William Oliver Cotterill
Contextual & Theoretical Studies : Richard Miles OUCS205 – 23/01/2013
How do counterfeits affect society and the aura of big brands?
‘A product is something of monetary value, which you buy and use, a Brand is the name term, sign or symbol that determines the origin of the product it is attached to, and a company is the organization that produces the product and owns the rights to the use of the brand’ (Boorman 2007. Pg 31) However, if an identical product is produced without authorization of the brand it is classed as counterfeit, an illegal imitation that is replicated to mirror the elitist aura that big brands create through expensive price tags. In a world that is divided into stratified classes, brands become something of face value, used as a form of judgment that communicate the attributes and characteristics of the person we are, through the associations of labels. Counterfeits support a corrupt and harmful trade but also entitle equal opportunity for us to be associated with a specific class by using fashion as a form of communication. This is conducted without being charged tax and high profit margins, allowing us to enter into the life of a brands superiority and culture for a fraction of its mark up. It’s materialism gone mad, and throughout this essay I’m going to explore the concept of authenticity and how status is amplified through design, how brands creates boundaries in our modern society and the impact forgeries have on the semblance of brands. In the eyes of the law, there isn’t a distinct difference between a counterfeit, a copy, replica or an imitation. A counterfeit, is a fraudulent imitation of something; a forgery. The exchange of these goods makes up between 7-10% of the worlds global trade and costs the economy billions of pounds. Companies promote products, in a way that is recognizable and identifiable by origin through branding. Companies compete on a basis of branding by competition, in the aim to win over the consumer by overpowering us by choice. When we purchase an item from the shop floor we are bound into an invisible agreement and promise from the manufacturer that the product is legitimate and can be distinguished from similar items on the shelf, hence giving us the feeling we are buying into something unique. Without this agreement of authenticity we are left to question whether other products will provide the same quality that the manufacturer is
responsible for. A reproduction or imitation doesn’t bind you into this agreement but still gives you a taste of what that product stands for. When meeting someone for the first time, sub-consciously we instantly make decisions indicated about their social worth or status based on clothes or fashion. ‘We put on clothing for some of the same reasons that we speak: to make living and working easier and more comfortable, to proclaim (or disguise) our identities.’ (Lurie 1983 Pg 13) Buying into a brand only pushes us further away from the person we truly are, taking a brands associated qualities and wearing them as our own. For example the Lacoste polo shirt expresses qualities of being sporty and physically fit, but by wearing this specific item doesn’t automatically determine that you hold these attributes, but instead acts as a boost of self-esteem towards the character you are trying to portray. We formulate opinions on the way we look for many reasons, in the same respect to judging others. ‘Manner is as important as matter, and in judging the meaning of a garment we will automatically consider whether it fits well or is too large or too small; whether it is old or new; and especially whether it is in good condition, slightly rumpled and soiled or crushed and filthy’. (Lurie 1983 Pg 17) Presenting yourself in every day life is a way of communicating to the world a piece of your personality. The aura designed and created around brands is something built for us to latch onto and buy into, It provides a way of classification of different groups of people through the clothes we choose to wear. Status that is created through branding is what encourages us to make decisions when picking what we wear. Whether its Ralph Lauren’s appeal of being a private schooled polo player or Hugo Boss’s important business man look, every brand works around status providing us with something more than just buying a garment. Instead we are lead to believe that our lives will benefit from the status we are buying into. Consuming brands to appear a certain way mollifies our non-existent needs created by the market, leading us to believe we are improving ourselves through what our clothes communicate. ‘Brands never satisfy entirely or their producers would go out of business. Satisfaction through consumption relies on repeat purchasing, therefore never complete.’ (Boorman 2007. Pg 217) This hidden desire to constantly think we need to improve fuels the cycle of trends and makes us self-conscious about the way we are perceived.
William Oliver Cotterill
Contextual & Theoretical Studies : Richard Miles OUCS205 – 23/01/2013
If a reproduction can be made to the exact specifications as an original then the only thing lacking, is its approval from the patented manufacturer and its change in ownership. From a Marxist point of view, Walter Benjamin Expresses that ‘The technique of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the domain of its tradition.’ (Benjamin 1936 section II) The circulation of counterfeit goods and the increase of reproductions across time may increase the popularity of a brand, but takes away the heritage and antiquity you think you are buying into when purchasing an original. Authenticity could be viewed as lacking clearly defined rules, nothing but the rights to own a piece of design because of the truthfulness of its origin. When design is put out into to the world publicly through branding, it looses its sense of ownership and almost becomes a possession of the people rather than the work of an individual. When you see thousands of people wandering around with Abercrombie & Fitch slapped across their chest, you don’t think about where the product was produced or how the company started, instead you make a generalization of the people wearing them. Walter Benjamin states ‘Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking on element:its presence in time.’ (Benjamin 1936 section II) In relation to labels, the more and more a brand grows, the more credit it gains from recognition but at the same time the further and further away its pushed from its original roots. An example of this is Fred Perry, a brand established over 100 years ago associated with tennis, which in the present day is recognized not for its link with sport but for its traits within the fashion world. Counterfeits exploit the world of fashion by providing a quick cheap alternative to an original and add to the cause of the problem, they increase the detaching of the object from the domain of tradition because of the corners they cut. Counterfeits simple add more stock to the market than the manufacturer intends, taking away the intentions and meaning of original design destroying the elitist culture that weaved into what we buy.
