IPO counterfeit goods research (Wave 3) - Part 2 - Trends
Published 3 February 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ipo-counterfeit-goods-research-wave-3/ipo-counterfeit-goods-research-wave-3-part-2-trends
Section 3: Overarching trends - incidence, categories, motivations and barriers
Incidence rate of purchasing counterfeits
-
the proportions of people who currently, used to or had never purchased counterfeit goods was in line with those in waves 1 and 2 of the study
-
the majority (71%) of respondents indicated that they had never purchased counterfeit goods while over a quarter (29%) had done so
-
19% said they currently purchase counterfeit goods on an often, sometimes or occasional basis
-
one in 10 (10%) used to buy counterfeit goods but no longer do, which is unchanged from the previous wave. Of those who stopped, most (78%) did so over a year ago
-
new for this year, three quarters (73%) indicated that they would be (NET) unlikely to purchase “fake” or “replica” products in the next two years
Q. Which of the following best describes you in relation to purchasing “fake” or “replica” items? By this we mean items that look very much like the original product but are not made by the brand itself
| Buy “fake or replica” products | Wave 1 | Wave 2 | Wave 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| I often buy “fake” or “replica” products (i.e. at least once every month) | 2% | 2% | 2% |
| I sometimes buy “fake” or “replica” products (i.e. at least once every three months) | 5% | 4% | 5% |
| I occasionally buy “fake” or “replica” products (i.e. less regularly than every three months) | 11% | 9% | 12% |
| I used to buy “fake” or “replica” products but no longer do | 11% | 11% | 10% |
| I have never bought “fake” or “replica” products but would consider doing so in the future | 12% | 9% | 10% |
| I would never knowingly buy “fake” or “replica” products | 60% | 64% | 61% |
Base: Total sample (n=4,993)
Q. When did you stop purchasing “fake” or “replica” products
| Within the past month | 0% |
| Within the past 3 months | 4% |
| Within the past 6 months | 6% |
| Within the past year | 12% |
| Over a year ago | 78% |
Incidence rate of purchasing counterfeits (by age)
-
younger respondents (i.e. those aged 34 or under) were more likely to indicate that they ‘currently’ purchase counterfeits goods (i.e. on an often, sometimes or occasional basis). This was 31% for those aged 18-24 and 34% for those aged 25-34. It fell to 24% for those aged 35-44 and was between 8-12% for all older age groups
-
there were no differences in terms of the overall levels of counterfeit purchasing by gender
| Age range | I often buy “fake” or “replica” products (i.e. at least once every month) | I sometimes buy “fake” or “replica” products (i.e. at least once every three months) | I occasionally buy “fake” or “replica” products (i.e. less regularly than every three months) | I used to buy “fake” or “replica” products but no longer do | I have never bought “fake” or “replica” products but would consider doing so in the future | I would never knowingly buy “fake” or “replica” products |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18-24 | 3% | 8% | 20% | 13% | 17% | 40% |
| 25-34 | 5% | 12% | 18% | 12% | 12% | 42% |
| 35-44 | 3% | 8% | 14% | 11% | 10% | 54% |
| 45-54 | 1% | 3% | 8% | 10% | 9% | 70% |
| 55+ | 0% | 1% | 8% | 9% | 8% | 75% |
Base: Total sample (n=4,993)
Product categories
-
the 29% who had knowingly purchased a counterfeit were asked which product categories they had purchased them in within the past year. They were only asked about the categories in which they had made a purchase. The below chart shows the proportion of consumers in each product category (broad and individual) who had made a counterfeit purchase
-
respondents were most likely to have purchased counterfeit products from the “Sports” (15%), “Clothing, footwear and accessories” (14%) and “Toys” (14%) categories in the last year. Of these, “Toys” had the largest increase from the previous wave (+5%) while “Sports” increased by 3% and “Clothing, footwear and accessories” remained the same
-
the remaining categories each had similar amounts of counterfeit purchasing: “Electricals” at 9%; “Beauty and hygiene” at 8%; and “Alcohol” at 7%. Of these, “Alcohol” experienced the largest year on year increase (+3%), however this was within the margin of error so should be interpreted within caution
Q. Which, if any, of the following categories have you knowingly purchased “fake” or “replica” products for in the past year?
