André LE ROUX Marinette THEBAULT François BOBRIE

1. Brand Typicality Impact on Brand Imitations Evaluation and Categorization4th International Consumer Brand Relationships Conference 21-23 May 2015, Porto André LE ROUX Marinette THEBAULT François BOBRIE Institut d’Administration des Entreprises, Université de Poitiers

2. Introduction • Counterfeiting and imitation: a major issue for brands: • Expanding phenomenon that targets all brands • Consequences: • Threatens competitive positions • Dilutes brand equity • Undermines brand-consumer relationship : • Status • Trust • Research Purpose: To explore the impact of brand typicality on : • Brand evaluation • Brand categorization as a counterfeit or an imitation Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

3. Theoretical Background • 2 major threats to brand : Counterfeit and imitation: • Counterfeit : exact reproduction (Lai & Zaichkowsky, 1999; Bian & Moutinho, 2009) • Imitation: similarity (Lai & Zaichkowsky, 1999; Van Horen & Pieters 2012) Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

4. Marketing Literature on Counterfeiting and Imitation • Binary or discrete conceptualization of Counterfeiting and imitation: Genuine vs Fake • Counterfeiting and imitation as a continuous phenomenon: • Lai & Zaichkowsky (1996): • Counterfeits • Piracy • Imitations : • Legitimate Imitations • Knock offs • "Gray marketing" : • Overruns • Ghost shifts • Hilton, Cho & Chen (2004) Fashion: • Vanity counterfeits • Overruns • Condoned copies • Self copies Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

5. Marketing Literature on Counterfeiting and Imitation • Counterfeiting and imitation as a typology: 2 dimensions:(Le Roux, Bobrie & Thébault, 2015) • Brand Name • Appearance • Results: • Preference for original brand name and appearance • A dominant pattern : identification through brand name Identical Brand Name: • Categorization : National Brand • Significant Purchase Intentions Similar or Different Brand Name: • Categorization: Counterfeit • Low Purchase Intentions • Exceptions to dominant pattern: stimuli with different name and appearance acceptable • Hypothesized explanation brand typicality Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

6. Marketing Literature on Brand Typicality • Role of Brand Typicality: • Capacity of an item to represent a category (Loken & Ward, 1990; Ladwein, 1994, 1995) • Adaptation to counterfeiting and imitation: Capacity of an alien item to be accepted • Within a brand: Brand counterfeiting • Within a product category: Imitation • Brand Typicality is affected by: (Ladwein, 1994, 1995) • Competition intensity: number of competitors • Product range width: number of references within a brand • Need to test the impact of brand typicality on brand evaluation and categorization. Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

7. Research Model H1 Brand Name H5 Brand Evaluation H4 Product Appearance H7 H2 H6 Brand Typicality • 3 main effects: H1, H2, H3 • 4 interaction effects: • Name * Appearance: H4 • Typicality * Name : H5 • Typicality * Appearance H6 • Typicality * Brand Name * Appearance: H7 H3 Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

8. Methodology • ANOVA 2x2x2 mixed design: 4 brands: Apple iPod, Red Bull, Smirnoff, CK One • 3 inter subjects factors: Brand Name, Appearance, Brand typicality • 1 repeated factor: Brand • Dependent variable: Brand evaluation • Convenience sample: 301 respondents, 8 experimental conditions Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

9. Results H1 Brand Name H5 Brand Evaluation H4 Product Appearance H7 H2 H6 Brand Typicality H3 • 3 significant main effects: H1, H2, H3 validated • 3 significant interaction effects: • Name * Appearance: H4 validated • Typicality * Appearance: H6 validated • Typicality * Brand Name * Appearance: : H7 validated Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

10. Results • Stimuli Categorization: 4 modalities: • A genuine item • A counterfeit • A competitor imitating a well-known brand • A private label • Results : • High typicality conditions: clear-cut dichotomy: • Identical name and appearance: genuine • All other stimuli: counterfeit • Low-typicality conditions: blurred categorization: • Identical name and appearance: genuine • Other stimuli: counterfeit, genuine or imitation Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

11. Discussion • Impact of brand typicality on both evaluation and categorization • High typicality conditions: any variation in name or appearance results in: • Unfavorable brand evaluation • Categorization as counterfeit • Low typicality conditions: • Only brand name variations impact brand evaluation • Categorization is more diverse: Genuine item, Legitimate imitation from competitors, Counterfeit • Results consistent with: • Literature on typicality (Ladwein, 1994,1995): competition intensity and product range width result in dilution of brand typicality that favors imitation inroad. • Literature on imitation (Van Horen & Pieters, 2012): successful imitation strategy: be different. Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie

12. Conclusion • Contribution: • A better understanding of consumer reactions to counterfeits and imitations • A better understanding of the impact of brand typicality on brand evaluation and categorization • A guideline for monitoring and conceiving brand strategies face to counterfeiting and imitation: • A diagnostic tool • A protective tool • An argumentative tool • Limits and further research: • Convenience sample • Limited number of product classes and brands • Brand typicality limited to a dichotomy High vs Low • Test on one characteristic of each dimension: Brand Name, Appearance. Le Roux, Thébault, Bobrie