Determination of Factors Affecting Consumers' Attitudes and Intentions Towards Purchasing Counterfeit Products: A Quantitative Research

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 154 - 170, 02.03.2020

Mehmet Ozan Karahan , Fatih Sahin

Öz

The primary purpose of this study is to determine the variables that affect the attitudes and intentions of consumers to purchase counterfeit products. In this context, the effect of social status, previous experience, ethical awareness, low price, and perceived risk variables on consumers' purchase of counterfeit products investigated. The data of research was collected face-to-face questionnaires by using a convenience sampling method. The population of the research is the consumers in Turkey older than 18 years old. A total of 340 valid data analyzed and structural equation modeling used to analyze the data and the test research hypotheses. The result of the study shows that perceived risk and experience factors have a significant effect on the attitudes of consumers towards the purchase of counterfeit products. In contrast, social status, ethical awareness, and low-price factors have no significant effect. Additionally, the findings show that the attitudes and past experiences of individuals towards purchasing counterfeit products affected their intentions towards counterfeit products.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Counterfeit Product, Previous Experience, Perceived Risk, Attitude, Intention, Structural Equation Modeling.

Tüketicilerin Taklit Ürün Satın Alma Tutumlarını ve Niyetlerini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Belirlenmesi: Nicel Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı, tüketicilerin taklit ürün satın alma tutumları ve niyetleri üzerinde etkisi olan değişkenlerin belirlenmesidir. Bu kapsamda sosyal statü, geçmiş deneyim, etik bilinci, düşük fiyat ve algılanan risk değişkenlerinin tüketicilerin taklit ürün satın alma üzerindeki etkisi araştırılmış ve tüketicilerin bakış açıları ortaya konulmaya çalışılmıştır. Araştırmada veriler yüz yüze anketle kolayda örnekleme yöntemi kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Araştırmanın ana kütlesini Türkiye’deki 18 yaşından büyük tüketiciler oluşturmaktadır. Toplam 340 geçerli veri ile analizler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Verilerin analizi ve araştırma hipotezlerinin testi için yapısal eşitlik modellemesi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda tüketicilerin taklit ürün satın almaya yönelik tutumları üzerinde algılanan risk ve geçmiş deneyim faktörlerinin anlamlı etkisi olduğu görülürken, sosyal statü, etik bilinci ve düşük fiyat faktörlerinin ise anlamlı etkisinin olmadığı görülmüştür. Bireylerin, taklit ürün satın almaya yönelik tutumlarının ve geçmiş deneyimlerinin, taklit ürüne yönelik niyetlerini de anlamlı düzeyde etkilediği ulaşılan bulgular arasındadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Taklit Ürün, Geçmiş Deneyim, Algılanan Risk, Tutum, Niyet, Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi.

