1. Fake
It
‘Till
You
Make
It.
Can
Consumption
of
Counterfeit
Goods
Benefit
Brands
in
the
Long
Run?
Louise
Mary
Proctor
130009107
A
dissertation
submitted
to
the
University
of
St
Andrews
Management
School
for
the
degree
of
Master
of
Letters,
Marketing.
Supervised
by
Mr
William
Barlow.
22nd
August
2014
2. I
I
hereby
certify
that
this
dissertation,
which
is
approximately
15,000
words
in
length,
has
been
composed
by
me,
that
it
is
a
record
of
work
carried
out
by
me
and
that
it
has
not
been
submitted
in
any
previous
application
for
a
higher
degree.
This
project
was
completed
by
me
at
the
University
of
St
Andrews
from
May
2014
to
August
2014
towards
fulfilment
of
the
requirements
of
the
University
of
St
Andrews
for
the
degree
of
M.Litt
Marketing
under
the
supervision
of
Mr
William
Barlow.
22nd
August
2014
___________________________________
3. II
Abstract
Over
recent
decades,
as
the
world
has
become
increasingly
globalised,
and
as
international
trade
levels
have
increased
rapidly,
so
too
has
global
trade
in
counterfeit
goods.
Both
public
and
private
institutions
have
carried
out
extensive
research
into
counterfeit
trade
in
terms
of
calculating
the
size
of
the
problem,
and
understanding
the
negative
externalities
it
can
cause
to
businesses
and
consumers
alike.
However,
little
research
has
been
carried
out
into
possible
positive
externalities
of
such
an
issue.
This
dissertation
explores
the
topic
of
counterfeit
luxury
goods
from
the
consumer’s
perspective.
Through
in-‐depth,
semi-‐structured
interviews,
the
researcher
explored
the
experiences,
feelings
and
beliefs
that
participants
held
about
counterfeit
luxury
goods
and
how
they
related
to
their
experiences,
feelings
and
beliefs
about
genuine
luxury
goods,
in
order
to
identify
links
and
propose
possible
theories.
The
transcripts
were
analysed
using
grounded
theory
from
which
a
number
of
themes
emerged.
In
conjunction,
these
themes
indicated
a
theory
that
would
suggest
that
consumption
of
counterfeit
goods
could,
through
increased
brand
awareness,
brand
associations
and
future
sales,
benefit
luxury
brands
in
the
long-‐
term.
4. III
Contents
Table
of
Contents
Abstract
.................................................................................................................
II
Contents
...............................................................................................................
III
1.
Introduction
.......................................................................................................
1
2.
Literature
Review
...............................................................................................
3
2.1
Symbols,
Signalling
and
Reference
Groups
...............................................................
3
2.2
Envy
.......................................................................................................................
11
2.3
The
Culture
of
Counterfeit
......................................................................................
13
2.4
Research
Question
.................................................................................................
20
3.
Methodology
....................................................................................................
22
3.1
Limitations
of
the
Methodology
.............................................................................
26
4.
Findings
and
Discussion
....................................................................................
28
4.1
Theme
1
–
The
extent
to
which
peer
groups
and
reference
groups
influence
consumers
into
making
particular
fashion
choices.
......................................................
28
4.2
Theme
2
-‐
The
extent
to
which
envy
plays
a
role
in
the
consumption
of
branded
goods.
..........................................................................................................................
32
4.3
Theme
3
–
The
extent
to
which
consumers
perceive
fake
luxury
goods
to
be
different
to
genuine
luxury
goods.
...............................................................................
36
4.3.1
The
Buying
Process
................................................................................................
36
4.3.2
The
Quality
............................................................................................................
38
4.3.3
The
Psychic
Differences.
........................................................................................
39
4.4
Theme
4
–
The
extent
to
which
consumption
of
a
fake
luxury
item
can
enduringly
satiate
the
feeling
of
wanting
to
own
the
real
luxury
item.
..........................................
41
4.4.1
Situations
...............................................................................................................
42
4.4.2
Degree
of
Care
Taken
............................................................................................
42
4.4.3
Length
of
Use
.........................................................................................................
44
4.4.4
Intention
to
Repair
Damage
..................................................................................
45
4.5
Theme
5
–
The
extent
to
which
the
perception
of
genuine
luxury
goods
is
harmed
or
improved
by
consumption
of
fake
luxury
goods.
..........................................................
47
4.5.1
Brand
Perception
...................................................................................................
47
4.5.2
Brand
Noticeability
................................................................................................
49
4.6
Theme
6
–
The
extent
to
which
consumption
of
fake
luxury
goods
increases
consumption
or
intention
to
consume
genuine
luxury
goods.
......................................
50
4.6.1
Take
more
notice
...................................................................................................
50
4.6.2
Fake
or
Genuine
....................................................................................................
51
5.
Conclusion
........................................................................................................
53
5.1
Limitations
.............................................................................................................
57
5.2
Recommendations
.................................................................................................
57
Bibliography
.........................................................................................................
59
Appendix
1
...........................................................................................................
67
Appendix
2
...........................................................................................................
71
5. 1
1.
Introduction
Over
the
past
few
decades,
as
the
world
has
become
increasingly
globalised
and
the
value
of
global
trade
has
grown
exponentially
(WTO,
2013).
In
line
with
this
increase
in
global
trade,
there
has
also
been
a
sharp
rise
in
counterfeit
trade,
which
at
an
estimated
value
of
$600
billion
per
year,
equating
to
5-‐7
percent
of
global
trade
(ICC,
2014).
The
extent
of
the
growth
in
counterfeit
trade
has
become
a
worrying
trend
in
many
industries,
especially
those
in
which
counterfeit
products
pose
a
significant
threat
to
human
health
such
as
pharmaceuticals
and
vehicle
parts.
However,
in
industries
where
the
risk
to
human
health
is
reduced,
is
counterfeit
trade
always
a
bad
thing?
The
genesis
of
this
topic
originates
from
the
researchers
own
experience
as
a
study
abroad
student
in
China,
where
she
was
witness
to
the
ubiquity
of
counterfeit
products
available
for
sale.
There
she
found
the
lack
of
education
about
and
enforcement
of
intellectual
property
law
combined
to
provide
situational
context
in
which
almost
any
durable
good
could
be
bought
either
as
a
genuine
item
or
a
fake
version
of
it.
It
was
within
this
situation,
that
the
researcher
and
her
fellow
colleagues
first
began
buying
fake
goods.
Through
observation
and
reflection
of
her
own
consumer
behaviour
and
that
of
her
colleagues
the
researcher
noticed
an
increased
attachment
to
the
luxury
brands
they
were
buying
into,
even
if
they
only
had
the
fakes
at
that
time;
and
the
formation
of
intention
to
buy
the
genuine
version
of
the
brands
they
were
buying
into,
when
the
funds
became
available.
6. 2
There
are
many
arguments
that
suggest
that
counterfeit
trade
is
bad
for
business
such
as
damage
to
the
brand
image
and
loss
of
trade.
However,
as
time
went
on,
the
researcher
found
that
these
traditional
arguments
were
being
challenged
by
her
lived
experience.
In
addition
to
the
observations
made
by
the
researcher,
there
has
also
a
slow
rumbling
of
change
within
the
fashion
industry,
online
bloggers
reporting
that
brands
such
as
Dolce
and
Gabbana
have
becoming
increasingly
reluctant
to
involve
themselves
in
the
process
of
pressing
charges
against
producers
of
fake
goods
as
they
feel
the
existence
of
and
trade
in
such
products
do
not
actually
represent
a
loss
to
the
company
(Salmon,
2007);
although
this
line
of
action
has
never
been
confirmed
by
the
company.
This
dissertation
will
explore
the
consumption
of
counterfeit
luxury
goods
in
relation
to
the
consumption
of
genuine
luxury
goods
using
primary
qualitative
data.
The
relationship
is
explored
through
a
series
of
semi-‐structured,
in-‐depth
interviews,
which
have
been
transcribed,
coded
and
analysed
using
grounded
theory.