| Product categories knowingly purchased | Wave 1 | Wave 2 | Wave 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beauty and hygiene NET | 6% | 7% | 8% |
| Cosmetic and toiletry products | 5% | 6% | 7% |
| Hygiene products | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Clothing, footwear and accessories NET | 13% | 14% | 14% |
| Clothing excluding sportswear | 7% | 9% | 9% |
| Footwear/shoes excluding sports footwear | 4% | 6% | 6% |
| Accessories excluding watches | 11% | 10% | 12% |
| Watches | 7% | 8% | 9% |
| Sports NET | 9% | 12% | 15% |
| Regular sportswear | 6% | 6% | 8% |
| Sportswear from clubs/franchises | 9% | 12% | 15% |
| Sports footwear from sports or fashion brands | 5% | 7% | 8% |
| Sports equipment including for home workout | 3% | 6% | 11% |
| Toys NET | 5% | 9% | 14% |
| Dolls/action figure toys | 3% | 5% | 9% |
| Toy building sets | 4% | 6% | 9% |
| Merchandise from TV/Film excluding dolls/action figures | 4% | 7% | 12% |
| Electricals NET | 5% | 8% | 9% |
| Beauty/hygiene related electricals | 2% | 4% | 5% |
| Electrical accessories | 5% | 9% | 9% |
| Electrical devices | 1% | 3% | 4% |
| DVDs and Blu Rays | 3% | 2% | 7% |
| Alcohol NET | 2% | 4% | 7% |
| Bottles of wine/champagne | 1% | 2% | 3% |
| Bottles of spirits | 2% | 3% | 5% |
| Bottles/cans of beer or cider | 1% | 2% | 4% |
Base for Wave 2: Counterfeit purchasers as a percentage of consumers in each category: Beauty and hygiene n=350, Cosmetic and toiletry products n=223, Hygiene products n=173, Clothing, footwear and accessories n=639, Clothing excluding sportswear n=338, Footwear/shoes excluding sports footwear n=177, Accessories excluding watches n=214, Watches n=93, Sports n=408, Regular sportswear n=139, Sportswear from clubs/franchises n=122, Sports footwear from sports or fashion brands n=150, Sports equipment including for home workout n=80, Toys n=254, Dolls/action figure toys n=79, Toy building sets n=99, Merchandise from TV/Film excluding dolls/action figures n=110, Electricals n=327, Beauty / hygiene related electricals n=69, Electrical accessories n=178, Electrical devices n=80, DVDs and Blu Rays n=51, Alcohol n=255, Bottles of wine / champagne n=72, Bottles of spirits n=126, Bottles / cans of beer or cider n=105)
Rationalisations for purchasing counterfeits
-
anyone who had ever (i.e. currently or previously) purchased a counterfeit good or indicated that they would consider doing so in the future was presented with a list of potential motivating factors and asked how likely each would make them to purchase counterfeits. Their answers have been split out depending on whether they currently, used to or would be open to buying counterfeit goods
-
the top five factors, while stronger among current purchasers, were important for all. These five were selected by similar proportions within each segment, and related to two dominant themes – price/cost-effectiveness of counterfeits but also wanting the product to be a close match to the original in terms of design and quality
-
each of the top five factors were identified as motivations by 72-74% of current purchasers, 41-51% of former counterfeit purchasers and 42-51% of those who would consider purchasing counterfeits in the future
-
respondents were least likely to say that they purchase counterfeits due to the ease of doing so, or not wanting to support big brands
Q. To what extent do or would the following influence/motivate you to purchase “fake” or “replica” products? “This would make me” % NET likely to purchase by consumer type
| Purchasing/influence | Currently purchases counterfeits | Used to purchase counterfeits | Would consider buying counterfeits in the future |
|---|---|---|---|
| Similar/the same quality | 74% | 51% | 51% |
| Cheaper price | 74% | 45% | 47% |
| Reducing spending/outgoings | 73% | 45% | 45% |
| Real product out of budget | 73% | 47% | 47% |
| Similar/the same design | 72% | 41% | 42% |
| Being able to purchase easily | 62% | 30% | 31% |
| Not wanting to give money to big brand(s) | 52% | 30% | 32% |
Base: Currently purchase counterfeits (n=911), Used to purchase counterfeits (n=512), Would consider buying counterfeits in the future (n=508)
