The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Consumer evaluations of
brand imitations

Consumer
evaluations of
brand imitations

Alain dAstous
Department of Marketing, HEC-Montre al, Quebec, Canada, and

Ezzedine Gargouri
Tendances Groupe Institut El Amouri, Tunis, Tunisia

153
Received June 1998
Revised March 1999

Keywords Brands, Brand image, Stores, Consumer behaviour

Abstract Reports a common occurrence in the marketplace: brand imitation. A total of 160
consumers participated in an experiment where goodness of imitation, presence/absence of
the imitated brand, reputation of the store and type of product (convenience/luxury) were
manipulated. The results show that consumer evaluations of brand imitations do not depend
on how good the imitation is. The better the image of the store in which brand imitations of
luxury products are distributed, the more positive consumer evaluations. In the case of
convenience goods however, the impact of store image on consumer evaluations depends on
the presence or absence of the imitated brand. Four consumer characteristics were found to
correlate negatively with evaluations of brand imitations: product category involvement,
product familiarity, brand sensitivity and generalised brand loyalty.

Introduction
More than 30 years ago, Levitt (1966) made the point that the majority of
so-called ``new products are really innovative imitations, that is products that
do not lead to different consumption patterns (Gatignon and Robertson, 1991)
but are mere re-creations of existing products with minor modifications. Brand
imitation is a profitable marketing strategy based on the utilisation of
similarity (package, design, brand name, advertising, etc.) in order to facilitate
the acceptance of a brand by consumers. Because it resembles the successful
(original) brand that it intends to imitate, the brand imitator may be attributed
the original brands properties (quality, performance, reliability, origin, etc.)
and such generalisation is thought to have a significant impact on brand
attitude and purchase (Zaichkowsky, 1995). Brand imitations have to be
distinguished from counterfeit products (or fakes) which are strict copies of
genuine products (Kay, 1990). While a brand imitation is designed so as to ``look
like and make consumers ``think of the original brand, a counterfeit product is
designed to ``be like the original and provide consumers with a less expensive
copy.
The occurrence of generalisation effects within the context of brand
imitation has received empirical support. Loken et al. (1986) found that the
greater the perceived similarity between two brands, the more consumers think
that the brands are made by the same company. In a subsequent study, Ward
et al. (1986) showed that similarity leads to the generalisation of quality and
performance from the original brand to the imitator. Brand similarity focuses
mainly on the stimulus side of the brand imitation phenomenon. On the

European Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 35 No. 1/2, 2001, pp. 153-167.
# MCB University Press, 0309-0566

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2
154

consumer side, personal characteristics have been shown to play a significant

role in the perception of brand imitations. Foxman et al. (1990) found that brand
confusion, that is the tendency to perceive the imitator as being the original
brand (an extreme case of generalisation), not only derives from brand
similarity but also depends on personal characteristics. In that study, brand
confusion was more likely to occur when consumers product familiarity,
product experience and involvement with the product category were low.
Kapferer and Thoenig (1992) found that similarity between brands is more
likely to create confusion when attention and product involvement are low.
While previous research on brand imitation has increased our
understanding of the phenomenon, some important questions remain
unanswered. First, it is interesting to note that researchers have addressed the
research domain through the notions of generalisation and confusion.
Obviously, in certain situations consumers may be mistaken and think that
they are buying the original brand instead of an imitation. But in many
situations and we would argue that these are much more common
consumers know perfectly well that the product they consider purchasing is a
brand imitator, generally offered at a lower price. Environmental cues such as
retailers point-of-purchase announcements (e.g. ``compare and save!) and
manufacturers package indications (e.g. ``Our alternative to Mennen Speed
Stick) as well as product experience with private brand labels increase
consumer awareness. While awareness of imitation intent does not preclude
generalisation effects, it remains to be demonstrated whether in such situations
the degree of similarity between the imitator and the original brand matters at
all. This is not a minor issue since similarity is believed to create confusion and
confusion is an important element in court decisions concerning trademark
infringement (Foxman et al., 1990). Therefore, one important question for
manufacturers of brand imitations is : ``Given that consumers are aware that a
product is a brand imitator, does the degree of similarity with the original
brand have an impact on its evaluation ?
A second issue pertains to the context in which the brand imitator is
evaluated. Assuming that consumers know that the product is an imitation, the
risk inherent in its purchase should be higher. If the brand imitator is
associated with a well-known private brand label, consumers may rely on the
private brands reputation to reduce the risk. However, in general consumers do
not perceive private brands as equivalent to national brands, but as inevitably
inferior (Ward et al.,1986). In cases where the imitator is not associated with a
private label, buying a brand imitation in a good reputation store may help
reduce the risk. However, the influence of store image on the image of lowerquality brands is not obvious. Jacoby and Mazursky (1984) found that
distributing a lower-quality brand in a good reputation store did not improve
the brands image. There may be in fact an opposite effect for a brand imitator:
selling brand imitations may be perceived as unethical for a good reputation
store and this perception may carry over to the brand imitator. That would not

