Journal of Consumer MarketingA Matter of Love: Consumers´ Relationships with Original Brands and Their Counterfeits:Raquel Castaño Maria Eugenia Perez

Article information:To cite this document:Raquel Castaño Maria Eugenia Perez , (2014),"A Matter of Love: Consumers´ Relationships with Original Brands and TheirCounterfeits", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 6/7 pp. -Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JCM-05-2014-0970

Downloaded on: 08 November 2014, At: 22:27 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 69 times since 2014*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Marc Fetscherin, Dipayan Biswas, (2014),"What Type of Relationship Do We Have With Loved Brands?", Journal ofConsumer Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 6/7 pp. -Gail Taylor, Shuk#Ching Liu, Tsan#Ming Choi, (2009),"Consumer attitudes towards brand extensions of designer#labels andmass#market labels in Hong Kong", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Iss 4pp. 527-540Rajagopal, (2006),"Brand excellence: measuring the impact of advertising and brand personality on buying decisions",Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 10 Iss 3 pp. 56-65

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 549136 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio ofmore than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

A Matter of Love: Consumers´ Relationships with Original Brands and Their

Counterfeits

1 Introduction

Although the reports on the magnitude of global counterfeit trade tend to be

numerous and are characterized by a lack of updated data and sound methodology, the

economic global impact of counterfeit items is undeniable (Staake et al., 2009). The most

often cited study, provided by the OECD, estimates that global sales of counterfeit products

represent up to 5-7 percent of all world trade (Kent, 2011).

For manufacturers of original products, loss of sales is not the only consequence of

counterfeiting; it can also harm their brands’ reputation (Wilcox et al., 2009). For

consumers, unwittingly buying counterfeits means receiving poor-quality goods for the

value they associate with the original (Gratz, 2003). In contrast, consumers may

deliberately choose to purchase counterfeit products and, according to Ang et al. (2001),

become “willing collaborators” (p.219).

The present study empirically shows that consumers who voluntarily consume both

original and counterfeit luxury goods transfer the symbolic personality traits of the original

brand to their counterfeit. Results also show that consumers experience significantly higher

coincidence between their personality traits and those of the original brand and also

experience stronger overlap between their overall self-concept and the original brand´s

concept than with the counterfeit´s. Finally, confirming the conclusion by Aaron et al.

(1995) that love is the merging of the lover and beloved, consumers express stronger love

for the original brands than for their counterfeits.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

The present research makes contributions to the extant literature on several

frontiers: First, whereas previous research on counterfeits has explored why and how

consumers choose counterfeits instead of original brands, we went further to show

empirically that the symbolic attributes of luxury brands are transferred to their

counterfeits. Second, this investigation provides new insights into the different

relationships consumers form with luxury brands and their counterfeits. Consuming

branded counterfeit products makes consumers experience contradictory feelings;

externally, counterfeits allow them to represent the image of a wealthy consumer, but our

results showed that, internally, consumers perceive that they overlap significantly less with

the counterfeit than with the original brand. Finally, our research makes a theoretical

contribution to the brand relationship literature by applying the self-expansion model

originally proposed by Aron and Aron (1986) to the explanation of consumer brand

relationships with original brands and their counterfeits, thus showing that love underlies

the relationship with the original brand, but not with the counterfeit.

The motivation to conduct this research also relies on its value regarding the

subjects of brand management and marketing strategy. Our findings evidence the

perceptions of consumers who buy both originals and illegal copies regarding

counterfeiting. This serious worldwide menace is today stealing a considerable percentage

of international legal commerce and has the potential to erode brand equity. By helping to

understand how consumers develop close relationships with brands, we expect to contribute

to the generation of successful marketing strategies to counteract counterfeiting. Brand

managers should emphasize the authenticity and uniqueness of the luxury brand in all of the

brand’s components, focusing on distribution and communication in order to build the

brand. These activities should evidence counterfeits´ inability to care for a long-term

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

relationship. We would like to express that, when consumers perceive that a brand’s

personality traits coincide with their own, they develop a powerful connection with the

brand, one which can evolve into an enduring relationship of satisfaction and love

contributing to the construction of brand equity.

