To be filled in by the student

Title :

The Effect of Counterfeit Products on the

Consumers’ Perception of a Brand: A Study in the

Context of Cambodia

Program: MIB - 9 - Singapore (2014 - 2016)

Academic Year: 2014-2015

Dissertation / Project / Internship Report: Final Management Project 2014-2015

Student Name: Kung Vatanak

School Tutor / Evaluator Name: Prinsloo Melani

To fill in for Internship only:

Company Name: ………………………...…………………………………………………..

Town: ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Country: ………………………………………………………………………………………

Position occupied during internship: …………………………………………………….

........................................................................................................................................

Summary: This project will investigate into the issue of counterfeiting in Cambodia.

Literature and research found both positive and negative impact of counterfeits to the

genuine brand. This study will show the result from consumers in Cambodia who are

regularly exposed to counterfeits.

Keywords: (cf. Thesaurus du Management):

BRAND

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

COUNTERFEIT

INTERNATIONAL MARKETING

□ Non Confidential □ Confidential

[1]

Executive Summary

Counterfeiting is a phenomenon in the marketplace which was known as a threat to companies.

Counterfeit is possible due to the market trends of globalization, improving technology and

outsourcing. Counterfeits are mostly produced and sold in developing countries which are the main

markets for counterfeits.

Cambodia is a developing country in South-East Asia and also a country for outsourcing. The

research was conducted in Cambodia, because developing countries are potential markets for

established brands who want to expand their markets internationally. The purpose of the research is

to investigate the drivers and consequences of consuming counterfeits.

Branding and luxury greatly relate to counterfeit as it is the source that give rise to counterfeit

which the literature included the Consumer-Based Brand Equity, and Country of Origin. The

concepts related to consumer behaviour of consuming counterfeit included the price consciousness

and Theory of Planned Behaviour. Counterfeits were investigated in detail to outline the different

types of counterfeit, and operations of counterfeit. Stakeholders affected by counterfeits are the

genuine brands, consumers, and the government. Possible strategies against counterfeit were also

discussed.

This project adopted a deductive approach which the research is a quantitative research, following a

positivism and interpretivism philosophy. The research targeted young adults in Cambodia using

online survey and personal survey. Multiple regression analysis and one-way ANOVA were used to

analyze the data.

The results showed that brand awareness/association negatively related to consumption of

counterfeits where as attitudes toward counterfeits and perceived behavioural control positively

related to counterfeit consumption. Consumption of counterfeits also caused consumers to

developed loyalty to counterfeits, but the brand value of the genuine brands was not affected. This

result contributed to the literature that supported counterfeits. Brand owners do not have to take

action against counterfeit, but can use it to their advantage instead. This study provided some

implications which the brand owners can refer to when making decision to enter emerging markets.

The limitations of this study were outlined which future researches can reduce these weaknesses.

(Word Count: 20,295 words)

[2]

Acknowledgement

As I am completing my project and achieving another milestone in my life, I would like to express

my gratitude to everyone who helped me along my journey.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor and tutor, Miss Melani Prinsloo, for helping me from

the start of my journey and continuously providing guidance, evaluations, criticisms and

suggestions throughout the process of this final management project.

Furthermore, I would like to thank my best friend, Mak Roza, who provided enormous help and

support to me during the process of my work by contributing a majority of his time to critically

discuss with me and helping me overcome the obstacles.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their unconditional love and their support

for me throughout my academic studies until the completion of my project in this master course.

[3]

Table of Contents

List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................... 6

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................... 7

List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 8

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 9

1.1. Global Counterfeiting ........................................................................................................................ 9

1.1.1. Emerging Economies and Developing Countries ...................................................................... 9

1.1.2. Trends in Present Market ........................................................................................................... 9

1.1.3. Counterfeiting in Developing Countries .................................................................................. 10

1.2. Cambodian Market .......................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.1. Macro-Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................... 10

1.2.2. Counterfeiting in Cambodia .................................................................................................... 12

1.2.3. Opportunities and Potential Markets ....................................................................................... 13

1.3. Research Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 13

1.3.1. Research Problem and Research Questions ............................................................................. 13

1.4. Significance of Research and Knowledge Gap ............................................................................... 14

2. Secondary Research ................................................................................................................................. 15

2.1. Key Concepts and Definitions ......................................................................................................... 15

2.2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 16

2.2.1. Branding and Luxury Products ................................................................................................ 16

2.2.1.1. Consumer-Based Brand Equity ........................................................................................... 16

2.2.1.2. Country of Origin Effects and Brand Origin ....................................................................... 17

2.2.1.3. Brand Prominence ............................................................................................................... 18

2.2.2. Theory of Consumer Behaviour .............................................................................................. 18

2.2.2.1. Deceptive and Non-deceptive Counterfeiting ...................................................................... 18

2.2.2.2. Price Consciousness ............................................................................................................ 19

2.2.2.3. Theory of Planned Behaviour .............................................................................................. 19

2.2.3. Counterfeit Branded Products ................................................................................................. 20

2.2.3.1. Production, Operations and Logistics of Counterfeits ........................................................ 21

2.2.3.2. Impact of Counterfeits on Genuine Brand Organizations ................................................... 25

2.2.3.3. Impact of Counterfeits on Consumers ................................................................................. 27

2.2.3.4. Impact of Counterfeits on Government ................................................................................ 28

2.2.3.5. Combat Strategies against Counterfeits .............................................................................. 28

2.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 30

2.3.1. Motives for Consumption of Counterfeits ............................................................................... 30

[4]

2.3.2. Loyalty towards Counterfeits .................................................................................................. 32

2.3.3. Perceptions of the Genuine Brands.......................................................................................... 33

3. Primary Research ..................................................................................................................................... 34

3.1. Research Philosophy........................................................................................................................ 34

3.2. Research Approach .......................................................................................................................... 34

3.3. Research Methodology .................................................................................................................... 35

3.3.1. Review of Possible Methodologies ......................................................................................... 35

3.3.2. Chosen Methodology and Justification ................................................................................... 36

3.4. Research Design .............................................................................................................................. 37

3.4.1. Target Sample .......................................................................................................................... 37

3.4.1.1. Sampling Strategy ................................................................................................................ 37

3.4.1.2. Sample Size Determination .................................................................................................. 38

3.4.2. Instruments .............................................................................................................................. 38

3.4.2.1. Questionnaires ..................................................................................................................... 38

3.4.2.2. Measurement Items .............................................................................................................. 39

3.4.2.3. Reliability Analysis: Scale Reliability ................................................................................. 40

3.4.3. Procedure ................................................................................................................................. 41

3.4.3.1. Distribution Methods ........................................................................................................... 41

3.4.3.2. Data Entry and Coding ........................................................................................................ 42

3.5. Data Analysis Methods and Techniques.......................................................................................... 43

3.5.1. Multiple Regression Analysis .................................................................................................. 43

3.5.2. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ............................................................................. 44

3.6. Challenges and Overcoming the Obstacles ..................................................................................... 44

3.7. Ethical Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 45

4. Research Analyses ................................................................................................................................... 46

4.1. Background Analyses ...................................................................................................................... 46

4.1.1. Descriptive Analysis and Demographics of Participants ......................................................... 46

4.1.2. Counterfeit Ownership ............................................................................................................ 48

4.2. Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 49

4.2.1. Motives for Consumption of Counterfeits (RQ1) .................................................................... 49

4.2.1.1. Simple Linear Regressions .................................................................................................. 49

4.2.1.2. Multiple Regression Analysis .............................................................................................. 52

4.2.1.3. Comparison of Linear Regression Analyses and Multiple Regression Analysis ................. 54

4.2.1.4. Revised Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................. 55

4.2.2. Loyalty towards Counterfeits (RQ2) ....................................................................................... 56

[5]

4.2.2.1. Attitudes toward Counterfeits .............................................................................................. 56

4.2.2.2. Behavioural Intentions ........................................................................................................ 57

4.2.2.3. Acceptable Price Level for Counterfeits .............................................................................. 58

4.2.2.4. Possession of Counterfeits ................................................................................................... 59

4.2.3. Perceptions of the Genuine Brands (RQ3) .............................................................................. 59

4.3. Summary of Results ........................................................................................................................ 61

5. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 63

5.1. Findings and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 63

5.1.1. Motives for Consumption of Counterfeits ............................................................................... 63

5.1.2. Loyalty towards Counterfeits .................................................................................................. 65

5.1.3. Perceptions of the Genuine Brands.......................................................................................... 66

5.2. Implications ..................................................................................................................................... 67

5.2.1. Theoretical Implications .......................................................................................................... 67

5.2.2. Managerial Implications .......................................................................................................... 69

5.3. Personal Reflection and Analysis .................................................................................................... 70

5.4. Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 71

5.4.1. Theoretical Limitations ............................................................................................................ 71

5.4.2. Methodological Limitations .................................................................................................... 72

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research .................................................................................................... 73

6. References ............................................................................................................................................... 74

7. Appendices .............................................................................................................................................. 83

7.1. Appendix A: Participant Information Sheet (English) .................................................................... 83

7.2. Appendix B: Questionnaire (English) ............................................................................................. 85

7.3. Appendix C: Participant Information Sheet (Khmer) ...................................................................... 91

7.4. Appendic D: Questionnaire (Khmer) .............................................................................................. 93

7.5. Appendix E: Measurement Items .................................................................................................... 99

[6]

List of Figures

Figure 1.2.1: Macro-Environmental Factors in Cambodia…………………………………………………...11

Figure 2.2.3.1.1: Seizures of imported counterfeit and pirated products

from the top 20 economies…………………………………………………………………21

Figure 2.2.3.1.2: Shipping route and port of Counterfeits……………………………………………………23

Figure 2.2.3.1.3: Movement of Counterfeit in Developing Countries………………………………………..24

Figure 2.2.3.1.4: Legitimate Supply Chain Infiltration by Counterfeits……………………………………...25

Figure 2.2.3.2: Summary of Impact of Counterfeits on Stakeholders………………………………………..25

Figure 2.2.3.5: Summary of Strategies against Counterfeits…………………………………………………28

Figure 2.3.1: Relationships of Variables in Research Question 1……………………………………………32

[7]

List of Tables

Table 3.4.2.2: Sources of Measurement Items of Variables……………………………….…………………39

Table 3.4.2.3.1: Cronbach’s Alpha of Measurement Scale Items ……………………………………………40

Table 3.4.2.3.2: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Perceived Quality ……………………………….……41

Table 3.4.3.2: Data Coding…………………………………………………………………………………...42

Table 4.1.1: Participants’ Demographics……………………………………………………………………..47

Table 4.1.2.1: Methods of Acquiring CBP…………………………………………………………………...48

Table 4.1.2.2: Types of CBP Owned…………………………………………………………………………48

Table 4.2.1.1.1: Simple Linear Regression of Brand Loyalty with CBP consumption………………………49

Table 4.2.1.1.2: Simple Linear Regression of Perceived Quality with CBP consumption…………………..50

Table 4.2.1.1.3: Simple Linear Regression of Brand Awareness/Association with

CBP consumption…………………………………………………………………………..50

Table 4.2.1.1.4: Simple Linear Regression of Price Consciousness with CBP consumption………………..50

Table 4.2.1.1.5: Simple Linear Regression of Attitudes toward CBP with CBP consumption………………51

Table 4.2.1.1.6: Simple Linear Regression of Subjective Norm with CBP consumption……………………51

Table 4.2.1.1.7: Simple Linear Regression of Perceived Behavioural Control with

CBP consumption…………………………………………………………………………..51

Table 4.2.1.1.8: Summary of the Simple Linear Regressions………………………………………………..52

Table 4.2.1.2: Multiple Regression Analysis for Consumption of CBP……………………………………...53

Table 4.2.1.3: Comparison of the Simple Linear Regressions and

Multiple Regression Analysis………………………………………………………………...54

Table 4.2.1.4: Revised Multiple Regression Analysis for Consumption of CBP…………………………….55

Table 4.2.2.1: Comparison of Counterfeit Owners’ and Non-Owners’ Attitudes……………………………56

Table 4.2.2.2: Comparison of Counterfeit Owners’ and Non-Owners’ Behavioural Intentions……………..57

Table 4.2.2.3: Comparison of Counterfeit Owners’ and Non-Owners’ Acceptable Price Level……………..58

Table 4.2.2.4: Amount of Types of CBP Possessed by Owners……………………………………………...59

Table 4.2.3: Comparison of CBBE between Counterfeit Owners and Non-Owners…………………………60

Table 4.3: Summary of Results for Hypotheses………………………………………………………………62

Table 5.2.1: Summary of Theoretical Implications…………………………………………………………..67

Table 5.2.2: Summary of Managerial Implications…………………………………………………………..69

[8]

List of Abbreviations

ANOVA…………………………………………………………………………Analysis of Variance

ASEAN…………………………………………...………... Association of South-East Asia Nations

CBBE…………………………………………………………………Consumer-Based Brand Equity

CBP………………………..……………………………………………Counterfeit Branded Product

GDP…………………………………………………………………………Gross Domestic Product

FDI………………………………………………………………………...Foreign Direct Investment

FTZ……………………………………………………………………….…….....…Free Trade Zone

IP…………………………………………………………………………………Intellectual Property

IPR………………………………………………………...………………Intellectual Property Right

PIS………………………………………………………………..……Participant Information Sheet

SPSS…………………………………………………..……...Statistical Package for Social Sciences

TRA………………………………………………………………………Theory of Reasoned Action

TPB…………………………..……………………………………...…Theory of Planned Behaviour

[9]

1. Introduction

The business world in the 21st century is becoming very competitive. Organizations are not

only facing competitors in the market but also illegal players who take advantage of their success.

The phenomenon of counterfeiting had been occurring since ancient time and still continued to the

present time.

1.1. Global Counterfeiting

Counterfeiting is defined as the act of stealing other’s property including trademark, product

design or intellectual property, and selling without the owners’ consent (Lambkin & Tyndall, 2009).

The latest report showed that the size of counterfeit market is estimated to be US$653.77 billion

(Havocscope, 2015). Counterfeiting is wrong and illegal as it infringes the copyright and

intellectual property of the brand owners who worked so hard to build the brands from nothing until

they achieve their current reputation. Counterfeit do not only damage the genuine brand owners, but

also other stakeholders such as the consumers and the government (OECD, 2007).

1.1.1. Emerging Economies and Developing Countries

Emerging economies are countries with improving economy aspects such as increasing GDP

per capita and increasing standard of living (Tiwari, et al., 2016). These emerging economies are

targets for foreign investment and brand owners because during the development process, many

positive changes are occurring. Local markets are opening up to foreign investment and the low

income and GDP per capita for citizens causes the labour costs to be low. Foreign investment will

result in a spill over of both technology and knowledge, which is beneficial to the country itself

(Suyanto, et al., 2012). As the country develop, the standard of living will improve which enable

citizen to slowly increase their purchasing power and they will be able to afford more expensive

products (Drine & Rault, 2008). While most brands or organizations have yet to enter these

economies, there is still a big untapped market out there which big organizations can capture.

1.1.2. Trends in Present Market

There are many trends in the marketplace which affect the brand owners and organizations.

Globalization is taking place which converge the consumer demands to become similar globally due

to ease of access to information (Kilic, 2015). Companies are expanding from local to international

in order to capture as much market as they can (CNNMoney, 2012). Due to the fast technological

development, better technologies are being introduced to the business world with reducing costs

(Rebić & Šarenac, 2014). These technologies help in reducing production, transportation and

communication costs (Kvedariene, 2015). The internet enables online shopping which eliminate the

limitation of physical boundaries between countries. Productions are streamlined to improve the

[10]

efficiency by reducing input costs and increasing output (Wu, et al., 2015). Transportation costs are

also reduced with upcoming fuel efficient technology and machineries. Costs of communication for

both consumer usage and organizational usage are greatly reduced (Dovleac, 2015).

Due to these trends, organizations can easily outsource their departments to the emerging

economies or developing countries (Flinders, 2014). Outsourcing enables the organization to focus

on their specialized main activities and let external parties take care of their supporting activities

which those partners can perform better at a lower cost (Mani & Barua, 2015).

1.1.3. Counterfeiting in Developing Countries

The sources of counterfeit are mostly in developing countries from Asia as these countries

are the outsourced location of the brand owners (Chan, 2014). Brand owners have chosen these

countries due to trends that are taking place in the market world (Section 1.1.2). Emerging

economies and developing countries are the main markets for counterfeits due to the income per

capita that is lower compared to a developed country (OECD, 2007). Counterfeits are alternates to

the genuine brand due to limited purchasing power and the availability of counterfeits. The

outsourced of manufacturing to these countries enable brand pirates to infiltrate the supply chain

and smuggle overproduced products to sell (Staake, et al., 2009). Most importantly, IPR protection

in these countries is very weak in enforcement (Khalid & Rahman, 2015). Brand owners rarely take

actions as they have little chance of being compensated, and counterfeit market is too big to tackle.

1.2. Cambodian Market

Cambodia is a developing country in South-East Asia which is also a member of ASEAN

(CIA, 2016). Cambodia is one of the outsourced countries in Asia, bordering with Thailand, Laos

and Vietnam which are also outsourced locations (Chan, 2014).

1.2.1. Macro-Environmental Analysis

A brief PESTEL analysis is conducted to understand the external macro-environmental

factors in Cambodia that directly and indirectly influence companies operating in the country.

Cambodia’s political condition is considered to be stable as there were little changes in the ruling

government since the end of the civil war in 1979 (McCarthy, 1998). The country operates under a

democratic system (CIA, 2016). The political conditions do not represent a threat to foreign

investing companies.

[11]

From the economic aspect, Cambodia’s economy is slowly on the rise (Hill & Menon, 2014). The

GDP output was US$54.21 billion and the GDP per capita was US$3,500 in 2015 (CIA, 2016). As

per the low GDP per capita, the wage and labour cost for factory workers are as low as standard for

developing countries (Chen, 2014). The total population is about 15 million people with 0.5%

unemployment rate which is low but this figure in questionable due to the method of measuring

employment status. People who have no job but have a small farm behind their houses or helping

their family business one or two hours a week are also considered employed (Willemyns, 2016).

Cambodia’s economy depends mainly on agriculture and tourism. The GDP composition was

mainly by agriculture which was 28.6% of GDP output (CIA, 2016), and income from tourism was

around $3 billion in 2015 (Ministry of Tourism, 2015).

As for social factors and cultural norms, Cambodia is a country that still holds strong belief of

tradition and culture (The Kampuchea Time, 2012). Due to this traditional attachment, the

nationalism or patriotism among the citizen is quite low (HubPages, 2013). This cause local

Cambodian to value foreign brands (The Cambodia Daily, 2010) and products more than local-

made brand of products, which is an indication of modernization (Hong, 2013). The average

education attainment in Cambodia is 11 years of education which is high school diploma level (CIA,

2016). This education level affects the operation of CBP in Cambodia greatly by causing citizen to

not hesitate in consuming CBP.

Figure 1.2.1: Macro-Environmental Factors in Cambodia

[12]

The technology development in Cambodia is slowly improving but still at a low rate compared to

neighbouring countries (Todd, 2013). Internet has become cheaper and more available, which

enabled online shopping. Outsourced factories still depend on equipment from the home country for

efficient production (Gopal, et al., 2013).

The environmental aspect does not affect business organizations. The pollution level in Cambodia is

considerably high (Numbeo, 2016). There are environmental standard, rules and regulation in place

but the enforcement is very weak (OpenDevelopment, 2014). Deforestation level of Cambodia is

one of the highest in the world (Butler, 2014). There were many cases of factories or organization

activities which polluted and damaged the natural environment (Khouth, 2014), but no actions were

taken against those organizations when they disobey the law (Aun, 2014a). There were cases of

water pollution in the lake (Aun, 2014b), river and the sea (Ouk, 2014). Foreign investing

companies which engaged in such activities might not be affected by local authorities but might

have their reputation affected in their home country.

The legal aspect present more threat to investing companies. The corruption level in Cambodia is

high by scoring only 21/100 and ranked 150th

out of 167 countries for being “clean”(Transparency

International, 2016) which is the highest among ASEAN countries (Parameswaran, 2016). Even

though the legal process to set up operation is simplified, the high level of corruption poses a threat

as companies which do not want to engage with bribery and unofficial costs will have to legally

process and pay everything which is a lot more than illegal processes (Bertrand, 1996). Copyright

and IP laws are in place but are still incomplete and lacking in enforcement (Staake, et al., 2009).

1.2.2. Counterfeiting in Cambodia

As attractive as Cambodia can be for brand owners, Cambodia is also one the biggest market

of counterfeit products (Eang, 2014). Counterfeit is considered a commodity product in Cambodia

as it is easily available (BNG Legal, 2010). Due to the low cost of living and low income per capita,

many citizens do not hesitate to purchase counterfeit as the original brands are beyond their

affordability. The average education attainment level at high school diploma might not enable the

citizen to understand about plagiarism, intellectual property or copyrights. Counterfeits are moving

freely in the markets with little interference from the government due to many reasons. The

intellectual property law in Cambodia is very weak in its enforcement (Ananda, 2011). Due to the

low income and cost of living, even if the government take action against counterfeit retailers, the

retailers would not be able to compensate for their actions (USTR, 2014). The retailers themselves

might not even know that the business they engage in is illegal due to the average education

attained.

[13]

From a different perspective, the amount of tourists visiting Cambodia partly contributes to

counterfeit market as well. Even though travellers know that counterfeit is illegal, they view

possession of counterfeit as a symbol that they visited a developing or undeveloped country (Gentry,

et al., 2006). A portion of them are engaged in purchasing counterfeits in developing countries that

they visited.