be the case if the brand imitator is available in a discount store since consumers
Consumer
expect to find lower-quality brands in that type of store.
evaluations of
The presence of the original brand is another contextual factor worth brand imitations
considering. Brand imitators are often found on the same shelves as the brands
they want to imitate. In such situations, consumers awareness of imitation
intent is higher and brand comparisons are more probable. Kapferer (1995)
155
found that the risk of confusion increases with brand similarity and is greater
when the original brand is not present. From a merchandising point of view,
the impact of presenting simultaneously original brands with their imitators is
an interesting research issue.
Yet another issue concerns the type of product that is the object of the
imitation. Most brand imitation studies have been conducted with lowinvolvement, convenience goods. Thus, although Loken et al. (1986) studied
four different product categories (shampoos, cold remedies, deodorants and
mouthwashes), their results are limited to convenience goods. In the Ward et al.
(1986) study, a single product category was involved: shampoo. Foxman et al.s
(1990) study involved two types of convenience goods:
(1) noodle soup; and
(2) deodorants.
In their study of brand confusion, Kapferer and Thoenig (1992) looked at brand
imitations of repeat-purchase products (detergents, coffee, ketchup, etc.) only.
While convenience goods certainly represent a prime product type for brand
imitation, one can also find on the market imitations of luxury products such as
perfumes, sunglasses, polo shirts, etc. Brand imitations of luxury products and
convenience goods may not be perceived in the same way by consumers. Since
luxury products are expensive, a brand imitation might represent for many
consumers an interesting and affordable alternative. In this case, the more an
imitator ``looks like the original luxury brand, the better. Convenience goods
however, whether they are original brands or imitators, are products that most
people can afford. Consumers will buy a brand imitator instead of an original if
the difference in quality is not very great given the price difference. The
goodness of the imitation may be of less importance, as long as the quality
appears to be there. In fact, the more the imitator resembles the original
convenience good brand, the more consumers might think that the brand
imitator is trying to fool them by borrowing the appearance of the original
brand. Therefore it would seem important to study the brand imitation
phenomenon at the level of luxury products as well as convenience goods.
Finally, some studies found that personal characteristics such as
involvement with the product category and product familiarity have an impact
on consumers perception of brand imitations (e.g. Foxman et al., 1990), but
these studies did not look at consumer evaluations. Moreover, other individual
characteristics also seem relevant. Thus, consumers price sensitivity appears
to be an interesting trait since brand imitators are generally offered at a lower
price. A second variable of interest is consumers brand sensitivity (Kapferer

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2
156

and Laurent, 1989): presumably, consumers who attach great importance to

brand names should have more negative perceptions of brand imitations than
consumers for whom brand names do not matter. This should also hold for
consumers who are brand loyal.
With these observations in the background, the objective of this research is
to examine the impact of the goodness of imitation, the presence of the original
brand, the image of the store as well as personal characteristics (involvement
with the product category, product familiarity, price and brand sensitivity,
brand loyalty) on consumer evaluations of brand imitations.
Research hypotheses
Because of their high price, luxury products such as expensive Ralph Lauren
polo shirts, Chanel perfumes or Christian Dior sunglasses cannot be purchased
by all consumers, but most consumers would want to possess them. Therefore,
good imitations of these products at lower prices should generally be well
evaluated, and even better evaluated if they are shown along with the original
brands. This is because the presence of the original brand should facilitate
comparisons and increase the value of the imitation. This provides the rationale
for the first research hypothesis.
H1: In the case of luxury products
.
the better a brand imitation is perceived to be, the more positive
consumers evaluations of the brand imitator, and
.
this will be more pronounced when the original brand is present.
The situation is somewhat different for convenience goods such as shampoos,
bread and the like. These are generally affordable products and brand
imitations of these products may be perceived as attempts by manufacturers to
convey the qualities of the original brands through package similarities. The
presence of the original brand should amplify these perceptions. The second
research hypothesis rests on this reasoning.
H2: In the case of convenience goods
.
the better a brand imitation is perceived to be, the more negative
consumers evaluations of the brand imitator, and
.
this will be more pronounced when the original brand is present.
The image of the store in which imitations of luxury products are offered is
likely to play an important role in the formation of consumer evaluations.
Stores with good overall images represent a guarantee of quality and brand
imitations of luxury products found in these stores should be perceived as less
risky and of better value. This relationship should hold whether the original
brand is present or not.
H3: In the case of luxury products, the better the overall image of the store
carrying the brand imitator, the more positive consumers evaluations of
the brand imitator.

