Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

Purpose: This study seeks to provide some insights into the relationship between consumers’ perception and their actual purchases of both symbolic and functional counterfeit goods. Design/Methodology/Approach: The sample for this study consisted of 185 consumers of counterfeit goods located in the northern region of Malaysia, specifically Penang. The respondents included both working and non-working people ranging 15 year old to persons of 50 and above, who include both highly and less educated. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to respondents at offices, secondary schools, higher institutions and residential areas. The respondents were asked to give their opinion on 13 statements relating to counterfeit goods issues on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1=strongly agree, to 3=neutral, and 5=strongly agree) and how frequently they purchase a given list of counterfeit goods. Findings: The study revealed that consumers’ perception vary in significance to the two different product types. Surprisingly, for both types of products, the issue of fairness to the originators does not seem to raise any concern among counterfeit goods purchasers. The effects of three influential demographic elements, namely, age, education and income were also investigated. Research Limitations: Comparison between different counterfeit goods would have been done, and sample from other parts of the country would have also taken into study. Managerial Implications: The local policy makers should target the well-educated and higher income group. Different approaches can be used in accordance to discourage the purchase of symbolic and functional goods. Originality/Value: This is an original work

Keywords

Counterfeit Goods, Original Producers, Consumer Perception, Morality, Risk

1. Ang, S.H., Cheng, P.S., Lim, E.A.C. and Tambyah, S.K. (2001), “Spot the Difference: Consumer Responses Towards Counterfeits”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.219-235.
2. Bhat, S. and Reddy, S.K. (1998), “Symbolic and Functional Positioning of Brands”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.32-43.
3. Igbaria, M., Iivari, J. and Maragahh, H. (1995), “Why do Individuals Use Computer Technology? A Finnish Case Study”, Information and Management, Vol. 5, pp.227-238.
4. International Intellectual Property Alliance (2005), “2005 Special 301 Report: Malaysia”, Available [Online] http://www.iipa.com/rbc/2005/2005SPEC301MALAYSIArev.pdf.
5. Mittal, B. (1988), “The Role of Affective Choice Mode in the Consumer Purchase of Expressive Products”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 9, pp.499-524.
6. Mittal, B., Ratchford, B. and Prabhakar, P. (1990), “Functional and Expressive Attributes as Determinants of Brand- attitude”, Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, pp.135-155.
7. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill.
8. Othman, M.D., Ghazali, E., and Lim S.H. (2003), “Consumer Behavior Towards Counterfeit Products: A Study of Urban Malaysian Consumers” The Proceedings of the 5th Asian Academy of Management Conference, “Challenges of Globalized Business: The Asian Perspective”, 10–13 (September), Hyatt Hotel, Kuantan, Pahang.
9. Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and MacInnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept Image Management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 (Oct), pp.135-145.
10. Ramayah, T., Yeap, J.A.L. and Wahid, N. (2002), “Purchase Preference and View: The Case of Counterfeit Goods”, The Proceedings of the UBM Conference, “Issues and Challenges in the K-Economy: Towards Building World Class Entrepreneurs”, 12-13 August, UNITEN, Kuala Lumpur.
11. The Malay Mail (2005), “Three Held, “RM 2.2 Million in Goods Seized”, May, 30.
12. The Star (2005), “End-user Apology Notice”, July, 26.
13. Wee, C.H., Tan, S.J. and Cheok, K.H. (1995), “Non-price Determinants of Intent to Purchase Counterfeit Goods”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.19-46.