2. Conceptual Background and Hypotheses

2. 1 The Relevance of Brands

The use of brands to identify and differentiate products and services has benefited

both providers and consumers for a long time. When specific names and logos are

permanently associated with goods of a certain level of attributes and functions,

accountability is the result. Chevron concluded that “A brand is a covenant with the

consumer” (2001, p.28). According to Aaker (1997), brands may project definite

personality qualities, and consumers perceive and respond to these personality traits and

develop relationships with brands, making them a part of their lives (Fournier, 1998). In

doing so, consumers play an active role in building and keeping alive the relationship and

are considered as active co-producers of brand meanings. Through the use of imagery,

consumers tend to associate certain brands with certain types of people, in certain use

situations, and to identify with or disengage themselves from them. This supports

Kapferer’s conceptualization of brands as the essence and meaning of products defining

their identity (1992). Today, brands have become a way of life.

2.2 Perceived Brand Personality of Originals (and Their Counterfeits)

Consumers wanting to identify with the halo associated with status might acquire

prestige brands. According to Goffman (1959), people perform as actors in front of others.

Deighton (1992) exemplified this concept when he wrote, “Consumers may use products as

props, for example, when they buy particular brands to mark social status or self-concept”

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

(p. 367). Regardless of their economic status, consumers may feel attracted to luxury

goods, but many consumers do not have the financial means to buy them. For these

consumers, counterfeits might be a solution. Most research that has sought to understand

why consumers purchase counterfeits has focused on variables such as the socio-cultural

characteristics that facilitate counterfeiting (Bloch et al., 1993; Gentry et al., 2006; Nia &

Zaichkowsky, 2000; Wee et al., 1995) and the motivations behind deliberately consuming

counterfeits (Gentry et al., 2001; Perez et al., 2010; Wee et al., 1995; Wilke & Zaichowsky,

1999). However, little research has considered the underlying branding aspects of

counterfeiting, despite the fact that the decision to buy counterfeit luxury goods both

represents a product choice decision and implies a brand decision (Eisend & Schuchert-

Güler, 2006). An exception is a study by Bian and Moutinho (2011), who examined the

impact of perceived brand image on consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeits. These

authors found that perceived brand personality plays a more dominant role than other

influential factors, such as product attributes and benefits, in explaining consumers’

intention to purchase counterfeits. The brand personality factor is significant because it

enables a consumer to express him- or herself (Aaker, 1999; Hem & Iversen, 2002).

The trait approach to personality is one of the major theoretical areas in the study of

personality. A trait is defined as any distinguishing, relatively enduring aspect in which one

individual differs from another (Guilford, 1959). As Allport (1937) explained, traits result

in consistent and individual forms of behavior. According to Kapferer (2003), the

identification of traits has enabled researchers to develop further the theory of personality

by allowing the construction of personality scales. It has also been shown that consumers

attribute various descriptive human personality-like traits to different brands in a wide

variety of product categories, as was initially suggested by Aaker (1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

The present study aims to extend previous work by proposing that, when consumers

purchase counterfeit products, the symbolic personality traits of the original brand are to a

great extent transferred to the counterfeit. For example, if a luxury brand has created

through marketing efforts a personality for itself defined as “exciting and sophisticated”

and a consumer familiar with this personality buys the brand´s counterfeit, we propose that

these symbolic benefits of excitement and sophistication would also be transferred to the

counterfeit. Following Goffman’s (1959) theory of self-presentation, we propose that

consumers transfer the symbolic benefits of the original brand to the counterfeit in order to

maintain and construct their social self-image. Following this logic, we hypothesize that:

H1. Consumers who buy original luxury brands and their counterfeits transfer their

perception of the symbolic personality traits of the original to the counterfeit.

