Login

Login
Welcome:
Guest

Product Information:-

  • For Journals
  • For Books
  • For Case Studies
  • Regional information
Real World Research - #RealWorldResearch
Request a service from our experts.

Deliberate Lookalikes: Past, Present and Future Research (Deadline: 30th June 2018)


Special issue call for papers from Journal of Product & Brand Management

Guest Editors

Dr. Nebojsa S. Davcik, BRU Research Fellow, Business Research Unit (BRU/UNIDE-IUL)
Instituto Universitario de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal; Email: davcik@live.com

Professor Piyush Sharma, Professor of Marketing, Curtin Business School
Curtin University, Perth, Australia; Email: piyush.sharma@curtin.edu.au

Dr. Ricky Chan, Associate Professor, Department of Management and Marketing
Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong;
Email: ricky.yk.chan@polyu.edu.hk

Dr. Rajat Roy, Associate Professor of Marketing, Bond Business School
Bond University, Australia; Email: rroy@bond.edu.au

Information

One of the “prices” that successful brands have to pay is that they are imitated, often via lookalikes. Lookalikes are face offers that have strong similarities with authentic branded offers and might take various forms, including counterfeits, copycats and no name imitations. Counterfeits are products that imitate an established brand in terms of all its characteristics, including its trademark (Baghi et al., 2016). Copycats are products that have a different brand name but look very similar to an existing brand and therefore they confuse consumers (Coelho do Vale and Verga Matos 2015; Le Roux et al., 2016). No Name imitations are products that look similar to an existing brand but do not curry a brand name. Although these different categories exist, the market data does not always differentiate between the different categories of lookalikes and classifies them all as counterfeits and pirated goods.

Counterfeiting and pirated is growing at an alarming rate, accounting for up to 10 percent of world trade (about USD 650 billion per annum) (Chen et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2015). A recent report by World Customs Organization shows that counterfeit and pirated goods worth USD 1.47 billion were caught by customs authorities in 58 member countries in 2012 (WCO, 2013). Not surprisingly, as the world’s largest consumer market, the United States leads the list with 7615 (34%) cases, followed by Saudi Arabia, Italy and Spain, with top 15 countries contributing to 92% of all reported cases. China and Hong Kong are the major contributors with two-thirds (67%) of total reported cases. In volume terms, personal accessories (3531 cases, 16%), clothing (3303 cases, 15%), pharmaceuticals (2287 cases, 10 %) and mobile phones (2125 cases, 9%) account for half of the reported cases; whereas, in value terms, accessories (29%) and watches (26%) alone account for more than 50% of the total, followed by electronic appliances (12%), clothing (8%) and footwear (5%). Major brands, and in particular Rolex, Sony, Louis Vuitton, Rayban, Gucci, Hermes, Burberry, D&G, Adidas and Armani  contribute about half of the total value (about USD 700 million) for the reported cases. Hence, it is not surprising that lookalikes attracts attention from academics, marketers, regulators, and consumers (Geiger-Oneto et al., 2013; Hamelin, Nwankwo and El Hadouchi, 2013; Yoo and Lee, 2012; Zimmerman, 2013).

There are two types of lookalikes in the marketplace – deceptive and non-deceptive (Hübner, 2007). In deceptive (primary) market, consists primarily from counterfeit products and unscrupulous manufacturers or retailers cheat the customers by selling counterfeits of well-known brands without the customers’ knowledge (Falkowski, Olszewska and Ulatowska, 2014; Grossman and Shapiro, 1988). In non-deceptive (secondary) market, consumers knowingly and deliberately buy lookalike products, such as personal accessories, pirated music CDs, movie DVDs or software (Penz, Schlegelmilch and Stöttinger, 2009; Penz and Stöttinger, 2008).  Knowing that a product is a counterfeit can also influence the behaviour of potential buyers (Baghi et al., 2016).