Rationalisations for purchasing counterfeits (by age)
- there were some key differences by age in terms of motivations for purchasing counterfeit goods
- younger respondents were the most likely to be influenced by each of the motivations tested. For each, those aged 18-24 were the most likely to say that it would make them likely to purchase a counterfeit. 25–34 year olds were, for each category, the second most likely, 35-44 year olds third most, and so on
Q. To what extent do or would the following influence/motivate you to purchase “fake” or “replica” products? “This would make me” % NET likely to purchase by age
| By age group | 18-24 | 25-34 | 35-44 | 45-54 | 55+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Similar/the same quality | 63% | 50% | 36% | 26% | 20% |
| Real product out of budget | 56% | 47% | 31% | 25% | 18% |
| Reducing spending/outgoings | 55% | 48% | 33% | 25% | 17% |
| Cheaper price | 55% | 44% | 29% | 23% | 17% |
| Similar/the same design | 48% | 44% | 30% | 20% | 16% |
| Not wanting to give money to big brand(s) | 41% | 34% | 24% | 15% | 11% |
| Being able to purchase easily | 39% | 36% | 22% | 17% | 10% |
Base: Total sample (n=4,993)
Rationalisations against purchasing counterfeits
-
those who did not ‘currently’ (i.e. often, sometimes or occasionally) purchase counterfeit goods were asked why they didn’t. They were grouped into one of the following: would never buy them; used to buy them but wouldn’t anymore; and those who would consider buying them in the future
-
no single reason was dominant in any of the groups. The top three reasons across all groups related to not liking the quality of the products as well as more moral considerations (e.g. worrying about supporting criminal activities, use of low cost labour/poor working conditions)
Q. What are/were your main reasons for not purchasing “fake” or “replica” products? Please select as many as you would like
| Reasons for not purchasing | Would never buy counterfeits | Used to purchase counterfeits | Would consider buying counterfeits in the future |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worried about supporting criminal activity | 50% | 38% | 34% |
| I do not like the quality | 44% | 44% | 36% |
| Low cost labour or poor working conditions | 44% | 39% | 36% |
| Harm/damage to the real brands | 34% | 23% | 19% |
| Worried product could have harmful effects | 29% | 23% | 21% |
| Negative impact on the environment | 25% | 18% | 18% |
| I do not like the design | 20% | 18% | 15% |
| Worried about getting in trouble | 17% | 14% | 13% |
| Fear of being judged | 9% | 17% | 15% |
| Similar in price to real products | 9% | 13% | 12% |
| Other | 6% | 5% | 9% |
Rationalisations against purchasing counterfeits (by age)
-
there were some key differences by age in terms of the reasons given for why people don’t currently purchase counterfeits
-
there were several reasons with clear age correlations. For example, worrying about supporting criminal activity and harming/damaging the real brand had a much larger impact on older respondents. For each, 55+ year olds were the most likely to identify this as a reason for not purchasing counterfeits, with the proportions dropping with each subsequent age group
-
the inverse was true for fear of being judged and not liking the design; 18-24 year olds were the most likely to be impacted, with the proportions dropping as age rose
-
some factors such as low-cost labour or poor working conditions and having a negative impact on the environment had similar impact across different age groups
| Rationalisations against purchasing counterfeits (by age) | 18-24 | 25-34 | 35-44 | 45-54 | 55+ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I do not like the quality | 49% | 48% | 45% | 45% | 39% |
| Low cost labour or poor working conditions | 46% | 36% | 36% | 41% | 46% |
| Worried about supporting criminal activity | 30% | 37 | 44% | 48% | 54% |
| I do not like the design | 29% | 24% | 20% | 20% | 15% |
| Fear of being judged | 27% | 18% | 13% | 7% | 5% |