1.2.3. Opportunities and Potential Markets

Even though Cambodia is still developing presently, there is a potential market which brand

owners can tap into (Hill & Menon, 2014). Despite the low income per capita which is averaged

throughout the whole population, there are many high income consumers who are located in the city

or capital which is highly concentrated (worldatlas, 2016). This is a potential market which brand

owners can capture by franchising or licensing (Renzenbrink, 2012). The country has both low

salary standard which can reduce labour cost, and consumers who can afford the products. The

presence of counterfeit versions of certain brands helps spread awareness of those brands among the

citizens (Section 2.2.3.2.1). This is an opportunity for brand owners. Over the past year, FDI in

Cambodia has increased (The Cambodia Herald, 2013) with new firms starting up consisting also of

foreign companies (Yang, 2013) which is a signal that there is a market and demand in Cambodia.

1.3. Research Aims and Objectives

The research that will be carried out, aims to understand the consumers’ insight and

preferences from Cambodia which is one of the developing countries while being a source and

market for counterfeit. Citizens in Cambodia are easily exposed to counterfeit. The study on the

effect of exposure to counterfeit will further shows its effect on the consumers’ consumption pattern

of counterfeit products and the effect of counterfeit consumption on consumers’ perception towards

the genuine brands.

1.3.1. Research Problem and Research Questions

The research problem for the project would be:

“What are the drivers and consequences resulting from consumers’

purchase and consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products?”

[14]

There are three research questions which will determine factors and variables to answer the research

problem.

Research Question 1: “What factors motivate consumers to purchase and consume

Counterfeit Branded Products?”

Research Question 2: “How does consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products influence the

consumers’ loyalty towards Counterfeit Branded Products?”

Research Question 3: “Does possession of Counterfeit Branded Products influence the consumers’

perception toward the genuine brand?”

1.4. Significance of Research and Knowledge Gap

This research that will be conducted in Cambodia is important as Cambodia is a developing

country and can be considered as an emerging economy. It is important for brand owners to take

notes of the emerging economies, and to enter these markets if possible (Lee, et al., 2011). As the

genuine brands are already established in developed countries, their sales and revenue from these

countries might soon be saturated. Their consumer base in these countries can grow very little in the

future. With the emerging economies, they can expand their market base and capture new markets

which will increase their overall sales and revenue (Fourné, et al., 2014). The entry costs of setting

up new outlets and offices in these countries are also not expensive and simplified (Han, et al.,

2013). Marketing costs in these countries are a lot cheaper than developed economies. Brand

owners will be able to reach consumers who do not have the capability to travel abroad and want to

purchase the genuine brand products.

The knowledge gap will be filled and added on by enabling brand owners to understand the

consumer insight and consumer behaviour towards counterfeit while they are regularly being

exposed to counterfeit. More specifically, the study will show how this exposure would affect their

perception towards the genuine brands; whether it devalue the genuine brand as literature stated, or

have no effect, or even help increase the brand image as some studies have found. The outcome of

the research will show this effect, and the results can help the brand owners in making decisions of

when and how to enter the market, and how to make adjustments to meet local preferences. The

result will show the risk and return of investing in markets as such.

[15]

2. Secondary Research

In order to understand more of the nature of this project, secondary data related to branding,

counterfeits and consumer behaviours will be investigated.

2.1. Key Concepts and Definitions

The first part of the secondary research will explain briefly about the key concepts and

definitions that will be used further throughout the paper. These concepts will be discussed in

detailed in the literature review.

Counterfeits: “Products that bear a trademark or design of registered branded products, without

authorization from the brand owners.” (Lambkin & Tyndall, 2009)

Consumer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE): “The differential effect that consumers’ knowledge of a

brand has on their response to the brand’s marketing activity.” (Aaker, 1991)

Brand Loyalty: “The consumers’ commitment and attachment towards a brand.” (Aaker, 1991)

Perceived Quality: “The consumers’ evaluation of the products’ overall performance and

excellence.” (Aaker, 1991)

Brand Awareness/Association: “The strength of a brand which is reflected by the consumers’ ability

to identify the brand under different circumstances and realize its functionality.” (Aaker, 1991)

Price Consciousness: “The natural behaviour of human that is concerned with maximizing value for

money and quality with price relationship.” (Rao & Monroe, 1989)

Theory of Planned Behaviour: “A concept that helps explain behaviours based on the intention to

engage in those behaviours, resulting from attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioural

control.” (Ajzen, 1991)

Attitudes toward Behaviour: “A person’s general feeling of favourableness or unfavourableness

towards a particular behaviour.” (Buchan, 2005)

Subjective Norm: “The collective belief and act of a group of referents.” (Buchan, 2005)

Perceived Behavioural Control: “The person’s internal belief and judgement of the difficulty level

of an intended behaviour.” (Buchan, 2005)

[16]

2.2. Literature Review

Concepts and literature will be collected from secondary resources including academic

journals, books, government publications and online websites. Investigation into past researches and

findings will provide a guideline of where the findings of this research can be heading as well as a

benchmark for comparison of results.

2.2.1. Branding and Luxury Products

Branding is one of the important concepts in marketing. Brand is defined as a set of

attributes which is symbolized by a trademark which operates and create value (Todor, 2014). The

trademark can be a name, logo or symbol. The main purpose of branding is to distinguish one’s own

organization from others. As the market competition is becoming more competitive in the

marketplace, it is necessary for organizations to separate themselves from other competitors.

Branding is important because it is found to have a positive link between branding strategies and

financial performance (Stiehler & Tinson, 2015). Products sold by organizations with established

brands are known as branded products. Branding further give rise to another segment of the market,

which is luxury branded products. Luxury is defined as “the state of great comfort and extravagant

living” (Soanes & Stevenson, 2008). Luxury products are products that are not a necessity but a

desirable product (Thomas, 2007). Luxury products were produced with skilled craftsmanship and

reserved for the elite class during ancient time (Kapferer, 2012). However at the present time,

luxury product can be consumed by everyone if they can afford it. Luxury-branded product is a

product category in the premium level, targeting high spending customers.

2.2.1.1. Consumer-Based Brand Equity

Brand equity is a core concept of branding. Brand equity is the set of brand assets and

liabilities related to a brand (Aaker, 1991). Brand equity is divided into two perspectives, the firm-

based and the consumer-based (Christodoulides & Chernatony, 2009). Firm-Based Brand Equity is

also known as Financial Brand Equity, is the financial value that brand equity creates for the firm. It

evaluates the brand equity from an internal view of the firm. Consumer-Based Brand Equity on the

other hand is from the consumers’ perspective. CBBE is defined as the differential effect that

consumers’ knowledge of a brand has on their response to the brand’s marketing activity (Aaker,

1991). It is derived from the brand equity concept which stresses on how branding is important in

marketing. The elements of brand equity initially include brand knowledge, brand image, brand

attitude, brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality, brand association, and other proprietary

brand assets (Keller, 2013). Throughout the years, the concepts have been modified, combined and

restructured. The CBBE is one of the concepts that can help researcher measure the value of a

brand’s equity (Leone, et al., 2006). As this research will follow the research that was previously

[17]

conducted, the chosen CBBE dimensions will be same dimensions used in the previous research

(Lu, 2013). The dimensions of CBBE were refined to focus on three dimensions: brand loyalty,

perceived quality and brand awareness/association.

Brand Loyalty is the consumers’ commitment and attachment towards a brand (Aaker, 1991). There

are two types of brand loyalty which are purchase loyalty and attitudinal loyalty (Chaudhuri &

Holbrook, 2001). Purchase loyalty is also known as behavioural loyalty which is purchase of a

brand without commitment (Kakati & Choudhury, 2013). Attitudinal loyalty is purchase or

repurchase of the brand with predisposition commitment. Brand loyalty is measured by first choice

of purchase and repeated purchase (Keller, 1993).

Perceived Quality is the consumers’ evaluation of the products’ overall performance and excellence

(Aaker, 1991). The consumers’ overall perception of the quality of a brand, product or service

forms the perceived quality (Oude Ophius & Van Trijp, 1995). Due to price/quality relationship,

price is an indicator of high quality product (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2007). In vice versa, high quality

products are also expected to be priced highly.

Brand Awareness/Association is the strength of a brand which is reflected by the consumers’ ability

to identify the brand under different circumstances and realize its functionality (Aaker, 1991).

Brand awareness includes brand recognition and brand recall (Keller, 1993). Brand recognition is

the ability to distinguish the brand on first attempt as previously seen or heard. Brand recall is the

ability to reproduce the brand image or functions mentally from memory. Brand awareness is

important in the consumers’ decision making process.

2.2.1.2. Country of Origin Effects and Brand Origin

The Country of Origin is the country or location in which a product is created or originated

(Phau & Cheong, 2009). The Country of Origin is often confused with the country of manufactured

or country of production, as most of the time the company did research and development in one

country then outsource the production to another country in order to save production cost (Laforet,

2010). The country of origin effect is the impact that the COO of a product can cause on the

consumers’ perception or preference on the product.

In a lately published paper, a new concept is developed which is related to the COO and is more

oriented towards branding. Brand origin can be defined as the location, region, or country which a

brand is perceived to originate or belong to by its customers (Maden, et al., 2015). In another view,

brand origin is the country which the customers associate the brand with regardless of the where it

is produced.

[18]

As in relation to COO, brand origin is the COO where the customers see the brand has a strong

connection with. As discussed earlier about luxury branded products, luxury branded product is a

high-end category of branded product. However, for consumers from emerging economies or

developing countries, branded products are already considered a luxury item. As defined earlier,

luxury is the stated of extravagant, an inessential but desirable state. Due to the fact that income per

capita of citizens from developing countries is lower than developed countries, branded products

originated from developed countries are considered high price for them (Tan & Zeng, 2014). From

these citizens’ perspective, foreign brands are considered premium and luxurious products, despite

whether they are normal brands or luxury brands (Khan, et al., 2012).

2.2.1.3. Brand Prominence

Brand prominence is defined as the extent to which the product has an appearance or

marking which help to ensure that observers can recognize the brand (Han, et al., 2010). It can be

defined as the visibility of the brand name on the product. Brand prominence can be measured from

“loud” to “quiet” which is a variation from explicit to implicit. Brand prominence can be highly

visible when the logo or brand name is shown directly on the product or it can be low in visibility if

the brand name or logo is not shown but the design is unique to the brand itself.

The COO effect, brand origin and brand prominence are factors that influence the

consumption of branded products as well as the counterfeits of the branded products. Demand of

branded products is high in emerging countries due to demand of recognition and status (Kim &

Zhang, 2014). In contrast, the limits of affordability cause the consumers below middle class to

consume counterfeits which have explicit brand prominence appearance (Koh, 2013).

2.2.2. Theory of Consumer Behaviour

On the consumers’ side, there are many theories and concepts that can help explain the

consumers’ behaviour in consumption of branded products as well as counterfeit branded products.

2.2.2.1. Deceptive and Non-deceptive Counterfeiting

The consumers’ behaviour of purchasing and consuming counterfeit can be divided into two

types (Commuri, 2009; Staake, et al., 2009; Wilcox, et al., 2009). Deceptive counterfeiting is when

the consumers are not aware that the products they are buying are counterfeit, and they believe

these are the authentic products. Non-deceptive counterfeiting is when the consumers are fully

aware that the products they are buying are counterfeits and not the real products. Each type of

these counterfeit consumptions is different in consumer behaviour and motives, which have specific

different implications for brand owners (Zhang, et al., 2012).

[19]

2.2.2.2. Price Consciousness

Price is one of the main marketing mixes. The pricing of branded products are mostly

related to the quality of the products as being famous and having a good reputation (Schiffman &

Kanuk, 2007). The consumers can view a brand based on perceived price, quality, price/quality

relationship, perceived risk, manufacturer’s image and retailer’s image. The consumer’s purchase

decision can be based on two standpoints, reference pricing among other brands and price/quality

evaluation of the brand (Niedrich, et al., 2009). Reference pricing is comparing a certain brand or

product category with other available choices to evaluate both the price and quality among different

brands. Findings show that there is a positive relationship between price and perception of quality

from the customer, due to the natural behaviour of human that judge quality based on price (Rao &

Monroe, 1989). It is human’s natural behaviour to be concerned on maximizing value of the money

they spent and carefully evaluate when the amount to spend is high. More specifically for luxury

products, people are more likely to use price as an indicator of the product quality (Keller, 2009). In

contrast, customers also expect higher price from highly perceived quality brands or product value.

2.2.2.3. Theory of Planned Behaviour

The Theory of Planned Behaviour can help to explain the consumers’ consumption pattern,

behaviour and preferences (Southey, 2011). This theory was initially known as the Theory of

Reasoned Action. The Theory of Reasoned Action is used to explain behaviours based on the

intention to engage in those behaviours, resulting from attitude and subjective norm (Ajzen &

Fishbein, 1980). The Theory of Reasoned Action was found to have one weakness, which is the

control on behaviour (Ajzen, 1988). It assumes that the behaviours of consumers are under their

control without external influence (Armitage & Christian, 2003). As the theory was developed

further, another element was added to the theory. Perceived behavioural control was added to the

theory and it became the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The addition of the new

element can mediate the unpredictable control factor which can be either an obstacle or an

opportunity. Perceived behavioural control accounts for the uncertainty in circumstances and

situation that give rise to the intended behaviour.

Attitude toward the behaviour is a person’s general feeling of favourableness or unfavourableness

for that certain behaviour (Buchan, 2005). It is also a result of beliefs with expected outcome from

engaging in certain behaviours (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Attitude is a predisposition belief and

view that is mental.

Subjective Norm is the collective belief and act of a group of referents (Buchan, 2005). Belief of

this referent group is called normative belief, which is the ideal act that the referent group will view

[20]

as correct and acceptable (Armitage & Christian, 2003). It is also one’s perception in which one

knows that people important to oneself thinks one should or should not engage in that behaviour.

Perceived Behavioural Control is the person’s internal belief and judgement of the difficulty level

of an intended behaviour (Buchan, 2005). It is determined by the beliefs of the ability to effectively

utilize resources to perform the behaviour when it is not under one’s control (Ajzen & Madden,

1986). The perception on the availability of resource will affect the intention to perform the

behaviour as well as the outcome of the behaviour performed.

2.2.3. Counterfeit Branded Products

As branded products gain the fame and demand in the market, other parties started to use

this to their own advantage. This leads to the existence of counterfeit products. Counterfeit products

are defined as products that bear a trademark or design of registered branded products, without

authorization from the brand owners (Lambkin & Tyndall, 2009). These products infringe the

trademark, copyrights and intellectual properties of the brand owners (OECD, 2007). So far,

counterfeits have been classified into 6 main types (Wang & Song, 2013).

Counterfeit Products are the exact copy of the genuine products. These are copies serve to deceive

consumers to think they are real. These are high-priced, high-quality and sometimes mixed with the

authentic products through legal distribution channels.

Pirated Products are products that copy some of the design of the genuine brand which purpose is

to attract customers looking for aesthetic of the branded products. This type of product is classified

as non-deceptive as they do not deceived customer, with their low price indicator.

Imitation Products are copies that look similar to the authentic brands but not identical. The logo

and symbol can be similar, that can be deceived at first glance but can be identified when looked

closer. The quality of these products can be high or low, but pricing is considerably low.

Custom-Made Counterfeit Products are products that replicate the trademark or signature design of

a branded product, which are produced by legitimate craftsmen who may be associated with the

genuine brand.

Over-run Products are genuine products that are over-produced beyond the quotas of the brand

owners. The local contractors purposely produce more than ordered, and illegally sold the excessive

products in the market at a lower price than the genuine products with the exact same quality.

[21]

Crude Imitations are copies that are very poor in quality and low pricing that can be identified upon

first glance. These products can have a similar design to the genuine brand, or just a logo or symbol

of the brand name patched on to it.

For the purpose of this paper, the term Counterfeit Branded Products (CBP) will be used

throughout the paper which will covers all the types of counterfeits mentioned above and not just

counterfeits of luxury branded products but also counterfeit of all products that are from established

and recognized brands.

2.2.3.1. Production, Operations and Logistics of Counterfeits

Production

There are many sources of counterfeit producer worldwide. The most well-known country

for manufacturing counterfeits is China (Hung, 2003). Asian countries are mostly targeted as a base

for manufacturing since the economy is developing and labour cost is low. ASEAN countries are

the next favourable country for manufacturing after China (Chan, 2014). Production of counterfeit

has spread to other continents as well. The manufacturing of counterfeits is rising in countries of the

European Union in order to reduce cost of import and the risk of being caught (Europol, 2015).

Africa, Latin America and the Mediterranean also produce counterfeits in other product categories

(Meraviglia, 2015).

Figure 2.2.3.1.1: Seizures of imported counterfeit and pirated products from the top 20 economies

*Seizure percentages are based on trade-weighted data from 19 reporting economies (OECD, 2007)

[22]

The manufacturing factories are mostly located in Free Trade Zones. Free Trade Zones have many

incentives in order to encourage foreign investment such as tax and duty exemption, simplified

administrative processes, and duty free importation of raw material and equipments for

manufacturing (Europol, 2015). These exemptions resulted in a lot of oversight and lack of

operation transparency. For branded products, the main production locations are China, and Asian

countries. Counterfeits manufactured beside branded product include automotive parts in the

Middle East, tobacco in Latin America, pharmaceuticals in Africa, medicine in India, food products

in Egypt and cosmetics in Turkey.

Operations

The operation of counterfeit is possible due to many factors.

Corruption: Most of the countries manufacturing counterfeits are developing countries, where they

are in the transition stage. Many rules and constitution are still not yet in place. Corruption is a

normal thing in these countries (Meraviglia, 2015). The supply chain can easily be infiltrated in

these countries (Kunnannatt, 2013). This enables counterfeits to be manufactured, and to be sold

and exported to other countries as well.

Lack of Legal Enforcement: Law relating to copyrights and intellectual properties are very weak

(Europol, 2015). Some countries have very little legislation relating to these issues, whereas in

some countries, they do have the rules and legislation in place but they lack enforcement. In some

of these countries, the average education level acquired in considerably low and the GDP per capita

is also low (Bertrand, 1996). This creates a demand and a market for counterfeit. Government

officials can overlook the operations of counterfeit in these countries by accepting briberies from

the counterfeit producers and retailers.

Free Trade Zones: The simplified legal process and little government intervention in Free Trade

Zones, create a chance for counterfeit to be manufactured (Europol, 2015). The over production

beyond quotas can be carried out without awareness of the brand owners or the government in these

areas. Documents and details of the production can be modified to avoid interception from

authorities. Very little or no IPR-related enforcements are being carried out in these areas due to the

exemption and lack of government intervention.

[23]

Logistics

The logistics and distribution of counterfeits are very well spread throughout the globe, both

legally and illegally.

Agents and Brokers: Counterfeits can easily infiltrate the supply chain and be sold along with the

genuine brand through agents and brokers (Europol, 2015). These agents and brokers will divert the

counterfeits through shortage and excess of products. These agents can access to demand and

supply information in the market, and divert counterfeit from one location to another to fill the gap.

False Documentations: By falsifying the documents of the items in the container, the distributor can

legally conceal the counterfeits and transport them legally (Europol, 2015). The documents can be

modified to hide or show the content of the container, the point of origin and details in order to

make the container appear more genuine and qualify for safety while preventing officials from

checking the contents.

Illegal Channels: Counterfeits can be smuggled in through natural channels such as mountain slope,

rivers and sea where there are almost no police and customs (Bertrand, 1996). Parts of the border as

such are not favourable location for officers to set a patrol post.

Figure 2.2.3.1.2: Shipping route and port of Counterfeits (Europol, 2015)

[24]

Legal Transportation: The transportations that are used legally can also be used by counterfeit

producers (Europol, 2015). Shipping containers, air freight, air courier, land vehicle, ferries are all

usable for transportation of counterfeit in small amount. Shipment of counterfeits in small quantity

and packaging can avoid postal check. Small shipment reduces the risk of being intercepted as bulk

transportation is too visible.

Borders and Ports of Entry: Border patrols between Asia countries and other have very little

regulation and control which create a chance for smuggler to bribe and get counterfeits transported

through the borders (OECD, 2007). Due to the exempts of Free Trade Zone, ports of entry between

country borders surrounding FTZ have very weak control. The exemption on regulations causes the

distribution of counterfeit through this channel to be immune to law and legal bindings.

Assembly in the Destination Country: The manufacturers can avoid being seized by transporting the

products in separate parts and assemble them together once they pass the border patrol (Europol,

2015). Unbranded products can pass through customs legally as they are not illegal products. The

labelling, symbol or logo of the brand can be sent in a separate shipment or even produced locally

in the destination country.

Figure 2.2.3.1.3: Movement of Counterfeit in Developing Countries (Bertrand, 1996)

[25]

Online: The internet is becoming a new platform for people to sell counterfeits internationally

(Saunders & Berger-Walliser, 2011). Online selling of counterfeit can be both deceptive and non-

deceptive. The seller can easily reach the consumers directly through legal shopping or auction

website to sell the counterfeit, and deliver the product via post office which can avoid interception.

2.2.3.2. Impact of Counterfeits on Genuine Brand Organizations

There are many literature and findings that explain the impact of counterfeits on the brand

owners. While many theories and literature stated that counterfeits create negative influence to the

brand owners, many research and findings oppositely showed that counterfeit also have positive

influence to the brand owners.

Figure 2.2.3.2: Summary of Impact of Counterfeits on Stakeholders

Figure 2.2.3.1.4: Legitimate Supply Chain Infiltration by Counterfeits (Europol, 2015)

[26]

Positive Impact

Increase Awareness: The existence of counterfeits of a certain brand can help boost the awareness

of the brand (Kim & Zhang, 2014). From a consumer’s perspective, a brand that has a counterfeit is

likely to be a well-known and popular brand that is worthy enough for counterfeit retailers to

manufacture them (Zhang, et al., 2012).

Trial Usage: Counterfeits can serve the purpose of being a proto-type for trial usage for consumers

(Gentry, et al., 2006). Consumers who are new to the brand would not want to risk a lot of cost for a

product they have no knowledge of. They would want to spend lesser in order to acquire the product

and use as a sample first. Counterfeit can be used as a sample or trial version.