The
analysis
of
the
data
suggests
that,
contrary
to
arguments
against
counterfeit
trade,
such
products
could
in
fact,
be
of
benefit
to
luxury
brands
in
the
long
term,
through
increased
brand
awareness
and
future
sales.
7. 3
2.
Literature
Review
To
understand
why
someone
would
resort
to
buying
counterfeit
luxury
goods,
it
is
important
to
first
understand
some
of
the
reasons
why
people
desire
luxury
goods,
and
how
they
make
their
purchase
decisions,
because
“the
fashion
goods
market
is
characterised
by
the
fact
that
demand
is
determined
not
only
by
instrumental
factors
such
as
product
quality
but
also
by
positional
factors
such
as
social
status”
(Barnett,
2005).
Additionally,
according
to
Patrizio
Bertelli,
CEO
Prada
“To
be
counterfeited
is
a
symptom
of
success.
If
we
weren’t
copied
and
counterfeited
it
would
mean
that
the
Prada
and
Miu
Miu
labels
weren’t
desirable”
(Meichtry,
2002)
This
Literature
review
has
been
divided
into
three
key
sections
that
the
researcher
has
deemed
to
be
central
to
understanding
the
issues
surrounding
consumption
of
both
genuine
and
fake
luxury
goods.
The
three
key
themes
are:
1. Symbols,
Signalling
and
Reference
Groups.
2. Envy.
3. The
culture
of
counterfeit.
2.1
Symbols,
Signalling
and
Reference
Groups
“Knowingly
or
unknowingly,
intentionally
or
unintentionally,
we
regard
our
possessions
as
part
of
ourselves”
(Belk,
1988:
139).
In
his
seminal
paper
on
consumer
behaviour,
Belk
(1988),
using
various
evidences,
describes
just
how
important
consumer
behaviour
is
in
the
broader
context
of
human
existence.
The
paper
shows
how
possessions
help
us
to
“learn,
define
and
remind
ourselves
of
who
8. 4
we
are,
[…]
where
we
are
from,
and
where
we
are
going
“
(Belk,
1988:
160).
Over
the
past
few
decades,
studies
have
furthered
this
assertion
showing
how
people
use
their
possessions
in
such
a
way
that
they
become
integral
to
their
identity
and
facilitate
membership
of
particular
consumption
cultures
(Celsi,
Rose
and
Leigh,
1993;
Dittmar,
1994;
Kozinets,
2001).
Taken
as
a
whole,
Belk’s
(1988)
paper
explores
consumption
behaviour
under
many
differing
situations
and
points
in
time.
However,
one
of
the
most
interesting
assertions
comes
in
the
section
on
maintaining
multiple
levels
of
self
in
which
possessions
as
symbols
of
group
membership
are
discussed.
By
using
and
consuming
certain
symbols,
one
can
identify
with
a
particular
group
of
people,
or
even
help
to
identify
a
group
as
new
trends
emerge
(Boorstin,
1973).
Whilst
the
‘uniforms’
of
different
groups
are
not
necessarily
formal,
there
are
similarities
that
one
can
observe
and
so
make
assumptions
about
people,
and
the
groups
they
belong
to
(Belk,
1986).
In
the
paper,
Belk
describes
the
phenomenon
of
Yuppies,
who
were
well-‐dressed
young
professionals,
known
for
their
style
and
big
mobile
phones.
They
were
a
ubiquitous
group
in
society
at
the
time
of
the
article
being
written.
Whilst
this
has
now
become
an
out-‐dated
example,
it
is
an
occurrence
that
can
still
be
observed
today,
albeit
with
modern
fashions
being
worn.
In
looking
around
St
Andrews,
one
can
see
a
high
prevalence
of
students
wearing
items
such
as
Barbour
Jackets
and
Hunter
wellington
boots,
using
their
iPhone
5
and
working
on
their
Mac
9. 5
Books.
Such
uniforms
allow
people
to
make
quick
assumptions
about
the
person,
their
family
background
and
friendship
group
(Howlett
et
al.,
2013).
Questions
such
as,
“will
I
be
likely
to
fit
in
with
this
group
of
people?”
can
be
answered
quickly
without
the
need
to
ask
probing
questions
about
past
experiences
and
beliefs.
This
is
the
view
of
the
outsider
looking
in
on
the
consumer
of
particular
symbols.
But
this
is
a
concept
that
can
also
be
described
from
the
opposite
point
of
view,
in
that
one
can
wear
or
use
certain
symbols
to
signal
to
the
people
around
them,
that
they
belong
to
a
particular
group
or
social
class
or
hold
a
certain
status
“signifying
our
prestige
to
others”
(Desmond,
2003:
170).
This
allows
the
consumer
to
benefit
from
a
“halo
effect”
associated
with
the
brands
they
consume
(Perez,
Castano
and
Quintanilla,
2010:
219).
Erving
Goffman
(1951)
explains
that
such
symbols
can
have
categorical
significance,
whereby
the
item
“serves
to
identify
the
social
status
of
the
person
(who
owns
it)”
(295).
They
can
also
have
expressive
significance
in
that
the
owner
uses
the
item
to
“express
their
point
of
view,
style
of
life
and
cultural
values”
(295).
These
differing
types
of
significance
can
occur
separately
or
in
conjunction.
With
reference
to
luxury
goods,
this
is
an
assertion
that
has
been
shown
to
have
relevance
in
many
countries
around
the
world.
Hennigs
et
al.
(2012:
1018)
determine
that
“financial,
functional,
personal,
and
social
dimensions
of
luxury
value
perceptions
are
similar
in
different
cultures
and
countries”.
10. 6
However,
reasons
for
purchase
can
vary;
from
being
a
self
esteem
and
ego-‐boosting
tool
(Sivanathan
and
Pettit,
2010),
to
the
expectation
that
with
a
luxury
price
tag,
comes
increased
quality
(Plassmann
et
al.,
2008),
or
even
as
a
instrument
to
aid
in
ones
redefinition
of
the
self,
through
life
stages
such
as
the
‘midlife
crisis’
(Morris,
1995).
However,
Goffman
(1951:
296)
goes
onto
concede
that,
as
status
symbols
are
distinct
items,
it
is
“possible
that
they
can
be
employed
in
a
‘fraudulent’
way,
so
that
the
user
can
signify
a
status
that
they
do
not
in
fact
possess”.
Here
we
see
that
perhaps
due
to
envy,
people
resort
to
using
fraudulent
or
counterfeit
goods.
Whilst
Goffman’s
paper
identifies
class
symbols
in
more
general
terms,
using
symbols
such
as
military
medals
and
art,
other
studies
have
looked
at
the
phenomena
of
using
luxury
goods
to
signal
status
or
personal
attributes
and
show
membership
of
a
particular
group
or
reference
group
(Han,
Nunes
and
Dreze,
2010;
Wang
and
Griskevicius,
2014).
But
what
is
a
reference
group?
In
its
most
basic
form,
one
could
say
that
a
reference
group
is
the
group
or
individual
one
compares
themselves
to;
a
comparison
that
has
a
significant
effect
on
ones
behaviour
in
terms
of
decision
making
(Bearden
and
Etzel,
1982:
184;
Hyman,
1942).
Reference
groups
can
be
categorised
into
three
specific
groups,
these
are
classified
as
Informational
Reference
Groups,
Utilitarian
Reference
Groups,
and
Value-‐
11. 7
Expressive
Reference
Groups
(Park
and
Lessig,
1977:
102-‐3).
Park
and
Lessig
identified
these
three
different
types
of
reference
group
through
reviewing
previous
work
on
reference
groups,
and
finding
patterns
within
the
body
of
literature.
Value-‐Expressive
groups
are
characterised
by
the
need
to
improve
ones
own
self-‐
concept
by
associating
with
reference
groups
one
sees
in
a
positive
light,
or
alternatively
disassociating
from
reference
groups
that
would
be
undesirable
(Kelman,
1961;
Park
and
Lessig,
1977).
For
a
time,
Burberry
had
the
misfortune
that
their
potential
consumers
were
disassociating
themselves
from
the
brand
due
to
the
‘Chav’
connotations
associated
with
the
traditional
Burberry
Plaid
(Bothwell,
2005).
