Implicit and explicit identification of counterfeit brand logos based on logotype transposition

With trade amounting to more than US$400bn, counterfeiting is already affecting many successful brands. Often, consumers are deceived into buying fake products due to the visual similarity between fake and original brand logos. This paper aims to explore the varying forms of fraudulent imitation of original brand logotypes (operationalized at the level of logotype transposition), which can aid in the detection of a counterfeit brand.,Across two studies, this research tested how well consumers can differentiate counterfeit from original logos of well-known brands both explicitly and implicitly. Seven popular brand logos were altered to create different levels of visual dissimilarity and participants were required to discriminate the logos as fake or genuine.,Results demonstrate that although consumers can explicitly discriminate fake logos with a high degree of accuracy, the same is not true under conditions in which logos are presented very briefly (tapping participants’ implicit or automatic logo recognition capabilities), except when the first and last letters of the logotype are substituted.,A large body of research on counterfeit trade focuses on the individual or cross-cultural differences behind the prevalence of counterfeit trade. There is limited research exploring the ability of a consumer to correctly identify a fake logo, based on its varying similarity with the original logotype; this paper addresses this gap. Given that many of the purchase decisions are often made automatically, identifying key implicit differentiators that can help a consumer recognize a fake logo should be informative to both practitioners and academics.

[1]  Catherine A. Cole,et al.  Consumer decision making and aging: Current knowledge and future directions , 2009 .

[2]  T. Staake,et al.  The emergence of counterfeit trade: a literature review , 2009 .

[3]  J. Wolfe Visual memory: What do you know about what you saw? , 1998, Current Biology.

[4]  George Miaoulis,et al.  Consumer Confusion & Trademark Infringement , 1978 .

[5]  Cees B M van Riel,et al.  The added value of corporate logos ‐ An empirical study , 2001 .

[6]  J. Grainger,et al.  Crowding affects letters and symbols differently. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Rebecca L Johnson,et al.  The importance of the first and last letter in words during sentence reading. , 2012, Acta psychologica.

[8]  H. Plessner,et al.  Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice , 2006 .

[9]  B. D. Orey,et al.  Implicit Racial Attitude Measures in Black Samples: IAT, Subliminal Priming, and Implicit Black Identification , 2013, PS: Political Science & Politics.

[10]  Melvin J. Yap,et al.  Semantic Richness Effects in Spoken Word Recognition: A Lexical Decision and Semantic Categorization Megastudy , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[11]  Clifford J. Shultz,et al.  The effects of counterfeiting on consumer search , 2006 .

[12]  Mark J. Huff,et al.  An Abundance of Riches: Cross-Task Comparisons of Semantic Richness Effects in Visual Word Recognition , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[13]  John C. Mowen,et al.  BEYOND CONSUMER DECISION MAKING , 1988 .

[14]  Juan Sebastian Olier,et al.  Love for logos: Evaluating the congruency between brand symbols and typefaces and their relation to emotional words , 2014 .

[15]  M. Farah,et al.  Neural Specialization for Letter Recognition , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[16]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Foreign Counterfeiting of Status Goods , 1986 .

[17]  Melvin J Yap,et al.  Semantic richness effects in lexical decision: The role of feedback , 2015, Memory & cognition.

[18]  Ralf van der Lans,et al.  Research Note - Competitive Brand Salience , 2008, Mark. Sci..

[19]  A. Ellis,et al.  Age of acquisition and the recognition of brand names: On the importance of being early , 2010 .

[20]  Armand Clercq,et al.  A simple and sensitive method to measure timing accuracy , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[21]  Sarah J. White,et al.  Raeding Wrods With Jubmled Lettres , 2006, Psychological science.

[22]  S. Burt,et al.  Follow my leader? Lookalike retailer brands in non-manufacturer-dominated product markets in the UK , 1999 .

[23]  C. Connine,et al.  Semantic richness: The role of semantic features in processing spoken words , 2014 .

[24]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[25]  Keith Rayner,et al.  Eye movements when reading transposed text: the importance of word-beginning letters. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  D. Wigboldus,et al.  The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior , 2005 .