| Negative impact on the environment | 26% | 24% | 21% | 20% | 24% |
| Worried product could have harmful effects | 25% | 31% | 29% | 28% | 27% |
| Harm/damage to the real brands | 16% | 27% | 31% | 32% | 34% |
| Similar in price to real products | 14% | 13% | 9% | 7% | 9% |
| Worried about getting in trouble | 11% | 19% | 20% | 18% | 14% |
| Other | 7% | 3% | 5% | 6% |
Base: Doesn’t currently purchase counterfeit products (n=4082)
Methods of making counterfeit purchases
-
for each category in which they had made a counterfeit purchase, respondents were asked where they had made that purchase. Comparison to previous waves makes it possible to identify potential shifts in shopping habits. Answer options have been grouped for in person purchases (e.g. in store, local markets, markets abroad) and online ones (e.g. online from a global e-commerce site, online from a smaller retailer, online from a seller abroad)
-
in person counterfeit purchasing increased in a number of categories such as “Footwear” (+8%), “Clothing” (+6%) and “Sports footwear” (+5%). In person counterfeit purchases, however, remained lower in wave three than in wave one for all categories
-
online counterfeit purchasing tended to remain relatively consistent between waves two and three. There was a large increase in online purchases of counterfeit “Regular sportswear” (+13%), while all other categories remained within +/- 5% of their wave two level
-
looking at all three waves, the sharp decline in in person purchasing and the increase in online counterfeit purchasing that occurred between waves one and two was likely heavily influenced by the state of the pandemic. In wave three, the trend has steadied itself; in person counterfeit purchases are no longer decreasing, but nor are they returning to wave one levels, just as online purchases are, for the most part, remaining steady
In person purchases
| In person | 2019 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cosmetic and toiletry products | 60% | 43% | 43% |
| Hygiene products | 68% | 51% | 55% |
| Clothing excluding sportswear | 67% | 46% | 52% |
| Footwear/shoes excluding sports footwear | 63% | 42% | 50% |
| Accessories excluding watches | 65% | 53% | 51% |
| Regular sportwear | 56% | 54% | 47% |
| Sportswear from clubs/franchises | 39% | 41% | 38% |
| Sports footwear (i.e. trainers) from sports or fashion brands | 70% | 45% | 50% |
| Electrical accessories | 41% | 40% | 29% |
Online purchases
| Online purchases | 2019 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cosmetic and toiletry products | 54% | 66% | 62% |
| Hygiene products | 47% | 66% | 68% |
| Clothing excluding sportswear | 46% | 60% | 59% |
| Footwear/shoes excluding sports footwear | 48% | 63% | 66% |
| Accessories excluding watches | 44% | 55% | 55% |
| Regular sportwear | 50% | 51% | 64% |
| Sportswear from clubs/franchises | 66% | 69% | 71% |
| Sports footwear (i.e. trainers) from sports or fashion brands | 48% | 66% | 61% |
| Electrical accessories | 70% | 76% | 78% |
Unintentional counterfeit purchasing
-
respondents were asked whether they had ever ‘unintentionally’ purchased a counterfeit good. Overall, 17% had done so with most (62%) of this group having done so over a year ago. This is in line with the first wave of the study where 16% had made an unintentional purchase
-
at 20%, male respondents were 6% more likely to have done so than female respondents
-
younger respondents were also more likely to be unintentional purchasers. Between 25-27% of those aged 18-34 had done so, which fell to 20% in those aged 35-44, 15% in those aged 45-54 and 10% in the 55+
Q. Have you ever unintentionally purchased “fake” or “replica” products? This would mean that you thought the product was ‘genuine’ when you purchased it but later on discovered it was a “fake” or “replica”?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| Total | 16% |
| Male | 19% |
| Female | 13% |
| 18-24 | 21% |
| 25-34 | 26% |
| 35-44 | 22% |
| 45-54 | 12% |
| 55+ | 9% |
Base: Total sample (n=4,993)
Q. When did you last unintentionally purchase a fake or replica product?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| Within the past month | 8% |