Wall
and
Large
(2010:
1103)
created
an
aspirational
hierarchy
of
brand
consumption
to
show
how
people
can
be
influenced
by
their
reference
groups.
Each
group
is
influenced
by
those
just
above
them.
However,
as
we
move
down
to
“the
Crowd”
we
see
an
acceptance
of
mixing
counterfeit
goods
with
genuine
goods
to
achieve
the
desired
‘look’.
12. 8
One
also
needs
to
be
cognizant
of
the
way
in
which
reference
groups
affect
our
behaviour,
particularly
consumer
decision
making,
and
under
what
circumstances;
according
to
Richins
(1994:
506)
“The
meanings
of
cultural
symbols
are
shaped
and
reinforced
in
social
interchanges,
and
individuals
with
similar
enculturation
experiences
tend
to
have
considerable
similarity
in
the
meanings
they
attach
to
these
symbols”.
Bourne
(1957)
identified
differences
in
purchase
decisions
for
different
types
of
goods
(necessities
and
luxuries),
and
the
manner
in
which
they
are
consumed
(publicly
or
privately).
This
has
created
a
matrix
of
4
different
situations
in
which
purchase
decisions
can
be
made:
Publicly
consumed
necessities,
privately
consumed
necessities,
publicly
consumed
luxuries
and
privately
consumed
luxuries.
Defining
publicly
consumed
luxury
goods
as
“a
product
consumed
in
public
view
and
not
commonly
owned
or
used.
In
this
case,
whether
or
not
the
product
is
owned
and
also
what
brand
is
purchased
is
likely
to
be
influenced
by
others”,
Bourne
(1957:
219)
describes
the
situation
on
which
participants
will
be
questioned.
It
could
also
be
said
that
these
products
are
consumed
in
order
to
signal
something
about
ones
self
to
those
around
them.
The
“tendency
to
purchase
goods
and
services
for
the
status
or
social
prestige
value
that
they
confer
to
their
owners”
(Eastman,
Goldsmilt
and
Leisa.,
1999:
41).
Bourne’s
work
has
been
used
as
a
basis
for
many
further
studies
looking
into
the
concept
of
reference
groups.
Most
interestingly,
reference
groups
seem
to
be
at
13. 9
their
most
influential
in
situations
that
involve
publicly
consumed
luxury
goods
(Bearden
and
Etzel,
1982;
Childers
and
Rao,
1992).
Han,
Nunes
and
Drez
(2010:
17)
take
this
topic
further
by
creating
a
Taxonomy
based
on
level
of
wealth
and
the
need
for
status.
Within
the
taxonomy,
the
most
relevant
sections
involve
the
people
who
are
classified
in
the
groups
that
require
or
want
to
achieve
a
higher
degree
of
status,
the
Parvenus
and
the
Poseurs.
The
paper
details
the
Poseurs
as
having
less
disposable
income
than
the
Parvenus,
but
still
in
need
of
status,
often
taking
cues
from
Parvenus
by
trying
to
emulate
their
fashions.
This
situation
leaves
the
poseurs
in
a
state
where
they
are
likely
to
buy
counterfeit
goods.
It
is
because
of
this
reasoning,
that
the
most
critical
selection
of
people
to
interview
within
this
research
will
be
current
students,
and
those
who
have
entered
the
job
market
within
the
last
5
years.
Within
this
group
of
people,
there
is
an
expectation
that
whilst
they
are
aspirational,
they
do
not
yet
have
a
high
level
of
disposable
income
to
buy
all
of
their
‘uniform’
in
a
genuine
manner,
yet
still
want
to
appear
to
be
a
part
of
a
particular
class
or
group
of
people.
14. 10
Other
work
has
looked
into
the
difference
between
intrinsic
and
extrinsic
aspirations.
Where
intrinsic
aspirations
and
goals
are
sought
in
order
to
fulfil
ones
achievement
and
meaning
needs
similar
to
the
self-‐actualisation
goals
detailed
by
Maslow
(1943),
extrinsic
goals
are
concerned
with
how
one
feels
other
people
perceive
them
and
induce
a
feeling
of
desire
for
praise
and
rewards
(Kasser
and
Ryam,
1996).
This
seems
to
be
a
continuation
of
the
work
of
Veblen,
who
first
coined
the
phrase
“conspicuous
consumption”
whereby
one
spends
their
economic
capital
on
luxury
goods,
which
due
to
their
high
price,
high
quality
and
low
utility,
are
seen
to
be
a
social
statement,
and
consumed
in
order
to
display
the
economic
power
of
the
consumer
(Veblen,
1899).
Veblen’s
assertion
was
tested
by
Truong
(2010),
who
found
that
extrinsic
aspirations
correlated
in
a
positive
manner
with
the
conspicuous
consumption
of
luxury
goods
(663).
However,
just
because
one
aligns
themselves
or
associates
with
a
particular
group,
does
not
always
mean
that
they
are
against,
or
dissociative
to
other
groups
(Han,
Nunes
and
Dreze,
2010).
As
a
theme
within
my
research,
and
a
basis
for
questioning
the
participants
later,
it
will
be
important
to
first
establish
with
the
participants,
to
which
socio-‐economic
group
they
would
classify
themselves,
and
who
they
see
their
reference
group
as
being.
It
is
perhaps
through
these
classifications
that
they
see
certain
goods
to
be
aspirational/cool/in-‐demand.
15. 11
2.2
Envy
How
can
this
understanding
of
symbols,
signalling,
and
reference
groups
assimilate
with
behaviour
patterns
in
a
situation
where
a
consumer
becomes
likely
to
buy
luxury
counterfeit
goods?
One
explanation
could
come
in
the
research
that
has
been
done
into
the
emotion
of
envy.
Defined
as
“a
feeling
of
pain
a
person
experiences
when
he
or
she
perceives
that
another
individual
possesses
some
object,
quality,
or
status
that
he
or
she
desires
but
does
not
possess”
(Schimmel,
2008:
18).
It
is
a
negative
form
of
social
comparison
in
which
you
feel
that
somebody
else
has
or
does
something
better
than
you
(Alick
and
Zell,
2008).
In
his
paper
Benign
Envy,
Belk
(2011)
discusses
the
different
types
of
envy
that
one
can
feel,
and
how
they
can
effect
consumer
decision
making
with
reference
to
branded
goods.
Belk
sees
that
there
are
two
different
types
on
envy,
malicious
and
benign.
For
a
person
feeling
the
emotion
of
malicious
envy,
in
a
situation
where
they
see
a
person
who
owns
a
product
that
they
want,
their
aim
is
deny
the
owner
of
their
possession,
or
“level
them
down”(117).
On
the
other
hand,
with
benign
envy,
a
person
feeling
this
emotion
would,
on
seeing
somebody
else
who
owns
the
desired
good,
aim
to
find
a
way
of
obtaining
a
version
of
said
good,
in
order
that
they
too
can
be
like
the
owner.
In
this
case,
they
want
to
“level
up”
(117).
Within
consumer
behaviour,
as
an
emotion,
it
is
evoked
when
one’s
rival
(or
perhaps
role
model)
has
a
possession
that
is
better
than
one’s
own
(D'Arms
and
Kerr,
2008).
16. 12
Envy
of
somebody
with
a
better
status
than
one’s
self
however,
is
at
it’s
most
powerful
when
there
is
not
a
significant
distance
in
the
level
of
status
perceived
(Festinger,
1954).
Interestingly
Parrott
and
Mosquera
(2008)describe
envy
as
a
social
emotion,
in
that
often,
one
will
envy
a
group
of
people
who
have
‘better’
possessions
than
one
currently
owns.
This
feeling
has
also
been
described
as
status
anxiety
“The
more
people
are
similar
to
us,
the
more
we
can
really
gage
their
success
in
a
certain
area
[…]
our
natural
tendency
is
establish
a
pecking
order”
(Carlin,
2005:
46)
reflecting
Festinger’s
1954
assertion.
This
is
a
feeling
that
can
occur
in
many
different
spheres,
such
as
in
an
academic
sense,
comparing
grades
amongst
class
mates,
on
the
sporting
field,
or
most
relevant
to
this
literature
review
–
in
the
comparison
of
possessions,
specifically,
luxury
goods
(Carlin,
2005).