Kaynakça

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
• Ajzen, I., ve Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Albers-Miller, N. D. (1999). Consumer misbehavior: why people buy illicit goods. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16(3), 273-287.
• Ang, S. H., Cheng, P. S., Lim, E. A., ve Tambyah, S. K. (2001). Spot the difference: consumer responses towards counterfeits. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
• Bagozzi, R., Gurhan-Canli, Z., ve Priester, J. (2002). The social psychology of consumer behaviour: McGraw-Hill Education (UK).
• Bamossy, G., ve Scammon, D. L. (1985). Product counterfeiting: consumers and manufacturers beware. ACR North American Advances.
• Bentler, P. M., ve Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitude–behavior relations. Psychological review, 86(5), 452.
• Bian, X. (2006). An examination of factors influencing the formation of the consideration set and consumer purchase intention in the context of non-deceptive counterfeiting. University of Glasgow,
• Bian, X., Haque, S., ve Smith, A. (2015). Social power, product conspicuousness, and the demand for luxury brand counterfeit products. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 37-54.
• Bian, X., ve Moutinho, L. (2009). An investigation of determinants of counterfeit purchase consideration. Journal of Business Research, 62(3), 368-378.
• Bian, X., ve Veloutsou, C. (2017). Consumers’ attitudes regarding non-deceptive counterfeit brands in the UK and China. In Advances in Chinese Brand Management (pp. 331-350): Springer.
• Bloch, P. H., Bush, R. F., ve Campbell, L. (1993). Consumer “accomplices” in product counterfeiting: a demand side investigation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(4), 27-36.
• Bush, R. F., Bloch, P. H., ve Dawson, S. (1989). Remedies for product counterfeiting. Business Horizons, 32(1), 59-66.
• Cesareo, L. (2016). Counterfeiting and Piracy, a Comprehensive Literature Review. New York, NY.: Springer.
• Chakraborty, G., Allred, A. T., ve Bristol, T. (1996). Exploring consumers' evaluations of counterfeits: The roles of country of origin and ethnocentrism. ACR North American Advances.
• Chaudary, M. W. T., Ahmed, F., Gill, M. S., ve Rizwan, M. (2014). The determinants of purchase intention of consumers towards counterfeit shoes in Pakistan. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 4(3), 20-38.
• Chaudhry, P. E., ve Zimmerman, A. (2009). The Economics of Counterfeit Trade(pp. XV, 194). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77835-6.
• Chaudhrya, P., Cordellb, V., ve Zimmermanc, A. (2005). Modelling anti-counterfeiting strategies in response to protecting intellectual property rights in a global environment. The Marketing Review, 5(1), 59-72.
• Cheng, S.-I., Fu, H.-H., ve Tu, L. T. C. (2011). Examining customer purchase intentions for counterfeit products based on a modified theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(10), 278-284.
• Chuchinprakarn, S. (2003). Consumption of counterfeit goods in Thailand: who are the patrons? ACR European Advances.
• Clunas, C. (2004). Superfluous things: material culture and social status in early modern China: University of Hawaii Press.
• Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., ve Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları (Baskı Ed.). Ankara.
• Coleman, R. P. (1983). The continuing significance of social class to marketing. Journal of consumer research, 10(3), 265-280.
• Comission, E. (2018). Commission Staff Working Document: Counterfeit And Piracy Watch List. Retrieved from Brussels:
• Conner, M., ve Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of applied social psychology, 28(15), 1429-1464.
• Cordell, V. V., Wongtada, N., ve Kieschnick Jr, R. L. (1996). Counterfeit purchase intentions: role of lawfulness attitudes and product traits as determinants. Journal of Business Research, 35(1), 41-53.
• De Matos, C. A., Ituassu, C. T., ve Rossi, C. A. V. (2007). Consumer attitudes toward counterfeits: a review and extension. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 36-47.
• Delgado Ballester, E., ve Luis Munuera-Alemán, J. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(3), 187-196.
• Dodge, H. R., Edwards, E. A., ve Fullerton, S. (1996). Consumer transgressions in the marketplace: consumers' perspectives. Psychology & Marketing, 13(8), 821-835.
• Dowling, G. R., ve Staelin, R. (1994). A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 119-134.
• Eagly, A. H., ve Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Eastman, J. K., Fredenberger, B., Campbell, D., ve Calvert, S. (1997). The relationship between status consumption and materialism: A cross-cultural comparison of Chinese, Mexican, and American student. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 5(1), 52-66.
• Eastman, J. K., Goldsmith, R. E., ve Flynn, L. R. (1999). Status consumption in consumer behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of marketing theory and practice, 7(3), 41-52.
