Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury products? A tale of two major cities in two different countries

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine customer attitudes toward purchasing counterfeit luxury products (ATPCLP) in two cities in two different countries (Saudi Arabia and Malaysia) by testing the relationships between the various reasons for purchasing those products: social status insecurity, status consumption and value consciousness.Design/methodology/approachQuestionnaires were distributed conveniently to urban customers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Altogether 658 useable questionnaires were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics, general linear model of univariate analysis of variance and structural equation modeling.FindingsQuality, price, popularity and status signaling represent the main motivating factors for their brand choices of counterfeit luxury products among the two country groups of customers. As expected, customers' social status insecurity influences their ATPCLP, but not their status consumption. However, status consumption does positively moderates the relationship of their social status insecurity and their ATPCLP. Furthermore, customers' value consciousness influences their ATPCLP and moderates the relationship between status consumption and ATPCLP. The impact of status consumption on ATPCLP depends on the importance one places on the value of the products. However, the authors found no differences in social status insecurity, status consumption and value consciousness, on their ATPCLP among the customers. Some implications and limitations of the results are discussed.Research limitations/implicationsThe use of convenience sampling and mainly college students (in Saudi Arabia) as respondents represent the main limitations of this study.Practical implicationsThe practical implication of this study is to discourage the purchasing of counterfeit luxury products in their respective country Malaysian marketers need to stress that their genuine products are of top quality while Saudi marketers need to stress that their genuine products are of well-known brands that are sourced from well-known countries of origin. Besides, Malaysian marketers need to offer genuine products that are not overly priced or ones that indicate value-for-money while Saudi marketers need to convey the message that their genuine products could help enhance or uplift their customers' social status. In this study, the authors did not find any support for differences in ATPCLP between the two rather different Muslim-majority countries. This could be due to the fact that the majority of the respondents were females in their mid-20s and that both countries have a growing number of young customer base, which makes them particularly attractive target customers for branded/luxury products and, at the same time, easy preys to luxury products counterfeiters. This implies that there are still more opportunities for academics to study the topic or related topics in the future.Originality/valueAs far as the authors know, no one has undertaken a comparative study involving two very different Islamic majority countries (more conservative mono-cultural and mono-ethnicity Saudi Arabia versus less conservative multicultural and multi-ethnicity Malaysia) before.

The Relationship between Consumers‘ Characteristics and the Expectations towards a Brand‘s Value

“…Researchers of the proactive approach to purchasing identified in their research similar gender determinants for purchasing professionals (Van Poucke et al, 2019). The research results also correspond with the customer attitude analyses towards the purchase of original luxury and counterfeit products (Kassim et al, 2021). Product environmental studies also confirm the gender diversity of proactive purchasing approaches (Skowron and Sak-Skowron, 2021).…”

Willingness to purchase counterfeit luxury brands: A cross‐cultural comparison

“…The convenience sampling enabled the researcher to select the participants based on their accessibility, availability, geographical proximity, and willingness to respond (Etikan et al., 2016). Besides, this sampling method has also been adopted in several luxury consumption studies on counterfeit (e.g., Bakhshian et al., 2019; Jiang et al., 2019; Kassim et al., 2021; Kasuma et al., 2020). To collect data, the researcher visited numerous public and private spaces such as malls, universities, cafes/restaurants, and high street stores to reach consumers with different demographics.…”

“…Attitude toward counterfeits Adiprima et al (2020), Harun et al (2012), Harun et al (2020), Hidayat and Diwasasri (2013), Jiang et al (2019), Kim and Karpova (2010), Lee and Yoo (2010), Phau and Thea (2009), Toklu and Baran (2017), Vida (2007), Wu and Zao (2021), Yoo and Lee (2009) Personal integrity Dwobeng et al (2021), Harun et al (2012), Hennings et al (2015), Hidayat and Diwasasri (2013), Jaiyeoba et al (2015), Kim and Karpova (2010), Phau and Thea (2009), Phau et al (2009aPhau et al ( , 2009b, Singh et al (2021), Teah et al (2015), Turkyilmaz and Uslu (2014) Status consumption/status-seeking Adiprima et al (2020), Geiger-Oneto et al (2013, Harun et al (2012), Hidayat and Diwasasri (2013), Hussain et al (2017), Imran et al (2018), Jaiyeoba et al (2015), Kassim et al (2021), Kim and Karpova (2010), Phau and Thea (2009), Phau et al (2009aPhau et al ( , 2009b, Teah et al (2015), Turkyilmaz and Uslu (2014), Yoo and Lee (2009) Materialism Davi...…”

Scrutinizing the efficacy of branded apps quality to counter counterfeiting and restore trust in M-Commerce

“…Willingness to buy (WillB) is described as a customer tendency to purchase targeted products in the future, and it may predict actual purchase behavior (Liu et al 2019). It is the perceived likelihood that the product will be purchased (Kassim et al 2020). From an online commerce perspective, consumers' evaluation of the authenticity of virtually represented products determines their WillB (Mavlanova and Benbunan-Fich 2010;Priporas et al 2020).…”

“…Deceptive counterfeiting is considered riskier and more hazardous for consumers (Wang, Lin, and Choi 2020). However, the focus of existing literature has been on the non-deceptive aspect (Priporas et al 2020;Kassim et al 2020). Hence, we propose in this study to bridge the research gap with a detailed examination of the deceptive aspect of counterfeit purchases.…”