In
order
to
resolve
this
feeling
of
being
left-‐out
or
behind,
people
like
to
“jump
on
the
bandwagon”
this
is
where
people
“desire
to
purchase
a
good
in
order
to
conform
with
the
people
they
wish
to
be
associated
with
[…]
in
order
to
be
fashionable
or
stylish,
or
to
appear
to
be
‘one
of
the
boys’”
(Leibenstein,
1950:
189).
Belk
(2011)
goes
on
to
discuss
how
people
are
often
envious
because
they
don’t
quite
have
the
economic
power
to
“level
themselves
up”
and
so
outlines
a
number
of
strategies
one
could
undertake
in
order
to
overcome
the
envy.
These
include
buying
“Populuxe”
goods
(Hine,
1987),
which
are
made
from
cheaper
materials,
or
17. 13
“Opuluxe”
goods
(Twitchell,
2002:
63),
which
are
the
diffusion
lines
of
luxury
brands,
that
bring
their
brand
to
the
mass
market,
for
example
See
by
Chloé
and
the
Versace
range
at
H&M.
Consumers
could
also
forgo
necessities
by
trading-‐off
adequate
nutrition,
comfort
and
safety
for
the
status
and
prestige
they
desire
(Belk,
1999;
Ger,
1992).
However,
the
strategy
that
correlates
best
with
this
study
is
through
the
purchase
of
counterfeit
goods
or
“genuine
fakes”,
which
are
copies
of
such
good
quality,
that
they
are
almost
indistinguishable
from
the
real
branded
good
(Chadha
and
Husband,
2006:
269,
273).
Belk
(2011)
contends
that
in
buying
such
goods,
one
hopes
to
achieve
the
same
feeling
of
status
without
the
constraints
of
the
purchase
price
of
the
real
branded
good.
Conversely,
Chadha
and
Husband
(2006:
59-‐60)
propose
a
caveat
to
this
behaviour,
in
that
only
those
from
higher
socio-‐economic
backgrounds
can
pull
off
this
behaviour
without
being
questioned
“the
rich
can
buy
fakes
with
relative
impunity
as
people
assume
they
are
real,
but
the
not
so
rich
have
to
be
careful”.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
the
participants
in
this
study
will
be
required
to
identify
as
socio-‐
economic
backgrounds
A,
B,
and
C1,
or
middle
class
or
above.
2.3
The
Culture
of
Counterfeit
“Inside
Louis
Vuitton’s
sleek
flagship
store
on
New
York
City's
Fifth
Avenue,
customers
are
ogling
the
now
ubiquitous
Murakami
Speedy,
a
monogram
handbag
18. 14
that
sells
for
$1,500
and
is
carried
by
such
A-‐list
celebs
as
J.
Lo
and
Reese
Witherspoon.
Four
blocks
south,
the
same
bag
—
or
what
looks
like
it,
anyway
—
can
be
had
for
$35.”
(Betts,
2004).
According
to
the
International
Chamber
of
Commerce,
worldwide
counterfeit
trade
is
worth
an
estimated
$600
billion
per
year.
This
accounts
for
5-‐7%
of
world
trade
(ICC,
2014;
Yar,
2005).
Given
that
the
1988
estimate
was
$60
billion
(Grossman
and
Shapiro,
1988:
79),
this
represents
a
phenomenal
increase
of
an
estimated
900%
in
the
counterfeit
goods
trade
over
the
past
26
years,
which
is
expected
to
continue
growing
(Perez,
Castano
and
Quintanilla,
2010).
It
has
also
been
estimated
that
counterfeit
goods
account
for
22%
of
clothing
and
shoes
within
Europe,
a
statistic
that
has
not
been
helped
by
the
free
movement
of
goods
and
services
within
the
European
Economic
Area,
as
once
they
enter
the
market,
they
can
be
moved
freely
between
member
states
(Blakeney,
2009;
Wall
and
Large,
2010:
1097).
Looking
at
the
UK,
Ledbury
Research
(2006:
5)
estimated
that
in
2005,
6
million
people
or
12%
of
the
population
had
bought
a
branded
fake
luxury
item
and
48%
had
bought
a
look-‐a-‐like
item,
which
are
readily
available
to
shoppers
who
are
‘in
the
know’
(Aldridge,
2014).
This
rapid
growth
in
the
counterfeit
market
has
been
facilitated
by
an
increase
in
globalisation
and
advances
in
technology
over
the
past
few
decades
(Wall
and
Large,
2010:
1096).
With
no
indication
of
slowing
down,
it
is
becoming
a
huge
problem
for
governments
who
both
incur
cost
through
detection
and
lack
of
tax
income,
and
19. 15
businesses,
who
often
make
the
case
that
they
will
loose
both
sales
and
brand
reputation
(Commuri,
2009;
Hogan,
Dunn
and
Crutcher,
2013).
Defined
as
“any
unauthorized
manufacturing
of
goods
whose
special
characteristics
are
protected
as
intellectual
property
rights
(trademarks,
patents,
and
copyrights)”
(Cordell,
Wongtada
and
Kieschnick,
1996:
41).
This
definition
is
encompassing
of
all
types
of
counterfeit
activity
from
airplane
parts
and
pharmaceuticals
to
books
and
luxury
goods.
Wall
and
Large
(2010:
1098)
argue
that
a
distinction
should
be
made
between
goods
that
are
safety-‐critical,
such
as
airplane
parts
which
are
of
“immense
public
concern”
and
non-‐safety-‐critical
goods
such
as
luxury
fashion
items
due
to
the
“different
levels
and
combinations
of
public
and
private
interests
that
are
involved”
(1095).
Essentially,
policing
of
counterfeit
goods
should
concentrate
on
areas
where
the
dangers
are
most
apparent
i.e.
potential
loss
of
life
through
faulty
mechanics
or
drugs.
The
scope
of
the
counterfeit
definition
has
been
broadened
and
developed
upon
by
Lai
and
Zaichkowsky,
(1999)
and
Chaudhry
and
Zimmerman
(2008)
who
have
identified
different
ways
in
which
intellectual
property
rights
can
be
infringed:
counterfeiting,
piracy,
imitation
and
the
‘grey’
area.
Some
of
these
definitions
are
useful
in
my
research,
although
in
certain
aspects
of
the
definitions
can
be
contradictory
of
what
I
intend
to
use
them
for.
The
method
of
imitation
does
not
play
a
large
role
within
this
study,
as
these
brands
are
often
similar,
but
without
the
branding
to
marks
to
set
them
out
as
status
20. 16
symbols.
This
is
a
tactic
that
has,
in
the
past,
been
employed
by
high
street
shops,
such
as
Primark
(Veevers
and
Fortson,
2006)
in
their
bid
to
cash
in
quickly
on
current
trends.
However,
the
other
three
methods
all
play
a
role
within
this
study.
Lai
and
Zaichkowsky
define
counterfeit
as
a
“100%
direct
copy
which
usually
has
inferior
quality,
although
not
always”
(180).
These
are
often
luxury
or
status
goods
that
are
“goods
for
which
the
mere
use
or
display
of
a
particular
branded
product
confers
prestige
on
their
owners,
apart
from
any
utility
deriving
from
their
function”
(Grossman
and
Shapiro,
1988:
82).
Next,
the
authors
outline
piracy.
This
method
of
counterfeiting
is
similar
to
that
described
above,
but
the
customer
is
usually
aware
that
the
product
they
are
buying
is
genuine.
This
description
fits
much
more
closely
with
my
concept
of
counterfeit
of
luxury
brands.
However,
Lai
and
Zaichkowsky
go
on
to
explain
that
such
goods
are
generally
low
quality,
badly
packaged
and
low
price.
This
aspect
does
not
fit
with
the
concept
of
counterfeit
used
in
this
study,
as
the
luxury
goods
being
bought
by
participants
are,
in
general,
of
high
quality.
The
final
method
is
the
grey
area.
This
is
where
the
licensed
manufacturer
creates
additional
products
to
those
ordered,
selling
them
on,
on
the
black
market.
