Skip to main content
Log in

How a luxury monopolist might benefit from the aspirational utility effect of counterfeiting?

  • Published:
European Journal of Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thanks to an intertemporal analytical model, we incorporate aspirational consumers in Veblen markets for luxury fashion items. We show how a luxury monopolist can increase its profits thanks to the presence of counterfeit products. The genuine producer profit is shaped by two opposite effects: (1) a positive aspirational effect resulting from a sales increase due to the aspirational consumers who seek to imitate the lifestyle of snob consumers (2) a negative snob effect, resulting from a sales decrease due to the reduction of consumption by some snob consumers. We identify the conditions under which the overall effect generated by counterfeiting can increase the genuine firm profit. These conditions imply the existence of large aspirational effects and high additional utility gain associated with buying an original product instead of obtaining a counterfeit product.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Digital goods include goods for which the marginal cost of duplication is close to zero with copied products having a similar quality to original ones.

  2. http://www.luxurymust.com/?p=705.

  3. Interestingly, Piller (2006) argues that piracy can be strategically used by software companies to create an ‘addiction effect’ by locking-in people who do not have sufficient income to afford companies’ products. Later, when the income level will become sufficiently high and consumers will desire all services tied with legal versions (e.g., upgrades, training, bug fixes), these firms will collect revenues by transforming today’s pirates in tomorrow’s payers (see also Jenkins 2004 for a similar example related to Japanese anime).

  4. Let us stress the co-existence of two distinct groups of different sizes who first buy counterfeits and later genuine items. First, most aspirational consumers seek to imitate lifestyle of the very wealthy and are budget constrained and frequently mix counterfeits and genuine items over time (Wall and Large 2010). Second, some aspirational consumers become rich and access to the lifestyle of elite consumers, such as the new billionaires in China. In short, these few consumers switch from one category to another and do not belong any more to the aspirational class.

  5. There are several luxury firms but neither their number nor their price strategies allow us to consider them as a competitive market. Moreover their branded products are frequently perceived as exclusive and unique, allowing these producers to have a huge control over price setting. They can be considered as price makers. So, luxury firms are frequently considered to behave in a monopolistic competition structure. In the short term, each luxury producer in this market behaves as a monopoly with the conventional market power to generate supra-competitive profits. As usual in the related literature (e.g., Yao 2005), we will consider the luxury producer as a monopolist. A natural extension will be to relax this assumption. A related question is why people after purchasing counterfeits will buy products from the same (counterfeited) brand and not from another. A simple justification is that consumers want to be consistent. If consumers have built a public image as wearing luxury items from a given brand, they may want to keep the same style but with genuine accessories. Another explanation can just come from the fact that if some consumers switch from brand A to brand B, others will switch from B to A.

  6. Intuitively, the sales of the luxury monopolist follow the movement of the fashion cycle: they increase first, reach a threshold and then decrease.

  7. This condition echoes the quality improvement of fakes which can make distinguishing them from originals very difficult (Fong 2005).

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions of Jonathan Barnett from the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California on earlier versions of this paper. In addition, we are grateful to the anonymous referees and the editor for many constructive comments. The usual caveat applies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilles Grolleau.

Appendix

Appendix

Proof of proposition

We show that, in the situation described in the paragraph 2, if consumers exist for both the original item and the counterfeit product, the firm always loses money. In fact, if both consumers exist, we must have \( \hat{\theta }_{c} < \hat{\theta }_{g} < 1 \), i.e., \( \mathop p\nolimits_{c} < {\frac{\alpha (1 - \alpha )}{2 - \alpha }} \). The profit in the word with counterfeiting is lower than the profit in the world without counterfeiting if and only if: \( {\frac{{(1 - \alpha + \mathop p\nolimits_{c} )^{2} }}{4(1 - \alpha )}} < \frac{1}{4} \), such an inequality is verified if \( \mathop p\nolimits_{c} < \sqrt {1 - \alpha } (1 - \sqrt {1 - \alpha } ) \). Comparing the two constraints on p c we had: \( {\frac{\alpha (1 - \alpha )}{2 - \alpha }} < \sqrt {1 - \alpha } (1 - \sqrt {1 - \alpha } ) \), so we have always \( \mathop \pi \nolimits_{g}^{c} < \mathop \pi \nolimits_{g}^{nc} \).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bekir, I., El Harbi, S. & Grolleau, G. How a luxury monopolist might benefit from the aspirational utility effect of counterfeiting?. Eur J Law Econ 36, 169–182 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9235-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9235-x

Keywords

JEL Classifications

Navigation