Provide Experience: The consumption of counterfeits can provide consumer the experience of using

the actual brand (Sonmez, et al., 2013). Consumption of counterfeit can give consumers who cannot

afford the genuine products the prestige of using the brand name. It also has an educational effect,

which teaches customers how to use the products as well as the ability to distinguish between the

genuine products and counterfeit products.

Increase Purchase Intention: Findings showed that consumption of counterfeit can increase the

chance of consumers purchasing the genuine brand (Romani, et al., 2012). Due to the experience

that consumers receive from using counterfeit and the ability to distinguish counterfeits, consumers

will start buying the genuine brands and reject the counterfeits.

Negative Impact

Reduce Sales: Literature stated that counterfeit will reduce the sales revenue of the brand owners

(Lambkin & Tyndall, 2009). Counterfeits use the genuine brand’s reputation and fame to steal the

market of consumers. The potential consumers of the genuine brand will be lost to counterfeits.

While the availability of genuine brand is exclusive to major areas and cities, counterfeits are more

available and can reach to rural areas. Counterfeit can easily reach more customers.

Loss of Exclusivity: Counterfeit causes the genuine brand to loss it exclusivity (Commuri, 2009).

The purpose of the genuine brand is to distinguish itself from competitors and to be exclusive to

consumers who value the brand. Counterfeits are low-priced and affordable by everyone, which

cause the brands to lose their special trait.

[27]

Brand Rejection: Some customers would avoid using the brands which have counterfeit version

(Geiger-Oneto, et al., 2013). They do not feel the mental assurance as people who see them using

those brands can judge that it is counterfeit at first glance. This leaded customers to reject the

brands completely and go for other brands with no counterfeit version or non-brand products with

high quality.

Diminish Brand Image: The existence of counterfeit of a brand itself is enough to devalue the brand

name (Hieke, 2010). Consumers do not direct the existence of counterfeit to the counterfeit

manufacturer, but to the genuine brands. The genuine brand can be blamed for not protecting their

own trademark and allowing another party to steal their trademark. It can lead to a long term

erosion of brand equity.

2.2.3.3. Impact of Counterfeits on Consumers

Another important stakeholder who is influenced by counterfeits is the consumers who are

using counterfeits.

Appeal to Low-income Consumers: Consumers from developing countries where counterfeits are

easily available, would turn to counterfeit products which hold the prestigious brand name while

being within their affordability due to limited purchasing power with their low income (Geiger-

Oneto, et al., 2013). Countries as such also have high power distance which is the separation

between statuses of class in society (Kim & Zhang, 2014). Therefore, low income consumers within

these countries accept their position and choose counterfeit as self-representation of their cost,

income and status.

Travel Symbol: Possession of counterfeit can be a signal of travelling and visiting developing

countries (Gentry, et al., 2006). For consumers from developed countries in the United States or the

European Union who enjoy travelling, they would like to buy counterfeit upon reaching the

destination of their travel in Asia or other developing countries. Since counterfeits are manufactured

and openly sold in these countries, they have the urge of purchasing these products as a symbol of

have visited these regions.

Hazard and Danger: Counterfeits are able to be sold at a lower price because the quality of the

products is low. This low quality does not apply only to the functions but also the safety standard of

the products (Staake, et al., 2009). Counterfeits of electronic can sometimes malfunction or even

explode which is very dangerous to the users. Counterfeits of food products such as medicine or

foods can be harmful and causes the consumers to have food poison or other health issues (Hamelin,

et al., 2013).

[28]

2.2.3.4. Impact of Counterfeits on Government

Cost of Anti-Counterfeit Activities: It is costly to have officials and authorities to intercept and seize

counterfeit operations (OECD, 2007). The cost of investigation and taking down counterfeit

retailers consume both labour and cost of implementing the rules.

Loss of Tax Revenue: Counterfeits that are regulated in the market are below their actual price, and

are illegal. A big portion of tax is not properly collected, and market of counterfeit can illegally

operate in the country (Lambkin & Tyndall, 2009).

Corruption: Counterfeit market is illegal, and the operations of counterfeit in the region indicate

that some authorities and official are overlooking those activities (Meraviglia, 2015). This creates a

loop of corruption which the loose rules and regulations enable counterfeit to start in the first place,

and the ongoing counterfeit retailers bribe the officials to overlook their activities (OECD, 2007).

2.2.3.5. Combat Strategies against Counterfeits

In order to for an organization to protect itself or take action against counterfeits, it must

have some strategies in plan. If they are newly established brands or entering a new market, they

can use pre-active strategies. If the brand is already established and counterfeits of the brand already

exist, they can use re-active strategies.

Pro-active Strategies

Register the Trademark: The most important action that all brand owners have to take is registering

their trademarks (Battersby, 2011). They should file for patent, copyright, and Intellectual Property

Right. More specifically, the brand owners must investigate whether their existing copyright

protection is applicable in the foreign country. Some countries have their own copyright law which

do not account for the companies’ existing copyright. Investing companies have to register again, or

else their products can be counterfeited and they cannot take action against the counterfeiter.

Figure 2.2.3.5: Summary of Strategies against Counterfeits

[29]

Advertising and Promotion: The brand owners should advertise about their products by also

teaching consumers how to differentiate the genuine brands from counterfeits (Qian, 2014). By

spreading awareness about the risk and danger of counterfeit, consumers will be more careful in

their buying decision.

After Sales Service: The brand owners can improve on their after sales service which can both

attract customers to the genuine brand and retain them (Sonmez, et al., 2013). Genuine brands

should provide the ability for customers to appeal in case of product defects or failure on top of

their high quality products. This gives assurance to customers, as counterfeit purchase are one-off

transaction with no chance of appealing.

Vertical Integration: Brand owners can also protect themselves against counterfeit by strengthening

their supply chain (Stevenson & Busby, 2015). By implementing vertical integration, the firms will

be controlling the whole supply chain from sourcing raw material until the finished products reach

the retail stores. This will require investment cost, but in the long term it will increase efficiency

and reduce the risk of smuggler or counterfeits infiltrating the supply chain.

Re-active Strategies

Litigation: The most well-known action against counterfeit is to take legal action against them

(Battersby, 2011). Since the brand owners already have evidence of the copyrights that they

registered, they can sue the manufacturer or retailer for infringing their trademark. The result of

litigation can result in destruction of the counterfeit products, compensation for the brand owner or

a complete shutdown of operation of the counterfeiter.

Cease and Desist Letter: Prior to initiating litigation, brand owners can send a “cease and desist”

letter to the counterfeit retailer (Battersby, 2011). This letter is a formal letter from the brand

owners addressing the counterfeiting issue, in which the owners believe that the retailers are

innocent and have no knowledge that they are engaging in an illegal action. If both parties can come

to a conclusion at this stage, they can save costs of filing a full litigation. This method is not so

well-known but a method that can be relevant in developing country.

Instead of taking down counterfeits, brand owners can use the presence of counterfeit to

expand their market. Upon realizing the demand for the brands which leads to manufacturing of

counterfeit, the brand owners can use this indicator to capture the lower-end market.

[30]

Product Adaptation: Brand owners can tackle market of counterfeits by adapting their products to

local needs of consumers purchasing counterfeit (Hamelin, et al., 2013). They can modify the

details, designs and specifications of their own product to be lower, while retaining the original

brand name. This will lower the cost and price of the product, which will appear as a new product

category that is both genuine and within similar price range as counterfeits. The brand owners will

be able to attract counterfeit consumers.

Brand Diffusion: Brand diffusion is creating an additional brand which is under the parent brand

(Phau & Cheong, 2009). Brand diffusion includes sub-branding, nested branding and new brands

naming. Sub-branding is using the parent brand name plus a new adjacent brand name. Nested

branding is a new brand that is introduced by the parent brand. New brand naming is introducing a

product under a completely new brand name.

2.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses

As described in the literature review, the sources of counterfeits are mostly in developing

countries in Asia. While these countries are emerging markets and the potential market for branded

products, it is important to understand the behaviours of consumers in these countries who are

exposed to counterfeits. Based on the review of related literature, the main research problem for this

project would be:

“What are the drivers and consequences resulting from consumers’

purchase and consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products?”

This research problem comprised of three Research Questions.

2.3.1. Motives for Consumption of Counterfeits

According to the collected literature, the motives for consumption of counterfeit can be

influenced by many factors. The first research question aims to find out which factor(s) influence

the consumers’ behaviour of counterfeit consumption.

Research Question 1: “What factors motivate consumers to purchase and consume Counterfeit

Branded Products?”

Consumer-Based Brand Equity Dimensions

The dimensions of CBBE are determinants of genuine brand consumptions. These dimensions can

also be influencing counterfeit consumption. As an overall concept, high level of CBBE should

relate to low level of CBP consumption. Consumers who are loyal to the genuine brand will tend to

[31]

avoid counterfeits as they view counterfeits as unethical (Sahin & Atilgan, 2011). High level of

perceived quality on the genuine brand will cause consumer to negatively perceive the quality of

counterfeit and reduce their willingness to purchase CBP (Jenner & Artun, 2005). Consumers often

purchase the genuine brands due to their familiarity with their favourite brand, and counterfeits do

not hold the unique symbolic meaning as the genuine brand. This can reduce the intention to

consume CBP. Therefore, hypotheses based on CBBE are formed.

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Brand loyalty towards the genuine brands is negatively related to

consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Perceived quality of the genuine brands is negatively related to

consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products.

Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Brand awareness/association of genuine brands is negatively

related to consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products.

Price Consciousness

Price/quality relationship is always in the mind of consumers. Consumers of the genuine brand

often seek the prestige from the brand. Consumers who cannot afford the genuine product but also

want to enjoy the prestige of the genuine product will turn to counterfeits which are a lot cheaper

and have similar design and brand prominence. This consumer group perceived the value of

counterfeit to be high due to their price consciousness (Ang, et al., 2001). A hypothesis can be

formed as:

Hypothesis 1d (H1d): Price consciousness is positively related to consumption of

Counterfeit Branded Products.

Theory of Planned Behaviour Factors

The TPB can help explain the consumers’ attitude towards counterfeit, subjective norms, and

perceived behavioural control which influence the intention of counterfeit consumption. Attitude

towards counterfeits explain a major portion of the decision to purchase counterfeits as favourable

attitude is associated with higher intention and unfavourable attitude is associated with lower

intention (Wee, et al., 1995). Subjective norm also influence willingness to consume CBP because

when consumers want to conform to expectation of others, the chance of them purchasing CBP will

increase (Kim & Karpova, 2010). For perceived behavioural control, when consumers perceive it to

be easy to acquire CBP, their intention to purchase CBP will increase. Hypotheses can be formed

from the TPB relating to CBP as:

[32]

Hypothesis 1e (H1e): Attitudes towards Counterfeit Branded Products are positively

related to consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products.

Hypothesis 1f (H1f): Subjective norm is positively related to consumption of

Counterfeit Branded Products.

Hypothesis 1g (H1g): Perceived behavioural control is positively related

to consumption of Counterfeit branded Products.

2.3.2. Loyalty towards Counterfeits

The ownership of counterfeits can affect the consumers’ loyalty towards CBP. The second

research question aims to find the difference in loyalty towards counterfeits between owners and

non-owners of counterfeits.

Research Question 2: “How does consumption of Counterfeit Branded Products influence the

consumers’ loyalty towards Counterfeit Branded Products?”

Past studies found that owners and non-owners can differ in many attitudes and behaviours related

to counterfeits. Counterfeit owners have more favourable attitude towards counterfeit and believe

they are on the same level as the genuine product (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000). Counterfeit owners

have more intention for future CBP purchase which shows their satisfaction with the price, function,

quality and performance of counterfeits (Ang, et al., 2001). Counterfeit owners can develop loyalty

towards CBP in the form of more favourable attitude, willingness to pay more, repeat purchase

intention and increasing consumption (Quester & Neal, 2007). The following hypotheses are

developed in order to prove that CBP owners are loyal to counterfeits.

Figure 2.3.1: Relationships of Variables in Research Question 1

[33]

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Counterfeit owners have more favourable attitude toward

Counterfeit Branded Products than non-owners.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Counterfeit owners have a stronger intention to purchase and

consume Counterfeit Branded Products than non-owners.

Hypothesis 2c (H2c): Counterfeit owners are willing to pay more for

Counterfeit Branded Products than non-owners.

Hypothesis 2d (H2d): The majority of counterfeit owners possess multiple types

of Counterfeit Branded Products.

2.3.3. Perceptions of the Genuine Brands

As the literature revealed the impact of CBP on the genuine brands, the conclusion is not

absolute. Some literature stated that counterfeits cause negative impact on the genuine brand, while

some other findings counterfeit are not harmful but also beneficial to the genuine brand. The third

research question will look into this issue.

Research Question 3: “Does possession of Counterfeit Branded Products influence the consumers’

perception toward the genuine brand?”

A majority of counterfeit purchases are non-deceptive as the consumers already account for

price/quality consideration with their affordability. They will still divide the counterfeits and the

genuine brand mentally by not attributing the failure of counterfeits to the genuine brand (Hieke,

2010). Ownership of CBP should not devalue the CBBE of the genuine brand and might even boost

the prestigious status of those brands (Eisend & Schuchert-Güler, 2006). A hypothesis is formed to

investigate this prospect.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): There is no difference in perception towards the genuine brand

between counterfeit owners and non-owners.

[34]

3. Primary Research

3.1. Research Philosophy

There are four philosophies that can be adopted when conducting a research (Saunders, et al.,

2012). Positivism is a philosophy which data is collected about an observable reality and search for

regularities and causal relationship in the data to create law-like generalizations. It involves using

an existing theory to develop hypotheses and test those hypotheses to confirm it. Realism is

philosophy that relies on senses and understanding of the human mind. Finding of realism is clearer

for business and management research when there are contrasting theories. Intepretivism is a

philosophy which the researchers account for the differences in human roles as social actors. It

focuses on the aspect that the research is on human being instead of objects. Pragmatism is a

philosophy that views concepts as relevant only where they support action. This philosophy is open

to ambiguity which many methods and positions can be adopted.

This research follows positivism and interpretivism philosophies as this research collect data in

order to study an ongoing phenomenon and social norm of human in the context of the research is

taken into consideration (Lu, 2013). Positivism also tries to understand and predict behaviours

through quantitative analysis and objective measurement (Doyle, et al., 2009). Positivism also

corresponds to the research problem by studying the motives for consumption of CBP through

objective methods. Interpretivism takes into account the human behaviour as social actor in their

living environment and condition (Gill & Johnson, 2010).

3.2. Research Approach

There are three approaches that a research can follow, deductive, inductive and abductive

(Saunders, et al., 2012). A deductive approach starts with a theory which is developed through

academic literature, and a research is designed to test that theory. An inductive approach starts by

collecting data to examine a phenomenon and theory is derived from the result (Ketokivi & Mantere,

2010). An abductive approach involves collecting data to explore a phenomenon, explain themes

and patterns in order to create a new theory or modify an existing theory through subsequent data

collection.

This research adopts a deductive approach as theories on consumer behaviours and counterfeit

already exist. Pre-structured and tested methodology is used in order to ensure reliability (Gill &

Johnson, 2010). The data is collected to examine if those theories hold true for the context of

Cambodia, which adds to the existing knowledge instead of creating a new knowledge or theory.

[35]

3.3. Research Methodology

There are two main methodologies which can be used to collect data, which are quantitative

and qualitative method.

3.3.1. Review of Possible Methodologies

Quantitative method is a method that deals with numerical data which can be computed and

analysed using statistical techniques (Carley, 2014). Quantitative research analyzes the relationship

between variables using data collected in a standardized manner. As the name imply, quantitative

research focus on gathering data from a huge quantity of respondent in order to improve the validity

and reliability of data. Quantitative research methods include survey, structured interviews and

structured observation (Render, et al., 2014).

Survey: A data collection method which focuses on distributing questionnaire and collecting

standardized data in return. The data collected through a survey are mostly computable and can be

analysed using statistics.

Structured Interview: A data collection method which involves interviewing the participants

individually, using a pre-determined set of questions. The researcher will follow the procedure of

the interview by acquiring all the answers to the pre-set questions. Identical set of questionnaire are

interviewed with all participants.

Structured Observations: A data collection method which the researchers do not engage the

participants. They collect data through observation of the participants’ behaviour whether any

known behaviours are shown as theory stated.

Qualitative method is a method that deals with categorical data that cannot be measured or

computed numerically (Carley, 2014). The data collection method is non-standardized or structured

which the questions and procedure can change during the course of the research process. Qualitative

focuses on gaining access to the participants and acquiring their data. Sometimes the criteria of the

required participants are very important and restrictive which cause the researcher to not be able to

reach the preferred participants. Qualitative research methods include semi-structured or

unstructured interview, group interview, and focused group discussions (Corbin & Strauss, 2014).

Semi-structured or Unstructured Interview: An interview which involves a main topic or theme but

non-standardized set of questions. Participants of semi-structured or in-depth interview are mostly

key individuals relating to the field of the research purpose. The questions can alter during the

interview depending on the flow of the interview.

[36]

Group Interview: This type of interview involves a one-to-many interview. A group of participants

consisting of more than two are gathered to conduct the interview. This type of interview mostly

uses semi-structured set of questions to get the answers from each participant. The researcher can

investigate for difference in answers between participants.

Focused Group Discussion: This type of discussion is more narrowed and precise than group

interview. The topic and purpose of the discussion is clearly defined and the participants are

allowed to interact and exchange ideas or arguments. The researcher is the observer as he initiates

the discussion with a topic and he observes while collecting data with minimum engagement with

the discussion.

A mixed method of both the quantitative and qualitative research is also possible (Creswell,

2013). Pragmatism and realism philosophy often leads to usage of a mixed method. A quantitative

method can be conducted first then followed by a qualitative method, vice-versa or simultaneously

conducted.

3.3.2. Chosen Methodology and Justification

Quantitative research is chosen as the method to conduct the research. Quantitative is

associated with positivism which is the chosen philosophy as it is used with highly structured data

collection techniques (Saunders, et al., 2012). It is also associated with a deductive approach which

focuses on using the collected data to test on existing theories. Due to the lack of experience in

research, a standardized and structured survey is more effective in gathering data. The data analysis

through quantitative method is also more accurate and objective.

A quantitative approach focuses on gathering data from a number of participants instead of a few

key special participants (Patten, 2016). This method is applicable compared to qualitative data

collection which needs access to key individuals. The first disadvantage of qualitative research is

the response of the participants. It is important to select the participants who are qualified to receive

the interview. Their response is likely to contain bias and it is also affected by their mood and the

flow of the interview (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). More importantly, due to the researcher’s lack of

experience in the area of research, conducting a qualitative research through interview is difficult.

The next step of analyzing the manuscript of the interview to identify keywords or pattern is even

harder, as it is highly subjective to the interpreter’s judgement. In addition, the previous research

that this research followed as a basis also used a quantitative method, which is a key indicator that a

quantitative method is more appropriate for research in this area (Lu, 2013).

[37]

3.4. Research Design

The research design will explain the details of the target sample, the survey instruments, and

the survey distribution methods.

3.4.1. Target Sample

The target sample which this study is interested in is Adult Shoppers in Cambodia aged

from 15-45. The population is Cambodian citizen in general as they are easily exposed to CBP

(BNG Legal, 2010). The age range is set to include almost all age group from high school students

to adult workers. The age range is wide as counterfeits are cheap and affordable by all age group.

University students are likely to purchase CBP due to their income limitation and desire to gain the

benefits of the branded products (Phau, et al., 2009). Similar studies relating to counterfeit also

targeted university students (Lu, 2013; Phau, et al., 2009; Wang, et al., 2005; Wilcox, et al., 2009).

3.4.1.1. Sampling Strategy

For a quantitative research of survey, a probability sampling is preferred (Aaker, et al.,

2007). A probability sampling is a sampling method which the survey is distributed to everyone and

filtered out to get the target sample later (Saunders, et al., 2012). This method gives a more

representative sample but it is time and cost consuming. Due to the limited time and resource of the

researcher, a probability sampling is not feasible. Non-probability sampling was used instead,

which the survey are distributed to selective group of people who the researcher judged that they

will likely be the target sample (Malhorta, 2009). Non-probability sampling is common in social

research due to time and resource constraints (De Vaus, 2002). Many previous researches in this

field also used non-probability sampling

The type of non-probability sampling used in this study was convenient sampling. Convenient

sampling is a sampling technique which the population elements are chosen according to the

researcher’s convenient (Malhorta, 2009). As the name implies, convenient sampling involve

selecting a sample which the researcher can get easily reach and collect data (Aaker, et al., 2007).

The researcher personally judges and evaluates which sample are qualified for answering the

research questions and convenient to reach. Samples chosen due to convenience often meet the

criteria of being from the population of interest and relevant to the research purpose (Saunders, et

al., 2012).

[38]

3.4.1.2. Sample Size Determination

The determination of a target sample size is important as it ensures that enough information

is gathered to achieve meaningful results, and some extra value will be derived from the additional

sample (Denscombe, 1998). Several factors must be taken into consideration when determining a

sample size, which includes the nature of the research, resource constraints and the sample size of

similar studies (Aaker, et al., 2007; Malhorta, 2009).

After an evaluation of all factors, the sample size of at least 200 participants is required for this

study. For the multiple regression analysis, the sample size should be 10 times the number of

variables in this analysis. The multiple regression analysis in this study involves 8 variables (brand

loyalty, perceived quality, brand awareness/association, price consciousness, attitudes toward CBP,

subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, and consumption of CBP), which indicates a

minimum sample size of 80. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will also be used to compare 2

groups; CBP owners and non-owners. When analyzing groups within a sample, each group should

contain at least 100 participants (Aaker, et al., 2007). Since 2 groups are analyzed using one-way

ANOVA, a minimum of 200 participants with at least 100 participants per group is appropriate for

this study. Previous studies in the same field also supported this sample size (Bian & Moutinho,

2011a; Kim & Karpova, 2010; Lu, 2013; Phau & Teah, 2009; Wang, et al., 2005).