In
this
situation,
the
consumer
may
or
may
not
know
the
provenance
of
the
goods
they
are
buying,
and
so
unable
to
make
a
distinction.
This
links
to
the
concept
of
genuine
fakes,
as
described
by
Chadha
and
Husband
(2006).
21. 17
Whilst
these
descriptions
provide
an
excellent
basis
for
understanding
different
types
of
counterfeit
and
all
methods
have
sections
from
which
knowledge
can
be
taken,
none
concisely
fit
the
type
of
counterfeit
explored
in
this
study,
which
is
well
produced
luxury
counterfeit,
of
which
the
consumer
is
aware,
and
not
being
fooled.
Therefore
it
is
important
that
one
should
distinguish
that
counterfeit
products,
specifically
luxury
branded
goods
can
be
either
“deceptive”
where
the
producer
is
able
to
successfully
pass
the
product
off
as
genuine,
or
“non-‐deceptive”,
where
the
“consumer
knows
or
strongly
suspects
that
the
product
is
counterfeit”
(Grossman
and
Shapiro,
1988:
80;
Bloch,
Bush
and
Campbell,
1993).
The
majority
of
the
literature
concerning
the
counterfeit
goods
industry
lies
on
the
supply-‐side
of
the
problem.
Focussing
on
the
producers
of
such
goods
and
the
scope
and
extent
of
their
activity
(Green
and
Smith,
2002;
Chaudhry,
2006)
and
the
ability
of
different
countries
to
comply
with
and
enforce
international
Intellectual
Property
Rights
laws
such
as
the
Agreement
on
Trade
Related
Aspects
of
Intellectual
Property
Rights
(TRIPS)
(Chaudhry,
2006;
Correa,
2000:
103)
and
the
damage
they
are
undoubtedly
doing.
There
is
a
much
smaller,
but
growing,
body
of
work
concerning
the
demand
side
of
the
problem,
establishing
the
consumer
view,
especially
in
non-‐deceptive
situations.
Even
within
this
area
of
research
only
a
small
proportion
takes
an
impartial
view,
22. 18
allowing
the
possibility
that
perhaps
not
all
aspects
of
counterfeit
(within
the
luxury
segment)
are
bad
for
the
brand
in
the
long
term.
A
recent
report
by
Pricewaterhouse
Coopers
(2013)
with
over
1000
UK
based
participants
within
a
range
of
ages,
geographical
locations
and
socio-‐economic
backgrounds
found
that
whilst
96%
of
under
fifty-‐fives
thought
that
consumption
of
counterfeit
goods
was
morally
wrong,
40%
of
people
in
the
A,B,C1
socio-‐economic
demographic
admitted
to
sometimes
buying
counterfeit
clothing
and
accessories.
Showing
that
whilst
people
know
it
is
wrong,
they
will
make
such
purchases
–
even
if
they
have
the
ability
to
purchase
the
genuine
product.
This
is
consistent
with
the
findings
of
Prendergast
et.
al
(2002),
who,
in
profiling
consumers
of
counterfeit
branded
apparel,
found
that
the
most
prevalent
buyers
were
white
collar,
tertiary
educated,
25-‐34
year
olds.
Both
of
these
studies
would
support
the
view
that
consumers
often
think
of
counterfeiting
as
a
victimless
crime,
in
that
they
don’t
take
other
parties,
such
as
the
manufacturer
into
account
when
making
their
purchase
decision
(Tom
et
al.,
1998).
In
trying
to
understand
the
motives
and
experiences
of
buyers
of
counterfeit
luxury
goods
Renée
Richardson-‐Gosline
(2009)
followed
112
American
purse
party
attendees
over
a
two-‐year
longitudinal
study
(these
are
parties
similar
in
style
to
Tupperware
parties,
the
only
difference
is
the
products
for
sale
are
counterfeit
luxury
goods
rather
than
food
storage
solutions).
Over
the
course
of
the
study,
she
found
that
“46%
of
purse
party
attendees
bought
an
authentic
product
over
the
course
of
the
study”
(38).
This
finding
has
also
been
found
in
other
studies
Ledbury
23. 19
Research
(2006:
7)
found
that
of
those
people
who
bought
a
fake
luxury
good
item,
68%
also
bought
a
genuine
luxury
item.
This
is
much
higher
than
the
national
average
as
a
whole,
where
43%
of
people
bought
a
genuine
luxury
item.
Richardson-‐Gosline
(2009)
explored
how
the
consumers
felt
that
as
the
product
was
fake,
it
was
not
really
an
extension
of
the
self,
in
accordance
with
Belk’s
(1988)
paper.
Participants
often
admitted
to
others
that
the
product
they
are
carrying
is
actually
a
fake.
It
would
seem
that
there
is
perhaps
a
cognitive
dissonance
being
felt
(Festinger,
1957),
in
order
to
resolve,
the
consumers
first
admit
that
the
bag
is
not
authentic,
secondly,
in
order
to
retain
the
status,
they
progress
to
purchasing
an
authentic
version.
In
comparing
the
ownership
of
genuine
and
counterfeit
luxury
goods,
Turunen
and
Laaksonen
(2011)
found
that
genuine
and
counterfeit
luxury
goods
both
have
“social
and
personal
functions”
and
that
consumers
of
both
types
want
to
be
associated
with
certain
groups
of
people.
One
of
the
main
factors
of
differentiation
was
that,
while
genuine
and
counterfeit
goods
both
foster
feelings
of
attachment
to
a
brand,
with
the
counterfeit
goods,
there
is
a
lack
of
a
psychological
sense
of
authenticity,
which
is
“dependent
on
the
consumers
own
perception,
because
it
is
not
inherent
in
the
product”
(472).
Perhaps
it
is
due
to
this
lack
of
authenticity
that
firstly,
as
pointed
out
by
Richardson-‐
Gosline
(2009)
–
counterfeit
products
did
not
become
part
of
the
extended
self,
and
24. 20
secondly,
in
order
to
achieve
the
feeling
of
authenticity,
a
high
degree
of
counterfeit
consumers
also
consume
genuine
luxury.
It
is
here
that
we
see,
contrary
to
the
orthodox
anti-‐counterfeit
argument,
that
rather
than
lose
brand
sales,
counterfeit
can
actually
help
build
brand
awareness
and
foster
attachment
to
a
brand,
leading
to
consumers
purchasing
genuine
luxury
goods
(Whitwell,
2006).
It
would
also
seem
that
many
brands
are
cognizant
of
this
theory,
and
in
fact
do
not
involve
themselves
in
the
prosecution
of
manufacturers
of
counterfeit
goods
(Wall
and
Large,
2010:
1104;
Salmon,
2009).
2.4
Research
Question
In
conclusion
to
this
literature
review,
the
researcher
has
identified
a
number
of
key
topics
that
require
investigation,
in
order
to
be
understood
more
fully.
To
gain
a
deeper
understanding,
the
researcher
will
explore
the
topics
through
guided
and
semi-‐structured
interviews.
The
specific
topics
are:
1. The
extent
to
which
peer
groups
influence
or
pressure
consumers
into
to
making
particular
fashion
choices.
2. The
extent
to
which
envy
plays
a
role
in
the
consumption
of
branded
goods.
3. The
extent
to
which
consumers
perceive
fake
luxury
goods
to
be
different
to
real
luxury
goods.
4. The
extent
to
which
consumption
of
fake
luxury
goods
can
enduringly
satiate
the
feeling
of
wanting
to
own
a
luxury
item
(envy).
5. The
extent
to
which
the
perception
of
luxury
branded
goods
improved
by
consumption
of
fake
luxury
goods.
6. The
extent
to
which
consumption
of
fake
luxury
goods
increases
consumption
or
intention
to
consume
genuine
luxury
goods.
25. 21
It
is
hoped
that
through
exploring
these
topics
with
participants
through
a
semi-‐
structured
interview
technique,
the
researcher
will
be
able
to
answer
the
following
research
question:
Can
Consumption
of
Luxury
Counterfeit
Goods
Benefit
luxury
Brands
in
the
Long
Run?