Consumers of counterfeit luxury goods, however, know that they are not displaying

originals. Nia and Zaichkowsky (2000) found that the ubiquitous existence of counterfeits

does not decrease the brand value of original luxury brands among buyers of counterfeits.

Recently, Gino et al. (2010) showed that, although people buy counterfeit products to signal

positive traits, wearing counterfeit products makes individuals feel cheap and less

authentic. With this in mind, the next section addresses, from a brand relationship

perspective, the difference in the way consumers include original brands versus counterfeits

in their sense of self.

2.3 Consumer Relationships with Brands (and Their Counterfeits)

Previous research has addressed the fundamental questions of why and how

consumers form ongoing relationships with brands (e.g., Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004;

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Escalas & Bettman, 2005; Fournier, 1998). This work suggests

that at the core of all close brand relationships is an affective basis grounded in the concept

of love. Following this idea, we draw on the self-expansion model, a conceptual framework

originally proposed by Aron and Aron (1986), that describes how people think, feel, and act

in the context of close relationships. Much like in a relationship between people, the

relationships consumers form with brands are driven mainly by the desire to grow and

progress. The key sources of growth and expansion are derived from including some of the

qualities and characteristics of their brands in the self. The present work considers the self-

expansion model to identify how consumers incorporate original brands and their

counterfeits into their sense of self.

The self-expansion model suggests that, in a close relationship, the self’s structure

changes in such a way as to include the other in its very essence (Aron et al., 1991). One

way to examine this idea focuses on individuals’ patterns of response latencies when

making trait-related me/not-me decisions regarding traits previously rated for their

descriptiveness of self and of a close other. Across multiple studies, traits on which the self

matches a close partner, me/not-me responses are made more quickly than when a trait was

mismatched between self and partner (i.e., true for one but false for the other) (Aron et al.,

1991; Aron & Fraley, 1999; Smith et al., 1999). When including a close other’s identity in

the self, people may easily confuse their own personality traits with those of the other.

Research has shown that consumers seek to depict themselves through their brand

choices and tend to approach products with images that enhance their self-concept (Govers

& Schoormans, 2005); they also attempt to describe themselves through the personality

traits associated with prestige brands. But when counterfeits enter the equation, conclusions

become less definite; on one side, Nia & Zaichkowsky (2000) revealed that buyers of

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

counterfeits recognize that originals have a much higher quality than counterfeits, and

Perez et al. (2010) showed that consumers do not have the same feelings about counterfeits

as they do about original products. On the other side, Penz and Stottinger (2008) reported

that consumers’ perceptions of the quality and durability of both counterfeits and originals

were comparable, and Gentry et al. (2006) argued that, as the quality of counterfeits

increased, consumers had more problems distinguishing which was the original and which

was the counterfeit. Therefore, research among consumers who buy both originals and their

counterfeits is needed; its findings will go further than what has been previously found.

A variety of studies (Aron et al.,1991; Mashek et al.,2003) have confirmed the idea

suggested by the self-expansion model that individuals tend to assimilate the traits and

characteristics of the loved partner into their conceptualization of themselves. In other

words, the other’s resources are perceived as one’s own.

In the context of brand relationships, particularly trying to explain how consumers

include original brands and their counterfeits in their self-image, we posit that consumers

assimilate the symbolic traits and characteristics of the counterfeit branded products to a

much lesser degree than the symbolic characteristics and traits of the original brand,

experiencing lesser overlap of themselves as a person with the counterfeit. Internally,

consumers of counterfeit goods will always know that these products are not the originals.

Consuming counterfeits causes consumers to experience contradictory feelings (Ahuvia,

2005). Externally, counterfeits allow them to represent the image of a wealthy consumer.