3.4.2. Instruments

The research instruments for conducting the research include a Participant Information

Sheet (PIS) and a questionnaire. The PIS was given to everyone and people who are willing to

participate will be given the questionnaire. These two documents are both in English and the local

language “Khmer”. The participants can choose the language they prefer (Appendix A, B, C, D).

The PIS outlines the details which participants must know before deciding whether to participate in

the survey. The PIS includes the purpose of the research, the benefits of the study results, the

privacy of the participants and what the participants need to do to properly answer the questionnaire.

3.4.2.1. Questionnaires

The questionnaire is divided into four main sections. The first section consists of questions

that measures the participants’ subjective norm and price consciousness. Section two asks the

participants to mention their favourite brands and then measures the participants’ perceptions

towards those brands. Section three focuses on CBP which the questions measure the attitudes

toward CBP, perceived behavioural control and the intention to consume CBP. The last section

focuses on collecting demographic and behavioural details including age, gender, occupation,

income level, education level, and status of counterfeit ownership.

[39]

3.4.2.2. Measurement Items

As this research follows a study that was previously conducted, the variables and

measurement items were pre-determined (Lu, 2013). The main variables of the research were

measured by scales which already existed in literature. The measurement items and scales were

proven of their validity in previous researches. A seven-point Likert Scales was used to measure the

participants’ responses to the measurement items. A seven-point Likert Scales was chosen instead

of a five-point or nine-point scales after many considerations (Robson, 2002; Sarantakos, 1998). A

five-point scale may not sufficiently measure the detail of the choice of responses. A nine-point

scale may be very detailed but that level of measurement complexity is unnecessary for this study.

A seven-point scale is appropriate for this study as it is enough to provide enough necessary

information and not too complex for measuring the responses. The usage of a seven-point Likert

Scales is also supported by previous and relevant researches in this field (Kim & Karpova, 2010; Lu,

2013; Phau & Teah, 2009; Wang, et al., 2005).

The seven-point response choices available are: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Slightly Disagree,

Neutral, Slightly Agree, Agree and Strongly Agree; or Not At All Likely, Very Unlikely, Somewhat

Unlikely, Neutral, Somewhat Likely, Likely, Definitely Will.

Table 3.4.2.2: Sources of Measurement Items of Variables (Lu, 2013)

*Details of the measurement items are in Appendix E

[40]

3.4.2.3. Reliability Analysis: Scale Reliability

All the measurement items and scales were already tested and proven of its reliability in the

previous research (Lu, 2013). A reliability analysis was conducted by the previous author in order

to test the measurement items’ internal consistency (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009).

The previous author used Cronbach’s alpha to test the reliability of the research instruments.

Cronbach’s alpha was computed using the average inter-correlations among the items used to

measure the variables, and it shows the correlations amount the items in a set with the value of 1 as

the upper limit. Alpha score can range between 0-1, with the score closer to 1 indicates a high level

of consistency and a lower score indicates that the measurement items have little in common. In

general, a score lower than 0.60 are considered poor, a score between 0.70-0.80 is acceptable, and

score above 0.80 is good (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The alpha score of the measurement items

are expected to be at least 0.70 in this study since the items are previously established.

Specifically for the variable Perceived Quality, it only has 2 measurement items. A Pearson

Correlation Test is tested in addition to the Cronbach Alpha to ensure the consistency of this

variable (Cramer, et al., 2006; Cuijpers, et al., 2009).

Table 3.4.2.3.1: Cronbach’s Alpha of Measurement Scale Items (Lu, 2013)

[41]

The results show that all the variables are reliable except for Perceived Quality. Perceived Quality

has a score of 0.688 which is lower than expected but acceptable. The Pearson Correlation test

results was conducted specifically for Perceived Quality as it is a 2 items variable. The results are

significant which shows that the items for this scale were suitable for this research.

3.4.3. Procedure

The procedure in which the survey should be conducted is to distribute the questionnaire to

reach the target sample and collect those responses back. Four different survey methods were

available which are personal (face to face), online, telephone and mail (Aaker, et al., 2007;

Malhorta, 2009; Sekaran & Bougie, 2009). This research adopted two methods of distribution

which were online survey and personal survey.

3.4.3.1. Distribution Methods

Each survey method has its own advantages and disadvantages (Saunders, et al., 2012). The

chosen methods were selected with the consideration of cost, time and effectiveness of data

collection (Creswell, 2013; Render, et al., 2014).

Online Survey: Online survey is convenient for both the researcher and the participants as the cost is

low and the internet is easily available which enables the participants to fill in the survey whenever

they want to. This method lacks the communication between the researcher and the participant

which cause the participants to not fully understand the purpose of the survey (Saunders, et al.,

2012). In order to mediate this issue, the Participant Information Sheet is on the first page of the

survey and the researcher also personally messages all the participants to explain the purpose of the

research. This method meets the research requirement given the time, cost and resource available.

The survey is manually entered into an online website and modified into a survey format. The link

of the survey is then shared through many groups in the social media Facebook including groups of

Table 3.4.2.3.2: Pearson Correlation Coefficient for Perceived Quality (Lu, 2013)

et

[42]

Cambodian people currently in Singapore, Cambodian alumni who finished studying in Singapore,

Cambodian people who are in Thailand, Cambodian alumni who finished studying in Thailand,

Cambodian people in England and a private university in Cambodia.

Personal Survey: This method is also known as face-to-face survey. The researcher meets the

participants personally and asks for their participation in a pen-and-paper survey. This method is

more effective as the researcher can communicate with the participant directly and clear some

doubts for the participants while they fill in the survey. This method also enables the researcher to

observe the participants’ behaviour. As much as this method is time consuming and difficult in

getting people to participate, it also improves the understanding of the participants in answering the

survey. This data collected through this survey method are from an anti-corruption organization in

Cambodia, one private university class and one public university class. This method is also

consistent with previous researches in the topic of counterfeit research (Bian & Moutinho, 2011a;

Penz & Stottinger, 2005; Phau, et al., 2009).

3.4.3.2. Data Entry and Coding

The responses that were collected both online and paper questionnaires, were manually

entered into a computerized statistics analysis program, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Sciences). The coding process of the seven-point Likert Scale, the response options in order from

Strongly Disagree (Not At All Likely) to Strongly Agree (Definitely Will) were coded as from “1” to

“7”. The small value code indicates a low level for the responding variable and as the coded value

gets larger, the level of the variables also gets higher. Items that have no responses were coded as

“9”. The coded data value and descriptions are shown in the following table (Lu, 2013).

Table 3.4.3.2: Data Coding (Lu, 2013)

[43]

3.5. Data Analysis Methods and Techniques

The analyses techniques to analyze the collected data will determine relationships between

variables and to compare two different groups. As to follow the previous study, multiple regression

analysis and one-way ANOVA is used as precedent (Lu, 2013). Multiple regression analysis is used

to determine the relationship between variables and one-way ANOVA is used to compare two

different groups.

3.5.1. Multiple Regression Analysis

A Multiple Regression Analysis is a technique to assess the strength of relationship between

one dependent variable and one or more independent variables (Saunders, et al., 2012). It calculated

the coefficient of determination which explains the amount of variation in the dependent variable

cause by change in independent variable(s).

Hypotheses in research question 1 (H1a to H1g) use multiple regression analysis. The dependent

variable is Consumption of CBP while the independent variables are Brand Loyalty, Perceived

Quality, Brand Awareness/Association, Price Consciousness, Attitudes toward CBP, Subjective

Norm, and Perceived Behavioural Control. The measurement items of each variable are averaged to

derive a new value which is used as the variable values in regression analysis (Ang, et al., 2001;

Wang, et al., 2005; Yoo & Donthu, 2001). The coefficient of determination (R2) value indicates the

percentage of changes in consumption of CBP that is caused by the changes of independent

variables (Malhorta, 2009). The strength and direction of relationship between all independent

variables and the dependent variables are evaluated. Positive or negative component coefficients

indicate the directions of relationships (Aaker, et al., 2007; Malhorta, 2009). Significance level of

component coefficients indicates the strength of relationship.

Negative relationships between dimensions of CBBE (brand loyalty, perceived quality, and brand

awareness/association) and CBP consumption were expected. Positive relationships between price

consciousness and factors of TPB (attitudes toward CBP, subjective norm, and perceived

behavioural control) with CBP consumption were expected.

[44]

3.5.2. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

An ANOVA is a technique to compare two or more groups to find if differences occur

(Saunders, et al., 2012). A one-way ANOVA compares means between groups which the results of

significant or insignificant differences are shown in F ratio or F statistics (Sekaran & Bougie, 2009).

Hypotheses in research questions 2 and 3 used one-way ANOVA to assess the differences between

counterfeit owners and non-owners in terms of loyalty towards CBP and perceptions toward the

genuine brands. In research question 2, the one-way ANOVA determines if differences occur in

terms of attitudes toward CBP, intentions to consume CBP, and acceptable price level for CBP

(H2a to H2c). Specifically for H2d, frequency analysis was used to calculate the number of types of

CBP possessed by counterfeit owners. Research question 3 tests to find, if there are significant

differences in perceptions toward genuine brands (brand loyalty, perceived quality and brand

awareness/association) between owners and non-owners of counterfeit.

Counterfeit owners and non-owners are expected to show significant difference in loyalty

characteristics towards CBP. On the other hand, no significant difference is expected for

perceptions toward genuine brands between counterfeit owners and non-owners.

3.6. Challenges and Overcoming the Obstacles

During the data collection phase, the researcher encounters many problems and obstacles.

The problems are translating the questionnaire and collecting data.

The original questionnaire uses only English language to convey the questions. For this study in

Cambodia, the questionnaire also has to be translated to the local language “Khmer” for participants

who do not know English. It is challenging to direct translate from English to Khmer as some words

in English do not exist in Khmer. The sentence structure and type of words use are also different

from local Khmer context. In order to solve this issue, the researcher co-operate with a colleague

who is well-knowledge in Khmer literature. They translated with some modification and alteration

to meet Cambodia context and easy for Cambodian people to understand while retaining the

original purpose of the questionnaire. After completely translating the questionnaire, they tested the

accuracy of the translated questionnaire by asking random candidates to read through the

questionnaire to see if they understand the question as the purpose intended. The candidates were

also asked to reverse-translate the questionnaire back to English to see the difference in translation.

After a few trials, the Khmer questionnaire was prepared and ready to be distributed.

[45]

Distributing the questionnaire and getting people to participate was a huge challenge. The planned

time span for data collection of 3 months was extended to 4 months due to insufficient responses.

After 3 months of data collection, only 168 responses were collected from the planned distribution

channel. During the additional one month, the researcher went to collect more data from shopping

malls and coffee shops where there is a high chance of reaching the target sample. Even though the

questions in the questionnaire are easy, they are a lot and so it is difficult to get people to participate.

After one month of additional data collection, the researcher is able to gather 67 additional

responses which reached the minimum size required for data analyses.

3.7. Ethical Considerations

The researcher took into account of the ethical considerations including the participants’

consent to participate and the protection of their privacy. Before handing over the questionnaire, the

PIS were handed to everyone and explanations were given about the purpose of the research and the

type of information that the participants need to provide. The researcher also made sure the

participants were aware that they have a choice of participating or not. The demographic part in the

questionnaire did not ask for the participants’ name, signature, contact or personal details that

enable the researcher or other people to be able to identify the individuals. This procedure and

research design helped ensure the participants knew their rights to voluntariness and privacy.

While collecting data physically at the location of the universities and companies, the researcher

also asked for permission from the administrations before conducting the survey. The survey was

distributed and collected during break times between lessons and work hours in order to not

intervene with the participants’ personal tasks. Identity of the universities and organizations are also

kept confidential as requested by the respective organizations.

[46]

4. Research Analyses

The first part of the data analysis will be a general background analyses on the descriptions

of the collected sample.

4.1. Background Analyses

A total of 235 participants participated in the survey which 168 responded via online and 67

responded via pen-and-paper. Out of the 168 online responses, 3 responses are incomplete and

cannot be used for analyses. The other 165 responses are completed and usable for data analysis.

For the usable data, 119 are responded in English and 46 are responded in Khmer. For the 67 pen-

and-paper survey, 5 responses are incomplete and cannot be used. Therefore the remaining 62

responses can be used for the analyses. For the usable data, 29 were responded in English and 33

were responded in Khmer. This accounted for a total of 227 usable responses.

4.1.1. Descriptive Analysis and Demographics of Participants

Out of the 227 responses, 111 participants owned counterfeit (48.9%), 106 participants did

not own counterfeit (46.7%), and 10 participants preferred not to indicate their ownership (4.4%).

The 10 participants with no ownership status will be excluded from the demographic analyses.

All the 227 participants consisted of 116 males and 111 females. For the 111 counterfeit

owners, the majority which is 67 participants (60.4%) are males, and only 44 owners (39.6%) are

females. For the 106 non-owners of counterfeit, the majority of 63 responses (59.4%) are females,

and the remaining 43 responses (40.6%) are males. This statistics showed that for this sample, male

participants own counterfeits more than female participants.

The age group for this research is divided into 3 groups which are age below 22, age between 22-26,

and age above 26. Participants aged below 22 are teenagers and young adults who are mostly

students. Participants aged between 22 and 26 are adults who are in their university years which

they can also start working and earn income. Participants aged above 26 are adults who are working

and well experienced in their work life. The majority of the participants are age between 22 and 26

which comprise of 153 participants (67.4%). The two other groups have a similar proportion with

the age group below 22 having 40 participants (17.6%) which is slightly more than age group above

26 only consisting of 34 participants (15%). All these age groups meet the criteria of being the

population of interest. Ownership status was quite similar among participants in age group between

22 and 26. The statistics showed that increasing age accommodate counterfeit ownership as there

are more non-owner in the age group below 22 (24 non-owners > 14 owners) and there are more

counterfeit owners in the age group above 26 (19 owners > 13 non-owners).

[47]

The majority of the respondents are students (108 participants). The second majority is private

sector employees (69 participants). Business owners (26 participant) and public sector employees

(20 participants) have a similar proportion. The minority group are others (4 participants) which can

include housewives or unemployed. The statistics show that counterfeit ownership statuses are quite

similar between students and public sector employees. A majority of the private sector employees

own counterfeit as 43 own counterfeit and 26 do not own. In contrast, a majority of business owners

do not own counterfeit as 18 do not own counterfeit and only 7 own counterfeit.

The educational levels will be grouped into two categories: medium education (secondary, and

diploma) and high education (bachelor, master, and doctorate). The majority of 185 attained high

education and the remaining 32 attained medium education. Surprisingly, for participants who

attained medium education, the majority of them do not own counterfeit (21 participants) which is

more than counterfeit owners (11 participants). As for the participants who attained high education,

Table 4.1.1: Participants’ Demographics

[48]

the majority of them own counterfeit (100 participants) which is considerably more than non-

owners (85 participants).

As for income distribution, the participants are grouped into 3 income level: low-income (none,

under 100$, and 100$-300$), middle-income (301$-500$) and high-income (above 500$). The

majority is the low-income group (102 participants), following by high-income group (74

participants) and the minority is medium-income group (51 participants). Counterfeit ownerships do

not differ for low-income group, which are 46 participants for each group. As for medium-income

group, the majority (34 participants) owns counterfeit which outweigh the non-owners (16

participants). The majority of high-income group (44 participants) do not own counterfeit which is

considerably more than counterfeit owners (29 participants).

4.1.2. Counterfeit Ownership

For the method of obtaining CBP, the majority of counterfeit owners which is 61 owners acquired

CBP by their own purchased (55%), 8 owners received from others (7.5%) and 42 owners obtained

CBP by both methods (37.8). As an overall, 103 owners purchased CBP by themselves (92.8%) and

50 owners received from others (45%).

Table 4.1.2.2: Types of CBP Owned

Table 4.1.2.1: Method of Acquiring CBP

[49]

Table 4.1.2.2 analysed the types of CBP that the counterfeit owners possessed. The results showed

that shoes and clothes were the most popular types of CBP, with 58 owners (52.3%) owning

counterfeited shoes and 57 owners (51.4%) owning counterfeited clothes. The least popular type of

CBP is jewelry with only 13 owners (11.7%). The category of other types was not considered the

least popular because it included many unidentified types which were not provided as a choice

chosen for data analysis.

4.2. Research Questions

The second part of the data analyses will look into answering the research questions.

4.2.1. Motives for Consumption of Counterfeits (RQ1)

In order to conduct a multiple regression analysis, 2 pre-steps are necessary which are

simple linear regression tests and multicollinearity tests (Patten, 2016). Simple regression linear

tests will determine if the independent variables have a significant relationship with the dependent

variable individually. This will be used to compare with the multiple regression of combined

variables test later. Multicollinearity tests are used to find relationship among independent variables

and eliminate redundant variables.

For this analysis, simple regression tests will be conducted but multicollinearity tests will not be

conducted. As the variables are derived from theories or concept (brand loyalty, perceived quality

and brand awareness/association from CBBE; attitudes toward CBP, subjective norm and perceived

behavioural control from TPB), they are already expected to have some relationship. The

elimination of the variables will also contradict with the purpose of the research question.

4.2.1.1. Simple Linear Regressions

Seven simple linear regression tests were conducted to determine the relationships between

the independent variables and the dependent variable separately.

Brand Loyalty and CBP Consumption: Brand loyalty was found to not have a significant

relationship with CBP consumption (β= -0.084; p=0.207 > 0.05).

Table 4.2.1.1.1: Simple Linear Regression of Brand Loyalty with CBP Consumption

[50]

Perceived Quality and CBP Consumption: Perceived quality was found to not have a significant

relationship with CBP consumption (β= -0.129; p=0.051 > 0.05).

Brand Awareness/Association and CBP Consumption: Brand awareness/association was found to

have a significant negative relationship with CBP consumption (β= -0.177; p=0.008 < 0.01). The R-

square value of 0.031 indicates that brand awareness/association explains 3.1% of CBP

consumption.

Price Consciousness and CBP Consumption: Price consciousness was found to not have a

significant relationship with CBP consumption (β= 0.044; p=0.505 > 0.05).

Table 4.2.1.1.4: Simple Linear Regression of Price Consciousness with CBP Consumption

Table 4.2.1.1.3: Simple Linear Regression of Brand Awareness/Association with

CBP Consumption

Table 4.2.1.1.2: Simple Linear Regression of Perceived Quality with CBP Consumption

[51]

Attitudes toward CBP and CBP Consumption: Attitudes toward CBP was found to have a

significant positive relationship with CBP consumption (β= 0.627; p=0.000 < 0.01). The R-square

value of 0.393 indicates that the attitudes toward CBP explain 39.3% of CBP consumption.

Subjective Norm and CBP Consumption: Subjective norm was found to have a significant positive

relationship with CBP consumption (β= 0.149; p=0.024 < 0.05). The R-square value of 0.022

indicates that subjective norm explains 2.2% of CBP consumption.

Perceived Behavioural Control and CBP Consumption: Perceived behavioural control was found to

have a significant positive relationship with CBP consumption (β= 0.459; p=0.000 < 0.01). The R-

square value of 0.211 indicates that perceived behavioural control explains 21.1% of CBP

consumption.

Table 4.2.1.1.7: Simple Linear Regression of Perceived Behavioural Control with

CBP Consumption

Table 4.2.1.1.6: Simple Linear Regression of Subjective Norm with CBP Consumption

Table 4.2.1.1.5: Simple Linear Regression of Attitudes toward CBP with CBP Consumption

[52]

The summary of the 7 linear regression tests are shown in the table below.

The linear regression tests showed that 4 variables have significant relationship with CBP

consumption. Brand awareness has a negative relationship with CBP consumption (β= -0.177).

Attitudes toward CBP, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control have positive relationship

with CBP consumption (β= 0627, β= 0.149, β= 0.4). Attitudes toward CBP (R2= 39.3%) explain the

most on CBP consumption following by perceived behavioural control (R2= 21.1%). Brand

awareness/association (R2= 3.1%) and subjective norm (R

2= 2.2%) also explain a small portion of

CBP consumption.

4.2.1.2. Multiple Regression Analysis

The purpose of a multiple regression analysis is to find the combined effect of independent

variables on their relationships with the dependent variable. The multiple regression result showed

that when the participants are less aware of the genuine brand, have a more favourable attitude

towards CBP and perceived CBP to be easily available, they are more likely to consume CBP.

Table 4.2.1.1.8: Summary of the Simple Linear Regressions

[53]

The results showed that the model is significant (F= 29.610, p < 0.01). The R-square value

of 0.486 indicates that all 7 independent variables explain 48.6% of the dependent variable. Only

three variables are seen to have significant relationships with CBP consumption; brand

awareness/association, attitudes toward CBP and perceived behavioural control. The other

remaining variables did not show significant relationship with the dependent variables.

For CBBE dimensions of genuine brands, hypotheses expected negative relationships to CBP

consumption. In contrast to the expectation, only the dimension of brand awareness/ association

shows significant negative relationship (β= -0.126, p=0.041 < 0.05). Brand loyalty (β= -0.054,

p=0.345 > 0.05) and perceived quality (β= -0.015, p=0.808 > 0.05) did not show significant

relationship with CBP consumption. This result indicates that low awareness and familiarity of the

genuine brands are connected to higher intention to consume CBP. Therefore for CBBE dimensions,

Hypothesis 1a and Hypothesis 1b are rejected whereas Hypothesis 1c is supported.

Price consciousness is a standalone variable which was expected to have a positive relationship with

intention to consume CBP. The result oppositely shows that price consciousness does not influence

the consumption of CBP (β= -0.050, p=0.323 > 0.05). Therefore for this study, the consumers’

consciousness on price/quality comparison and value for money did not influence their intention to

consume CBP. This result causes Hypothesis 1d to be rejected.

