Consumer Choice of Counterfeits or Generic Products: The Case of Egypt
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18533/ijbsr.v10i5.1345Keywords:
Budget Constraint, Consumer Choice, Demographics, Elasticity, Egypt, SubstitutesAbstract
The counterfeiting market is increasing at an alarming rate because consumers are often unwilling to pay for brand names. This study investigates the factors that influence consumers’ preferences toward counterfeit and generic products by studying Egyptian consumers. By surveying a sample of 271 consumers, our study concluded that demographic variables, perceived risk, and prior experience are insignificant factors in choosing counterfeits or generics, while price, taste and preferences, quality, the price of related products, subjective norms, and expected prices are variables that significantly affect consumer preferences and demand. The research concludes that consumers who care about the quality, expected prices, and the price of related products are more likely to purchase generics, whereas consumers whose tastes and preferences are primarily influenced by others’ expectations, prestige, and acceptance are more likely to purchase counterfeits. These conclusions match the expected relationships between those who are influenced by external variables such as prestige and those who are not and their tendencies to prefer counterfeits or generics. Finally, price affects consumer demand negatively, and the price of related products and expected prices affect consumers’ preferences positively toward generics and negatively toward counterfeits.References
Albarracín, D., & Wyer, R. S., Jr. (2000). The cognitive impact of past behavior: influences on beliefs, attitudes, and future behavioral decisions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(1), 5-22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.1.5
Amine, L. S., & Magnusson, P. (2007). Cost‐Benefit Models of Stakeholders in the Global Counterfeiting Industry and Marketing Response Strategies. Multinational Business Review, 15(2), 63-86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/1525383X200700008
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760110392967
Armitage, C. J., & Christian, J. (2003). From attitudes to behaviour: Basic and applied research on the theory of planned behaviour. Current Psychology, 22(3), 187-195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1015-5
Baruönü, L. Ö., Kaytaz, Y. M., & Kirezli, Ö. (2018). A review of counterfeiting research on demand side: Analyzing prior progress and identifying future directions. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 21(5-6), 458-480. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12115
Bearden, W. O., Netemeyer, R. G., & Teel, J. E. (1989). Measurement of Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(4), 473-481.
Bloch, P. H., Bush , R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer “accomplices” in product counterfeiting: a demand side investigation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 27-36. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769310047374
Budiman, S., Haryono, T., Haryanto, B., & Hidayat, A. (2017). Behavioural model of buying intention of counterfeited products. International Journal of Economic Policy in Emerging Economies, 10(1), 47-66. doi:https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEPEE.2017.083894
Cheung, W.-L., & Prendergast, G. (2006). Exploring the Materialism and Conformity Motivations of Chinese Pirated Product Buyers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 18(3), 7-31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v18n03_02
Cordell, V. V., Wongtada, N., & Kieschnick, R. L. (1996). Counterfeit purchase intentions: Role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. Journal of Business Research, 35(1), 41-53. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00009-7
Green, R. T., & Smith, T. (2002). Executive Insights: Countering Brand Counterfeiters. Journal of International Marketing, 10(4), 89-106. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.10.4.89.19551
Hamelin, N., Nwankwo, S., & El Hadouchi, R. (2013). ‘Faking brands’: Consumer responses to counterfeiting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(3), 159-170. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1406
Havlena, W. J., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1991). On the Measurement of Perceived Consumer Risk. Decision Sciences, 22(4), 927-939. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1991.tb00372.x
Huang, J. H., Lee, B. C. Y., & Ho, S. H. (2004). Consumer attitude toward gray market goods. International Marketing Review, 21(6), 598-614. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330410568033
Jirotmontree, A. (2013). Business Ethics and Counterfeit Purchase Intention: A Comparative Study on Thais and Singaporeans. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 25(4), 281-288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08961530.2013.803902
Koay, K. Y. (2018). Understanding consumers’ purchase intention towards counterfeit luxury goods: An integrated model of neutralisation techniques and perceived risk theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(2), 495-516. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-05-2017-0100
Kwong, K. K., Yau, O. H. M., Lee, J. S. Y., Sin, L. Y. M., & 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, 47(3), 223-235. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026269003472
Lee, S.-H., & Workman, J. E. (2011). Attitudes Toward Counterfeit Purchases and Ethical Beliefs Among Korean and American University Students. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 39(3), 289-305. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1552-3934.2010.02067.x
Lin, Y.-C. J. (2011). Fake stuff: China and the rise of counterfeit goods: Routledge.
Madden, T. J., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A Comparison of the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Theory of Reasoned Action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 3-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181001
Marcketti, S. B., & Shelley, M. C. (2009). Consumer concern, knowledge and attitude towards counterfeit apparel products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(3), 327-337. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00748.x
Matos, C. A. d., Ituassu, C. T., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2007). Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(1), 36-47. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710720975
Mitchell, V. W. (1992). Understanding Consumers’ Behaviour: Can Perceived Risk Theory Help? Management Decision, 30(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749210013050
Moores, T. T., & Chang, J. C.-J. (2006). Ethical Decision Making in Software Piracy: Initial Development and Test of a Four-Component Model. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 167-180. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/25148722
Norum, P. S., & Cuno, A. (2011). Analysis of the demand for counterfeit goods. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 15(1), 27-40. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/13612021111112322
Ordóñez, L. D. (1998). The Effect of Correlation between Price and Quality on Consumer Choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(3), 258-273. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2794
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological bulletin, 124(1), 54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54
Phau, I. (2009). Consumers' willingness to knowingly purchase counterfeit products. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(4), 262-281. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/17505930911000865
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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760910927019
Poppick, A., Moyer, E. J., & Stein, M. L. (2017). Estimating trends in the global mean temperature record. Advances in Statistical Climatology, Meteorology and Oceanography, 3(1), 33–53. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-3-33-2017
Schifter, D. E., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 843–851. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.843
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research methods for business: A skill building approach: John Wiley & Sons.
Tan, B. (2002). Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase of pirated software. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 96-111. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760210420531
Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., & Pilcher, J. (1998). Consumer demand for counterfeit goods. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 405-421. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(199808)15:5<405::aid-mar1>3.0.co;2-b
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., & Klarmann, C. (2012). Luxury consumption in the trade-off between genuine and counterfeit goods: What are the consumers’ underlying motives and value-based drivers? Journal of Brand Management, 19(7), 544-566. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.10
Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 247-259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.2.247
Yoo, B., & 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, 65(10), 1507-1515. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.018
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