• Eisend, M., Hartmann, P., ve Apaolaza, V. (2017). Who buys counterfeit luxury brands? A meta-analytic synthesis of consumers in developing and developed markets. Journal of International Marketing, 25(4), 89-111.
• Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., II, C. S., ve Commuri, S. (2001). How now Ralph Lauren? The separation of brand and product in a counterfeit culture. ACR North American Advances, 28, 258–265.
• Gentry, J. W., Putrevu, S., ve Shultz, C. J. (2006). The effects of counterfeiting on consumer search. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 5(3), 245-256.
• Gino, F., Norton, M. I., ve Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological science, 21(5), 712-720.
• Gistri, G., Romani, S., Pace, S., Gabrielli, V., ve Grappi, S. (2009). Consumption practices of counterfeit luxury goods in the Italian context. Journal of Brand Management, 16(5-6), 364-374.
• Grønhaug, K., ve Trapp, P. S. (1988). Perceived social class appeals of branded goods and services. Journal of Services Marketing, 2(3), 71-76.
• Grossman, G. M., ve Shapiro, C. (1986). Counterfeit-product trade. In: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
• Grossman, G. M., ve Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79-100.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., ve Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Seventh Edition ed. Vol. 5). NewYork: Prentice Hall.
• Hanzaee, K. H., ve Taghipourian, M. J. (2012). Attitudes toward counterfeit products and generation differentia. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, 4, 1147-1154.
• Haque, A., Khatibi, A., ve Rahman, S. (2009). Factors influencing buying behavior of piracy products and its impact to Malaysian market. International Review of Business Research Papers, 5(2), 383-401.
• Harvey, M. G., ve Ronkainen, I. A. (1985). International counterfeiters-marketing success without the cost and the risk. Columbia Journal of World Business, 20(3), 37-45.
• Harvey, P. J., ve Walls, W. D. (2003). Laboratory markets in counterfeit goods: Hong Kong versus Las Vegas. Applied Economics Letters, 10(14), 883-887.
• Havlena, W. J., ve DeSarbo, W. S. (1991). On the measurement of perceived consumer risk. Decision Sciences, 22(4), 927-939.
• Hidayat, A., ve Diwasasri, A. H. A. (2013). Factors influencing attitudes and intention to purchase counterfeit luxury brands among Indonesian consumers. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(4), 143.
• Hopkins, D. M., Kontnik, L. T., ve Turnage, M. T. (2003). Counterfeiting exposed: Protecting your brand and customers: J. Wiley & Sons.
• Huang, J.-H., Lee, B. C., ve Hsun Ho, S. (2004). Consumer attitude toward gray market goods. International Marketing Review, 21(6), 598-614.
• Hussain, A., Kofinas, A., ve Win, S. (2017). Intention to purchase counterfeit luxury products: A comparative study between Pakistani and the UK consumers. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 29(5), 331-346.
• ICC. (2015). Roles and Responsibilities of Intermediaries: Fighting Counterfeiting and Piracy in The Supply Chain. Retrieved from https://iccwbo.org/publication/roles-responsibilities-intermediaries/
• Kay, H. (1990). Fake’s progress. Management Today, 54, 54-59.
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (T. Edition Ed.). London: Guilford publications.
• Kozar, J. M., ve Marcketti, S. B. (2011). Examining ethics and materialism with purchase of counterfeits. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 393-404.
• Lai, K. K.-Y., ve Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation: do the Chinese have different views? Asia pacific journal of management, 16(2), 179-192.
• Lassar, W., Mittal, B., ve Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-19.
• Le Roux, A., Bobrie, F., ve Thébault, M. (2016). A typology of brand counterfeiting and imitation based on a semiotic approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 349-356.
• Lysonski, S., ve Durvasula, S. (2008). Digital piracy of MP3s: consumer and ethical predispositions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(3), 167-178.
• Maldonado, C., ve Hume, E. C. (2005). Attitudes toward counterfeit products: An ethical perspective. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 8(1/2), 105.
• Mason, R. S. (1980). Conspicuous consumption: A study of exceptional consumer behaviour. Salford: University of Salford,
• McDonald, G., ve Roberts, C. (1994). Product piracy: The problem that will not go away. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 3(4), 55-65.
• Mohamed, K. (2012). Trademark counterfeiting: comparative legal analysis on enforcement within Malaysia and the United Kingdom and at their borders. Newcastle University,
• Muncy, J. A., ve Vitell, S. J. (1992). Consumer ethics: An investigation of the ethical beliefs of the final consumer. Journal of Business Research.
• Nash, T. (1989). Only imitation? The rising cost of counterfeiting. Director, 5.
• Nia, A., ve Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2000). Do counterfeits devalue the ownership of luxury brands? Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(7), 485-497.