For the factors of TPB, hypotheses expected positive relationships to CBP consumption. The results

were as expected as two out of three factors show significant positive relationships. Attitudes

toward CBP (β= 0.517, p=0.000 < 0.01) and perceived behavioural control (β= 0.276, p=0.000 <

Table 4.2.1.2: Multiple Regression Analysis for Consumption of CBP

[54]

0.01) are shown to positively influence CBP consumption, while attitude is more influential (β=

0.517 > β= 0.276). Subjective norm is the only factor to not show significant relationship with CBP

consumption (β= 0.027, p=0.600 > 0.05). According to these results, Hypothesis 1e and Hypothesis

1g is supported, where as Hypothesis 1f is rejected.

4.2.1.3. Comparison of Linear Regression Analyses and Multiple Regression Analysis

After the multiple regression analysis, there is one major change to the significance of the

independent variable, subjective norm. Other significant variables which are brand awareness/

association, attitudes toward CBP and perceived behavioural control remain significant to CBP

consumption. However, subjective norm which was significant individually was no longer

significant in the multiple regression analysis.

The simple linear regression test for subjective norm showed that it had a significant

positive relationship with CBP consumption (β= 0.149, p=0.024 < 0.05). In the multiple regression

test, it was no longer significant (β= 0.027, p=0.600 > 0.05). The major change was the significant

level which increased from 0.024 to 0.600 that turn it from a significant factor to an insignificant

one. The main cause for this is multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is expected to exist between

subjective norm and two other variables from TPB. However, it is possible that multicollinearity

exist between subjective norm and price consciousness or the dimensions from CBBE. The

investigation into this is beyond the scope of this study and will not be conducted, but future studies

can look further into this phenomenon which might uncover the link between the subjective norm

from TPB with other theories or concepts.

Table 4.2.1.3: Comparison of the Simple Linear Regressions and Multiple Regression Analysis

[55]

4.2.1.4. Revised Multiple Regression Analysis

All the significant independent variables are used to conduct a revised multiple regression

test to summarize the results. Only brand awareness/association, attitudes toward CBP and

perceived behavioural control are included in the revised test.

The R-square value of 0.481 indicates that the three significant variables contribute 48.1%

to explanation of the dependent variable. The results showed that brand awareness/association

(β= -0.141, p=0.004 < 0.01), attitudes toward CBP (β= 0.523, p=0.000 < 0.01) and perceived

behavioural control (β= 0.280, p=0.000 < 0.01) were significant factors that determine the

consumption of CBP. Attitudes toward CBP were the most significant factor that positively

influence the participants’ intention to consume CBP (β= 0.523). This indicates that participants

who had more favourable attitudes toward CBP will likely consume CBP in the future. Perceived

behavioural control was the second significant factor that positively influenced CPB consumption

(β= 0.280). This indicates that participants who perceive CBP to be easily obtain or available will

likely consume CBP. Brand awareness/association was the least significant factor (β= -0.141)

which negatively influenced the participants’ consumption of CBP. This indicates that low

familiarity and attentiveness towards the brands will increase the chance of the participants

consuming CBP.

The difference in R-square values between the original multiple regression analysis and the revised

analysis is 0.006. This indicates that the four insignificant factors (brand loyalty, perceived quality,

price consciousness and subjective norm) that were excluded from the revised test only have a

combined 0.6% influence on dependent factor, CBP consumption.

Table 4.2.1.4: Revised Multiple Regression Analysis for Consumption of CBP

[56]

4.2.2. Loyalty towards Counterfeits (RQ2)

The second research question will be answered by one-way ANOVA analyses to compare

between counterfeit owners and non-owners in terms of loyalty towards CBP. The results showed

that there is significant difference as counterfeit owners were found to be more loyal towards CBP

as they have more favourable attitudes towards CBP, stronger intentions to consume CBP, and

higher willingness of price perception than non-owners. As for possession of CBP, 50.5% of

counterfeit owners possessed multiple types of CBP. These four tests of loyalty characteristics

towards CBP were conducted separately.

4.2.2.1. Attitudes toward Counterfeits

The one-way ANOVA was conducted individually for each measurement item and

summarized to one table, belonging to each characteristic respectively.

The results showed that counterfeit owners have more favourable attitude towards CBP than

non-owners for almost all the perception items. Nine out of ten items are found to be significantly

different. The only item to show no difference is perception of quality (F= 0.606, p=0.437 > 0.05).

There was not much difference in perception that CBP has similar quality as the genuine version,

between owners and non owners.

In terms of IPR infringement (F= 12.216, p=0.001 < 0.01), counterfeit owners perceived CBP as

less harmful than non-owners perceived (µ1=3.17 > µ2=2.40). As for damage to interest of the

brand owners (F= 13.709, p=0.000 < 0.01), counterfeit owners also perceived CBP to not harm the

Table 4.2.2.1: Comparison of Counterfeit Owners’ and Non-Owners’ Attitudes

[57]

brand owners as much as non-owner think (µ1=3.18 > µ2=2.37). For the overall effect on brand

industry (F= 19.216, p=0.000 < 0.01), counterfeit owners also viewed CBP to not harm the industry

as the non-owners do (µ1=3.22 > µ2=2.28).

For the products comparison in term of prestige (F= 12.140, p=0.001 < 0.01), counterfeit owners

are more likely to perceived that CBP bring prestige of the genuine brands (µ1=4.03 > µ2=3.23). As

for functionality (F= 5.752, p=0.017 < 0.05), counterfeit owners are more likely to think that CBP

possess similar functions as the genuine brands (µ1=3.69 > µ2=3.21). In terms of reliability

(F= 3.06, p=0.012 < 0.05), counterfeit owners are more likely to see that CBP are as reliable as the

genuine brands (µ1=3.06 > µ2=2.57).

For comparison of legality of purchase and consumption of CBP (F= 12.560, p=0.000 < 0.01),

counterfeit owner are more likely to perceive CBP consumption as legal (µ1=3.53 > µ2=2.75). In

terms of personal moral and ethics (F= 17.357, p=0.000 < 0.01), counterfeit owners are more likely

to view CBP as ethical (µ1=3.39 < µ2=2.58). As for security of CBP activities (F= 14.334, p=0.000

< 0.01), counterfeit owners are more likely to think that they will not be easily caught for

purchasing or using CBP (µ1=4.46 > µ2=3.65).

For the overall comparison of attitudes toward CBP, the majority of the perception items

show significant differences (9/10 items). Therefore H2a is supported.

4.2.2.2. Behavioural Intentions

Counterfeit owners were found to have a stronger intention to purchase and consume CBP

compared to non-owners. As discussed in the previous section, the majority of counterfeit owners

(92.8%) purchased CBP on their own. Based on this, this group of owners’ intention to purchase

CBP will be considered as “repurchase intention” for this test.

Table 4.2.2.2: Comparison of Counterfeit Owners’ and Non-Owners’ Behavioural Intentions

[58]

For all four factors of behavioural intentions, the results showed significant difference between

counterfeit owners and non-owners. Counterfeit owners are more likely to recommend CBP

(F= 22.696, p=0.000 < 0.01) to their friends or family compared to non-owners (µ1=3.28 >

µ2=2.30). Counterfeit owners are more likely to purchase CBP for others people (F= 26.030,

p=0.000 < 0.01) including their friends or family than non-owners (µ1=3.70 > µ2=2.51).

Counterfeit owners are more likely to purchase CBP for themselves (F= 53.196, p=0.000 < 0.01)

compared to non-owners (µ1=3.72 > µ2=2.21). Counterfeit owners are more likely use CBP

(F= 64.362, p=0.000 < 0.01) for self-consumption than non-owners (µ1=3.75 > µ2=2.12).

This result indicated that counterfeit owners who purchase on their own are more likely to

repurchase CBP than non-owners. As all factors showed significant difference in behavioural

intentions between counterfeit owners and non-owners, Hypothesis 2b was supported.

4.2.2.3. Acceptable Price Level for Counterfeits

The results showed that counterfeit owners possess higher acceptable price level for CBP

than non-owners.

Both factors of acceptable price level, showed significant differences between counterfeit owners

and non-owners. Counterfeit owners are more likely to expect higher price level (F= 10.532,

p=0.001 < 0.01) for a reasonable quality CBP than non-owners (µ1=3.26 > µ2=2.71). Counterfeit

owners are also more likely willing to pay more (F= 12.083, p=0.001 < 0.01) for CBP compared to

non-owners (µ1=3.36 > µ2=2.78).

As the results showed, counterfeit owners expected higher price and were willing to pay more for

CBP than non-owners. The significant difference of both factors supported Hypothesis 2c.

Table 4.2.2.3: Comparison of Counterfeit Owners’ and Non-Owners’ Acceptable Price Level

[59]

4.2.2.4. Possession of Counterfeits

A frequency analysis was used to analyze the amount of types of CBP that counterfeit

owners possessed. The results showed that a majority of the owners (50.5%) possessed at least two

types of CBP.

Out of the 111 counterfeit owners, 55 owners possess only one type of CBP (49.5%). Twenty seven

participants owned two types of CBP (24.3%), eleven participants possessed three types of CBP

(9.9%), thirteen participants possessed four types of CBP (11.7%), 2 participants possessed five

types of CBP (1.8%), and three participants possessed six types of CBP (2.7%). As an overall, 56

participants owned at least two types of CBP (50.5%) which this majority indicated a high overall

possession for counterfeit owners. This result supported Hypothesis 2d.

As an overall analysis of loyalty characteristics, all four factors showed significant

differences. Counterfeit owners had more favourable attitudes toward CBP, stronger intentions to

purchase and consume CBP, and higher acceptable price level for CBP than non-owners.

Additionally, a majority of counterfeit owners possessed multiple types of CBP compared to non-

owners. All the results of these characteristics concluded that the ownership of CBP cause

counterfeit owners to develop loyalty towards CBP.

4.2.3. Perceptions of the Genuine Brands (RQ3)

The last research question investigated whether ownership of CBP influence the CBBE of

the genuine brands. The one-way ANOVA for this part tested to see whether there is difference in

perception towards the genuine brands between counterfeit owners and non-owners. The analysis

showed that possession of CBP did not influence the genuine brands perception.

Table 4.2.2.4: Amount of Types of CBP Possessed by Owners

[60]

For the brand loyalty dimension of CBBE, only one out of three factors showed significant

difference between counterfeit owners and non-owners. Non-owners are more likely to choose their

favourite brands as first choice (F= 8.830, p=0.003 < 0.01) during their shopping compared to

counterfeit owners (µ2=5.49 > µ1=4.99). As for being highly loyal to their favourite genuine brands

(F= 0.254, p=0.615 > 0.05) and considering them to be the only choice in their purchase (F= 0.142,

p=0.707 > 0.05), there is no difference in these factors between counterfeit owners and non-owners

as both group show slight positive attitudes to these factors (µ1, µ2 > 4).

As for perceived quality of the genuine brands, both measurement items showed no significant

differences. Both counterfeit owners and non-owners similarly perceived the genuine brands to be

highly functional (F= 0.514, p=0.474 > 0.05) and possessed high quality (F= 0.127, p=0.722 >

0.05), as their perceptions fall towards the positive end of the spectrum (µ1, µ2 > 4).

In terms of brand awareness/association, the results showed no significant differences as all

counterfeit owners and non-owners demonstrated no difference on all five factors. Both groups are

able to recognize their favourite brands (F= 0.049, p=0.826 > 0.05) when those brands are mixed in

randomly with other brands (µ1, µ2 > 4). Both groups are also similar (F= 2.459, p=0.118 > 0.05)

in being aware of which brands are their favourite (µ1, µ2 > 4). When trying to recall the

characteristics of their favourite brands (F= 3.290, p=0.071 > 0.05), both groups are able to slightly

recall those characteristics (µ1, µ2 > 4). Both groups also have in common (F= 0.294, p=0.588 >

Table 4.2.3: Comparison of CBBE between Counterfeit Owners and Non-Owners

[61]

0.05) the ability to recall their favourite brands’ symbol, logo or signature trademark (µ1, µ2 > 4).

In trying to picture their favourite brands mentally (F= 0.072, p=0.789 > 0.05), both groups

demonstrated the ability to be able to picture those products in their minds (µ1, µ2 > 4).

As an overall view on CBBE of the genuine brands, nine out of ten measurement items

show no significant difference (p > 0.05) between counterfeit owners and non-owners. This

indicated that possession and consumption of CBP do not affect the brand loyalty towards the

genuine brand, perceived quality and brand awareness/association of the genuine brands which are

from the perception perspective. These results supported Hypothesis 3.

4.3. Summary of Results

The summary of the analyses results outlined in Table 4.3, concluded the results of each

hypotheses of the research questions. The three research questions comprise of 12 hypotheses. The

analyses results showed that 8 hypotheses were supported while the other 4 hypotheses were

rejected, which all these indicated the contribution of this study.

For research question 1, three out of seven hypotheses were supported. The factors showing

significant relationships are brand awareness/association with a negative relationship to CBP

consumption, and attitudes toward CBP together with perceived behavioural control having positive

relationships with CBP consumption. The other four factors including brand loyalty, perceived

quality, price consciousness and subjective norm showed no significant relationship with CBP

consumption.

For research question 2, all four hypotheses were supported. There is significant difference in

loyalty towards CBP between counterfeit owners and non-owners. Counterfeit owners have more

favourable attitudes toward CBP, higher purchase intentions, willing to pay more for CBP and own

multiple types of CBP compared to non-owners.

For research question 3, the hypothesis was also supported. The result showed no significant

difference in terms of perceptions toward the genuine brands between counterfeit owners and non-

owners. Possession and consumption of CBP did not influence the CBBE of the genuine brands.

[62]

Tab

le 4

.3:

Sum

mar

y o

f R

esult

s fo

r H

ypoth

eses

[63]

5. Conclusion

This section will focus on concluding the output results of the research questions, the

implications of the findings for brand owners and the government, the limitations of this study and

the suggestions for further researches.

5.1. Findings and Discussion

The results of the three research questions will answer to the main research problem of

determining the drivers and consequences of consumers’ purchase and consumption of CBP.

5.1.1. Motives for Consumption of Counterfeits

Research question one examined to find the factors that influence CBP consumption. The

data analyses showed that three out of seven independent variables were significantly related to

CBP consumption which were brand awareness/association, attitudes towards CBP and perceived

behavioural control. This concluded that consumption of CBP was caused by low genuine brand

awareness/association, more favourable attitudes toward CBP and ease of acquiring CBP.

Consumer-Based Brand Equity

Three dimensions of CBBE were selected to be tested with CBP consumption. They were

hypothesized to negatively influence CBP consumption (H1a: brand loyalty, H2a: perceived quality,

H3a: brand awareness/association). The results of this study supported H1c, but rejected H1a and

H1b indicating that brand awareness/association had a significant negative relationship with CBP

consumption while brand loyalty and perceived quality did not significantly related to CBP. This

finding contributed to existing literature (Lu, 2013).

Specifically for brand awareness/association and perceived quality, the results showed that

consumers who were more familiar with the genuine brands were less likely to consume CBP. In

contrast, the consumers’ perceived quality on the genuine brands did not affect the consumers’

decisions to consumer CBP. These findings are consistent with the previous findings that

consumers purchase CBP in order to enjoy the prestige and symbolic meanings of the genuine

brands, rather than for the product attributes (Bian & Moutinho, 2011a; Penz & Stottinger, 2005).

This implied that when consumers consume CBP, they give more value to the brand

awareness/association of the genuine brands than perceived quality of those brands. Therefore for

consumers, who are knowledgeable about the genuine brands, they see less symbolic benefits that

can be received from CBP; this as a result reduced their intentions to consume CBP.

[64]

As previously found, brand loyalty of the genuine brands did not influence CBP consumption (Lu,

2013). This can be due to the similar income levels between the samples. This study collected data

mostly from university students and low-income group. However, this contradicted with findings of

other authors (Sahin & Atilgan, 2011). Other research showed significant relationship which could

be due to the diversity of income level of that sample. These conflicting results showed that

influence of brand loyalty in CBP purchase decision may differ across various income levels

(Chance & French, 1972). High-income have the option of consuming their favourite and preferred

brands without problems of affordability, On the other hand, low-income consumers do not have

this option as their financial constraints limit their affordability of their favourite genuine brands.

Price Consciousness

Price consciousness was expected to positively influence CBP consumption (H1d). The

analysis result showed that price consciousness was not significantly related to CBP consumption,

which rejected H1d. This is consistent with previous findings which also found that this variable is

an insignificant determinant (Lu, 2013) and another study which found a conflict relationship

between price consciousness and CBP consumption (Penz & Stottinger, 2005; Phau & Teah, 2009).

This supported the view that the consumers’ price/quality evaluation did not necessarily affect their

CBP consumption.

This study result supported the findings by Lu (2013) but conflicted with Phau and Teah (2009)

who found that price consciousness had a positive relationship with CBP consumption. This study

focused on similar group age as Lu (18-25) which can be why it showed contradicting result with a

different age group from Phau and Teah (21-45). Other research findings showed significant

relationship between price consciousness and CBP consumption, since price consciousness was

embedded in attitudes (Ang, et al., 2001; Kim & Karpova, 2010; Wang, et al., 2005). Other related

research also showed that consumers from different regions and age group may have different

values and attitudes toward CBP (Bian & Veloutsou, 2007; Huang, 2009). Therefore, the

compilation of these findings suggested that the influences of price consciousness on CBP

consumption are mediated by age and cultural context.

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Three factors of TPB were hypothesized to positively related to CBP consumption which are

attitudes toward CBP (H1e), subjective norm (H1f), perceived behavioural control (H1g). The

results supported H1e and H1g while rejected H1f as attitudes toward CBP and perceived

behavioural control had significant relationship with CBP consumption, but subjective norm did not

have any significant relationship. This result is consistent with the previous findings (Lu, 2013).

[65]

This finding also contributes to the view that TPB is valuable in predicting the consumers’ unethical

behaviour. This result supported the claim by Ajzen that the three factors of TPB may have

different level of importance across different situations (Ajzen, 1991).

Subjective norm was initially found to have a significant positive relationship with CBP

consumption but was no longer significant in the combined study. This can be due to

multicollinearity between subjective norm and other variables. This will be discussed in more detail

in the section 5.5.

Combined Concepts

The multiple regression analysis results of testing three main concepts (CBBE, price consciousness,

TPB) in combination showed that one dimension from CBBE and two factors from TPB are

significant determinants. This answered to research question one as attitudes toward CBP and

perceived behavioural control motivated consumers to consume CBP while brand

awareness/association demotivated consumers from consuming CBP.

5.1.2. Loyalty towards Counterfeits

Research question two focused on investigating whether loyalty towards CBP was

influenced by ownership of CBP. Counterfeit owners were hypothesized to be more loyal on the

four characteristics: attitudes (H2a), intention to consume (H2b), willingness to pay more (H2c) and

overall possession (H2d). The results of the one-way ANOVA and frequency analysis supported all

four hypotheses, indicating that counterfeit owners showed more favourable attitudes toward CBP,

stronger intention to consume CBP, higher acceptable price level for CBP and a majority of

counterfeit owners (50.5%) own at least two types of CBP. The results of all four characteristics

showed that counterfeit owners developed loyalty towards CBP in general. This finding is

consistent with the previous study (Lu, 2013). Some previous research also founds that counterfeit

consumption influence consumers positively (Ang, et al., 2001; Bian & Moutinho, 2011b; Huang,

2009; Phau & Teah, 2009; Wang, et al., 2005). This study helped extend to the literature that

possession of counterfeit can cause consumers to develop loyalty toward CBP as a product category

(Tom, et al., 1998).

As the results of this study showed, consumers who consume CBP once will likely be more loyal to

CBP than consumers who never did. Counterfeit owners may have a positive image of CBP and

believe CBP to be on the same level as the genuine products (Nia & Zaichkowsky, 2000). This

positive view may motivate counterfeit owners to re-purchase CBP. In addition, purchase of

counterfeit can be a habit for consumers (Kim & Karpova, 2010). After CBP consumption

[66]

behaviour developed to become a habit, the amount spent on CBP and the amount of CBP owned

will dramatically increase. This overall result implied that counterfeit owners may develop

attitudinal loyalty towards CBP. However, this mental attitudinal loyalty can cause consumers to

consume more counterfeits and spend more on them.

5.1.3. Perceptions of the Genuine Brands

Research question three tested to find whether possession of CBP influence the CBBE of the

genuine brands. A hypothesis was formed that counterfeit owners and non-owners do not have

different perceptions toward the genuine brands (H3). The one-way ANOVA results showed that

there were no significant differences between the two groups. This finding is consistent with the

previous study which also found that ownership of CBP do not damage or devalue the genuine

brands image (Lu, 2013).

There were many researches on the effect of counterfeits on the genuine brands. Many literatures

stated that counterfeits negatively affect the genuine brands by reducing sales (Koh, 2013),

diminishing the brand image (Hieke, 2010), and stealing the exclusivity of the genuine brands

(Commuri, 2009). On the other hand, some researchers also found that counterfeits do not always

harm or damage the genuine brands (Kim & Zhang, 2014; Romani, et al., 2012; Sonmez, et al.,

2013). The results from this study support the view of not harming the genuine brands.

Reasons of why CBBE of the genuine brands were not affected by counterfeits can be found in

existing literature. Consumers who were aware that they are engaging with counterfeits perceive

that counterfeits do not damage the genuine brands (Hieke, 2010). Brand image and values of the

genuine brands were enhanced rather than devalued, for consumers who seek the prestige and

symbolic value of the genuine brands through more economical purchases (Eisend & Schuchert-

Güler, 2006). Specifically for the situation of non-deceptive counterfeiting where the consumers are

fully aware of the originality of the product, there are limited reasons to associate the judgements of

the counterfeit products to the genuine brands (Hieke, 2010; Penz & Stottinger, 2005). All these

literature provide reasonable arguments to suggest that ownership of CBP do not threaten or harm

the CBBE of the genuine brands.