| Within the past 3 months | 12% |
| Within the pat 6 months | 13% |
| Within the past year | 14% |
| Over a year ago | 53% |
Base: Unintentionally purchased a counterfeit product (n=800)
-
the 16% who had unknowingly purchased a counterfeit were asked which product categories they had purchased them in within the past year. (They were only asked about the categories they had made purchases in.) The below chart shows the proportion of consumers in each product category (broad and individual) who had made a counterfeit purchase
-
they were most like to have unintentionally made purchases in “Toys” (8%), “Clothing, footwear and accessories” (7%), “Sports” (7%) and “Electricals” (6%). Respondents were less likely to have unintentionally purchased counterfeit “Beauty and hygiene” (4%) and “Alcohol” (4%) products
-
compared to the previous wave there seems to have potentially been a slight increase in unintentional purchasing in some “Toys” (+3%) and “Alcohol” (+2%). All other categories remained stable
Q. Which, if any, of the following categories have you unintentionally purchased “fake” or “replica” products for in the past year?
| Unintentionally purchased | Wave 1 | Wave 2 | Wave 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beauty and hygiene NET | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Cosmetic and toiletry products | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Hygiene products | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| Clothing, footwear and accessories NET | 6% | 8% | 7% |
| Clothing excluding sportswear | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Footwear/shoes excluding sports footwear | 2% | 2% | 3% |
| Accessories excluding watches | 4% | 5% | 4% |
| Watches | 3% | 4% | 4% |
| Sports NET | 4% | 7% | 7% |
| Regular sportswear | 1% | 3% | 3% |
| Sportswear from clubs/franchises | 4% | 6% | 6% |
| Sports footwear from sports or fashion brands | 2% | 4% | 4% |
| Sports equipment including for home workout | 2% | 3% | 6% |
| Toys NET | 3% | 5% | 8% |
| Dolls/action figure toys | 2% | 3% | 6% |
| Toy building sets | 2% | 3% | 5% |
| Merchandise from TV/Film excluding dolls/action figures | 2% | 5% | 6% |
| Electricals NET | 3% | 6% | 6% |
| Beauty/hygiene related electricals | 1% | 3% | 4% |
| Electrical accessories | 3% | 5% | 5% |
| Electrical devices | 1% | 2% | 2% |
| DVDs and Blu Rays | 3% | 2% | 4% |
| Alcohol NET | 1% | 2% | 4% |
| Bottles of wine/champagne | 1% | 1% | 2% |
| Bottles of spirits | 0% | 1% | 2% |
| Bottles/cans of beer or cider | 0% | 1% | 2% |
Base: Unintentionally purchased a counterfeit product (n=800)
-
due to the specific nature of counterfeit alcohol, purchasers of legitimate alcohol products were asked a new set question in Wave 3 pertaining to their awareness of counterfeit alcohol and purchasing habits that could mitigate the risk of unintentionally purchasing counterfeit alcohol products
-
over half of legitimate alcohol purchasers (53%) were not previously aware that there are counterfeit alcohol products. Those that expressed awareness were furthermore more likely to agree with the statement “I think I was aware” (27%) than with “I was definitely aware” (20%)
-
the most common steps before or after purchasing alcohol were checking that the branding looks legitimate and/or where the product was made before purchasing
Q. Do you take any of the following steps before or after purchasing alcohol products?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| Check the branding looks legitimate | 25% |
| Check where the product was made | 24% |
| Buy alcohol products where the branding etc. is in English | 22% |
| Check the bottle looks legitimate | 19% |
| Check the packaging looks legitimate | 19% |
| Not buy something if it seems too cheap | 17% |
| Buy alcohol products where the branding etc. in in a language other than English | 16% |
-
respondents who had made an unintentional purchase were asked how they felt about it
-
many respondents felt angry after their purchase, with this most likely to be directed at the person/company who sold them the product (38%) or themselves for not spotting it (36%)
