Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Competition Effects of Lookalike Private Label Products

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
National Brands and Private Labels in Retailing

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics ((SPBE))

Abstract

This paper considers the competition effects of lookalike products, which seek to mimic the packaging, design and appearance of leading brands. Such products, most notable in the fast-moving-consumer-goods (FMCG) sector, are particularly associated with items promoted by retail organizations as part of their private-label programmes. The market power and control over the supply chain which the major retailers now enjoy means that by developing lookalike products they may have the opportunity to exploit unfairly and anti-competitively the image and goodwill that brand manufacturers have developed through careful and continual product and marketing investment. This, in turn, could distort the way and the extent to which manufacturers compete, enhance retailer control over the supply chain. In the process, this could undermine manufacturer branded goods which smaller retailers traditionally rely on, thus weakening their competitive position and resulting in further concentration of retail markets and less choice of store types and product varieties for consumers. The continuing absence of a rapid and effective legal remedy to prevent the rewards from brand investment being misappropriated by imitators means that such action will likely continue, with the upshot that manufacturer and retailer competition may be distorted to the detriment of consumer welfare and the public interest.

This paper revises and updates a previously titled paper by Dobson (1998b) (“The Competition Effects of Look-alike Products”, University of Nottingham Business School Discussion Paper, No. 1998: VI, 1998).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For details on the legal position in a range of countries and a wide array of examples, see Phillip et al. (2013).

  2. 2.

    For instance, Dobson (1998b) points to a notable case where following the introduction of a series of lookalike products resembling the cleaning product Flash in 1986, and after inconclusive court proceedings, Procter & Gamble re-packaged their product in 1992. This in turn was mimicked within 1 year. Further new packaging was introduced by P&G in 1994, again to be mimicked—for the third time. Similar tacking can be spotted when examines another P&G product—Head and Shoulders.

References

  • Ailawadi, K. L., & Keller, K. L. (2004). Understanding retail branding: Conceptual insights and research priorities. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 331–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselmsson, J., & Johansson, U. (2009). Retailer brands and the impact on innovativeness in the grocery market. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(1–2), 75–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontemps, C., Orozco, V., & Réquillart, V. (2008). Private labels, national brands and food prices. Review of Industrial Organization, 33(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bontemps, C., Orozco, V., Réquillart, V., & Trevisiol, A. (2005). Price effects of private label development. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 3(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Brand Group. (2012). 2012 Similar ‘parasitic’ packaging. Available from http://www.britishbrandsgroup.org.uk/upload/File/Similar%20pkg%20examples%202012.pdf

  • Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., & Young, S. H. (2009). Does in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • d’Astous, A., & Gargouri, E. (2001). Consumer evaluations of brand imitations. European Journal of Marketing, 35(1/2), 153–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., & Brito, E. (2004). Price and quality competition between brands and own brands: A value systems perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2), 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, P. W. (1998a). The economic welfare implications of own label goods. University of Nottingham Business School Discussion Paper, No. 1998:IV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, P. W. (1998b). The competition effects of look-alike products. University of Nottingham Business School Discussion Paper, No. 1998:VI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, P. W., & Chakraborty, R. (2009). Private labels and branded goods: Consumers’ ‘horrors’ and ‘heroes’. In A. Ezrachi & U. Bernitz (Eds.), Private labels, brands and competition policy: The changing landscape of retail competition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, P. W., & Yadav, A. (2012). Packaging in a market economy: The economic and commercial role of packaging communication. Report for British Brands Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabian, B. S., Philippe, B., & Vincent, R. (2004). Economics of private labels: A survey of literature. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 2(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falkowski, A., Olszewska, J., & Ulatowska, J. (2014). Are look-alikes confusing? The application of the DRM paradigm to test consumer confusion in counterfeit cases. Marketing Letters, 25(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro, R., Kirmani, A., & Matherly, T. (2013). Look at me! look at me! conspicuous brand usage, self-brand connection, and dilution. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fousekis, P. (2010). Quality choices in a vertical structure: National brands vs private labels in grocery retailing. Agricultural Economics Review, 11(2), 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. J., Kerin, R. A., & Gengler, C. (2000). The effects of brand name similarity on brand source confusion: Implications for trademark infringement. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(2), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyman, M. R., Kopf, D. A., & Lee, D. (2010). Review of literature – Future research suggestions: Private label brands: Benefits, success factors and future research. Journal of Brand Management, 17(5), 368–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapferer, J. N. (1995, May). Stealing brand equity: Measuring perceptual confusion between national brands and ‘copycat’ own-label products. Marketing and Research Today, 23, 96–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 66–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., & Steenkamp, J. B. E. (2007). Private label strategy: How to meet the store brand challenge. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • London Economics. (1997). Competition in retailing (Research Paper 13). London: Office of Fair Trading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miaoulis, G., & d’Amato, N. (1978). Consumer confusion: Trademark infringement. Journal of Marketing, 42(2), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, G., & Pieters, R. (2010). Looking more or less alike: Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1121–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrin, M., Lee, J., & Allenby, G. M. (2006). Determinants of trademark dilution. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 248–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillip, J., Gibson, J., & Freeman, J. (2013). The impact of lookalikes: Similar packaging and fast moving consumer goods. London: Intellectual Property Office (IPO).

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulling, C., Simmons, C. J., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2006). Brand dilution: When do new brands hurt existing brands? Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 52–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, T. J., Hamilton, S. F., & Patterson, P. M. (2010). Spatial competition and private labels. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 35(2), 183–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayman, S., Hoch, S. J., & Raju, J. S. (2002). Positioning of store brands. Marketing Science, 21(4), 378–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sethuraman, R. (2004). Positioning store brands against national brands: Get close or keep a distance? Working paper. Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethuraman, R., & Raju, J. S. (2012). Private label strategies – Myths and realities, chapter 19. In V. Shankar & G. S. Carpenter (Eds.), Handbook of marketing strategy (p. 318). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2012). When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: The impact of comparative evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2013). Preference reversal for copycat brands: Uncertainty makes imitation fell good. Journal of Economic Psychology, 37, 54–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadlow, C. (2011). The law of passing-off: Unfair competition by misrepresentation. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Mitchell, V. W. (2007). Consumer confusion proneness: Scale development, validation, and application. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(7), 697–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V. W. (2005). Customer vulnerable to perceived product similarity problems: Scale development and identification. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 140–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2004). Sincere flattery: Trade-dress imitation and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1,2), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilke, R., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1999). Brand imitation and its effects on innovation, competition, and brand equity. Business Horizons, 42(6), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2006). The psychology behind trademark infringement and counterfeiting. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawren.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    Paul W. Dobson & Li Zhou

Authors
  1. Paul W. Dobson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul W. Dobson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economy and Business, University of Almeria Faculty of Business and Economics, Almeria, Spain

    Juan Carlos Gázquez-Abad

  2. Dept. Business Administration, University of Granada Business School, Granada, Spain

    Francisco J. Martínez-López

  3. Estudios de Economía y Empresa, Open University of Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain

    Irene Esteban-Millat

  4. Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Castilla la Mancha, Cuenca, Spain

    Juan Antonio Mondéjar-Jiménez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dobson, P.W., Zhou, L. (2014). The Competition Effects of Lookalike Private Label Products. In: Gázquez-Abad, J., Martínez-López, F., Esteban-Millat, I., Mondéjar-Jiménez, J. (eds) National Brands and Private Labels in Retailing. Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07194-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation