in product counterfeiting. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 27–36.
Browne, K. (2005). Snowball sampling: Using social networks to research non-heterosexual women. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 47–60.
Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. P. (2007). Why people don’t take their concerns about fair trade to the supermarket: The role of neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89–100.
Chaudhry, P. E., & Walsh, M. G. (1996). An assessment of the impact of counterfeiting in international markets: The piracy paradox persists. Columbia Journal of World Business, 31(3), 34–49.
Cheung, W., & Prendergast, G. (2006). Buyers’ perceptions of pirated products in China. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(5), 446–462.
Churchill, G. A. (1999). Marketing Research: Methodological foundations (7th ed.). London: Dryden Press.
Commuri, S. (2009). The impact of counterfeiting on genuine-item consumers’ brand relationships. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 86–98.
Crane, A. (1999). Are you ethical? Please tick yes or no? On researching ethics in business organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 20(3), 237–248.
Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. London: Allen & Unwin. Eisend, M., & Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006). Explaining counterfeit purchases, a review and
preview. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 12, 1–25.
Flick, U. (2007). Designing qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Foxman, E. R., Berger, P. W., & Cote, J. A. (1992). Consumer brand confusion: A
conceptual framework. Psychology and Marketing, 9(2), 123–141.
Foxman, E. R., Muehling, D. D., & Berger, P. W. (1990). An investigation of factors contributing to consumer brand confusion. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 24(1), 170– 189.
Furnham, A., & Valgeirsson, H. (2007). The effect of life values and materialism on buying counterfeit products. Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(5), 677–685.
Garcia-Ruiz, P., & Rodriguez-Lluesma, C. (2014). Consumption practices: A virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(4), 509–531.
Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., Shultz, C. J., & Commuri, S. (2001). How now Ralph Lauren? The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture. Advances in Consumer
Research, 27(1), 258–265.
Gregory-Smith, D., Smith, A., & Winklhofer, H. (2013). Emotions and dissonance in “ethical” consumption choices. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(11–12), 1201– 1223.
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.
Hirschman, E. C. (1986). Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: Philosophy, method and criteria. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), 237–249.
Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods, and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101.
Hoe, L., Hogg, G., & Hart, S. (2003). Fakin’ it: Counterfeiting and consumer contradictions In D. Turley & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of European Advances in Consumer Research (volume 6, pp. 60-67). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. Hukla, P., Banerjee, M., & Adidam, P. T. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of
consumer confusion: Analysis of the financial services industry. Advances in Consumer Research, 39, 292–297.
International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition. (2014). Counterfeiting statistics. Retrieved from http://www.iacc.org/counterfeiting-statistics [Accessed: 24 November, 2014].
International Chamber of Commerce. (2004). A brief overview of counterfeiting. Retrieved from http://www.iacc.org/resources/Facts_on_fakes.pdf/ [Accessed: 28 August, 2011]. International Chamber of Commerce. (2013). Counterfeiting, piracy and smuggling in
India—Effects and potential solutions. Retrieved from
http://www.iccwbo.org/Advocacy-Codes-and-Rules/BASCAP/International-
engagement-and-Advocacy/Country-Initiatives/Counterfeiting,-Piracy-and-Smuggling- in-India---Effects-and-Potential-Solutions/ [Accessed: 10 December, 2013].
Jiang, L., & Cova, V. (2012). Love for luxury, preference for counterfeits—A qualitative study in counterfeit luxury consumption in China. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(6), 1–9.
Kapferer, J. (1995). Brand confusion: Empirical study of a legal concept. Psychology & Marketing, 12(6), 551–569.
Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163-204.
Kim, H., & Karpova, E. (2010). Consumer attitudes toward fashion counterfeits: Application of the theory of planned behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28(2), 79– 94.
Liao, C., & Hsieh, I.-Y. (2013). Determinants of consumer’s willingness to purchase gray- market smartphones. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 409–424.
Lin, Y. C. (2011). Fake stuff: China and the rise of counterfeit goods. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Lu, L., & Lu, C. (2010). Moral philosophy, materialism, and consumer ethics: An exploratory study in Indonesia. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 193–210.
Malhotra, H. N. (2007). Marketing research: An applied orientation (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Mitchell, V., & Papavassiliou, V. (1999). Marketing causes and implications of consumer confusion. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 8(4), 319–342.
Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(7), 485–497.
Nill, A., & Shultz II, C. J. (1996). The scourge of global counterfeiting. Business Horizons, 39(6), 37–43.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penz, E., & Stӧttinger, B. (2005). Forget the “real” thing—Take the copy! An explanatory model for the volitional purchase of counterfeit products. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 568–575.
Perez, M. E., Castaño, R., & Quintanilla, C. (2010). Constructing identity through the consumption of counterfeit luxury goods. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 13(3), 219–235.
Phau, I., Prendergast, G., & Chuen, L. (2001). Profiling brand-piracy-prone consumers: An exploratory study in Hong Kong’s clothing industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 5(1), 45–55.
Phau, I., & Teah, M. (2009). Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: A study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(1), 15–27.
Playle, S., VanAuken, B. (2003). Legal update. Brand Management, 10(6), 457–459. Poddar, A., Foreman, J., Banerjee, S. (, & Ellen, P. S. (2012). Exploring the Robin Hood
effect: Moral profiteering motives for purchasing counterfeit products. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1500–1506.