[27]  K. Rayner,et al.  Reading mutilated text. , 1975 .

[28]  Using implicit methods to develop an objective measure of media brand engagement , 2014 .

[29]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  Matthew A Lambon Ralph,et al.  What’s in a word? A parametric study of semantic influences on visual word recognition , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[31]  John R. Anderson Acquisition of cognitive skill. , 1982 .

[32]  T. Meyvis,et al.  Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment , 2001 .

[33]  R. Ratcliff Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[34]  Stewart Shapiro,et al.  Comparing implicit and explicit memory for brand names from advertisements. , 1996 .

[35]  D. Pelli,et al.  Feature detection and letter identification , 2006, Vision Research.

[36]  Timothy M. Devinney,et al.  Why don't consumers consume ethically? , 2010 .

[37]  Anne Cutler,et al.  Phoneme identification and the lexicon , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  J. Goldenberg,et al.  The Role of Hubs in the Adoption Process , 2009 .

[39]  R. Pieters,et al.  Looking more or less alike: Determinants of perceived visual similarity between copycat and leading brands , 2010 .

[40]  P. Trott,et al.  How should firms deal with counterfeiting?: A review of the success conditions of anti-counterfeiting strategies , 2014 .

[41]  Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos,et al.  Predictive packaging design: Tasting shapes, typefaces, names, and sounds , 2014 .

[42]  Eric T. Bradlow,et al.  Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase , 2009 .

[43]  Joseph A. Cote,et al.  Guidelines for Selecting or Modifying Logos , 1998 .

[44]  R. Pieters,et al.  Copy Alert: A Method and Metric to Detect Visual Copycat Brands , 2014 .

[45]  D. Levi Crowding—An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review , 2008, Vision Research.

[46]  Bruce D. McCandliss,et al.  The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  Joana César Machado,et al.  Brand mergers: examining consumers' responses to name and logo design , 2012 .

[48]  Charles E. Gengler,et al.  The Effects of Brand Name Similarity on Brand Source Confusion: Implications for Trademark Infringement , 2000 .

[49]  Adrian Furnham,et al.  The effect of life values and materialism on buying counterfeit products , 2007 .

[50]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[51]  Gordon D Logan,et al.  What skilled typists don’t know about the QWERTY keyboard , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[52]  Matteo Carandini,et al.  Thalamic filtering of retinal spike trains by postsynaptic summation. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[53]  Derek Besner,et al.  Visual word recognition: A dissociation of lexical and semantic processing. , 1990, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

[54]  Carlos Velasco,et al.  Conducting perception research over the internet: a tutorial review , 2015, PeerJ.

[55]  Juan Sebastian Olier,et al.  Love for logos: Evaluating the congruency between brand symbols and typefaces and their relation to emotional words , 2014 .

[56]  Barry Berman,et al.  Strategies to detect and reduce counterfeiting activity , 2008 .

[57]  Rik Pieters,et al.  When High-Similarity Copycats Lose and Moderate-Similarity Copycats Gain: The Impact of Comparative Evaluation , 2012 .

[58]  R. E. Burnkrant,et al.  Effects of Repeating Varied Ad Executions on Brand Name Memory , 1991 .

[59]  Alan D Castel,et al.  Rapid Communication: The Apple of the mind's eye: Everyday attention, metamemory, and reconstructive memory for the Apple logo , 2015, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[60]  Sankar Sen,et al.  Why Do Consumers Buy Counterfeit Luxury Brands? , 2009 .

[61]  John A. Parkinson,et al.  Emotion‐Based Learning is Biased by Brand Logos , 2012 .

[62]  J. Ulatowska,et al.  Are look-alikes confusing? The application of the DRM paradigm to test consumer confusion in counterfeit cases , 2015 .

[63]  Jesse J. Chandler,et al.  Inside the Turk , 2014 .

[64]  Sian L. Beilock,et al.  On the fragility of skilled performance: what governs choking under pressure? , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.