Users and non-users of counterfeits: motivations, emotional outcomes and neutralization processes

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to examine how socio-economic status (SES) shapes consumers’ purchase behavior of genuine brands and counterfeits. It also forms a typology based on the decision-making processes of these two groups by exploring neutralization processes and emotional outcomes related to their behaviors. Design/methodology/approach Data are collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 42 users and non-users of counterfeits from different SES groups. Findings This paper develops a consumer typology based on the customer behavior of counterfeit and genuine brand users, as well as emotional outcomes and neutralization strategies used to justify their actions according to their SES group. These categories are defined as the black chameleons, the counterfeit owners, the genuine brand owners and the authenticity seekers. Originality/value This paper contributes to the counterfeit literature by examining the consumption practices of each SES group of users and non-users of counterfeits by focusing on motivations, emotional outcomes and neutralization processes. The study shows how consumers’ end consumption practices and their SES group explains the mix findings on the counterfeit literature.

Counterfeit luxury consumption: A review and research agenda

“…Barring a handful of recent studies (e.g., Bian, Wang, Smith, & Yannopoulou, 2016; Çekirdekci & Latif, 2019), counterfeiting research majorly focuses on answering the question as to why consumers willfully purchase counterfeit luxury brands. Largely based on attitude‐behavior models, these studies mostly attempt to predict counterfeit buying behavior in relation to certain determinants of interest.…”

“…Although, most of the counterfeiting theories explain consumers' buying motives, counterfeiting scholars have applied three influential theories to explain the outcomes for counterfeit buyers: cognitive dissonance theory, neutralization theory, and appraisal theory of emotions. Some of the recent qualitative studies (e.g., Bian et al, 2016; Çekirdekci & Latif, 2019) integrate Festinger's (1957) cognitive dissonance theory and Sykes and Matza's (1957) neutralization theory in their studies. These theories seek to explain the rationalizations enacted by consumers to cope with the cognitive dissonance, which they face during counterfeit consumption.…”

“…While some consumers absolve themselves by accusing the agencies of not doing enough to prevent counterfeiting, others rationalize their behavior by invoking exorbitant prices of luxury brands (Bian et al, 2016). One study found that affluent counterfeit buyers excuse themselves by buying only the high‐quality counterfeits, and that less affluent consumers boast of their smart shopper feelings (Çekirdekci & Latif, 2019). Many consumers also rationalize their behavior by referring to their concurrent ownership of genuine and counterfeit brands (Pueschel et al, 2016).…”

An introduction to the special issue on the past, present and future research on deliberate lookalikes

“…These five manuscripts use diverse methodological approaches and measurement methods. Specifically, this special issue contains a conceptual article (Evans, Starr, and Brodie, 2019), two articles using qualitative methodologies, including an ethnographic study and semi-structured interviews (Cekirdekci and Latif, 2019), and two articles using experimental studies (Pathak, Velasco, and Calvert, 2019;Le Roux, Thebault, and Roy, 2019),…”

“…The article by Cekirdekci and Latif (2019) investigate how consumers" socio-economic status (SES) of consumers affects their purchase behavior of counterfeits and genuine brands using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 42 users and non-users of counterfeits from different SES groups. The authors also propose a consumer typology based on the differences in the consumer decision-making processes in terms of their neutralization processes and emotional outcomes related to the purchase behaviors across the different SES groups.…”