The
next
stage
of
this
research
will
detail
the
research
methods
to
be
utilised
in
this
study,
including
the
research
strategy,
method
of
data
collection,
sample
selection,
method
of
analysing
the
results
and
the
role
of
the
researcher.
26. 22
3.
Methodology
The
research
undertaken
in
this
dissertation
has
been
designed
to
investigate
the
theme
of
consumption
of
counterfeit
goods
and
establish
whether
it
can
lead
to
purchase
and
use
of
genuine
luxury
goods.
This
has
been
done
utilising
an
interpretive
approach,
in
which
the
researcher
analysed
qualitative
one-‐on-‐one
interview
data,
through
Grounded
Theory,
a
“systematic,
yet
flexible
set
of
guidelines
for
analysing
qualitative
data
in
order
to
construct
theory
‘grounded’
in
the
data
themselves”
(Charmaz,
2006:
2).
A
qualitative
approach
was
taken
and
the
data
has
been
analysed
using
an
interpretivist
approach
(Burrell
and
Morgan,
1979),
as
the
researcher
aims
to
understand
the
perspective
of
the
participant’s
consumption
experiences
of
counterfeit
luxury
goods
‘as
it
is’,
by
exploring
their
own
subjective
experiences
and
feelings
(Burrell
and
Morgan,
1979;
Silverman,
2000).
Basing
the
dissertation
within
an
interpretivist
paradigm
was
deemed
to
be
necessary
because
the
aim
of
this
dissertation
is
to
the
understand
‘how’
and
‘why’
the
participants
behave
in
the
way
they
do,
rather
than
looking
the
‘where’
and
‘when’,
which
would
have
warranted
a
more
qualitative
approach
and
would
have
been
restrictive;
furthermore,
it
would
not
have
allowed
for
deeper
explorations
of
the
participants’
answers
(Silverman,
2000).
27. 23
The
study
presents
excerpts
from
interviews
carried
out
during
Summer
2014
with
ten
participants,
each
of
whom
were
recruited
through
the
researcher’s
personal
network.
The
participants
were
aged
between
22
and
40,
and
educated
to
a
minimum
of
a
bachelor’s
degree,
having
studied
for
at
least
one
of
their
degrees
within
the
British
Isles.
A
synopsis
of
the
participants
can
be
found
in
Table
1.
The
interviews
took
place
both
in
person,
and
via
Skype,
in
a
place
of
the
participant’s
choosing.
Due
to
the
potentially
sensitive
nature
of
the
questions
being
asked
in
the
interview,
all
participants
have
been
afforded
full
confidentiality,
with
pseudonyms
being
used
to
conceal
identities
where
appropriate.
Table
1:
Participant
Synopsis
Name
Age
Who
are
they?
Peter
22
A
British,
final-‐year
undergraduate
student,
who
spent
a
year
in
China
for
his
study
abroad
programme
Jenny
26
An
American
graduate
student.
Currently
completing
her
degree
in
the
UK,
this
is
the
furthest
and
longest
time
she
has
been
away
from
home.
Kate
26
Currently
living
in
London,
although
originally
from
Ireland,
she
is
currently
working
in
retail,
whilst
she
finds
the
‘perfect
job’.
Sue
24
An
Irish
graduate
student,
currently
completing
her
masters
degree
part-‐time,
in
order
that
she
can
work
and
study.
Rae
24
A
Chinese
graduate
student,
based
at
a
British
University.
Ali
27
A
recent
graduate
from
Greece.
She
completed
a
degree
in
international
relations
and
now
lives
in
Geneva.
She
didn’t
like
working
in
her
‘chosen’
field,
but
she
does
enjoy
the
international
atmosphere
in
Geneva,
and
so
now
works
in
events.
Kay
25
An
Irish-‐American
student.
Currently
working
as
an
Intern,
she
will
be
returning
to
her
graduate
studies
in
Ireland
next
year.
Jane
40
A
Consultant
Paediatrician
and
mother
of
two
boys
under
Five.
Jess
26
A
British
primary
school
teacher,
who
has
just
completed
her
year
with
‘newly
qualified
teacher’
status.
Milly
24
A
German
graduate
student,
based
at
a
British
university.
She
is
anxious
to
finish
her
degree
and
find
a
‘real’
job.
The
participants
were
interviewed
using
a
guided
and
semi
structured
interview
technique
(Eriksson
and
Kovalainen,
2008;
Longhurst,
2010),
in
order
to
establish
a
28. 24
conversation
driven
by
a
common
purpose
(Eyles,
1988).
Such
a
method
was
utilised
because
it
provides
an
“opportunity
for
the
researcher
to
probe
(the
interviewee)
deeply,
in
order
to
uncover
new
clues,
open
up
new
dimensions
of
a
problem
and
to
secure
vivid,
accurate
inclusive
accounts
that
are
based
on
personal
experience”
(Burgess,
1982:
107).
The
participants
were
interviewed
individually
in
a
private
setting
or
via
Skype,
with
sessions
lasting
from
35
minutes
to
an
hour.
In
order
to
successfully
interview
participants
an
interview
schedule
was
created
using
the
research
topics
identified
through
the
literature
review
and
documented
at
the
end
of
that
chapter.
For
each
research
topic,
a
question
guide
was
compiled
which
included
main
questions,
sub
questions
and
possible
topic
question
prompts,
which
can
be
found
in
Appendix
1.
The
schedule
was
created
in
a
way
that
allowed
the
questions
to
be
asked
in
multiple
different
ways,
tailored
to
the
individual
participant
and
their
style
of
answering
(Easterby-‐Smith,
Thorpe
and
Jackson,
2008).
The
interviewer
guided
the
conversation,
but
the
interviewee
was
able
to
reply
relatively
freely,
giving
their
personal
opinion
about
the
topics
being
questioned
(Bryman
and
Bell,
2011;
Briggs,
1986).
This
method
allowed
the
interviewer
the
scope
to
“not
follow
an
exactly
outlined
schedule”
and
“ask
further
questions
in
response
to
significant
replies”
(Bryman
and
Bell,
2011:
467,
205)
in
order
to
fully
understand
the
participant’s
meaning.
29. 25
The
interviews
were
all
recorded
and
transcribed
verbatim,
in
order
that
they
could
be
accurately
analysed
using
grounded
theory.
Grounded
theory
methodology
was
founded
by
Glaser
and
Strauss
(1967).
The
methodology
is
used
for
the
“development
of
a
well
integrated
set
of
concepts
which
provide
a
theoretical
explanation
of
the
social
phenomena
being
studied”
(Glaser
and
Strauss,
1990).
The
approach
allows
for
theories
of
patterns
to
emerge
from
the
data
presented,
rather
than
testing
pre-‐existing
hypothesis.
Grounded
theory
has
been
chosen
as
the
tool
by
which
the
data
will
be
analysed
because,
whilst
it
has
been
found
that
consumers
of
fake
luxury
often
migrate
to
consumption
of
genuine
luxury
(Richardson-‐Gosline,
2009),
there
is
insufficient
research
that
aims
to
appreciate
the
underlying
reasons
that
cause
this
phenomenon
to
occur.
Following
a
split
between
Glaser
and
Strauss
regarding
the
correct
approach
to
grounded
theory
methodology,
there
has
been
controversy
regarding
the
model,
and
what
the
correct
process
should
actually
entail
(Charmaz,
2000).
A
comparison
of
the
key
differences
as
described
by
Onions
(2006),
can
be
found
in
Appendix
2.
After
careful
consideration
of
the
different
methods,
the
research
described
in
this
paper
has
adopted
the
Straussian
methodology.
This
method
was
selected
in
favour
of
the
Glaserian
method
because
it
allows
the
researcher
to
start
with
a
‘general
idea’
in
order
to
guide
the
interviews,
and
a
more
structured
coding
technique,
were
deemed
to
be
of
importance
due
to
constraints
in
time
and
resources.
30. 26
3.1
Limitations
of
the
Methodology
Due
to
the
constraints
of
time,
money
and
manpower,
the
size
of
this
sample
in
this
study
is
small,
predominantly
female
and
all
belong
to
the
researchers
personal
network.
Therefore,
this
is
not
a
representative
sample,
and
so
does
not
have
external
validity
(Denzin
and
Lincoln,
1994).
