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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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.
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).
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.
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.
Intuitively, the sales of the luxury monopolist follow the movement of the fashion cycle: they increase first, reach a threshold and then decrease.
This condition echoes the quality improvement of fakes which can make distinguishing them from originals very difficult (Fong 2005).
References
Arrow, K. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–625). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barnett, J. M. (2005). Shopping for Gucci on Canal Street: Reflections on status consumption, intellectual property and the incentive thesis. Virginia Law Review, 91(6), 1381–1423.
Bekir, I., Harbi, S., & Grolleau, G. (2010). The strategy of raising counterfeiers’ costs in luxury markets, European Journal of Law and Economics, Online ISSN: 0929-1261.
Caplovitz, D. (1967). The poor pay more: Consumer practices of low-income families. London, UK: Macmillan.
Chaves, B., & Deroian, F. (2004). A note on strategic piracy in the economics of software: An explanation by learning costs, University of Paris X, FORUM, Mimeo. http://www.brousseau.info/semnum/pdf/2004-01-26_BC-FD.pdf.
Coase, R. (1972). Durability and monopoly. Journal of Law and Economics, 15, 143–149.
Conner, K. R., & Rumelt, R. P. (1991). Software piracy: An analysis of protection strategies. Management Science, 37(2), 125–139.
Corneo, G., & Jeanne, O. (1997). Conspicuous consumption, snobbism and conformism. Journal of Public Economics, 66, 55–71.
Curtis, J. (2000). Not taking luxury for granted: The luxury goods sector is thriving, but top brands need to find a balance between widening appeal and maintaining their exclusivity, Marketing, August 24, 2000, http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/69346/Not-taking-luxury-granted-luxury-goods-sector-thriving-top-brands-need-find-balance-widening-appeal-maintaining-exclusivity.
Datamonitor (2002). Europe’s consumers lap up luxury goods, http://www.foodanddrinkeurope.com/Consumer-Trends/Europe-s-consumers-lap-up-luxury-goods.
De Castro, J. O., Balkin, D. B., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). Can entrepreneurial firms benefit from product piracy? Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 75–90.
Fong, M. (2005). Counterfeit for Christmas: Gift givers tap new source as travel to China eases knockoff quality improves. Wall Street Journal, 9, B1.
Frank, R. (1985). The demand for unobservables and other nonpositional goods. American Economic Review, 75(1), 101–116.
Frank, R. (2011). Who’s buying all that luxury? Not the rich, The Wall Street Journal, January, 12. http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/01/12/whos-buying-all-that-luxury-not-the-rich/?mod=rss_WSJBlog.
Gogoi, P. (2005). Selling luxury to the masses, business week, November, 29, http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051129_4460_db016.htm.
Grolleau, G., & El Harbi, S. (2008). Profiting from being pirated by ‘pirating’ the pirates. Kyklos, 61, 385–390.
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1988). Foreign counterfeiting of status goods. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(1), 79–100.
Jenkins, H. (2004). When piracy becomes promotion, Technology Review, August, 10, http://www.technologyreview.com/Biotech/13722/?a=f.
KPMG. (2007). Luxury brands in China, Available at: http://www.kpmg.com.cn/en/virtual_library/Consumer_markets/CM_Luxury_brand.pdf, Consulted on April, 23, 2010.
Lee, S. H., & Yoo, B. (2005) Do counterfeits promote genuine products?, Zarb School of Business, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, Working paper # 7.
Liebowitz, S. (2005). Economists’ topsy-turvy view of piracy. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), 5–17.
McKibben, B. (2007). Deep economy: The wealth of communities and the durable future. Oxford, UK: One World Publications.
Piller, C. (2006). How piracy opens doors for windows, Los Angeles times, April, 9, http://articles.latimes.com/2006/apr/09/business/fi-micropiracy9.
Raustiala, K., & Sprigman, C. (2006). The piracy paradox: Innovation and intellectual property in fashion design. Virginia Law Review, 92(8), 1687–1777.
Ritson, M. (2007). Fakes can genuinely aid luxury brands, Marketing, 25 July, 2007.
Schofield, E. (2010). The aspirational consumer, Fashion’s Collective, http://fashionscollective.com/FashionAndLuxury/05/the-aspirational-consumer/. May, 4.
Schor, J. (1999). The new politics of consumption: Why Americans want so much more than they need Boston review, Summer, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR24.3/schor.html.
Slive, J., & Bernhardt, D. (1998). Pirated for profit. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31(4), 886–899.
Takeyama, L. (1997). The intertemporal consequences of unauthorized reproduction of intellectual property. Journal of Law and Economics, 40, 511–522.
The Economist. (2004a). Psst. Wanna real rolex? The Economist, January, 24th, 55–56.
The Economist. (2004b). Rags and riches: A survey of fashion, The Economist, March 6th, 2004.
The Rational Walk. (2009). Luxury goods and aspirational consumers, http://www.rationalwalk.com/?p=2652. Published on September, 22.
Van Kempen, L. (2007). Status consumption and ethnicity in Bolivia: Evidence from durables ownership. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(1), 76–89.
Veblen, T. (1899). The theory of the leisure class: An Economic Study of Institutions, London: Unwin Books, 1994.
Wall, D. S., & Large, J. (2010). Jailhouse frocks: Locating the public interest in policing counterfeit luxury fashion goods. British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 1–23.
Yao, J. T. (2005). How a luxury monopolist might benefit from a stringent counterfeit monitoring regime. International Journal of Business and Economics, 4(3), 177–192.
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
Corresponding author
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
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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9235-x