Society has always had social separations and boundaries between different classes of people, built around two basic divisions that are echoed throughout history, the rich and the poor. ‘There are two main classes which are locked together in an unequal relation of power and exploitation.’ ‘The dominant class is wealthier and enjoys a better quality of life than the subordinate class.’ (Saunders 1990 Pg 10) In relation to the consumption of
branded products this barrier between classes works in the same way as an advert or billboard does, it creates the illusion of need. Lower classes are made to feel inferior because they do not own as much as the wealthy, almost suggesting that they cannot afford the lifestyle they lead. The Trickle Down Theory explored by Wolfgang Pesendorfer and Georg Simmel suggests that fashion and trend systematically fall through the ranking of classes setting a cycle of fashion, starting with the rich and eventually being grasped by the poor. High end Labels such Louis Vuitton and Armani release expensive ranges of clothes aimed at being affordable by the affluent and wealthy. As a result of which, over a range of time are picked up by the lower classes, as ranges deplete in price with the latest collections appearing on the market. ‘The fashions of the upper stratum of society are never identical with those of the lower; in fact, they are abandoned by the former as soon as the latter prepares to appropriate them.’ (Simmel 1904, Pg 543) As the lower classes begin to cross this line of separation, The Upper class then excludes themselves, adopting a new look in order to remain at the top of the cycle. Fashion looses its distinction when magnified by popularity, provoking a drive for new trends. Counterfeit goods, mainly clothing, offer a back door to the lower class, removing any sort of diversity between both classes and offering the opportunity of purchasing a brand that would usually be out of financial depth. This lower class emulation of high end products, elaborates on the longing for a brands aesthetic feel. The demand for design commodities is increased through the amount of consuming we do. Fashion is set by those who can afford, passing down trends to lower classes over time, creating a ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ effect. “Branding these days is largely about involvement and association; the outward and visible demonstration of private and personal affiliation.’ (Ollins, 2003 Pg14) Constantly companies like ‘Primark ’ imitate aspects of other labels through their own garments, allowing status to be more affordable to lower classes. In the same way counterfeit clothing by-passes elitism offering the same status for a fraction of the price. On the other hand Counterfeits flood the market with a product that was once part of a selected society, making certain brands become much more common.
William Oliver Cotterill
Contextual & Theoretical Studies : Richard Miles OUCS205 – 23/01/2013
Whether something has been imitated, replicated or fashioned to appear a certain way, a copy or counterfeit damages a brand, because unlike coming from a direct source, third parties don’t have to pay for business expenses that brands do. They thrive off authentic brands because the foundations of the company have already been laid. “Counterfeiters trade off the backs of legitimate brands. They let the real brands pay for the marketing, advertising, develop the designs, and then they profit off of it.” This provides a basis for third parties to cruise upon when creating counterfeits. Even though they allow people to get a taste of something they usually couldn’t invest in, the counterfeit sub-culture drains brands profits considerably. Overall, the trade of counterfeits, even though it may not seem apparent, impacts huge of areas of business involved within branding and labels. Counterfeits are mainly associated with big brand organizations like Channel and Gucci rather than considering the bigger picture of brands. If we take into account that worldwide labels alike both originated from small high street shops we can see the huge development they have made from their starting point, whether remaining true to their heritage or not. This makes us feel supportive towards a small business that has flourished and grown and we buy into this tradition. Merely considering that replica’s and imitations are admissible, because of the size of a brand doesn’t justify the reproduction of somebody else’s work. Big or small the brand is still loosing out on the same amount of profit. The aura of a brand when replicated through counterfeits becomes faded and distorted, unlike a direct manufacturer third parties can tweak and modify design to their needs to lower costs of production or increase sales. In a world that is revolved around consumerism the constant growth of brands, encourages the growth of counterfeits and we end up in a cycle that fuels the fire for both. Counterfeits purely exploit the want and need for something that is elite, but without originals, counterfeits wouldn’t exist, and without the need for constant consumerism within the fashion world, fashion labels and brands wouldn’t exist. Other than the brands themselves, society also impacts from counterfeits greatly. The trickle down theory explains how fashion is passed between the pyramids of classes, counterfeits are purely a loop whole for this system, unbalancing the visual division between people and the clothes they wear by offering affordable equality for lower classes.
Bibliography Neil Boorman: Bonfire of the Brands/How I learnt to live without labels. (2007) Canongate books Ltd Alison Lurie: The language of Clothes (1983) Random House Inc Walter Benjamin: The work of Art in the age of mechanical reproduction (1936) Peter Saunders: Social Class and Stratification (1990) Routeledge Simmel, Georg. 1957 [1904]. Fashion. American Journal of Sociology. Wally Ollins: On Brand (2003) Thames and Hudson John Storey: Cultural studies and the Study of Popular Culture (1996) E University Press Malcolm Barnard: Fashion as Communication (1996) Routeledge Other References http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=187 http://www.mishcon.com/news/briefings/big_brands_and_online_retailers_unite_in _fight_against_online_counterfeiting_05_2011 http://fashionlaw.foxrothschild.com/tags/counterfeit/ http://fashionworlds.blogspot.com/2000_01_20_fashionworlds_archive.html
William Oliver Cotterill
Contextual & Theoretical Studies : Richard Miles OUCS205 – 23/01/2013