As a summary of the answers for the research problem, the drivers of counterfeit consumption

are attitudes toward CBP and perceived behavioural control, while high brand

awareness/association can reduce counterfeit consumption. The result of consuming counterfeits

can cause consumers to develop loyalty towards CBP but the consumers still value the genuine

brands as normal since CBBE of the genuine brand is not affected.

[67]

5.2. Implications

The results and findings of this study provide many implications both for the theoretical

perspective and for practical purposes.

5.2.1. Theoretical Implications

This study has 6 implications for theory which five are adding to existing body of

knowledge and one new implication specifically from this study.

The brand awareness/association dimension from CBBE is found to be negatively related to

counterfeit consumption. This implied as previous research that higher brand awareness/association

can lower the chance of consuming counterfeits; which also can mean that knowledge and

familiarity of the genuine brand can develop rejection of counterfeits (Lu, 2013). On the other end

of the spectrum, increasing chance of consuming counterfeits is associated with low awareness and

knowledge of the genuine brands. Existing literature stated that CBP consumption is not a choice of

product but also of a brand (Bian & Moutinho, 2011a). This study extends this literature by

suggesting that counterfeit rejection/avoidance is a brand choice while counterfeit consumption

maybe an action to become more familiar with the brands.

There are arguments on the effect of price consciousness on CBP consumption in existing literature.

This study found that price consciousness had no significant influence on consumers’ intention to

consume counterfeits as the previous research also did (Lu, 2013). This variable was also seen to

have different significant role across various national/cultural context and consumer age groups.

Table 5.2.1: Summary of Theoretical Implications

[68]

This implied that price consciousness was not a relevant determinant for young adults in Cambodia

but it can have a different impact for a different by nationality and age.

This study added on to the few existing studies which used TPB to investigate on counterfeit brands.

Previous study filled in the gap of the literature by applying TPB to counterfeit brands and found

that attitudes and perceived behavioural control help predict CBP consumption while subjective

norm had no influence (Lu, 2013). This implied that consumer attitudes toward counterfeits, and

perceived ease and availability of counterfeits can help to understand consumption of counterfeit.

Counterfeit owners were found to develop loyalty toward counterfeits as a product category. This

added on to the previous study by comparing owners and non-owners specifically on the four

characteristics of consumers’ behavioural loyalty (Lu, 2013). This study found significant

differences between both groups on all four characteristics as the previous study which contribute to

literature by finding that consumers can and also develop loyalty to counterfeits by treating them as

a product category or brand of its own.

Existing literature had been debating the influence of counterfeits on the genuine brands. This study

focused on the consumer aspects and found that ownership of counterfeits did not damage the

CBBE of the genuine brands. There were no significant differences between owners and non-

owners in terms of their genuine brands perception as also found previously (Lu, 2013). These

findings added to the literature that counterfeit ownership do not harm or diminish the consumers’

perception of the genuine brands.

Subjective norm from TPB can be related to factors from other theories or concept. Subjective norm

was a significant determinant in a standalone test but was no longer significant is the combined test

(Section 4.2.1.3). This indicated that there was multicollinearity between subjective norm and other

variable (s) in the analysis which can be price consciousness or the dimensions from CBBE. Future

studies on this can provide more insights and might extend existing theories.

[69]

5.2.2. Managerial Implications

The main implication of this study is that counterfeits do not cause any harm or damage the genuine

brand perception, being consistent with the previous research (Lu, 2013). As the CBBE reflects the

value of a brand, the investigation of this concept on the counterfeit consumption can help brand

owners to better understand the impact of counterfeits on them (Farquhar, 1990). While the results

showed that ownership of counterfeit did not affect perception of the genuine brands, the CBBE

which is the core asset of the genuine brand was also not damaged by counterfeit possession. This

implied that brand owners do not have to take action or invest in strategies to deter or tackle

counterfeit at the mean time.

The results of the analyses helped companies to understand consumers’ motives of consuming

counterfeit, as the favourable attitudes implied that consumers will likely purchase counterfeit when

they are easily available and obtainable (Lu, 2013). Additionally, ownership of counterfeit

increased loyalty toward counterfeits. This affects the entry of the genuine brands into Cambodia, as

the presence of counterfeit, and pre-existing favourable attitudes and loyalty towards counterfeit can

influence the success of the genuine brands operation. Risks and return evaluation must be

conducted before deciding to enter Cambodian market.

In consideration of the ethical and legal factors in Cambodia, brand owners should take advantage

of the presence of counterfeit instead of deterring them. As the corruption level in Cambodia is high,

and the country is still developing, the IPR protection policies are also weak (Section 1.2).

Moreover, the availability of counterfeits and the consumers’ loyalty towards counterfeits must be

taken into account. If the genuine brands were to enter Cambodia, they must consider all these

factors and plan thoroughly of which steps to take. They must also consult a local legal expert to

understand their rights and possible actions.

Table 5.2.2: Summary of Managerial Implications

[70]

If the genuine brands plan to enter Cambodia to capture the local market, product adaptation

(Hamelin, et al., 2013) and sub-branding (Phau & Cheong, 2009) is advised. Some brands are

already well-known due to their counterfeit versions, which is an advantage to the brand owners.

Product adaptation and sub-branding enables the brand owners to adjust their marketing mixes to

meet local preferences, by creating a new brand with reduced prices to meet local capabilities while

not damaging the parent brands.

While the genuine brands operate in Cambodia, they should focus their marketing activity on

advertising and increasing awareness (Qian, 2014). As the results shown that high brand awareness

reduces the counterfeit consumption, brand owners should stress on this aspect in order to attract

those counterfeit consumers back to the original brand. As a precaution, the brand owners should

also study local regulations to know what actions they can take to protect their trademark, IPR and

copyrights (Battersby, 2011).

5.3. Personal Reflection and Analysis

If the genuine brands plan to enter Cambodian market, it is advised not to take legal action against

existing counterfeit retailers. Due to the fact that Cambodia is a developing country and people

having low income, most people can only resort to retailing counterfeit as a business (Section 1.2).

Some of the retailers and most of the buyers do not know that counterfeits are illegal or even know

the fact that the brands being sold infringed copyright law. Counterfeit can be seen as a commodity

product in Cambodia. Many citizens’ income depends solely on their counterfeit retailing. Even if it

is legal to take action against them, many people will be affected. Cambodian people in general

despite their income levels, will view the genuine brands’ action as an act of foreign abuse over

local citizens (Keo, 2013; Kouvelis, 2013). There were many cases of abuse over local Cambodian

worker, which the factory was outsourced by foreign brands (Bain, 2016; Blake, 2015; Human

Rights Watch, 2015). If those outsourcing brands also take action against the retailers, they would

be abusing both the workers and the retailers which will create a negative image to the brands.

Therefore brand owners should know their legal rights and take precaution to prevent their

trademarks from being stolen, but in the state Cambodia as it is now legal action against existing

retailers is not recommended. When the country develops further in the future, the brand owners

can adjust their actions accordingly.

From the results that counterfeit ownership do not damage the brand perception among consumers;

this might even add to the existing studies that counterfeit can boost the awareness of the genuine

brands (Kim & Zhang, 2014; Zhang, et al., 2012). Some studies showed that counterfeit help

increase the popularity and reputation for the genuine brands, because when counterfeit

[71]

manufacturers produce counterfeits of certain brands, it is an indication to the consumers that those

brands are famous or well-known. Looking at the analysis on research question 3 (Section 4.2.3)

which focused on brand perception among consumers, the means of all measure are above

4(neutral). The means of measure in brand loyalty are close to 5(slightly positive) and the measures

in perceived quality and brand awareness are all between 5(slightly positive) and 6(positive). As an

overall view, all these means across both owners and non-owners of counterfeit showed positive

perception of the genuine brands despite their exposure to counterfeits. Therefore, this finding can

contribute to the literature that counterfeit help improve awareness of the genuine brands.

5.4. Limitations

There are some limitations in this study that must be taken into account both for the theories

and the methodology of this research.

5.4.1. Theoretical Limitations

There are many dimensions within the CBBE which includes brand awareness, brand association,

brand image, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and other proprietary brand assets (Section 2.2.1.1).

As this study followed a previous research, only three dimensions were chosen to measure

counterfeit consumption as previously done. This exclusion of other dimensions did not give a full

coverage of the whole concept and is a limitation to the use of this concept. In addition, brand

awareness and brand association are considered the same and combined as one variable with the

same measurement items. No proportion of each dimension was clarified in the new variable which

caused this mergence to reduce the distinction between the two dimensions.

This study used CBBE to measure counterfeit consumption from a consumers’ aspect (Aaker, 1991;

Keller, 1993). It did not account for the view from the brands’ aspects such as brand personality

(Bian & Moutinho, 2011b; Blackston, 1995), brand status (Wee, et al., 1995) and brand

performance (Lassar, et al., 1995), which can highly influence the result of this study too. The

consumers’ perspective only showed the consumers’ behaviour and it did not explain aspects of the

genuine brands that influence counterfeit consumption or even causing counterfeit versions to exist.

The results of this study can only provide recommendation to counter external factor but not

modification or improvement to the brands’ internal factors.

The four loyalty characteristics are mainly behavioural loyalty (repeat purchase, high price paid,

amount of counterfeit possessed). Attitudinal loyalty was not used to measure consumer loyalty

(post purchase satisfaction (Quester & Neal, 2007), and first choice in mind (Mohammad, 2012;

Oliver, 1999)). Behavioural loyalty is the actual behaviour where as attitudinal loyalty is the mental

disposition. Attitudinal loyalty should be accounted for since it is more consistent and less

[72]

influenced by external factors, compared to behavioural loyalty which is highly influenced by

impulse purchase, presentation of the product and the sales place environment (Quester & Neal,

2007). The exclusion of attitudinal loyalty in measuring loyalty is a limitation as it did not provide a

full perspective on consumers’ loyalty.

5.4.2. Methodological Limitations

The sampling method used for this study had certain limitations (Carley, 2014; Render, et al., 2014;

Saunders, et al., 2012). Normally, probability sampling is preferred which the data collected from

the target sample is based on chance. For this study, non-probability sampling and convenient

sampling were used which the sample is distributed to samples which were selective based on the

researcher’s judgement that they will likely be the target sample. The usage of this sampling method

is due to time constraint, resource constraint and the accessibility to the sample size required for a

probability sampling. The researcher’s lack of experience in conducting research is also a factor that

caused non-probability sampling to be used instead of probability sampling.

The sample collected for this study also had certain limitations. The sample size of 200 is sufficient

and meets the criteria for a reliable data analysis, but it is not big enough to represent the whole

population of interest (Malhorta, 2009; Saunders, et al., 2012). The sample collected comprised

mostly of young adults and low-income group which are the population of interest for this study.

However, this survey is only distributed within the capital and city areas. Counterfeits are widely

consumed in province and rural areas as well (Gentry, et al., 2006). Therefore, the results of this

study might not be applicable to citizens from provinces and rural areas. It is not possible to

generalize the findings to the whole population.

Another limitation is the participants’ responses in the survey. There is a high chance that the

participants answered the questionnaire with their preferred answer instead of their actual behaviour

(Aaker, et al., 2007). This error is “self-serving bias” which the participants choose answers that

they think is right and favourable to them, even though their action is different (Libby &

Rennekamp, 2012). The measurement scale was extend to 7 instead of just 5, also served a purpose

of mediating and reducing this possible error to increase the accuracy of the responses. However, it

is not possible to completely eliminate this error as self-serving bias can occur subconsciously

without the respondents’ awareness of their own choice of action (Robbins & Judge, 2014). This

error presents a limitation to this study which can affect the validity and reliability of the findings.

[73]

5.5. Suggestions for Further Research

Future studies can look into the relationship between subjective norm and other variables. As the

results showed, subjective norm was initially a significant factor on its own but was no longer

significant after testing together with other variables (Section 4.2.1.3). This indicated that there is a

possible multicollinearity of relationship between other independent variables from CBBE or price

consciousness. Further investigation into this relationship will be able to identify which factor(s)

specifically is related to subjective norm. The findings on this will enable the theories and concept

to extend, or unravel mutual factors across different theories.

The sample collected for this study is limited to focus on low-income and city area participants.

Even though the collected sample is within the population of interest, the demographic profile of

this sample is not a representative of the whole population as other consumers groups also consume

counterfeits. Future studies on counterfeits can try to gather data from a more diverse demographic

background of income level and area of residency (Gentry, et al., 2006). Data can be collected also

from consumers in rural area or province area, and middle-income and high-income background too

(Bian & Veloutsou, 2007; Wee, et al., 1995).

This study focused on the impact of counterfeits on the genuine brands from a consumers’

perspective. The exclusion of the brand owners’ perspective is a limitation to this study. Brand

owner’s internal factors and strategies also affect and are affected by counterfeits (OECD, 2007).

The brand owners’ branding strategies, marketing strategies and operation strategies are associated

with the emergence of the counterfeit versions. In turn, counterfeits also impact the genuine brands

back in terms of sales volume, profit revenue and brand awareness in the market. Future studies can

study the effect of counterfeit from the brand owners’ perspective by taking into consideration all

the internal factors.

[74]

6. References

Aaker, D. A., 1991. Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing the Value of a Brand Name. s.l.:Simon &

Schuster Inc.

Aaker, D. A., Kumar, V., Day, G. S. & Leone, R., 2007. Marleting Research. 2 ed. s.l.:John Wiley and Sons.

Ajzen, I., 1988. Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.

Ajzen, I., 1991. The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision

Processes, Volume 50, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M., 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. s.l.:Prentice Hall.

Ajzen, I. & Madden, T. J., 1986. Prediction of Goal Directed Behaviour: Attitudes, Intentions and Perceived

Behavioural Control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 22, pp. 453-474.

Ananda, 2011. Fighting Harmful Counterfeit Products in Cambodia: Challenges and Recommendations.

[Online]

Available at: http://www.ananda-ip.com/files/FSP-Mekong-Project-29April2011.pdf

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A. C. & Tambyah, S. K., 2001. Spot the difference: Consumer response

toward counterfeits. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(3), pp. 219-235.

Armitage, C. J. & Christian, J., 2003. From Attitudes to Behaviour: Basic and Applied Research on the

Theory of Planned Behaviour. Current Psychology, 22(3), pp. 187-195.

Aun, P., 2014a. Companies Defies Order, Continue Dredging Sand. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/company-defies-order-continues-dredging-sand-

62212/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Aun, P., 2014b. Four Tons of Dead Fish Found in Kompong Cham Lake. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/four-tons-of-dead-fish-found-in-kompong-cham-

lake-53295/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Bain, M., 2016. "A web of terror, insecurity, and a high level of vulnerability": H&M, Gap and Walmart are

accused of widespread worker abuse. [Online]

Available at: http://qz.com/695763/a-web-of-terror-insecurity-and-a-high-level-of-vulnerability-hm-gap-and-

walmart-are-accused-of-hundreds-of-acts-of-worker-abuse/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Battersby, G. J., 2011. Coping with Infringements and Counterfeits. Licensing Journal, 31(3), pp. 19-25.

Bertrand, V., 1996. Vietnamese Distribution Channel. International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, 24(4), pp. 29-40.

Bian, X. & Moutinho, L., 2011a. The Role of Brand Image, Product Involvement, and Knowledge in

Explaining Consumer Purchase Behaviour of Counterfeit: Direct and Indirect Effects. European Journal of

Marketing, 45(1/2), pp. 191-216.

Bian, X. & Moutinho, L., 2011b. Counterfeits and Branded Products: Effect of Counterfeit Ownership.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 20(5), pp. 379-393.

[75]

Bian, X. & Veloutsou, C., 2007. Consumers' attitudes regarding non-deceptive counterfeit brands in the UK

and China. Journal of Brand Management, 14(3), pp. 211-222.

Blackston, M., 1995. The Qualitative Dimension of Brand Equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(4),

pp. 2-7.

Blake, C., 2015. Cambodia Garment Workers Face Routine RIghts Abuse, Report Says. [Online]

Available at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-12/cambodia-garment-workers-face-routine-

rights-abuse-report-says

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

BNG Legal, 2010. Survey of Counterfeits in Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: https://bnglegal.com/sys-content/uploads/2013/04/Survey-of-Counterfeits-in-Cambodia.pdf

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Buchan, H. F., 2005. Ethical Decision Making in the Public Accounting Profession: An Extension of Ajzen's

Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 61(2), pp. 165-181.

Butler, R., 2014. Deforestation in Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20cambodia.htm

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Carley, S. G., 2014. Research Methodology. s.l.:SGC Production.

Chance, W. A. & French, N. D., 1972. An Exploratory Investigation of Brand Switching. Journal of

Marketing Research, pp. 226-229.

Chan, D., 2014. Manufacturing Beyond China. [Online]

Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesasia/2014/08/25/manufacturing-beyond-china/

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Chaudhuri, A. & Holbrook, M. B., 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Effect to Brand

Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), pp. 81-93.

Chen, D.-H., 2014. Cambodia Raises Minimum Wage. Women's Wear Daily, 208(100), p. 2.

Christodoulides, G. & Chernatony, L. d., 2009. Consume-Based Brand Equity: Conceptualisation and

Measurement. International Journal of Market Research, 52(1), pp. 43-66.

CIA, 2016. The World Factbook: Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

CNNMoney, 2012. Counterfeit goods becoming more dangerous. [Online]

Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/news/economy/counterfeit-goods/

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Commuri, S., 2009. The Impact of Counterfeiting on Genuine-Item Consumers' Brand Relationships.

Journal of Marketing, 73(3), pp. 86-98.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A., 2014. basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing

Grounded Theory. 4 ed. s.l.:Sage Publications, Inc.

Cramer, M. E., Atwood, J. R. & Stoner, J. A., 2006. Measuring Community Coalition Effectiveness Using

the ICE Instrument. Public Health Nursing, 23(1), pp. 74-87.

Creswell, J. W., 2013. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. 4 ed.

s.l.:Sage Publications Inc.

[76]

Cuijpers, P. et al., 2009. Screening for mood and anxiety disorders with the five-item, the three-item, and the

two-item Mental Health Inventory. Psychiatry Research, 168(3), pp. 250-255.

De Vaus, D., 2002. Surveys in Social Research. 5 ed. s.l.:Allen and Unwin.

Denscombe, M., 1998. The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. s.l.:Open

University Press.

Dovleac, L., 2015. Innovation and New Technologies - Pillars for a Business Sustainable Development.

Bulletin of Transilvania University of Braşov, Series V: Economic Sciences, 8-57(2), pp. 285-290.

Doyle, L., Brady, A.-M. & Bryne, G., 2009. An overview of mixed methods research. Journal of Research

and Nursing, 14(2), pp. 175-185.

Drine, I. & Rault, C., 2008. Purchasing Power Parity for Developing and Developed Countries. What Can

We Learn from Non-Stationary Panel Data Models?. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(4), pp. 752-773.

Eang, L. M., 2014. Linking the Worst Factories With the Labels. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/linking-the-worst-factories-with-the-labels-55839/

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Eisend, M. & Schuchert-Güler, P., 2006. Explaining Counterfeit Purchases: A Review and Preview.

Academy of Marketing Science Review, 2006(12), pp. 1-22.

Europol, 2015. 2015 Situation Report on Counterfeiting in the European Union. [Online]

Available at:

https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/documents/11370/80606/2015+Situation+Report+on+Counterfeiting+in+t

he+EU

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Farquhar, P. H., 1990. Managing Brand Equity. Journal of Advertisign Research, 30(4), pp. 7-12.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: Introduction to Theory and

Research. s.l.:Addison-Wesley Pub.

Flinders, K., 2014. Asia dominates as outsourcing location and India remains unrivalled. [Online]

Available at: http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240230951/Asia-dominates-as-outsourcing-location-

and-India-remains-unrivalled

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Fourné, S. P., Jansen, J. J. & Mom, T. J., 2014. Strategic Agility in MNEs: Managing Tensions to Capture

Opportunities Across Emerging and Established Markets. California Management Review, 56(3), pp. 13-38.

Geiger-Oneto, S., Gelb, B., Walker, D. & Hess, J., 2013. “Buying status” by choosing or rejecting luxury

brands and their counterfeits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(3), pp. 357-372.

Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S. & Shultz II, C. J., 2006. The effects of counterfeiting on consumer search. Journal

of Consumer Behaviour, Volume 5, pp. 245-256.

Gill, J. & Johnson, P., 2010. Research Methods for Managers. 4 ed. s.l.:Sage Publications Ltd.

Gopal, V., Rasiah, R. & Sanjivee, P., 2013. Export and Innovation in Cambodia Clothing Manufacturing.

Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2), pp. 305-316.

Hamelin, N., Nwankwo, S. & El Hadouchi, R., 2013. ‘Faking brands’: Consumer responses to

counterfeiting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12(3), pp. 159-170.

[77]

Han, C., Dong, Y. & Dresner, M., 2013. Emerging Market Penetration, Inventory Supply, and Financial

Performance. Production and Operation Management, 22(2), pp. 335-347.

Han, Y. J., Nunes, J. & Drèze, X., 2010. Signaling Status with Luxury Goods: The Role of Brand

Prominence. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), pp. 15-30.

Havocscope, 2015. Anti-Counterfeiting News and Counterfeit Goods Statistics. [Online]

Available at: http://www.havocscope.com/category/counterfeit-goods/

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Hieke, S., 2010. Effects of counterfeits on the image of luxury brands: An empirical study from the customer

perspective. Brand Management, 18(2), pp. 159-173.

Hill, H. & Menon, J., 2014. Cambodia: Rapid Growth in an Open, Post-conflicted Economy. The World

Economy, 37(12), pp. 1649-1668.

Hong, K. K., 2013. Brand Perception in Cambodia. Fox Business Journal, pp. 80-88.