Romani, S., Gistri, G., & Pace, S. (2012). When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 807–824.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. Shavitt, S. (1989). Products, personalities and situations in attitude functions: Implications for
consumer behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 16(1), 300–305. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. London: Sage Publications.
Smith, B. M., Bruner, J. S., & White, R. W. (1956). Opinions and personality. New York: Wiley.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491–503.
Stöttinger, B., & Penz, E. (2015). Concurrent ownership of brands and counterfeits: Conceptualization and temporal transformation from a consumer perspective. Psychology & Marketing, 32(4), 373–391.
Swike, E., Thompson, S., & Vasquez, C. (2008). Piracy in China. Business Horizons, 51(6), 493–500.
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670.
Tang, F., Tian, V., & Zaichkowsky, J. (2014). Understanding counterfeit consumption. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(1), 4–20.
Taylor, S., & Borgan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York: Wiley.
Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., & Pilcher, J. (1998). Consumer demand for counterfeit goods. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 405–421.
Turnbull, P.W., Leek, S., & Ying, G. (2000). Customer Confusion: The Mobile Phone Market. Journal of Marketing Management, 16, 143-163.
Wan, W. W. N., Luk, C., Yau, O. H. M., Tse, A. C. B., Sin, L. Y. M., Kwong, K. K., & Chow, R. P. M. (2009). Do traditional Chinese cultural values nourish a market for pirated CDs? Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 185-196.
Wee, C., Ta, S., & Cheok, K. (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(2), 247–259.
Yoo, B., & Lee, S.-H. (2009). Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counterfeits? Advances in Consumer Research, 36(1), 280-286).
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2006). The psychology behind trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bian, X., Haque, S., & Smith, A. (2015). Social Power, Product Conspicuousness and the Demand for Luxury Brand Counterfeit Products. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 37-54.
Chatzidakis, A., Hibbert, S., & Smith, A. P. (2007). Why People Don't Take Their Concerns about Fair Trade to the Supermarket: The Role of Neutralisation. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(1), 89-100.
Liu, M. J., Yannopoulou, N., Bian, X., & Elliot, R. (2015). Perceptions of Authenticity within the Chinese Marketplace. Journal of Business Research, 68(1), 27-33.
Yuan, R. Z., Liu, M. J., Luo, J., Nguyen, B., & Yang, F. K. (2014). A Critical Review of the Literature on Authenticity: Evolution and Future Research Agenda. International Journal of Service, Economics and Management, 6(4), 339-356.
Rose, R. L. & Wood, S. L. (2005). Paradox and the Consumption of Authenticity through Reality Television. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 284–96.
Beverland, M. B. & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The Quest for Authenticity in Consumption: Consumers’ Purposive Choice of Authentic Cues to Shape Experienced Outcomes.
Table 1: Participants' information
Respondent Gender Age Education background Annual household income (CNY)
Type of counterfeit purchase experience
Product 1 Female 28 Undergraduate Degree Several million Own and friend’s experience Shoes
2 Male 25 Undergraduate Degree 600,000 Own and friend’s experience Shoes and cloth
3 Male Not
specified
Undergraduate Degree 150,000-200,000 Friend’s experience Backpack
4 Female Not
specified
Undergraduate Degree Around 1 million Own an d friend’s experience Cloth and handbags 5 Female 35 Postgraduate Degree Several hundred
thousands
Relative and friend’s experience
Purse and handbags
6 Male Not
specified
Undergraduate Degree 40,000-50,000 Friends’ experience Shoes and cloth 7 Female 22 Senior High School 90,000 Own and friend’s experience Shoes
8 Female 31 Postgraduate Degree 350,000-400,000 Own and friend’s experience Purse and handbags 9 Male 27 Postgraduate Degree Not specified Own and friend’s experience Shoes, cloth and
bags
10 Female Not
specified
Undergraduate Degree Not specified Friend’s experience Mobile phone, shoes, cloth 11 Female 26 Undergraduate Degree Average Friend’s experience Purse
12 Female 27 Postgraduate Degree 300,000 Own and friend’s experience Handbags, purse, suitcase
13 Female 20 Senior High School 400,000 to 1 million
Own and friend’s experience Handbags and purchase 14 Female Not
specified
Undergraduate Degree 100,000 Own, parents and relative’s experience Backpack, handbags, cosmetics 15 Female Not specified
Undergraduate Degree More than 1 million Own, mother and friend’s experience
Handbags, purse, sunglasses 16 Female Not
specified
Undergraduate Degree 120,000-150,000 Own, relative and friend’s experience
Handbags, shoes, cloth, mobile phone
Figure 1: Anatomy of a typical episode Outcomes Motivations Neutralizations Enhanced self-image
Desired social identity
Consumer hierarchy “Thrill of the hunt” Part of a “secret society” Genuine interest
Saving money
Denial of responsibility Denial of the victim Appealing to higher loyalties
Found out by peers: Self-conscious emotions:
Embarrassment/shame
Damage to self-image Got away with it:
Enhanced self-image:
Associated with desirable brands
Money saved at expense of time Enjoyment Satisfaction Self-declaration: Enhanced self-image: Being knowledgeable A wise consumer