• OECD, ve EUIPO. (2016). Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods: Mapping the Economic Impact .
• OECD, ve EUIPO. (2019). Trends in Trade in Counterfeit and Pirated Goods.
• Park-Poaps, H., ve Kang, J. (2018). An experiment on non-luxury fashion counterfeit purchase: The effects of brand reputation, fashion attributes, and attitudes toward counterfeiting. Journal of Brand Management, 25(2), 185-196.
• Phau, I., Prendergast, G., ve Hing Chuen, L. (2001). Profiling brand-piracy-prone consumers: an exploratory study in Hong Kong’s clothing industry. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 5(1), 45-55.
• Phau, I., ve Teah, M. (2009). Devil wears (counterfeit) Prada: a study of antecedents and outcomes of attitudes towards counterfeits of luxury brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(1), 15-27.
• Prendergast, G., Hing Chuen, L., ve Phau, I. (2002). Understanding consumer demand for non-deceptive pirated brands. Marketing intelligence & planning, 20(7), 405-416.
• Quoquab, F., Pahlevan, S., Mohammad, J., ve Thurasamy, R. (2017). Factors affecting consumers’ intention to purchase counterfeit product: empirical study in the Malaysian market. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 29(4), 837-853.
• Rizwan, M., Khan, H., Saeed, A., Muzaffar, A., Arshad, U., ve Hussain, M. (2012). Antecedents of Purchase Intention A Study From Pakistan. Journal of Business and Management, 23(4), 58-66.
• Santos, J. F., ve Ribeiro, J. C. (2007). International counterfeiting in the European Union: a host country approach. Journal of Euromarketing, 16(1-2), 165-176.
• Schiffman, L. G., ve Kanuk, L. L. (1997). Consumer behavior, Motivation research (Marketing). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
• Scitovsky, T. (1992). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction: Oxford University Press on Demand.
• Shaw, D., ve Shiu, E. (2002). The role of ethical obligation and self‐identity in ethical consumer choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26(2), 109-116.
• Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., ve Davidow, M. (2008). (Un) ethical consumer behavior: Robin Hoods or plain hoods? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(4), 200-210. Sorokin, P. A. (1959). Social and cultural mobility. New York, 4, 99-145.
• Staake, T., ve Fleisch, E. (2008). Countering counterfeit trade: Illicit market insights, best-practice strategies, and management toolbox: Springer Science & Business Media.
• Staake, T., Thiesse, F., ve Fleisch, E. (2009). The emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 43(3/4), 320-349.
• Steenhaut, S., ve Van Kenhove, P. (2006). An empirical investigation of the relationships among a consumer’s personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(2), 137-155.
• Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., ve Furnham, A. (2009). Faking it: Personality and individual difference predictors of willingness to buy counterfeit goods. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(5), 820-825.
• Sweeney, J. F., Greenberg, S. D., ve Bitler, M. H. (1994). Heading Them off at the Pass-Can Counterfeit Goods of Foreign Origin Be Stopped at the Counterfeiter's Border. Trademark Rep., 84, 477.
• Tan, B. (2002). Understanding consumer ethical decision making with respect to purchase of pirated software. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19(2), 96-111.
• Tom, G., Garibaldi, B., Zeng, Y., ve Pilcher, J. (1998). Consumer demand for counterfeit goods. Psychology & Marketing, 15(5), 405-421.
• Vida, I. (2007). Determinants of consumer willingness to purchase non-deceptive counterfeit products and the European Union. Managing global transitions, 5(3), 253.
• Wang, F., Zhang, H., Zang, H., ve Ouyang, M. (2005). Purchasing pirated software: an initial examination of Chinese consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 340-351.
• Wee, C.-H., Ta, S.-J., ve Cheok, K.-H. (1995). Non-price determinants of intention to purchase counterfeit goods: An exploratory study. International Marketing Review, 12(6), 19-46.
• Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., ve Klarmann, C. (2012). Luxury consumption in the trade-off between genuine and counterfeit goods: what are the consumers’ underlying motives and value-based drivers? Journal of Brand Management, 19(7), 544-566.
• Wilcox, K., Kim, H. M., ve Sen, S. (2009). Why do consumers buy counterfeit luxury brands? Journal of marketing research, 46(2), 247-259.
• Wilke, R., ve Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation and its effects on innovation, competition, and brand equity. Business Horizons, 42(6), 9-9.
• WTO. (2019). Statistics on Merchandise Trade. Retrieved from www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/merch_trade_stat_e.htm.
• Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal bilimlerde faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: Keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 46, 74-85.
• Yoo, B., ve Lee, S.-H. (2009). Buy genuine luxury fashion products or counterfeits? ACR North American Advances, 6, 280-286.