-
respondents were more likely to feel indifferent about their purchase (19%) than be angry at the authorities (15%) or the brand they had intended to purchase (11%)
-
though anger was, by some way, the most common response to unintentionally purchasing a counterfeit item, a small proportion (15%) indicated that they were pleasantly surprised at the quality of the counterfeit product
Q. How did you feel after unintentionally purchasing “fake” or “replica” product(s)? Please select all that apply
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| I felt angry at the person/company who sold me the “fake” or “replica” | 38% |
| I felt angry at myself for not spotting it | 36% |
| I felt indifferent about it | 19% |
| I felt angry at the authorities for allowing the sale | 15% |
| I was pleasantly surprised by how good the quality of the product was | 15% |
| I felt angry at the brand/company whose product I thought I was buying | 11% |
| Other | 4% |
Base: Unintentionally purchased a counterfeit product (n=800)
-
respondents who had unintentionally made a purchase across any product category in the past year and had taken action following this (e.g. had reported it to someone) were asked why they did this
-
the most common reason was to get a refund (38%). This was followed by those who weren’t happy with the quality of the product (24%) or wanted to stop the seller from operating (16%)
-
13% were reporting the seller because of potential links to other criminal activity. While this was the smallest proportion of all the options, it represented the largest year on year increase (+5%).
Q. After unintentionally purchasing a “fake” or “replica” product you said you took an action (e.g. took it back for a refund, made a complaint etc.). What was your main reason for reporting the seller of the fake product?
| percentage % | |
|---|---|
| To get a refund | 38% |
| The quality of the product | 24% |
| To attempt to stop the seller from operating | 16% |
| The seller’s potential links to other criminal activity | 13% |
| Other | 9% |
Base: Took an action after unintentionally purchasing a counterfeit product (n=597)
-
those who had unintentionally made a counterfeit purchase within the past year were asked specifically if they had ever used a reporting system
-
a quarter (25%) indicated that they had done so. A further 41% expressed that they would use such a reporting system in the future. Slightly under a quarter (23%) felt that they would need to know more about the system, while just 11% said outright that they wouldn’t use one
Q. Most online platforms have reporting systems in relation to the sale of “fake” or “replica” products, would you consider using these?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| Yes, I have used these previously | 25% |
| Yes, I would in the future | 41% |
| I would need to know more about the systems | 23% |
| No | 11 |
Base: Unintentionally purchased a counterfeit product (n=800)
-
those who wouldn’t use a reporting system were asked the main reason for this
-
the most common reasons related to not caring enough (30%) and not knowing how to use the online reporting system (27%). 18% felt that it would take too much time while 17% felt that the platform would not do anything with their report
-
relatively few respondents (7%) indicated they wouldn’t use the reporting tool as they would report it in a different way (e.g. to law enforcement)
Reporting
In a new addition to this study, all respondents were asked a series of questions regarding the reporting of counterfeit sources.
Respondents were asked if they had ever reported a source/site or individual for selling “fake” or “replica” products, if they had ever considered doing so, or if they were aware that doing so was a possibility. Based on their answers, respondents were then asked a set of follow up questions regarding the outcome of any reports that had been made, which organisations were reported to, and the motivation behind taking action against counterfeits, as well as not taking action.