Internally, however, consumers do not feel the same extent of attachment to the counterfeit

product (Perez et al., 2010). Thus, it seems that the consumers’ relationship with the

original brand plays a deeper emotional role in their understanding of who they are as

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

people than does their relationship with the counterfeit, which instead is rooted mainly in

convenience and social purposes.

On the basis of these arguments, we hypothesize the following:

H2a. Consumers perceive a stronger overlap between their overall self-concept and

the concept of the original brand than with the counterfeit´s concept.

H2b. Consumers perceive a higher degree of coincidence between their personality

traits and the personality traits of the original brand than between their personality

traits and the counterfeit´s traits.

The self-expansion model originally proposed by Aron and Aron (1986) integrates

views on the evolution of the self and the nature of love, with work on motivation and

cognition. Aron and Aron (1995) state that, although love encompasses emotions, it is

fundamentally motivational, since when people love, they are seeking an infinitely

expanding self. A major line of work developed from this model has focused on a predicted

increase in satisfaction in long-term relationships from joint participation in self-expanding

activities. In this research, we drew upon the self- expansion model to show how the

underlying mechanism of love differs in the relationship consumers have with original

brands versus the relationship consumers have with their counterfeits.

Brand love is a concept that appraises a satisfied consumer. It refers to the degree of

passionate, emotional attachment for a particular brand and is usually higher for hedonic

brands than for utilitarian brands. Brand love is linked to high levels of loyalty and positive

word of mouth (Carroll and Ahuvia 2006), and it is selective: among a vast number of

products or bands, very few are loved. These loved brands get to play a special role in

consumers’ understandings of who they are as people (Ahuvia, 2005). We propose that,

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

while consumers use both the original brand and its counterfeit to express themselves

socially, when they fall in love, it will be with an original brand. Thus, we hypothesize the

following:

H3: Consumers experience significantly higher levels of brand love for original

brands than for their counterfeits.

3. Methodology

We conducted four studies with different samples in México, a country where

numerous exclusive stores selling international luxury brands coexist with branded

counterfeits that are frequently encountered in street markets, small shops, and personal

selling ventures. As a filter to choose participants, we established as a requirement that they

should own or have owned for a minimum period of six months an original luxury-branded

product (e.g., handbag, sunglasses, shoes, watch) as well as a counterfeit of that brand. The

study required that participants have enough means to buy an original luxury brand, thus

delimitating their status to the highest economic strata (A/B) in Mexico. This segment

represents 6.8% of the country’s population (AMAI, 2013). We strived to have a broad

spectrum of participants with respect to other demographic characteristics; therefore, our

samples included women and men, ages 16 to 73, including students and non-students.

Obtaining an adequate number of participants that satisfy our requirements and

were willing to participate in the research was not an easy task; therefore, we used

convenience samples. We attained the respondents for the studies in two ways: We began

by identifying personal acquaintances who satisfied our sample characteristics, then, using

the snow ball method, we asked them to recommend other possible candidates. Secondly, in

exchange for credits, we asked our college students from a private Mexican university to

suggest candidates who fulfilled the required characteristics. We intended to study the

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

perceptions of consumers who are very familiar with the tangible and intangible

characteristics of both the original brand and its counterfeit. We focused on fashion luxury

brands because of their hedonic appeal and symbolic benefits. We expected that, by

concentrating on this product category on consumers that have owned both originals and

counterfeits of the same brand, we could identify a context that sheds light on factors

crucial for theoretical development (Arnould et al., 2006).

4. Results

4.1 Transfer of personality traits of the original to the counterfeit (H1)

Study 1

Design and Procedure. We first asked participants (332 consumers, ranging in age

from 16 to 67, 64.8% female and 60% students) if they had ever owned an original luxury

brand product (e.g., original Gucci sunglasses) and its counterfeit; if they had, we asked

them to identify the brand and the category to which it belonged (e.g., sunglasses,

handbags, wallets, watches). We initiated the study by asking participants to complete

Aaker’s (1997) personality-of-self scale regarding their perception of their own personality.