Huang, Y.-M., 2009. The Effects of Unethical Beliefs and Counterfeit Attitudes on Purchase Intention of

Non-Deceptive Counterfeit Luxury Brands: A Cross-Culture Comparison between United States and Taiwan,

San Diego: Alliant International University .

HubPages, 2013. Contrasting Predominant Values of American and Cambodian Society and Culture.

[Online]

Available at: http://hubpages.com/politics/Contrasting-Predominant-Values-of-American-and-Cambodian-

Values

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Human Rights Watch, 2015. Cambodia: Labor Laws Fail to Protect Garment Workers. [Online]

Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/03/11/cambodia-labor-laws-fail-protect-garment-workers

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Hung, C., 2003. The Business of Product Counterfeiting in China and the Post-WTO Membership

Environment. Asia Pacific Business Review, 10(1), pp. 58-77.

Jenner, T. & Artun, E., 2005. Determinanten des Erwerbs gefalschter Markenprodukte - Ergebnisse einer

empirischen Untersuchung. Der Markt, 44(3/4), pp. 142-150.

Kakati, R. P. & Choudhury, S., 2013. Measuring Customer-Based Brand Equity Through Brand Building

Blocks for Durables. IUP Journal of Brand Management, 10(2), pp. 24-41.

Kapferer, J.-N., 2012. Abundant Rarity: The Key to Luxury Growth. Business Horizons, 55(5), pp. 453-462.

Keller, K. L., 1993. Conceptualising, Measuring and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of

Marketing, 57(1), pp. 1-22.

Keller, K. L., 2009. Managing the Growth Tradeoff: Challenges and Opportunities in Luxury Branding.

Brand Management, 16(5/6), pp. 290-301.

Keller, K. L., 2013. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity. 4 ed.

s.l.:Pearson Education, Inc.

Keo, P. T., 2013. The Dark Side of Foreign Aid. [Online]

Available at: http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/the-dark-side-of-foreign-aid/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Ketokivi, M. & Mantere, S., 2010. Two Strategies for Inductive Reasoning in Organizational Research.

Academy of Management Review, 35(2), pp. 315-333.

[78]

Khalid, M. & Rahman, S. U., 2015. Word of Mouth, Perceived Risk and Emotions, Explaining Consumers'

Counterfeit Product Purchase Intention in a Developing Country: Implications for Local and International

Original Brands. Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, 6(2), pp. 145-160.

Khan, H., Bamber, D. & Quazi, A., 2012. Relevant or Redundant: Elite Consumers' Perception of Foreign-

Made Products in an Emerging Market. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(9-10), pp. 1190-1216.

Khouth, S. C., 2014. Factory Waste Blamed for Health, Crop Woes. [Online]

Available at: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/factory-waste-blamed-health-crop-woes

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Kilic, C., 2015. Effects of Globalization on Economic Growth: Panel Data Analysis for Developing

Countries. Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges, 67(1), pp. 1-11.

Kim, H. & Karpova, E., 2010. Consumer Attitudes toward Fashion Counterfeit: Application of the Theory of

Planned Behaviour. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 28(2), pp. 79-94.

Kim, Y. & Zhang, Y., 2014. The Impact of Power-Distance Belief on Consumers' Preference for Status

Brands. Journal of Global Marketing, 27(1), pp. 13-29.

Koh, I., 2013. A Studyies on Luxury Possession Desires and Purchase Intention: A Comparative Study

between Luxuries and Imitations. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 19(3), pp. 63-77.

Kouvelis, S., 2013. Horrible People are Exploiting Cambodia's Orphans. [Online]

Available at: http://www.vice.com/read/cambodian-orphanages

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Kunnannatt, J. T., 2013. Globalization and Developing Countries: A Global Participation Model. Economics,

Management & Financial Markets., 8(4), pp. 42-58.

Kvedariene, A., 2015. Technological Innovations in the Context of Contemporary Challenges: Sustainability

and Competitiveness. Public Administration, 3-4(47-48), pp. 121-127.

Laforet, S., 2010. Managing Brands: A Contemporary Perspective. s.l.:McGraw-Hill Education.

Lambkin, M. & Tyndall, Y., 2009. Brand Counterfeiting: A Marketing Problem That Won't Go Away. Irish

Marketing Review, 20(1), pp. 35-46.

Lassar, W., Mittal, B. & Sharma, A., 1995. Measuring Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Consumer

Marketing, 12(4), pp. 11-19.

Lee, Y., Lin, B.-W., Wong, Y.-Y. & Calantone, R. J., 2011. Understanding and Managing International

Product Launch: A Comparison between Developed and Emerging Markets. Journal of Product Innovation

and Management, 28(81), pp. 104-120.

Leone, R. P. et al., 2006. Linking Brand Equity to Customer Equity. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), pp.

125-138.

Libby, R. & Rennekamp, K., 2012. Self-Serving Attribution Bias, Overconfidence, and the Issuance of

Management Forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 50(1), pp. 197-231.

Lu, M., 2013. An Investigation of Consumer Motives to Purchase Counterfeit Luxury-Branded Products,

Wollongong: School of Management, University of Wollongong.

Maden, D., Göztaş, A. & Topsümer, F., 2015. Effects of Brand Origin, Fashion Consciousness and Price-

Quality Perception on Luxury Consumption Motivations: An Empirical Analysis Directed to Turkish

Consumers. Advances in Business-Related Scientific Research Journal, 6(1), pp. 15-29.

[79]

Malhorta, N. K., 2009. Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation. 6 ed. s.l.:Pearson.

Mani, D. & Barua, A., 2015. The Impact of Firm Learning on Value Creation in Outsourcing Relationships.

Journal of Management Information Systems, 32(1), pp. 9-38.

McCarthy, T., 1998. The Butcher of Cambodia. Time International, 151(16), pp. 30-31.

Meraviglia, L., 2015. Counterfeiting, fashion and the civil society. Journal of Fashion Marketing and

Management, 19(3), pp. 230-248.

Ministry of Tourism, 2015. Tourism Statistics Report Year 2015, Phnom Penh: Statistics and Tourism

Information Department, MOT.

Mohammad, A. A. S., 2012. The Effect of Brand Trust and Perceived Value in Building Brand Loyalty.

International Research Journal of Finance & Economics, Issue 85, pp. 111-126.

Nia, A. & Zaichkowsky, J. L., 2000. Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands?. Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 9(7), pp. 485-497.

Niedrich, R. W., Weathers, D., Hill, R. C. & Bell, D. R., 2009. Specifying Price Judgements with Range-

Frequency Theory in Models of Brand Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), pp. 693-702.

Numbeo, 2016. Pollution in Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/country_result.jsp?country=Cambodia

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H., 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3 ed. s.l.:McGraw-Hill.

OECD, 2007. The Economic Impact of Counterfeit and Piracy. [Online]

Available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/38707619.pdf

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Oliver, R. L., 1999. Whence Consumer Loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), pp. 33-44.

OpenDevelopment, 2014. Environmental Law and Environmental Impact Assessments. [Online]

Available at: http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/briefing/eia/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Oude Ophius, P. A. & Van Trijp, H. C., 1995. Perceived Quality: A Market Driven and Consumer Oriented

Approach. Food Quality and Preference, 6(3), pp. 177-183.

Ouk, S., 2014. Waste Water from Cambodia Cassava Factory Dumped in Streams. [Online]

Available at: http://www.rfa.org/english/news/cambodia/water-pollution-03202014145829.html

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Parameswaran, P., 2016. Cambodia Now ASEAN's Most Corrupt Country. [Online]

Available at: http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/cambodia-now-aseans-most-corrupt-country/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Patten, M. L., 2016. Understanding Research Methods: An Overview of the Essentials. 9 ed. s.l.:Routledge.

Penz, E. & Stottinger, B., 2005. Forget the "Real" Thing-Take the Copy! An Explanatory Model for the

Volitional Purchase of Counterfeit Products. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), pp. 568-575.

Phau, I. & Cheong, E., 2009. How Young Adult Consumers Evaluate Diffusion Brands: Effects of Brand

Loyalty and Status Consumption. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21(2), pp. 109-123.

Phau, I., Sequeira, M. & Dix, S., 2009. Consumers' willingness to knowingly purchase counterfeit products.

Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(4), pp. 262-281.

[80]

Phau, I. & Teah, M., 2009. Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes

towards counterfeits of luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(1), pp. 15-27.

Qian, Y., 2014. Brand Management and Strategies Against Counterfeits. Journal of Economics and

Management Strategy, 23(2), pp. 317-343.

Quester, P. & Neal, C., 2007. Consumer Behaviour: Implications for Marketing Strategy. 5 ed. s.l.:McGraw-

Hill Education.

Rao, A. R. & Monroe, K. B., 1989. The Effect of Price, Brand Name and Store Nam on Buyers' Perceptions

of Product Quality: An Integrative Review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), pp. 351-357.

Rebić, M. & Šarenac, N., 2014. Technological Progress as a Generator of Economic Growtj and

Development. Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 4(2), pp. 73-99.

Render, B., Stair Jr., r. M., Hanna, M. E. & Hale, T. S., 2014. Qualitative Analysis for Management. 12 ed.

s.l.:Pearson .

Renzenbrink, A., 2012. Franchise Industry Expands. [Online]

Available at: http://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/franchise-industry-expands

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Robbins, S. P. & Judge, T. A., 2014. Organizational Behaviour. 16 ed. s.l.:Pearson.

Robson, C., 2002. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers. 2

ed. s.l.:T.J. International Ltd.

Romani, S., Gistri, G. & Pace, S., 2012. When counterfeits raise the appeal of luxury brands. Marketing

Letters, 23(3), pp. 807-824.

Sahin, A. & Atilgan, K. O., 2011. Analyzing Factors that Drives Consumers to Purchase Counterfeit of

Luxury Branded Products. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 17(1), pp. 283-292.

Sarantakos, S., 1998. Social Research. 2 ed. s.l.:Macmillan Education Australia Pty Ltd.

Saunders, K. M. & Berger-Walliser, G., 2011. The Liability of Online Markets for Counterfeit Goods: A

Comparative Analysis of Secondary Trademark Infringement in the United States and Europe. Northwestern

Journal of International Law & Business, 32(1), pp. 37-91.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2012. Research Methods for Business Students. 6 ed. s.l.:Pearson

Education Limited.

Schiffman, L. G. & Kanuk, L. L., 2007. Consumer Behaviour. 9 ed. s.l.:Pearson Education, Inc.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R., 2009. Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. 5 ed. s.l.:John

Wilety and Sons Ltd.

Soanes, C. & Stevenson, A., 2008. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 11 Revised ed. s.l.:Oxford University

Press.

Sonmez, M., Yang, D. & Fryxell, G., 2013. Interactive Role of Consumer Discrimination and Branding

against Counterfeiting: A Study of Multinational Managers’ Perception of Global Brands in China. Journal

of Business Ethics, 115(1), pp. 195-211.

Southey, G., 2011. The Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behaviour Applied to Business Decisions:

A Selective Annotated Bibliography. Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, 9(1), pp. 43-50.

Staake, T., Thiesse, F. & Fleisch, E., 2009. The Emergence of Counterfeit Trade: A Literature Review.

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

[81]

Stevenson, M. & Busby, J., 2015. An exlpanatory analysis of counterfeiting strategies: Towards counterfeit-

resilient supply chains. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 35(1), pp. 110-

144.

Stiehler, B. E. & Tinson, J. S., 2015. Opportunistic Luxury Branding: Understanding Perceptions of Brand

Authenticity in an Emerging Market Context. Journal of Global Business and Technology, 11(1), pp. 39-55.

Suyanto, Bloch, H. & Salim, R. A., 2012. Foreign Direct Investment Spillovers and Productivity Growth in

Indonesian Garment and Electronics Manufacturing. Journal of Development Studies, 48(10), pp. 1397-

1411.

Tan, L. & Zeng, T.-Z., 2014. Spatial Inequality between Developed and Developing Countries. Papers in

Regional Science, 93(2), pp. 229-248.

The Cambodia Daily, 2010. Cambodian consumers growing more brand-conscious. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cambodiadaily.com/archives/cambodian-consumers-growing-more-brand-

conscious-102723/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

The Cambodia Herald, 2013. Cambodia very lucrative for investors. [Online]

Available at: http://www.thecambodiaherald.com/cambodia/cambodia-very-lucrative-for-investors-4650

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

The Kampuchea Time, 2012. Power Distance in Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: https://khmereye.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-distance-to-politicians-in-germany/comment-

page-1/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Thomas, D., 2007. Deluxe: How luxury Lost Its Luster. 1 ed. s.l.:Penguin Press HC.

Tiwari, S. K., Sen, S. & Shaik, R., 2016. Internationalization: A Study of Small Firms from Emerging

Markets. The Journal of Developing Areas, 50(6), pp. 355-364.

Todd, W. E., 2013. The Technology Revolution in Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: http://www.thecambodiaherald.com/opinion/the-technology-revolution-in-cambodia-743

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Todor, R.-D., 2014. The Importance of Branding and Rebranding for Strategic Marketing. Bulletin of the

Transilvania University of Brasov, Series V: Economic Sciences, 7(56), pp. 59-64.

Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y. & Pilcher, J., 1998. Consumer Demand for Counterfeit Goods. Psychology

and Marketing, 15(5), pp. 405-421.

Transparency International, 2016. Corruption Perceptions Index 2015. [Online]

Available at: http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

USTR, 2014. 2014 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers. [Online]

Available at: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2014%20NTE%20Report%20on%20FTB.pdf

[Accessed 23 09 2015].

Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H. & Ming, O., 2005. Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of

Chinese consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), pp. 340-351.

Wang, Y. & Song, Y., 2013. Counterfeiting: Friend or Foe of Luxury Brands? An Examination of Chinese

Consumers' Attitudes Toward Counterfeit Luxury Brands. Journal of Global Marketing, 26(4), pp. 173-187.

[82]

Wee, C.-H., Tan, S.-J. & Cheok, K.-H., 1995. Non-price Determinants of Intention to Purchase Counterfeit

Goods. International Marketing Review, 12(6), pp. 19-46.

Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M. & Sen, S., 2009. Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands?. Journal of

Marketing Research, 46(2), pp. 247-259.

Willemyns, A., 2016. Cambodia's Low Jobless Rate Hides Harsh Reality. [Online]

Available at: https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/cambodias-low-jobless-rate-hides-harsh-reality-106803/

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

worldatlas, 2016. Most Populated Citeis in Cambodia. [Online]

Available at: http://www.worldatlas.com/as/kh/cities-in-cambodia.html

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Wu, S. P.-J., Straub, D. W. & Liang, T.-P., 2015. How Information Technology Governance Mechanisms

and Strategic Alignment Influence Organizational Performance: Insights from a Matched Survey of Business

and IT Managers. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), pp. 497-518.

Yang, L., 2013. Some 1.368 new firms registered in Cambodia in H1, down 19%. [Online]

Available at: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/2013-07/15/c_132543010.htm

[Accessed 10 8 2016].

Yoo, B. & Donthu, N., 2001. Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity

scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), pp. 1-14.

Zhang, J., Hong, J. L. & Zhang, R. Q., 2012. Fighting strategies in a market with counterfeits. Annals of

Operations Research, 192(1), pp. 49-66.

[83]

7. Appendices

7.1. Appendix A: Participant Information Sheet (English)

Participant Information Sheet

“The Effect of Counterfeit Products on the Consumers’ Perception:

A Study in the Context of Cambodia”

About the Study

The purpose of the research is to determine the effects that Counterfeit Branded Products cause on

the consumers’ perception of the genuine brand.

Possible Benefits of the Research

The results of the study will provide a better understanding of the influence that Counterfeit

Branded Products can cause to consumers when they are exposed to the availability of Counterfeits.

This information will be beneficial to researchers, marketers, managers, and the genuine brand

owners.

The findings of this research can contribute to you, the participants as well as for our country

Cambodia, by enabling foreign brands to enter and open stores in our country with the right

marketing mixes of price and promotion as per the results of consumers’ perception. This foreign

investment can further increase accessibility of Cambodian people to foreign products and also

increase the country economy through employment created by the investment.

[84]

Method and Demands in Participants

In order to protect your privacy and anonymity, this survey will use tacit consent. Tacit consent

means that your personal details or written signatures will not be required. This method will help

ensure that we will not who you are. Tacit consent also includes voluntarily answering the questions

and submitting the completed questionnaire to the researcher.

The questionnaire will ask you questions related to your attitude toward shopping (e.g. your views

on people’s opinions and price), and branded products (e.g. what is your favourite brand, would you

buy counterfeits). The questionnaire will also ask for some background information about you, but

the researcher will not know and will not ask for your name or personal details. It will take

approximately 10-15 minutes to answer the survey. Participation to answer the survey is on a

voluntary basis. The collected data will be reported in the research student’s project. This will

involve non-identifiable, aggregate data only. Aggregate results will also be published in scholarly

publications, such as conferences, online library, online databases and journal papers.

Risks, Inconveniences and Discomforts

Apart from the time taken to participate in the survey, there are no other foreseeable risks for you.

Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may withdraw your consent to participate at

any time while answering the questionnaire if you feel uncomfortable about the questions.

Declining to participate in the study will not affect your relationship with the researcher.

What do you do next if you would like to participate?

If you think you would like to participate in the study, please complete the questionnaire then

submit the completed questionnaire to the researcher. If you do not wish to take part in the study,

please submit the unanswered questionnaire back to the researcher.

For more information about the survey or the study, please contact the researcher at the following contact:

-Mr. Kung Vatanak

-Grenoble Graduate School of Business

-Grenoble Ecole de Management

-Email: kungvatanak@gmail.com

[85]

7.2. Appendix B: Questionnaire (English)

Questionnaire

Thank you for volunteering to participate in this study. This questionnaire contains four sections. The

answers for each statements is measured using a 7 points rating scale (Likert Scale) which helps improve the

accuracy of your answer. Please indicate your answer to the questions by placing a mark or cross in the

response option that is most appropriate for you.

Section 1

This section of the quesitonnaire is interested in whether other people and prices influence the products that

you buy. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neutral

Slightly

Agree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I rarely purchase the latest

fashion style until I am sure my

friends agree of them.

It is important that others like the

products and brand I buy.

When buying products, I

generally purchase those brands

that I think others will approve

of.

If other people can see me using a

product, I often purchase the

brand they expect me to buy.

I like to know what brands and

products make good impressions

on others.

I achieve a sense of belonging by

purchasing the same products and

brands that the others purchase.

If I want to be like someone, I

often try to buy the same brands

that they buy.

I often identify with other people

by purchasing the same products

and brands they purchase.

[86]

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neutral

Slightly

Agree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I am very concerned about low

prices, but I am equally concerned

about product quality.

When grocery shopping, I

compare the prices of different

brands to be sure I get the value

for the money.

When purchasing a product, I

always try to maximize the

quality I get for the money I

spend.

When I buy products, I like to be

sure that I am getting my money’s

worth.

I generally shop around for lower

prices on products, but they still

must meet certain quality

requirements before I will buy

them.

When I shop, I usually compare

the “price per unit” information

for brands I normally buy.

I always check prices at the

grocery store to be sure I get the

best value for the money I spent.

[87]

Section 2

This section focuses on branded products. Branded products are the products that are well-known and

famous for high level of prestige, high level of quality, high level of price. Please take a moment to think of

your favourte brands(s) then answer the questions below about that brand(s).

Please write the name of your favourite brand(s) ___________________________________

Thinking about your favourite brand(s) (indicated above), please indicate the extent to which you agree or

disagree with the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neutral

Slightly

Agree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

I consider myself to be highly

loyal to my favourite brand.

My favourite brand would be

my first choice.

I would not buy other brands if

my favourite brand is available

at the store.

The likely quality of my

favourite brand is extremely

high.

The likelihood that my favourite

brand would be functional is

very high.

I can recognize my favourite

brand among competing brands.

I am aware of my favourite

brand.

Some characteristics of my

favourite brand come to my

mind quickly.

I can quickly recall the symbol

or logo of my favourite brand.

It is easy for me to picture my

favourite brand in my mind.

[88]

Section 3

This section of the survey is interested in your general thoughts about Counterfeit Branded Products or fake

products. The phenomenon of “Counterfeit Branded Products” involves the manufacture of replicas of

famous Branded Products that are then sold to consumers at a relatively lower price.

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neutral

Slightly

Agree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

Counterfeit Branded Products

do not infringe intellectual

property.

Counterfeit Branded Products

do not damage the interest and

rights of genuine brand

manufacturers.

Counterfeit Branded Products

do not damage the genuine

brand industry.

Without Counterfeit Branded

Products, many people will

not be able to enjoy the

prestige brought by genuine

brand.

The quality of Counterfeit

Branded Products is similar to

the legal versions.

The functions of Counterfeit

Branded Products are similar

to the legal versions.

Counterfeit Branded Products

are as reliable as the legal

versions.

Purchasing Counterfeit

Branded Products is legal.

Purchasing Counterfeit

Branded Products is ethical.

There is little chance of being

caught when purchasing

Counterfeit Branded Products.

[89]

Still thinking about Counterfeit Branded Products. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree

with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Disagree

Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Neutral

Slightly

Agree

Agree

Strongly

Agree

For me to purchase

Counterfeit Branded Products

in the near future would be

very easy.

If I want to, I could easily

purchase Counterfeit Branded

Products in the near future.

I have complete control over

purchasing Counterfeit

Branded Products in the near

future.

There are very few events

outside my control which

could prevent me from

purchasing Counterfeit

Branded Products in the near

future.

Whether I purchase

Counterfeit Branded Products

in the near future will be

entirely my decision.

This set of questions lists some actions that people may perform related to Counterfeit Branded Products.

Please indicate the likelihood of you performing these actions in the near future.

Not At

All

Likely

Very

Unlikely

Somewhat

Unlikely

Neutral

Somewhat

Likely

Very

Likely

Definitely

Will

I would recommend

Counterfeit Branded

Products to a friend or

family.

Upon request, I will

consider purchasing

Counterfeit Branded

Products for a friend or

family.