Despite the growing research in lookalikes and consumer behaviour and the use of various theoretical perspectives (e.g., economic, ethical, and socio-normative) to explore the phenomenon (Eisend and Schuchert-Güler, 2006; Staake, Thiesse and Fleisch, 2009; Zhan, Sharma and Chan, 2015), there are still many mixed findings and unanswered questions in the area (Geiger-Oneto et al., 2013; Hamelin et al., 2013).  For example, many studies find a positive influence of attitude towards counterfeiting on deliberate counterfeit purchase intentions (e.g., Maldonado and Hume, 2005; Wee, Tan and Cheok, 1995) as well as past purchase behaviour (e.g., Penz and Stöttinger, 2005) but others find no effects on purchase intentions (e.g., Hoe, Hogg and Hart., 2003) or past purchase behaviour (e.g., de Matos, Ituassu and Rossi, 2007; Walthers and Buff, 2008). Similarly, most studies find a negative effect of subjective norms against counterfeiting and perceived social risk on counterfeit purchase behaviour but some do not (e.g., Shaari and Halim, 2006; Veloutsou and Bian, 2008). Finally, many studies find a negative effect of ethical and moral beliefs on counterfeit purchase behaviour unlike others (Wang et al., 2005).

This call focuses on the non-deceptive deliberate purchase of lookalikes in order to demystify the complex consumer decision-making process influenced by a combination of diverse economic, ethical, and socio-psychological motivations (Li and Seaton, 2015; Liu et al., 2015; Randhawa, Calantone and Voorhees, 2015). An extensive review of the current literature on deliberate lookalike purchase behaviour reveals the following research gaps, which may partly explain the above mixed findings:
•    Most studies only explore the ‘independent’ influence of consumer attitudes, ethical judgments, moral beliefs and subjective norms on counterfeit usage (e.g., de Matos et al., 2007; Penz et al., 2009). Hence, it is not clear how these factors may affect each other or have a combined influence on counterfeit purchase behaviour.
•    Most studies also examine the ‘direct’ influence of consumer attitudes, ethical judgments, moral beliefs and subjective norms on counterfeit purchase, but overlook the mediating role of ‘product evaluation’, a key element of consumer decision-making (e.g., Ang et al., 2001; Chapa, Minor and Maldonado, 2006; de Matos et al., 2007; Kwong et al., 2003; Maldonado and Hume, 2005; Wang et al., 2005).
•    Past research on counterfeits mostly focuses on the impact of consumer perceptions and attitudes on the purchase and usage of counterfeit products and there are very few studies that examine their impact on the genuine brands (Sharma and Chan, 2011). Hence, it would be useful to study how the consumer perceptions about the genuine brands change as a result of the proliferation of counterfeit products around them.
•    Many studies cover a single product category such as auto parts (Chakraborty, Allred and Bristol, 1996), sunglasses (Veloutsou and Bian, 2008), pirated music CDs (Ang et al., 2001), VCDs (Shaari and Halim, 2006), and software (Chang, 1998; Moores and Chang, 2006; Tan, 2002); whereas others chose multiple product categories without a strong conceptual basis, thus limiting the generalizability of their findings.
•    The vast majority of the existing research, with very few exemptions (Le Roux et al., 2016), either focuses on counterfeits, or does not differentiate between the different categories of lookalikes and treats them as one single category.
•    There is very little research focusing on copycats and even less research focusing on no-name imitations and the role of these kinds of lookalikes on the attitudes and the behaviour of consumers towards the lookalikes and towards the genuine brand.
•    Finally, most studies focus on the attitudes and behaviours of current users of counterfeit products and ignore the non-users, hence there is very little understanding about the differences in the underlying motivations and decision-making process for these two diverse groups of consumers.

Scope


In this special issue, we plan to extend the growing research stream by inviting manuscripts that address the differences in the expectations, perceptions and evaluations of customers about lookalike products, which offer unique challenges and opportunities to the marketers of genuine products and brands. By doing this, we aim to help researchers look beyond their typically narrow theoretical or substantive paradigms and approach this topic from a relatively broader and integrative perspective. This special issue will also help brand managers understand the importance of cultural and socio-economic differences between the buyers and non-buyers (or users and non-users) of counterfeit products in the increasingly globalized multi-cultural marketplace and develop suitable strategies to manage these differences by incorporating these in their marketing and communication activities.

