An Exploratory Analysis of Counterfeit Buyers
Abstract
This study examines the similarities among preferences of people who buy counterfeit goods, specifically comparing consumers in Charleston, SC to Shanghai, China. This survey measured consumer’s sociodemographic information, as well as their willingness to buy (WTB) any of twenty categories of counterfeit goods. It was hypothesized that two clusters would emerge from the Charleston data and another two from the Shanghai data, and that for the clusters for both data sets would be somewhat similar in terms of goods and the Willingness to Buy that comprised them. This hypothesis, to a degree, proved to be correct. Two research sub-groups were asked to analyze the data and agree upon what the clusters meant. Charleston respondents were divided into two clusters called “Image-Driven Counterfeit Buyers” and “Utility-Driven Counterfeit Buyers.” The two clusters of Shanghai data were called “Counterfeit-Inclined Buyers” and “Counterfeit-Disinclined Buyers.” STATA calculated logistic coefficients for each sociodemographic variable and how it affected a respondent’s likelihood to be placed in one cluster over another. None of these coefficients for the Charleston data were shown to be significant at the 5% level. For the Shanghai clusters, females were more likely to be placed in the “Counterfeit-Disinclined Buyers” cluster; and that a higher consumer personal emphasis on Brand Status made that consumer more likely to be placed in the “Counterfeit-Inclined Buyers” cluster. Both of these findings were significant at the 5% level.
An Exploratory Analysis of Counterfeit Buyers
Founders Hall 255 A
This study examines the similarities among preferences of people who buy counterfeit goods, specifically comparing consumers in Charleston, SC to Shanghai, China. This survey measured consumer’s sociodemographic information, as well as their willingness to buy (WTB) any of twenty categories of counterfeit goods. It was hypothesized that two clusters would emerge from the Charleston data and another two from the Shanghai data, and that for the clusters for both data sets would be somewhat similar in terms of goods and the Willingness to Buy that comprised them. This hypothesis, to a degree, proved to be correct. Two research sub-groups were asked to analyze the data and agree upon what the clusters meant. Charleston respondents were divided into two clusters called “Image-Driven Counterfeit Buyers” and “Utility-Driven Counterfeit Buyers.” The two clusters of Shanghai data were called “Counterfeit-Inclined Buyers” and “Counterfeit-Disinclined Buyers.” STATA calculated logistic coefficients for each sociodemographic variable and how it affected a respondent’s likelihood to be placed in one cluster over another. None of these coefficients for the Charleston data were shown to be significant at the 5% level. For the Shanghai clusters, females were more likely to be placed in the “Counterfeit-Disinclined Buyers” cluster; and that a higher consumer personal emphasis on Brand Status made that consumer more likely to be placed in the “Counterfeit-Inclined Buyers” cluster. Both of these findings were significant at the 5% level.