Consequently
the
results
identified
cannot
be
extrapolated
to
the
general
population.
However,
this
is
an
issue
that
would
primarily
affect
research
in
which
cause
and
effect
relationships
need
to
be
established.
But
a
further
issue
with
small
samples
with
regard
to
grounded
theory
is
the
ability
to
reach
saturation.
Whilst
the
data
collected
would
suggest
that
saturation
was
reached,
this
would
have
been
more
easily
confirmed
with
a
larger
selection
of
participants.
The
research
has
taken
care
that
all
participants
be
interviewed
either
in
a
place
of
their
choosing,
interviews
are
an
unnatural
activity
that
doesn’t
form
part
of
the
participant’s
normal
routine.
The
participants
may
therefore
display
demand
characteristics
whereby
they
either
consciously
or
unconsciously
change
their
behaviour
and
answers
to
fit
with
what
they
think
the
interviewer
wants
to
hear
(Orne,
2009).
“The
aim
of
depth
interviews
is
to
uncover
the
meanings
and
interpretations
that
people
attach
to
events
(or
in
this
case
objects).
It
follows
that
there
is
no
one
‘objective’
view
to
be
discovered
which
the
process
of
interviewing
may
bias.
However
there
is
a
very
real
concern
about
interviewers
imposing
their
own
reference
frame
on
the
interviewee,
both
when
the
questions
are
asked
and
in
the
interpretation
of
the
answers”
(Easterby-‐Smith,
Thorpe
and
Jackson,
2008:
147)
31. 27
Following
the
interviews
a
further
problem
can
come
in
the
transcription
quality.
According
to
Poland
(2002),
This
is
an
essential
element
of
the
process,
and
the
ramifications,
if
not
done
correctly,
can
cause
differences
in
interpretation
of
the
data
when
being
analysed
and
coded
for
the
grounded
theory
analysis.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
the
transcription
will
be
verbatim,
including
pauses
in
speech,
slang
and
colloquial
uses
of
language.
A
further
problem
can
arise
in
the
researcher’s
analysis
and
coding
of
the
transcripts.
This
is
a
process
that
is
highly
reliant
on
the
researcher’s
interpretation
of
the
data,
and
the
analysis
that
is
made
can
be
deemed
to
be
highly
subjective
(Charmaz,
2006).
Therefore,
it
is
deemed
by
the
researcher
to
be
essential
that
all
interviews,
transcription,
coding
and
analysis
are
done
by
the
same
person,
to
ensure
that
the
interpretation
is
true
to
the
participants
meaning.
However,
this
comes
with
problems
too,
in
that
it
can
be
difficult
to
detect
researcher
induced
bias.
This
is
a
difficult
issue
to
counteract,
and
so
it
is
important
that
in
carrying
out
the
study,
the
researcher
is
cognizant
of
these
issues
and
works
in
a
reflexive
manner,
in
order
to
be
aware
of
their
own
biases
and
limit
them
as
far
as
possible.
32. 28
4.
Findings
and
Discussion
Following
the
literature
review,
the
researcher
identified
six
key
themes
that
warranted
further
investigation.
Here
the
findings
are
grouped
by
those
themes,
which
can
be
found
on
page
20.
4.1
Theme
1
–
The
extent
to
which
peer
groups
and
reference
groups
influence
consumers
into
making
particular
fashion
choices.
In
order
to
understand
why
people
might
be
interested
in
buying
fake
luxury
goods,
it
is
first
important
to
understand
why
they
have
an
interest
in
luxury
brands
in
the
first
place,
and
to
find
out
how
these
interests
are
formed.
By
analysing
the
interview
transcripts
for
who
and
what
influenced
the
participants
opinion
of
fashion
brands
and
the
style
choices
they
make,
it
transpired
that
there
were
a
number
of
different
factors
that
participants
viewed
as
being
a
source
of
inspiration
to
their
own
fashion
and
style
choices.
Through
coding,
these
sources
of
inspiration
have
been
arranged
into
two
types
of
influence,
firstly,
the
accessible
influences,
such
as
friends
and
people
in
general.
Such
influences
were
deemed
to
be
accessible
in
a
physical
sense,
in
that
they
can
be
viewed
in
person,
and
a
monetary
sense,
in
that
the
influences
were
often
easily
attainable
with
regards
to
cost.
The
second
category
is
the
inaccessible
influences
such
as
magazines
and
TV
shows.
The
magazines
and
TV
shows
were
deemed
to
be
more
inaccessible,
both
because
of
a
physical
distance,
in
that
featured
trends
and
items
could
not
be
touched,
and
with
a
monetary
difference,
as
many
of
the
33. 29
participants
inferred
that
such
goods
were
out
of
their
current
price
range.
Within
the
interviews,
most
participants
described
various
influences
in
both
categories.
When
asked
who
or
what
influenced
her
style,
Jane,
a
professional
mother
of
two
replied:
Jane.
What
would
influence
my
choices,
hmm,
I
suppose…
seeing
things
in
magazines,
or
seeing
other
people,
you
know,
you
just
spot
them
on
the
street.
Yeah
probably
magazines
really,
or
possibly
celebrities…
things
like
that.
If
you
see
them
carrying
a
bag
or
wearing
something
nice,
it
intrigues
you…
you
wonder
where
they
got
it.
Here
Jane
acknowledges
both
accessible
and
inaccessible
influences.
However,
the
inaccessible
influence
is
dominant
in
her
answer.
An
alternative
view
was
given
by
Milly,
a
graduate
student,
who
again,
references
both
accessible
and
inaccessible
influences,
but
the
emphasis
in
this
case
is
on
the
accessible
influences.
Milly.
The
people
who
surround
me,
kind
of
like,
influence
me.
I
mean,
it
doesn’t
necessarily
mean
that
I
want
the
exact
things
that
I
see
people
wear,
but
it
kind
of
like…
yeah
it’s
just
it
influences
you.
I
would
say
the
most
influential
is
has
got
to
be
someone…
hmm,
you
know,
well
maybe,
I
would
say
my
friends.
Actually
my
friends,
because,
I…
in
particular
look
at
them
and
kind
of
like
notice
whether
they
change
their
style,
or
not.
So
this
influences
me.
Yeah,
the
surrounding
people
at
school,
at
home
or
my
friends.
[…]
But
yeah,
it
can
be
everything
and
anything.
It
can
be
online,
like
on
Facebook,
or
I
don’t
know…
in
an
online
shop.
It
can
also
be
in
a
magazine,
so
there’s
a
lot
of
variety.
Both
Jane
and
Milly
referenced
sources
of
inspiration
that
are
both
accessible
and
inaccessible.
However
the
emphasis
in
each
case
was
different,
an
occurrence
that
was
representative
of
the
participants
in
the
study.
Where
Jane
was
highly
influenced
by
the
inaccessible
celebrities
in
the
magazines,
Milly
spoke
about
how
34. 30
her
friends
were
her
major
influence,
noting
that
whilst
she
would
take
notice
of
and
be
inspired
by
her
friends,
she
wouldn’t
want
to
outright
copy
them.
With
reference
to
accessible
influences,
it
became
clear
in
discussion
with
the
participants,
that
where
they
say
friends
or
peers
influence
them,
this
is
not
combined
to
create
one
homogeneous
style.
In
fact
participants
would
alter
their
appearance
for
different
groups
of
people,
depending
on
how
they
fit
into
their
lives.
The
participants
would
present
multiple
‘faces’,
often
noting
differences
between
their
‘work
self’
and
‘home
self’.
Peter.
Yeah,
definitely,
well
when
I’m
at
university,
err,
it’s
a
lot
more
casual
wear.
But
when
I
had
a
recent
internship,
err,
the
dress
code
for
that
was
smart
casual,
or
like
business
casual,
you
know?
[…]Like
a
good
shirt,
some
nice
trousers
or
chinos.
It’s
sort
of
a
smart,
but
not
too
smart,
erm,
and
also
it
was,
it
looked,
well
what
I
thought
looked
good.
But
interestingly,
many
also
noted
adaptations
between
the
different
groups
to
which
they
were
members
in
their
‘home’
life.