On this scale, participants rated 42 randomly presented personality traits representing five

factors: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. We then primed

respondents by having them take a few minutes to write about the experiences of using an

original brand product and using the corresponding counterfeit product. After the writing

exercise, we asked respondents to complete the same scale (Aaker, 1997) regarding their

perception of the personality of the original brand and later with respect to the counterfeit

brand.

Analysis and Results. Regression analyses allowed us to examine the relationship

between the personality dimensions of the original brand and the personality dimensions of

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

the counterfeit. We conducted five univariate regressions, with the counterfeit brand’s

sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness as the dependent

variables and the same dimensions of the original brand as predictor variables. Results

showed that all personality dimensions of the original brand influenced the counterfeit; the

model was significant for sincerity (β = .35, t(326) = 4.98, p < .001), excitement (β = .22,

t(327) = 2.69, p =.007), competence (β = .30, t(326) = 3.66, p < .001), sophistication (β =

.26, t(327) = 3.08, p =.002), and ruggedness (β = .51, t(326) = 11.61, p < .001). In other

words, we found support for H1 by assessing that consumers transfer the personality

dimensions of the original brand to the counterfeit branded product.

While the results discussed above are encouraging, a shortcoming of Study 1 is that

participants were always asked about their perceptions regarding the original brand first and

about their perceptions regarding the counterfeit second. Because this could have caused a

bias in their perception, we conducted Study 2 to address this issue.

Study 2: Reverse Order

Design and Procedure. The same general procedures used in Study 1 were applied

in Study 2 to 187 participants, ranging in age from 17 to 61, of whom 64.9% were female

and 65.9% were students. Additionally, to test for ordering effects, two questionnaire

designs were used. In the first design, priming and questions about the original brands were

presented before performing priming and asking questions regarding the counterfeit brands.

The second design reversed this order.

[Insert table 1]

Analysis and Results. As in Study 1, the regression analyses in Study 2 allowed us

to examine the relationship between the personality dimensions of the original brand and its

counterfeit. Additionally, a dummy variable (reverse order = 1) was introduced. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

personality dimensions of the original brand were significant in four out of the five

regressions conducted; specifically, relationships were significant for sincerity (β = .24,

t(172) = 2.57, p = .002), excitement (β = .29, t(172) = 2.67, p = .002), sophistication (β =

.30, t(171) = 2.48, p < .001), and ruggedness (β = .40, t(172) = 5.50, p < .001), while for

competence, the relationship was not significant (β = .11, t(171) = .94, p > .10). The

dummy variable was not significant in any of the five regressions (p > .10).

These results revealed that, when the order of priming and questions was reversed,

most of the personality dimensions of the original brand were still transferred by consumers

to the counterfeit branded product, thus H1 was supported.

Therefore, we can conclude that the order in which the stimuli were presented to

consumers did not have a significant effect.

4.2 Overlap of Consumer´s Self-Image and Coincidence of Personality Traits with

Originals versus Counterfeits (H2a and H2b)

Study 3

Design and Procedure. Participants in this study included 138 consumers, ranging

in age from 17 to 73; 68.1% were female, and 66.2% were students. The same general

procedures of Studies 1 and 2 were used in Study 3, but respondents were divided into two

groups. Respondents in the first group were questioned only about the original brand, while

respondents in the second group were questioned only about the counterfeit.

Analysis and Results. In this between-subjects study, the t test revealed a significant

difference between the personality overlap of consumers with the original brand and the

personality overlap of consumers with the counterfeit (Moriginal = 3.06, Mcounterfeit = 2.39; t

(132) = 3.10, p =.002), confirming that consumers perceive a stronger overall overlap

between themselves and the original brand than with the counterfeit (H2a). Correlation

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

coefficients were used to assess whether consumers’ personality traits coincided more with

the original brand’s traits than with the counterfeit’s. Fisher’s z tests suggested that the

correlations were significantly different in magnitude for all dimensions: sincerity (z =

2.52, p =.006, one-tailed), excitement (z = 2.94, p = .002, one-tailed), competence (z = 2.68,

p = .004, one-tailed), sophistication (z = 1.79, p = .037, one-tailed), and ruggedness (z =

2.46, p = .007, one-tailed). This evidence demonstrates a stronger association between the

perceived personalities of the self and the original brand than between the perceived

personalities of the self and the counterfeit (H2b).