We encourage both conceptual and empirical papers, using a variety of theoretical perspectives (e.g., socio-psychological, socio-economic, socio-cultural or anthropological) and methodologies (e.g., ethnographic, lab or field experiments, online or offline surveys, secondary data analysis or literature review with synthesis of current and past research). We expect submissions with original theoretical contribution and not mere replications of established models and theories for different products or markets. The conceptual papers should not merely review but synthesize the relevant literature and identify important research gaps, in order to develop new or modified conceptual frameworks with testable propositions. We would like to receive submissions from all corners of the world so that we can learn from each other and help shape the future research agenda in this important topic.

Suggested topics include (but are not limited to) the following:

•    What are the differences in customer expectations, perceptions and evaluations of lookalike products based on cultural, demographic and socio-economic factors?
•    Impact of personal cultural values and national cultural dimensions on deliberate lookalike purchase and usage by customers.
•    Implications for brand managers in terms of product design and delivery mechanisms in response to the threat of counterfeit brands.
•    Marketing and legal counter-actions of firms toward copycats
•    Fresh theoretical perspectives that go beyond the usual economic, socio-psychological and ethical theories to examine deliberate lookalike purchase and usage.
•    Differences in marketing strategies adopted by local and global brand marketers to understand and tackle the problem of deliberate lookalike purchase and usage.
•    Role of advertising and marketing communication in changing customer attitudes towards deliberate purchase and usage of lookalike products.
•    Role of technology (e.g. Internet and social media) in promoting the proliferation of lookalike products around the globe and possible strategies to curb this menace.
•    Differences on the perceptions, evaluation and behaviours between the different types of lookalikes.
•    Linking the prevention of lookalike purchase and usage to corporate social responsibility, environment protection and sustainability in the management strategy and public policy domains.
•    How to conceptualize new measurement constructs, which will give new theoretical and methodological perspectives in lookalike brand research.
•    International marketing strategy in emerging markets and tools to address local copycatting practice  
•    Characteristics of the official and unofficial brand strategies by copycatting firms.
•    The role of non-business organizations and stakeholders (Government, NGO, professional associations, etc.) in facing copycatting practice and legal effects on this miss-practice. 


All papers need to be submitted online to the Special Issue on “Deliberate Lookalikes Purchase Behaviour: Past, Present and Future Research” through the ScholarOne System (http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jpbm). For informal enquiries you can contact the guest editors.

Deadline for submissions: 30th June, 2018.

References:


Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K. (2001), "Spot the difference: consumer responses towards counterfeits", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 219-235.
Baghi, I., Gabrielli, V. and Grappi, S. (2016) "Consumers’ awareness of luxury brand counterfeits and their subsequent responses: when a threat becomes an opportunity for the genuine brand", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 452-464.
Chakraborty, G., Allred, A.T. and Bristol, T. (1996), "Exploring Consumers' Evaluations of Counterfeits: The Roles of Country of Origin and Ethnocentrism". In: Corfman, K. and Lynch, J., eds. Advances in Consumer Research. pp. 379-384.
Chang, K.M. (1998), "Predicting Unethical Behaviour: A Comparison of the Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behaviour", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 17 No. 16, pp. 1825-1834.
Chapa, S., Minor, M.S. and Maldonado, C. (2006), "Product Category and Origin Effects on Consumer Responses to Counterfeits: Comparing Mexico and the U.S.", Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 79-99.
Chen, J., Teng, L., Liu, S. and Zhu, H. (2015), "Anticipating regret and consumers' preferences for counterfeit luxury products", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 507-515.
Coelho do Vale, R. and Verga Matos, P. (2015) "The impact of copycat packaging strategies on the adoption of private labels", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 646-659.
de Matos, C.A., Ituassu, C.T. and Rossi, C.A.V. (2007), "Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and extension", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 36-47.
Eisend, M. and Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006), "Explaining Counterfeit Purchases: A Review and Preview", Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol.  No. 12, pp. 1-22.
Falkowski, A., Olszewska, J. and Ulatowska, J. (2014), "Are look-alikes confusing? The application of the DRM paradigm to test consumer confusion in counterfeit cases", Marketing Letters [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11002-014-9279-0/fulltext.html [Accessed 21 May 2015].
Geiger-Oneto, S., Gelb, B.D., Walker, D. and Hess, J.D. (2013), "“Buying status” by choosing or rejecting luxury brands and their counterfeits", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 357-372.
Grossman, G.M. and Shapiro, C. (1988), "Foreign counterfeiting of status goods", Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 92 No. February, pp. 79-100.
Hamelin, N., Nwankwo, S. and El Hadouchi, R. (2013), "'Faking brands': Consumer responses to counterfeiting", Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 159-170.
Hoe, L., Hogg, G. and Hart., S. (2003), "Fakin' It: Counterfeiting and Consumer Contradictions". In: Turley, D. and Brown, S., eds. European Advances in Consumer Research. pp. 60-67.
Hübner, W. (2007). "Economic Impact of Counterfeiting and Piracy". Paris, France: Committee on Industry, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (OECD), pp.
Kwong, K.K., Yau, O.H.M., Lee, J.S.Y., Sin, L.Y.M. and Tse, A.C.B. (2003), "The Effects of Attitudinal and Demographic Factors on Intention to Buy Pirated CDs: The Case of Chinese Consumers", Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 223-235.
Le Roux, A., Thébault, M., Roy, Y. and Bobrie, F. (2016) "Brand typicality impact on brand imitations evaluation and categorization", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 600-612.
Li, T. and Seaton, B. (2015), "Emerging Consumer Orientation, Ethical Perceptions, and Purchase Intention in the Counterfeit Smartphone Market in China", Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 27-53.
Liu, M.J., Yannopoulou, N., Bian, X. and Elliott, R. (2015), "Authenticity Perceptions in the Chinese Marketplace", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 27-33.
Maldonado, C. and Hume, E.C. (2005), "Attitudes toward Counterfeit Products: An Ethical Perspective", Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 105-117.
Moores, T.T. and Chang, J.C. (2006), "Ethical Decision Making in Software Piracy: Initial Development and Test of a Four-Component Model", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 167-180.
Penz, E., Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Stöttinger, B. (2009), "Voluntary Purchase of Counterfeit Products: Empirical Evidence from Four Countries", Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Penz, E. and Stöttinger, B. (2005), "Forget the "Real" Thing - Take the Copy! An Explanatory Model for the Volitional Purchase of Counterfeit Products". In: Menon, G. and Rao, A.R., eds. Advances in Consumer Research. pp. 568-575.
Penz, E. and Stöttinger, B. (2008), "Corporate image and product similarity - Assessing major demand drivers for counterfeits in a multi-country study ", Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 352-381.
Randhawa, P., Calantone, R.J. and Voorhees, C.M. (2015), "The pursuit of counterfeited luxury: An examination of the negative side effects of close consumer–brand connections", Journal of Business Research, Vol.  No.
Shaari, H. and Halim, F. (2006), "Consumer Purchase of Pirated VCD: Do Non-Price Factors Matter?", International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 119-131.
Sharma, P. and Chan, R.Y.K. (2011), "Counterfeit Proneness: Conceptualization and Scale Development", Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 No. 5-6, pp. 602-626.
Staake, T., Thiesse, F. and Fleisch, E. (2009), "The emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 3/4, pp. 320-349.
Tan, B. (2002), "Understanding Consumer Ethical Decision Making With Respect to Purchase of Pirated Software", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 96-111.
Veloutsou, C. and Bian, X. (2008), "A cross-national examination of consumer perceived risk in the context of non-deceptive counterfeit brands", Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Walthers, A. and Buff, C.L. (2008), "Attitudes towards Counterfeiting and Counterfeit Products: Have they changed?", Journal of International Business & Economics, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 79-87.
Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H. and Ouyang, M. (2005), "Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of Chinese consumers", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 340-351.
WCO (2013). "Illicit Trade Report". Brussels, Belgium: World Customs Organization, pp. 138.
Wee, C.-H., Tan, S.-J. and Cheok, K.-H. (1995), "Non-price Determinants of Intention to Purchase Counterfeit Goods: An Exploratory Study", International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 19-46.
Yoo, B. and Lee, S.-H. (2012), "Asymmetrical effects of past experiences with genuine fashion luxury brands and their counterfeits on purchase intention of each", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 10, pp. 1507-1515.
Zhan, L., Sharma, P. and Chan, R.Y.K. (2015), "Using Spotlight Effect to Curb Counterfeit Consumption – An Experimental Investigation", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. Forthcoming.
Zimmerman, A. (2013), "Contending with Chinese counterfeits: Culture, growth, and management responses", Business Horizons, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 141-148.