Kay.
I
just
think
because
most
people
want
to
fit
in…
like
where
I
grew
up,
in
North
Carolina,
people…
most
of
my
friends
were
wearing
really
nice,
or
well,
like
more
expensive
clothes…
like
J.Crewe,
and
Seven
Jeans
and
Juicy
Couture,
so
I
would
wear
that
too.
And
like
here,
in
Ireland,
most
of
my
friends
will
have
like
have
stuff
from
Primark
and
Dunns,
so
that’s
where
I
get
most
of
my
clothes
from
now.
But
I
think
that
I
do
actually
just
kind
of,
I
wear
the
brands
that
my
friends
like
to
wear.
Like,
whether
that’s
expensive,
like
my
friends
at
home,
or
not.
35. 31
Through
the
process
of
interviewing,
it
became
clear
that
reference
groups,
both
accessible
and
inaccessible,
played
a
large
role
in
influencing
the
fashion
choices
of
the
participants,
showing
that
people
feel
the
need
to
conform
and
fit
in
(Leibenstein,
1950).
36. 32
4.2
Theme
2
-‐
The
extent
to
which
envy
plays
a
role
in
the
consumption
of
branded
goods.
In
undertaking
the
research,
the
participants,
were
asked
how
they
felt
if
other
people
had
an
item
of
apparel
that
was
new
or
better
than
the
items
they
currently
owned.
It
was
important
for
the
researcher
to
gain
an
understanding
of
the
participant’s
feelings
in
this
situation,
as
it
was
felt
that
such
conditions
could
be
a
precursor
to
their
buying
of
fake
goods.
In
attempting
to
understand
the
deeper
feelings
experienced
by
the
participants,
the
researcher
is
provided
with
an
insight
into
one
possible
aspect
of
why
people
resort
to
buying
fake
goods.
Throughout
the
interview
process,
variations
of
the
emotion
of
envy
were
commonly
expressed
when
thinking
about
coming
into
contact
with
people
who
had
better
apparel
than
they
currently
owned.
However,
it
became
apparent
through
analysis
of
the
text
that
the
feelings
being
described
were
much
more
akin
to
the
definition
of
benign
envy.
According
to
Belk
(2011:
124),
benign
envy
is:
“A
consumer
envy,
which
is
characterised
in
its
distinction
from
‘envy
proper’
because
it
lacks
a
sufficiently
malicious
nature.
Rather
than
being
motivated
by
a
desire
to
cause
the
other
person
to
loose
their
possessions,
benign
envy
inspires
the
envier
to
purchase
the
equivalent
of
the
same
possession
[…]
in
order
to
level
themselves
up”.
37. 33
Kate,
an
Irish
graduate
student,
studying
in
the
UK,
expressed
this
concept
most
succinctly.
When
asked
in
her
interview
to
elaborate
on
her
feelings
of
envy,
she
replied:
Kate.
Well,
I
just
think…
going
back
to
those
couple
of
items,
it’s
like,
when
you
really
want
something,
it’s
like
you’re
jealous,
but
it’s
not
quite
as
strong
or
like…
mean
as
the
generally
used
word.
It’s
like…
I
don’t
want
to
take
it
off
someone;
I
just
want
to
have
my
own
version
of
it.
I
guess
it’s
like
a
mild
jealousy,
is
how
I’d
describe
it.
I
mean
it’s
not
the
errm…
if
I
can’t
have
it…
it’s
not
like
I
wish
that
my
friends
can’t
have
it
either,
it’s
just
that
I’d
like
one
for
myself.
Through
analysis
of
the
transcripts,
it
became
clear
that
this
feeling
of
benign
envy
led
the
participants
on
to
one
of
two
courses
of
action.
The
first
course
of
action
led
to
an
act,
which
through
coding
became
known
as
‘the
product
buy-‐in’.
In
this
case,
the
participants
would,
within
a
relatively
short
period
of
time
after
feeling
the
benign
envy,
find
a
way
to
purchase
the
item
in
order
to
satiate
the
feeling
of
envy.
Kay.
Yeah,
I
probably
felt
envy,
because
then
once
I
realised
how
expensive
Lulu
Lemon
is,
I
was
kind
of
like
bummed,
like
‘oh
my
gosh…
I
can’t
afford
that’.
[…]
I
was
envious
of
the
people
who
had
the
brand
initially,
until
I
bought
into
it,
and
I
belonged
to
it.
Because
now
I’m
like,
really
familiar
with
the
brand,
and
it’s
not
like,
I
see
it,
and
I
don’t
feel
envy
as
such,
because
I
don’t
see
it
as
a
group
I
don’t
belong
to.
It’s
something
that
I’ve
like
‘claimed’,
I
think
because,
there’s
a
Lulu
Lemon
shop
in
the
city
where
I’m
from,
and
I
always
go
in
there
when
I’m
home.
And
I
don’t,
I
don’t
buy
much,
errm,
but
I
just
feel,
I
take
ownership
of
the
brand.
And
because
it’s
38. 34
American,
when
I
see
other
people
wearing
it
here,
I
feel
like,
pride,
because
that’s
like
my
brand
and
like
country.
But
yeah,
when
it
first
came
out,
I
think
I
was
a
bit,
yeah,
probably
envious,
yeah.
However,
if
they
took
the
second
course
of
action
the
participants
were
either
forced
to
or
felt
strongly
that
they
should
put
off
buying
the
product
that
caused
them
to
feel
envious.
The
participants
involved
in
the
study
were
predominantly
current
students
or
recent
graduates
with
very
little
disposable
income
available
in
order
to
easily
afford
such
products.
A
recurring
theme
emerged
in
this
situation,
whereby
participants
felt
that
they
should
put
off
such
purchases
of
genuine
luxury
goods
until
they
had
better
finances
in
place.
Peter.
One
of
my
friends
in
Geneva,
he’s
got
a
nice
Bulgari…
real
Bulgari
watch,
it’s
really
nice.
I
think
it’s
something
I’d
aspire
to
have
in
the
future,
but
at
the
moment,
I
don’t.
Researcher.
So
you
want
to
buy
something
like
that
in
the
future?
Peter.
Yeah,
I
would
want
it,
but
it’s
not
something
at
the
moment
that
need
to
have.
I’d
rather
spend
that
much
money
on
other
things,
where
I
can
get
more
for
my
money.
Like,
in
terms
of
clothing,
I
could
get
like,
five
shirts
in
Zara,
for
like
the
price
of
one
designer
shirt,
you
know?
[…]
Sometimes,
if
I’ve
bought
a
genuine
(luxury)
item,
there
is
a
bit
of
guilt
in
the
back
of
my
mind.
I
think…
well,
what
else
could
I
have
spent
that
money
on?
From
this
one
thing,
I
could
have
spent
it
on
something
different,
or
because
it’s
obviously
a
lot
more
expensive,
I
could
have
got,
like
potentially
a
lot
more
for
my
money.
Researcher.
So
do
you
ever
wish
that
you
had
items
that
you
see
other
people
have?
39. 35
Peter.
Yeah,
definitely,
but
at
this
current
time,
I
don’t
have
the
funds,
to
buy
them;
I
don’t
have
that
kind
of
money
to
spend
on
one
specific
item.
I’d
rather
spread
that
money
amongst
a
range
of
cheaper
items
that
I
can
afford.
When
talking
to
Peter,
a
current
student
with
little
disposable
income,
the
thought
of
buying
a
genuine
luxury
item
at
its
recommended
retail
price
induced
feelings
of
guilt
or
shame.
Due
to
current
lack
of
disposable
income,
it
would
mean
giving
up
other
‘essential’
items.
It
was
this
lack
of
disposable
income
that
led
Peter
and
many
of
the
other
participants
to
try
‘fake
luxury’.
A
phenomenon
that
seemed
to
occur
most
often
when
the
participants
were
on
holiday.
Perhaps
being
abroad,
the
participants
held
themselves
to
a
different,
personal,
moral
code
of
conduct.
In
Peter’s
case,
he
spent
a
year
studying
in
China,
where
the
availability,
ease
and
temptation
to
buy
such
goods
was
extremely
high.