4.3 Consumers´ Brand Love: Originals versus Counterfeits (H3)

Study 4

Design and Procedure. The 332 participants of study 1 (ages 16 to 67; 60% students

and 65% female) were also asked to complete the scale for Brand Love (Carrol & Ahuvia,

2006), both for the original brand and for the counterfeit.

Analysis and Results. A one-way ANOVA revealed significant higher brand love

between consumers and the original brands than between consumers and the counterfeits

(F=425.895, P=.000) (H3). Because a close relationship is characterized by love, these

results lead us to the conclusion that consumers experience closer relationships with

original brands than with counterfeits.

5. General Discussion

Our research resulted in several important findings. First, consumers transfer the

personality dimensions of the original brand to the counterfeit, suggesting that counterfeits

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

benefit from the intangible characteristics associated with the original brand. This finding

helps to explain why consumers feel attracted to counterfeits.

Second, although consumers include both the original brand and its counterfeit in

their sense of self, they integrate the original brand into their identity to a higher degree and

report a stronger coincidence between the perceived personalities of the self and the

original brand than between the perceived personalities of the self and the counterfeit.

These conclusions coincide with those of Albert and Marunka (2013), as they express that

brand love development requires both identification and trust.

This investigation provides new insights into the different relationships consumers

form with brands (and their counterfeits). Externally, counterfeits allow consumers to

represent the image of a wealthy consumer, but internally, consumers of counterfeits do not

identify with the counterfeit products. It seems that the consumer relationship with the

counterfeits is rooted mainly in convenience and social purposes, rather than in feelings of

love.

6. Limitations and Future Research

First, while the present research suggests that consumers transfer the personality

dimensions of the original brand to the counterfeit and that counterfeits benefit from the

intangible characteristics associated with the original brand, future research could analyze

whether consumers are just projecting their own personalities onto both products but doing

so more with the original than with the counterfeit, or if the brand personality emerges in

part from the design of the product. Because the original and the counterfeit both have the

same design, they have similar brand personalities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Second, this study provides evidence for overall self-inclusion of original and

counterfeit brands; future research may aim for more fine-grained findings to understand

how the original´s or the counterfeit´s resources, perspectives, and identity are transferred

onto the consumer’s self. Finally, the results of this research could be studied in

relationship to the independent vs interdependent self-concepts theory; this would allow for

an intercultural perspective.

7. Managerial Implications

Understanding how consumers develop a love relationship with a brand will guide

managers to facilitate this process. When consumers perceive that a brand’s personality

traits coincide with their own, they develop a powerful connection with the brand, which

can evolve into an enduring relationship that contributes to the construction of brand equity.

However, when sales of counterfeit products represent 5-7 percent of all world trade (Kent,

2011), the possibility of consumers developing a relationship with a counterfeit instead of

with the original brand becomes a threat, even more so when we consider that consumers’

choices are influenced by a mix of conscious and unconscious influences (Fitzsimons et al.,

2002).

Our study reveals that consumers incorporate the original brands into their sense of

self to a significantly greater extent than their counterfeits, developing a deeper relationship

with the original brands while having merely convenient relationships with the counterfeits;

thus marketing managers of original brands are best advised to build their efforts around the

idea of consumers’ love for the original brand, emphasizing the trust element of a love

relationship in order to encourage consumers to be “faithful” to the original brands (Noel &

Dwight, 2013). As Aron & Aron (1986, 1991) expressed in their self-expansion model, the

relationships consumers form with brands are driven mainly by their desire to grow and

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

progress, and the key sources of growth and expansion are derived from including some of

the qualities and characteristics of their brands in the self.

