Brand Protection Perspectives
Lepeska, Laura (2015)
Pro gradu -tutkielma
2015
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2015073010754
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2015073010754
Tiivistelmä
The main focus of this qualitative study is to explore and understand the boundaries
of a brand protection program by assessing risks caused directly or indirectly
by counterfeiting and finding remedies for treating those risks. 12 of 20 brand protection
managers, anti-counterfeiting experts and marketing professors completed
anonymously an internet-mediated questionnaire. During this study, a pattern of
risk tolerance level within the sample was identified. The empirical results suggest
that this pattern influences participants’ risk perception of and attitude towards
counterfeiting; these also imply that, in risk treatment, this pattern influences decision-
making as well as selection of countermeasures. Further, the results propose
that brand equity and reputation are compared to other brand variables more vulnerable
to the impact of counterfeiting. In addition, the results obtained in the
question whether companies should employ public announcements of counterfeit
seizures as an additional brand protection tool were contradictory. Companies
were more apprehensive towards this solution than marketing professors. Thus,
further investigation on this subject is recommended. This study concludes that as
long as the impact of counterfeiting cannot be measured properly, the true damage
on a brand or company and their reputation cannot be determined.
of a brand protection program by assessing risks caused directly or indirectly
by counterfeiting and finding remedies for treating those risks. 12 of 20 brand protection
managers, anti-counterfeiting experts and marketing professors completed
anonymously an internet-mediated questionnaire. During this study, a pattern of
risk tolerance level within the sample was identified. The empirical results suggest
that this pattern influences participants’ risk perception of and attitude towards
counterfeiting; these also imply that, in risk treatment, this pattern influences decision-
making as well as selection of countermeasures. Further, the results propose
that brand equity and reputation are compared to other brand variables more vulnerable
to the impact of counterfeiting. In addition, the results obtained in the
question whether companies should employ public announcements of counterfeit
seizures as an additional brand protection tool were contradictory. Companies
were more apprehensive towards this solution than marketing professors. Thus,
further investigation on this subject is recommended. This study concludes that as
long as the impact of counterfeiting cannot be measured properly, the true damage
on a brand or company and their reputation cannot be determined.