I will buy Counterfeit

Branded Products.

I will use Counterfeit

Branded Products.

[90]

This question relates to the price of Counterfeit Branded Products compared to the price of the

genunie brand product.

1. As a percentage of the price of the genuine product, approximately what price do you expect to

pay for a reasonable quality Counterfeit Branded Product?

1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21% and above

2. Also as a percentage of the price of the genuine product, what is the maximum price that you

would be willing to pay for a reasonable quality Counterfeit Branded Products?

1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% 21% and above

Section 4

Last section! These questions gather some background information about you that will help us to

understand your answers to the previous quesitons.

1. Please indicate your age in years _________________

2. Please indicate your gender.

Male Female

3. Please indicate your occupation.

Student Public sector employee Private sector employee Personal business

Others: Please specify _________________________

4. Please indicate the highest education level that you have achieved.

Secondary Diploma Bachelor Master Doctorate

Others: Please specify _________________________

5. Please indicate your monthly income level (USD).

None Under 100$ 100$ - 300$ 301$ - 500$ Above 500$

6. Do you own any Counterfeit Branded Product?

Yes No

Prefer not to say (Please skip question 7)

7. Please indicate the type of Counterfeit Branded Product(s) that you own.

Please select as many as are applicable.

Handbag Watch Glasses Shoes Clothes Jewelry

Others: Please specify ________________________

8. How did you get the Counterfeit Luxury-Branded Product(s)?

Purchased on my own

Received from others as a gift

Both of the above

Thank you for your participation in the survey

[91]

7.3. Appendix C: Participant Information Sheet (Khmer)

ពតមានសរាបអនកចលរម

“ផលប ះពាលននផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទៅទលើទសសន:របសអតថជនទលើមា កពតបរាកដ

-កលរសកាបរាវបរាវអពើបរបទទសកមពា”

អពើកលរសកាបរាវបរាវទនះ

ទោលបណងននកលរបរាវបរាវទនះគទដើមបើកសែងយលអពើកតតា ប ះពាល កដលបងកទ ើងទោយផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទៅទលើទសសន:របសអតថជនកដលទមើលទ ើញនងវាយតនលទលើមា កទដើម។

អតថបរបទោជនននកលរបរាវបរាវ

លទធផលននកលរសកាទនះនងជយផដលនវកលរ កសែងយលទោយកលនកតចាសអពើផលប ះពាលទផសងៗកដលបងកទ ើងទោយវតាមានននផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទៅកនងទើផារទៅទលើអតថជន។ ពតមានទងទនះនងផដលបរបទោជនដលអនកបរាវបរាវ អនកកផនកទើផារ បរបធានបរកមហ ន នង មាា សមា កទដើម។

កលររកទ ើញននកលរបរាវបរាវទនះោចផដលបរបទោជននដលអនកកដលានចលរមកដចាដលបរបទទសកមពាទយើងទោយបទងកើនភាពងាយបរសលដលបរកមហ ននងមា កបរទទសកនង កលរវនទោគមកបរបទទសទយើង។ាមយនងលទធផលននកលរសកាអពើទសសនះរបសអតថជន បរកមហ នកដលវនទោគោចសបរមបសបរមលតនលផលតផលនងវធានាសរសាទើផារទោយាកសមាមយនងតរវកលររបសអតថជន។ កលរវនទោគពើបរកមហ នបរទទសកបបទនះោច ទោយបរបាជនកសែងរកផលតផលមា កបរទទសានទៅកនងទើផារកមពាទយើង។ កលរវនទោគទនះកជយទែើទោយទសដឋកចាបរបទទសទយើងានបរបទសើរាងមនទោយបទងកើតកលរងារទោយបរបាជនកនងបរបទទសទយើង។

[92]

វ ើាសរសា នង តរវកលរអពើ អនកចលរម

ទដើមបើធានាសវតថភាពននអតាសញញា ណរបសអនក អនកមនចាចផដលពតមានផទា លខែនរហតថទលខារបស អនកទ ើយ។ កលរទែើយសនរទោយវ ើទនះមនោចទោយអនកដនទដងថាអនកានរណាទទ។ វ ើាសរសាទនះកបញញា កថាអនកសមបរគចតានងទែើយ សនរ រចទហើយបរបគលបញា ើសនរទៅទោយអនកបរាវបរាវវញ។

ទបើអនកសទរចចតាចលរម អនកនងបរតវទែើយនងសនរទងអសទនាះ។ បញា ើសនរទងទនះនងសរអនកអពើោកបបករោរបសអនកទៅទលើកលរទដើរផារ នងផលតផលមា ក។ បញា ើសនរកនងសរអនកអពើ ពតមានទទៅខែះៗរបសអនក កប កនាអនកបរាវបរាវនងមនសរអនកអពើទ ម ះ ឬពតមានផទា លខែនទ ើយ។ ទដើមបើទែើយនងសនរទងអសអនកបរតវចណាយរយះទពលបរបកហល១៥នាទើ។ កលរចលរមកនងកលរទែើយសនរគទោយសមបរគចតា។ ពតមានកដលបរបមលាន គនងបរតវបកបរាយកនងអតថបទរបសអនកបរាវបរាវ។ ពតមានទងទនាះគមនោចដងពើបរបភពចទលើយានទទ។ លទធផលននកលរ បរាវបរាវទនះនងបរតវទាះពមពកនងបណាា លយសែយបរបវតា ទសសនាវតាើសែយបរបវតា នងបរបពនធពតមានគរទកលសលយ។

កលរលាក នង កលររខានទផសងៗ

ទបរៅពើរយ:ទពលកដលបរតវចណាយកនងកលរចលរមទែើយសនរអនកមនមានអែើកដលបរតវខាតបងទទៀតទទ។ កលរចលរមរបសអនកគ ទោយសមបរគចតា ទហើយអនកោចសទរចចតាទាះបងរឈបទែើយសនរទៅទពលណាកានបរបសនទបើអនកមនទពញចតានងសនរ។

កលរមនចលរមទែើយសនរនងមនទែើទោយប ះពាលដលទនាកទនងរវាងអនកនងអនកបរាវបរាវទ ើយ។

បរបសនទបើអនកចងចលរម ទតើអនកបរតវទែើអែើខែះ?

បរបសនទបើអនកគតថាអនកចងចលរមកនងកលរសកាមយទនះ សមអនកបទពញបញា ើសនររចទហើយបរបគលទៅទោយអនកបរាវបរាវវញ។ បរបសនទបើអនកមនចងចលរមទទ សមអនកបរបគលបញា ើសនរកដលមនទនានបទពញទៅទោយអនកបរាវបរាវវញផង។

[93]

7.4. Appendic D: Questionnaire (Khmer)

កផនកទើ១

សមអគណកដលានចលរមកនងកលរសកាមយទនះ។ បញា ើសនរទនះមាន៤កផនក។ សមទបរជើសទរ ើសចទលើយកដល ាកសមាមយខែនអនក ទោយគសសញញា (√) រ សញញា (X) ទៅកនងបរបអបចទលើយននជរនើមយៗ។ កផនកទនះចងដងថា គនតអនកដនទនងតនលផលតផលមានកលរប ះពាលដលជទរ ើសផលតផលកដលអនកចងទញកដររទទ។ សមបញញា កករតននកលរយលបរសប រ មនយលបរសប ាមយនងបរបទោគនើមយៗខាងទបរកលមទនះ។

មនយលបរសបទងបរសង

មនយលបរសប

មនសវយលបរសប

មមតត យលបរសបតចតច

យលបរសប

យលបរសបខាែ ង

ខ កបរមទញផលតផលម តថមើៗ លះបរតតកតមតាភបរកាខ ចលចតាកដរ ទហើយោបរទទោយខ ទញ

វាាទរឿងសខានកដលអនកដនទចលចតា នង ទទលាា លផលតផល នង មា កកដលខ ទញ

ទៅទពលទញផលតផល ាទទៅខ ទញមា កកដលខ គតថាអនកដនទនងចបោរមមណនងទទលាា ល

បរបសនទបើអនកដនទោចទ ើញខ ទបរបើផលតផលអែើមយ ាទរឿយៗខ ទញមា កកដលទគគតថាសមនងខ ទញ

ខ ចលចតាកសែងយលថា មា កនងផលតផលអែើកដលទែើទោយអនកដនទទគចបោរមមណ

ខ មានោរមមណថាាសមាជកមាន កននសងាមមយដកថែថនរ ទោយទបរបើមា កនងផលតផលដចកដលអនកកនងបរកមទនាះទបរបើកដរ

បរបសនទបើខ ចងដចតតរាឬអនកលបើណាមាន កកដលខ ចលចតា ខ នងទញមា កដចកដលពកទគទញទបរបើកដរ

ាមមតត ខ ទែើខែនទោយចលសងាមទោយទញផលតផល នង មា កកដលមនសសមាន រនយមទបរបើ

[94]

សមញញា កករតននកលរយលបរសប រ មនយលបរសប ាមយនងបរបទោគនើមយៗ។

មនយលបរសបទងបរសង

មនយលបរសប

មនសវយលបរសប

មមតត យលបរសបតចតច

យលបរសប

យលបរសបខាែ ង

ខ គតចចងានតនលទថាក កតខ ការមភអពើគណភាពផលតផលកដរ

ទៅទពលទដើរផារខ ទបរបៀបទៀបតនលននមា កទផសងៗទដើមបើធានាថាមា កកដលខ ទញាកសមនងតនល

ទៅទពលទញផលតផល ខ កតងកតចងាន គណភាពខពសបផត

ទៅទពលទញផលតផល ខចងបរាកដថាអែើកដលខ ទទលានគសមនងតនលទកលយ

មននងខ ទញផលតផល ាទទៅខ កសែងរកផលតផលទោយានតនលទថាកកតកបរតវមាន គណភាពសមរមយកដរ

ទៅទពលទដើរផារទដើមបើទញមា កកដលខ ទបរបើរាលនថៃ ខ កតងកតទបរបៀបទៀប តនលននផលតផលនើមយៗ

ខ កតងកតកកតនលទៅតតមតបនើមយៗសនមននងទញ ទដើមបើធានាថា ខ ទទលានអែើកដលសមនងតនលកដលខ ានចយ

[95]

កផនកទើ២ កផនកទនះទផទដ តសខានទៅទលើផលតផលមា ក ។ ផលតផលមា កគាផលតផល កដលមានទ ម ះលបើ មានលោបខពស គណភាពខពស នង តនលខពស។ សមចណាយទពលគតបនាចអពើមា កកដលអនកចលចតារចទហើយសមទែើយនងសនរខាងទបរកលមអពើមា កទងទនាះ(ឧទហរណ: Nike, Adidas, Gap, Levi’s, Gucci, LV, Prada, Rolex, Bvlgari ជាដ ើម)។

សមបញញា កទ ម ះផលតផលមា ក កដលអនកចលចតា _______________________________ ទោយគតអពើមា ក កដលអនកចលចតា(កដលអនកានសរទសរខាងទលើ) សមញញា កករតននកលរយលបរសប រ មនយលបរសប ាមយនងបរបទោគនើមយៗ។

មនយលបរសបទងបរសង

មនយលបរសប

មនសវយលបរសប

មមតត យលបរសបតចតច

យលបរសប

យលបរសបខាែ ង

ខ គតថា ខឡនខ ទាម ះសមបរគ ទពញចតា នង ោបរទោ ងខាែ ងចទពាះមា កកដលខ ចលចតា

មា កកដលខ ចលចតា គាជទរ ើសទើមយរបសខ

ទៅទពលចលហាងមយ ទហើយហាងទនាះមានមា កខ ចលចតាខ នងមនទញមា កទផសងទទ

មា កខ ចលចតា ភាគទបរចើនមានគណភាពខពស

មា កខ ចលចតា ភាគទបរចើនមានគណភាពោចទបរបើបរាសាន

កនងចទណាមមា កទបរចើន ក ោន ខ ោចទមើលដងថាផលតផលណាាមា កកដលខ ចលចតា

ខ ដងចតាខែនឯងចាសថាមា កមយណាកដលខ ចលចតា

ខ ងាយបរសលនកទ ើញលកខណ:ពទសសខែះៗននមា កកដលខ ចលចតា

ខ ោចបរសនម ទ ើញភាែ មៗអពើនមតាសញញា រ ហាននមា កកដលខ ចលចតា

ខ ោចបរសនម ទ ើញរបភាពផលតផលននមា កកដលខ ចលចតាានទោយងាយបរសល

[96]

កផនកទើ៣

កផនកទនះចបោរមមណទៅទលើកលរយលទ ើញរបសអនកអពើផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ។ ាថ នភាពនន"ផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ” រមមាន កលរផលត កលរចលងតតមមា កលបើៗ ទហើយបរតវានោកលកទៅទលើទើផារទោយអនកទបរបើបរាសកនងតនលទថាក។ សមញញា កករតននកលរយលបរសប រ មនយលបរសប ាមយនងបរបទោគនើមយៗ។

មនយលបរសបទងបរសង

មនយលបរសប

មនសវយលបរសប

មមតត យលបរសបតចតច

យលបរសប

យលបរសបខាែ ង

ផលតផលកកែងកលែ យមនបពានចាបកមមសទធទទ

ផលតផលកកែងកលែ យមនប ះពាលដលបរបទោជន រ បពានសទធរបសមាា សទដើមននមា កទនាះទទ

ផលតផលកកែងកលែ យមនប ះពាលដលទើផារននផលតផលមា កហសើនទទ

បរបសនទបើោម នផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទទ មនសសាទបរចើនកដលោម នលទធភាពទញផលតផលហសើននងមនោចយលពើទាភណឌ ភាព គណភាពននផលតផលហសើនទទ

គណភាពននផលតផលកកែងកលែ យគបរបហាកបរបកហលនងផលតផលហសើន

លកខណ:ទបរបើបរាសានននផលតផលកកែងកលែ យគបរបហាកបរបកហលនងផលតផលហសើន

ផលតផលកកែងកលែ យគោចទកចតាានដចនងផលតផលហសើនកដរ

កលរទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យគាអទពើបរសបចាប

កលរទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យគាអទពើបរតមបរតវតតមបរកមសើលម

ភាគតចណាសកដលទគោចនងចបអនកកដលទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ

[97]

ទោយគតអពើផលតផលកកែងកលែ យដកដល សមញញា កករតននកលរយលបរសប រ មនយលបរសប ាមយនងបរបទោគ នើមយៗ។

មនយលបរសបទងបរសង

មនយលបរសប

មនសវយលបរសប

មមតត យលបរសបតចតច

យលបរសប

យលបរសបខាែ ង

ចទពាះខ កលរទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទៅកនងទើផារបរបទទសទយើងាទរឿងងាយបរសល

បរបសនទបើខចងានផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ ខនងទញទបរបើភាែ ម

ខោចបរគបបរគងខែនឯងានទលើកលរទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ

មានកតតា តចតចណាសកដលោចប ះពាលដលកលរសទរចចតារបសខកនងកលរទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ

កលរទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យរអតគាកលរសទរចចតាទោយឯកឯងរបសខ

សនរខាងទបរកលមទនះបងាា ញពើទទងែើខែះកដលមនសសោចទែើ ទកទងនងផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ។ សមបញញា កករត កដលអនកោចទែើអទពើទងទនះកនងទពលខាងមខ។

មនោចទៅរច

ភាគទបរចើនកដលមនោច

មនសវាោច

មមតត ោច តចតច

ភាគទបរចើនកដលោច

បរាកដាោច

ខោចនងកណនាមតាភសរកា របរគារខទោយទបរបើបរាសផលតផលកកែងកលែ យកដរ

ខោចនងទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យសរាបមតាភសរកា រ បរគារខទបើពកទគសណមពរមកខ

ខនងទញផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ

ខនងទបរបើផលតផលកកែងកលែ យ

[98]

សនរទទនះទកទងនងតកលននផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទៀបទៅនងតនលននមា កផលតផលពតបរាកដ។ 1. ចទពាះផលតផលកកែងកលែ យមយកដលមានគណភាពសមរមយ ទតើអនករពងថាវាគរមានតនលប នាម ន គតាភាគរយនន

តនលផលតផលហសើន? 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% ទលើសពើ21%

2. ចទពាះផលតផលកកែងកលែ យមយកដលមានគណភាពសមរមយ ទតើអនកហា នចណាយទបរចើនបផតតនលប នាម ន គតាភាគរយននតនលផលតផលហសើន? 1-5% 6-10% 11-15% 16-20% ទលើសពើ21%

កផនកទើ៤ កផនកចងទបរកលយ! សនរខាងទបរកលមទនះចងដងពតមានទទៅរបសអនកកដលនងជយពកខ ទោយយលអពើចទលើយ របសអនកកដលានទែើយទៅទលើសនរកផនកខាងទលើ។

1. សមបញញា កោយរបសអនក ___________ ឆន

2. សមបញញា កទភទរបសអនក: បរបស បរសើ

3. សមបញញា កមខរបររបសអនក: សសស ទែើកលររដឋ ទែើកលរឯកជន អនករកសើ (ោជើវកមមផទា លខែន) ទផសងៗ: សមបញញា ក _________________________

4. សមបញញា កករតននកលរសការបសអនក: មយមសកា ាកឌប បរញញា បបរត, បរញញា បបរតរង អនបណឌ ត បណឌ ត ទផសងៗ: សមបញញា ក _________________________

5. សមបញញា កចណលរបសអនកកនងមយកខ: ោម នចណល ទបរកលម 100$ 100$ - 300$ 301$ - 500$ ទលើសពើ 500$

6. ទតើឥ វទនះអនកមានផលតផលកកែងកលែ យកដររទទ? មាន មនមាន សមមនបញញា ក (សមរលងសនរទ7)

7. សមបញញា កបរបទភទផលតផលកកែងកលែ យកដលអនកមាន សមទបរជើសទរ ើសទោយានទបរចើនតតមកដលមាន កលបប នា កល កវ នតត កសបកទជើង ទខាោវ ទបរគឿងអលងាក រ ទផសងៗ: សមបញា ក ________________________

8. ទតើអនកទទលានផលតផលកកែងកលែ យទោយរទបៀបណា? ទញខែនឯង ទទលាកលដពើអនកដនទ ទងពើរវ ើ

សមអគណ ចទពាះកលរទែើយតបនងបញា ើសនរទនះ

[99]

7.5. Appendix E: Measurement Items

Measurement Items

Subjective Norm (Sources: Beardan et al., 1989; Penz and Stottinger, 2005):

1. I rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until I am sure my friends agree of them.

2. It is important that others like the products and brands I buy.

3. When buying products, I generally purchase those brands I think others will approve of.

4. If other people can see me using a product, I often purchase the brand they expect me to buy.

5. I like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others.

6. I achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that the others

purchase.

7. If I want to be like someone, I often try to buy the same brands that they buy.

8. I often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands they purchase.

Price Consciousness (Sources: Ang et al., 2001; Lichtenstein et al., 1990):

1. I am very concerned about low prices, but I am equally concerned about product quality.

2. When grocery shopping, I compare the prices of different brands to be sure I get the value for

the money.

3. When purchasing a product, I always try to maximize the quality I get for the money I spend.

4. When I buy products, I like to be sure that I am getting my money’s worth.

5. I generally shop around for lower prices on products, but they still must meet certain quality

requirements before I will buy them.

6. When I shop, I usually compare the “price per unit” information for brands I normally buy.

7. I always check prices at the grocery store to be sure I get the best value for the money I spent.

Brand loyalty (Source: Beatty and Kahle, 1988; Yoo and Donthu, 2001):

1. I consider myself to be highly loyal to my favourite brand.

2. My favourite brand would be my first choice.

3. I would not buy other brands if my favourite brand is available at the store.

Perceived Quality (Source: Dodds et al., 1991; Yoo and Donthu, 2001):

1. The likely quality of my favourite brand is extremely high.

2. The likelihood that my favourite brand would be functional is very high.

[100]

Brand Awareness/Association (Sources: Keller 1993; Rossiter and Percy, 1987; Yoo and

Donthu, 2001):

1. I can recognize my favourite brand among other competing brands.

2. I am aware of my favourite brand.

3. Some characteristics of my favourite brand come to my mind quickly.

4. I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of my favourite brand.

5. It is easy for me to picture my favourite brand in my mind.

Attitude toward Counterfeit Luxury-Branded Products (Source: Wang et al., 2005):

1. Counterfeit Branded Products do not infringe intellectual property.

2. Counterfeit Branded Products do not damage the interest and rights of genuine brand

manufacturers.

3. Counterfeit Branded Products do not damage the genuine brand industry.

4. Without Counterfeit Branded Products, many people will not be able to enjoy the prestige

brought by genuine brand.

5. The quality of Counterfeit Branded Products is similar to the legal versions.

6. The functions of Counterfeit Branded Products are similar to the legal versions.

7. Counterfeit Branded Products are as reliable as the legal versions.

8. Purchasing Counterfeit Branded Products is legal.

9. Purchasing Counterfeit Branded Products is ethical.

10. There is little chance of being caught when purchasing Counterfeit Branded Products.

Perceived Behavioural Control (Sources: Chang, 1998; Kim and Karpova, 2010; Madden et

al., 1992):

1. For me to purchase Counterfeit Branded Products in the near future would be easy.

2. If I want to, I could easily Counterfeit Branded Products in the near future.

3. I have complete control over purchasing Counterfeit Branded Products in the near future.

4. There are very few events outside my control which could prevent me from purchasing

Counterfeit Branded Products in the near future.

5. Whether I purchase Counterfeit Branded Products in the near future will be entirely my

decision.

Consumption of Counterfeit Luxury-Branded Products (Source: Wang et al., 2005):

1. I would recommend Counterfeit Branded Products to a friend or family.

2. Upon request, I will consider purchasing Counterfeit Branded Products for a friend or family.

3. I will buy Counterfeit Branded Products.

4. I will use Counterfeit Branded Products.