Types of action taken
-
one in ten had previously reported either a source/site (6%) or an individual (5%) for selling “fake” or “replica” products
-
8% had considered reporting a source (6%) and/or an individual (4%)
-
the largest group, representing 42% of the sample, expressed that that they were unaware that “fake” or “replica” products could be reported
Q. Have you ever reported/considered reporting a source/site or an individual who was selling “fake” or “replica” products?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| I have reported a source/site before | 6% |
| I have reported an individual before | 5% |
| I have considered reporting a source/site before | 6% |
| I have considered reporting an individual before | 4% |
| No - I was aware that “fake” or “replica” products could be reported but have not done so | 26% |
| No - I was not aware that “fake” or replica” products could be reported | 42% |
| Don’t know/not sure | 15% |
Base: Total sample (n=4,939)
Organisations reported to
Those who had reported “fake” or “replica” products were shown a list of organisations and asked, for each organisation: whether or not they were aware of the organisation, if they thought that infringement could be reported to them, and whether or not they had done so.
-
respondents were most likely to have been aware that they could report “fake” or “replica” items to the source of their purchase, and to have done so: 79% either had reported (32%) or were aware they could report (47%) to the online platform where they had made the illegitimate purchase while 77% had reported (26%) or were aware they could report (52%) to the physical store in which they had brought the item
-
both the police (75%) and a local trading standards department (74%) also had high levels of combined reporting and awareness
-
reporting and awareness of the ability to report was lowest for Citizens Advice (58%) and search engines (58%)
Q. Which option best represents your knowledge with the following organisations?
| Organisation knowledge | Aware that you can report to them | Aware and have reported to them | Unaware that you can report to them | Unaware of them |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search Engine (e.g. Google) | 37% | 16% | 36% | 11% |
| The brand (e.g. Nike, Burberry etc) | 48% | 17% | 28% | 7% |
| The store where you bought the item | 52% | 26% | 14% | 9% |
| The online platform where you bought the item | 47% | 32% | 13% | 7% |
| Crime Stoppers | 47% | 17% | 25% | 11% |
| Citizens Advice | 42% | 17% | 31% | 11% |
| The Police | 55% | 20% | 19% | 6% |
| Action Fraud | 48% | 18% | 19% | 16% |
| A local trading standards department | 53% | 21% | 16% | 10% |
Base: Those who had reported a source/site or individual (n=499)
Outcome of actions
For each organisation, respondents who had reported a “fake” or “replica” item were asked about the outcome of their action. Due to small sample sizes, these results should be interpreted with caution.
-
a local trading standards department was the most likely to have taken action, doing so for 70% of respondents who had reported to one. However, fewer than one in ten (7%) had received their money back
-
the police had taken action in 63% of cases, while all other organisations had taken action 48-59% of the time
-
respondents were, by some way, most likely to receive their money back when reporting to the online platform where the purchase had been made
Do you know if any action has been taken since you reported the source/site or individual?
| Report action | Yes, action has been taken and I have received my money back | Yes, action has been taken | No, to my knowledge action has not yet been taken | I am unaware if action has or will be taken |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search Engine (e.g. Google) | 4% | 45% | 26% | 25% |
| The brand (e.g. Nike, Burberry etc) | 4% | 49% | 32% | 15% |
| The store where you bought the item | 12% | 48% | 21% | 20% |
| The online platform where you bought the item | 20% | 31% | 25% | 24% |
| Crime Stoppers | 3% | 52% | 36% | 9% |
| Citizens Advice | 7% | 50% | 32% | 11% |
| The Police | 9% | 54% | 24% | 13% |
| Action Fraud | 10% | 47% | 30% | 12% |
| A local trading standards department | 7% | 64% | 19% | 11% |
Base: Those who had reported to each organisation (n=139-72)
Reasons for and against taking action
Those who had taken action were also asked their reasons for doing so.
- moral issues (44%) were the most prominent concern, followed by being personally affected by fraud/cybersecurity (35%) or malware/viruses on their devices (30%).