This research provides convergent evidence that beloved original brands are

incorporated into consumers’ “selves,” implying that, although people buy counterfeit

products to signal positive traits, internally they are always going to know that these are

fakes. Managers of original brands should, therefore, emphasize issues of authenticity and

congruence between consumers and their purchase decisions. The brand personality

measure can be used to assess whether there is congruence and “harmony” between

consumers’ senses of self and their original brands.

Because consumers’ gratitude increases their levels of trust and the development of

long-term relationships (Palmatier et al., 2009), managers of original brands should also

encourage the development of brand communities (Muñiz & O’Guinn, 2001), in which the

possession of the original brand could be viewed as a way to belong to an exclusive

community of people. Brand managers could develop a series of attractive activities in

which owners of the original products could be the only privileged participants. Such

interaction among brand lovers could lead to a co-creation of experiences related to the

brand that may reinforce the brand-customer relationship and could be used afterward for

its promotion. These activities should reflect a lifestyle of perfection, uniqueness, and

proud ownership that elicits others’ envy and reaffirms consumers’ choice of originals. For

example, managers should take further advantage of the Internet, promoting exclusive

blogs in which only owners of original products can participate, listening to their voices

and providing them opportunities to co-create both products and shopping experiences with

the original brands’ managers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

References

Albert, N. and Merunka, D. (2013). The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships.

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30(3), 258-266.

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3),

347-356.

Aaker, J. (1999). Brand personality: A path to differentiation. In R. Morgan (Ed.), Brands

Face the Future. New York: Research International.

Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004).When good brands do bad. Journal of

Consumer Research, 31(1), 1-16.

Ahuvia, A. C. (2005). Beyond the extended self: Loved objects and consumers' identity

narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1), 171-184.

Allport, G.W. (1937). Personality: a Psychological Interpretation, Henry Holt & Co. New

York, NY.

Arnould, E., Price, L., & Moisio, R. (2006). Making contexts matter: Selecting research

contexts for theoretical insights. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of Qualitative

Research Methods in Marketing. Northampton, Edward Elgar.

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction

and satisfaction. New York, NY: Hemisphere.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including

other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241-53.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the

structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

63, 596-612.

Aron, A., & Fraley, B. (1999). Relationship closeness as including other in the self:

Cognitive underpinnings and measures. Social Cognition, 17(2), 140-60.

Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research,

15(2), 139-168.

Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and

knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and

indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 191-216

Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., & Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer accomplices in product

counterfeiting: A demand. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 27-36.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.

Marketing Letters, 17, 9-89.

Chevron, J. (2001). The Monroe Doctrine of Branding. Brandweek.

Deighton, J. (1992). The consumption of performance. Journal of Consumer Research,

19(3), 362-372.

Eisend, M., & Schuchert-Güler, P. (2006). Explaining counterfeit purchases: A review and

preview. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2006(12), 123-138.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self-construal, reference groups, and brand

meaning. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(3), 378-89.

Fitzsimons, G. J., Hutchinson, J. W., Williams, P., Alba, J. W., Chartrand, T. L., Huber, J.,

Kardes, F. R., Menon, G., Raghubir, P., Russo, J. E., Shiv, B., & Tavassoli, N. T.

(2002). Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 13(3), 269-

280.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in

consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-353.

Gratz, M. (2003, June). The threat of counterfeiting. Appliancemagazine.com, 42.

Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., & Shultz II, C. (2006). The effects of counterfeiting on

consumer research. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5(3), 245-257.

Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., Shultz II, C., & Commuri. S. (2001). How now Ralph Lauren?

The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture. Advances in Consumer

Research, 28(1), 258-265.

