Trust, risk and deceit in the illicit medicines market

#Sponseredathlete: the marketing of image and performance enhancing drugs on Facebook and Instagram

“…As has been discussed, several themes underpinned these techniques. First, consistent with existing literature (Décary-Hétu and Leppänen 2013 ; Holt et al 2016 ; Moeller 2018 ; Koenraadt 2019 ), the primacy of building a coherent and trustworthy brand underpinned each strategy presented and, despite threats to this legitimacy posed by aspects of deception, the importance of simulating cultural proximity and customer kinship cannot be overstated. Secondly, obvious parallels and points of transcendence have been noted between the licit health and fitness industry and the social media IPED market.…”

“…Echoing the often eye-catching branded presentation of ecstasy and other drugs like LSD then (Duterte et al 2009 ), how an IPED product is packaged and advertised is key to understanding customer choice. This sentiment can be extended from UGLs to independent IPED resellers who, given the inherently untrustworthiness of illicit drugs markets (Tzanetakis et al 2016 ; Bancroft et al 2020 ), must also attempt to level out the power differential – or information asymmetry (Beckert and Wehinger 2012 )—between buyers and sellers of illicit goods online by presenting themselves as genuine and authentic (Décary-Hétu and Leppänen 2013 ; Holt et al 2016 ; Moeller 2018 ; Koenraadt 2019 ).…”

“…This is particularly evident in @UKanaboliclord’s screenshot of a customer’s positive feedback (see Fig. 9 ), which aims to signal the supplier’s legitimacy and authenticity to prospective customers (Koenraadt 2018 , 2019 ). Here, the client’s review betrays the seller’s target market, as he references his ‘ naturally low testosterone ’ which has, prior to starting his cycle, inhibited the man from successfully growing a beard.…”