Why did you report or consider reporting a source/site or an individual who was selling “fake” or “replica” products?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| I have moral issues with those selling “fake” or “replica” products | 44% |
| Due to concerns about or being personally affected by fraud or cyber security | 35% |
| Du to concerns about or being personally affected by malware, viruses etc. on devices | 30% |
| To get my money back on “fake” or “replica” products I had unknowingly purchased | 22% |
| To get my money back on “fake” or “replica” products I had knowingly purchased | 12% |
| Other | 3% |
Base: Those who had reported a source/site or individual (n=499)
-
slightly more than a third (35%) expressed that, to their knowledge, they had never come across anyone selling “fake” or “replica” items
-
other common reasons related to awareness. 20% did not know who/where to report to while 17% did not know that reporting was an option
Why have you never reported a source/site or an individual who was selling “fake” or “replica” products?
| Percentage % | |
|---|---|
| To my knowledge, I have never come across anyone selling “fake” or “replica” products | 35% |
| I do not know who/where to report to | 20% |
| I did not know reporting was an option | 17% |
| I do not think me reporting it will make a difference/impact | 13% |
| I do not have the time | 7% |
| Reporting process was unclear/too complicated | 6% |
| I am worried that it might have a negative impact on me (e.g. if the infringers find out I reported them | 5% |
| Other | 3% |
| None of the above | 16% |
Base: Those who had not reported a source/site or individual (n=4,494)
An in-depth look at price
Respondents who were open to purchasing counterfeits (i.e. they either currently did so or were considering doing so in the future) were asked about three different pricing scenarios for counterfeit products using the Van Westendorp pricing model. This is where, for each scenario, they were asked at what point the product would be too expensive, expensive, cheap or too cheap. They were told the price of the genuine product in each of these scenarios.
Scenario 1:
-
for a counterfeit bottle of perfume worth £70 respondents were most likely to be willing to pay £25 (i.e. 36% of the value of the genuine item)
-
the price point of marginal cheapness (i.e. when people would start to doubt the quality of the product) was £20 while the point of expensiveness (i.e. when the cost is becoming a major concern) was £31. The point of indifference (i.e. when they start to feel the price is starting to become expensive) was £30
A “fake” or “replica” bottle of perfume of a brand which you or someone you know likes. The ‘real’ item would usually retail at £70.
Scenario 2:
-
for a counterfeit handbag worth £1,500 respondents were most likely to be willing to pay £101 (i.e. 7% of the value of the genuine item)
-
at £100, the price point of marginal cheapness (i.e. when people would start to doubt the quality of the product) was only £1 below the optimal price point. In other words, counterfeit handbags below £100 were considered too cheap, while those just above were optimally priced
-
the point of expensiveness (i.e. when the cost is becoming a major concern) was £201 while the point of indifference (i.e. when they start to feel the price is starting to become expensive) was £200. £101-£200 is thus the optimal price range for a “fake” or “replica” version of a £1,500 handbag
-
there was, however, a more gradual increase in those who found the counterfeit version both ‘cheap’ and ‘expensive’ compared to the other scenarios. This indicates that a larger proportion of people would be willing to pay more than the price identified as the point of marginal expensiveness for a counterfeit handbag than for a counterfeit perfume or football kit.
A “fake” or “replica” handbag of a brand that you or someone you know likes. The ‘real’ item would usually retail at £1,500.
Scenario 3:
A “fake” kit for your favourite football team that you or someone you know supports. The ‘real’ item would usually retail at £100.
-
for a counterfeit replica football kit worth £100 respondents were most likely to be willing to pay £30 (i.e. 30% of the value of the genuine item)
-
the price point of marginal cheapness (i.e. when people would start to doubt the quality of the product) was £26 while the point of expensiveness (i.e. when the cost is becoming a major concern) was £44. The point of indifference (i.e. when they start to feel the price is starting to become expensive) was £39
A “fake” kit for your favourite football team that you or someone you know supports. The ‘real’ item would usually retail at £100.