Gino, F., Norton, M., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs

of faking it. Psychological Science, 21, 712‐720.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor

Books.

Govers, P., & Schoormans, J. (2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer

preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189-197.

Grubb, E., & Grathwohl, H., (1967). Consumer self-concept, symbolism and market

behavior: A theoretical approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4), 22-27.

Guilford, J. P. (1959). Personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Hem, L. E., & Iversen, N. M. (2002). Decomposed similarity measures in brand extensions.

Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 199-206.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Kapferer, J. N. (1992). Strategic Brand Management: New Approaches to Creating and

Evaluating Brand Equity. London: Kogan Page.

Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Brand Management. Henry Stewart Publications. New York. NY.

Kent, M. (2011). Counterfeits and infringements: Problems and solutions. Venable.

Mashek, D. J., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 382-92.

Muñiz, A.M., O’Guinn, T. (2001). Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research,

27(4), 412-432.

Nia, A., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury

brands? Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(7), 485-97.

Noel A., & Dwight M. (2013). "The role of brand love in consumer-brand relationships,"

Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30( 3), 258 – 266.

Palmatier, R. W., Jarvis, C. B., Bechkokk, J. R. & Kardes, F. (2009). The role of customer

gratitude in relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1-18.

Penz, E., & Stöttinger, B. (2008). Corporate image and product similarity- Assessing major

demand drivers for counterfeits in a multi-country study. Psychology and Marketing,

25(4), 352-364.

Reimann, M., Castaño, R., Zaichkowsky, J. L., & Bechara, A. (2012). How

we relate to brands: Psychological and neurophysiological insights into

consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 128-142.

Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self,

in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 873-82.

Staake,T., Thiesse, F. and Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: a

literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320-349.

Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separateness-connectedness self-schema.

Psychology and Marketing, 14(2), 185-207.

Wee, C. H., Tan, S. J., & Cheok, K. H. (1995). Non- price determinants of intention to

purchase counterfeit goods. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 19-47.

Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., & Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury

brands? Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 247-259.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Wilke, R., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation and its effects on innovation,

competition, and brand equity. Business Horizons, 42(6), 9-18.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

Acknowledgement

The authors would especially like to thank Dr. Martin Reimann and the JCM review team,

for their advice and constructive feedback on our research.

Author Biographies

Raquel Castaño (Ph.D., Tulane University) is Professor of Marketing at EGADE Business

School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico. Her research focuses on the roles of emotion

and cognition in decision making. Examples of this research include the role of temporal

distance and mental simulation in the adoption of new products. Dr. Castaño’s research has

been published in the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology and

Marketing Letters.

Maria Eugenia Perez (Ph.D., Tulane University) is Associate Professor of Marketing at

EGADE Business School, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico. Her research interests focus

on the relationship between brands and consumer behavior. Dr. Perez´s research has been

published in Qualitative Market Research, An International Journal, Journal of Product and

Brand Management, and Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics. Her

research has also been presented at international conferences.

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)

TABLE 1

Means and Significant Differences for Self-Inclusion

(Study 2)

Product Original Counterfeit t Sig.

Handbags

M = 4.13

SD = 1.444

n = 70

M = 2.20

SD = 1.235

n = 70

t(69) = 10.085 .000

Sunglasses

M = 3.87

SD = 1.563

n = 38

M = 1.97

SD = 1.026

n = 38

t(37) = 6.981 .000

Wallets

M = 3.33

SD = 1.496

n = 15

M = 1.80

SD = 1.082

n = 15

t(14) = 2.976 .005

Watches

M = 3.63

SD = 1.586

n = 16

M = 2.50

SD = 1.265

n = 16

t(15) = 3.000 .005

Note: One-tailed test

Dow

nloa

ded

by O

ND

OK

UZ

MA

YIS

UN

IVE

RSI

TY

At 2

2:27

08

Nov

embe

r 20

14 (

PT)