In the case of convenience goods however, the perceived risk is much lower. If
Consumer
consumers are made aware that the brand is an imitator through the presence
evaluations of
of the original brand, the imitation is likely to be perceived more negatively if it brand imitations
is distributed in a good image store than if it is distributed in a low-quality
discount store. This is because consumers will find it somewhat unethical for a
good image store to carry this type of product (contrast effect). However, if the
157
imitation intent is not salient (absence of the original brand), one should expect
the image of the store to carry over to the brand.
H4: In the case of convenience goods, the better the image of the store
carrying the brand imitator:
.
the more positive consumers evaluations of the brand imitator when
the original brand is absent, and
.
the more negative consumers evaluations of the brand imitator
when the original brand is present.
The last hypothesis concerns the effects of personal characteristics. When
involvement with the product category and product familiarity are high,
consumers are more concerned about the consequences of their purchases
(Foxman et al., 1990) and should therefore evaluate brand imitations more
negatively. Brand imitations should also be better evaluated by consumers who
care less about brands, are less brand loyal and are more price sensitive.
H5: Evaluations of brand imitators are negatively related to consumers:
.
involvement with the product category;
.
product familiarity;
.
brand sensitivity; and
.
brand loyalty; and
positively related to consumers:
.
price sensitivity.
Method
Product stimuli
Four different products were selected for the study: two convenience, common
purchase products (bread and shampoo) and two luxury, fashion goods (polo
T-shirt and sunglasses). A pilot study showed that the to-be-imitated products
brand names were well known and had a reputation of high quality: DItaliano
(bread), Head and Shoulders (shampoo), Ralph Lauren (polo T-shirt) and Ray
Ban (sunglasses). Several existing brand imitators were bought and pre-tested
in order to define a good and a poor imitation for each original brand. In
addition to representing two different categories of product, the imitators used
slightly different imitation strategies. In the case of bread, the imitations were
based on packaging and intrinsic characteristics (Italian bread). The shampoo
imitations were based on packaging. The polo T-shirt imitations centered on
the original brands logo and name. The sunglasses were imitated in their
overall design and brand name.

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2
158

Experimental design and manipulations

A score of 2 (good versus poor imitation) 6 2 (original brand present versus
absent) 6 2 (good image versus poor image store) factorial design was
developed to test the research hypotheses. The goodness of imitation and store
image manipulations were pre-tested before conducting the main study. The
overall perceived quality of imitation of the good imitations was significantly
better than that of the poor imitations on a seven-point bipolar scale (poor
imitation/good imitation). Also, the good image stores were perceived as
having a better image than the less good image stores on a seven-point bipolar
scale (poor image/good image).
The experimental materials were high-quality copy photographs of the
brand imitator either alone or in the presence of the original brand. The brand
name of the imitator, the store in which it could be found and its price appeared
below the photograph. In order to make the stimuli as realistic as possible, real
market prices were given for both the brand imitators and the imitated brands
(in the original brand present conditions only): bread ($1.69 versus $1.89),
shampoo ($2.49 versus $3.99), polo T-shirt ($34.95 versus $69.95) and
sunglasses ($29.95 versus $139.95).
Different questionnaires were prepared to correspond to the eight
experimental conditions. Each questionnaire included photographs of the four
products on different pages presented in a random order.
Measures
Dependent variables. Consumer evaluations of brand imitations were measured
using seven bipolar scales appearing immediately below the experimental
stimuli (Table I). The evaluative dimensions include perceived quality/
performance (scales 1 and 7), purchase value (scale 2), overall liking (scale 3),
buying intention (scale 4), perceived risk (scale 5), and expected post-purchase
regrets (scale 6).
Several measures followed consumer evaluations of the brand imitations in
the questionnaire.
Involvement with the product category. Three items were used to measure
involvement with each product category:
(1) ``When I shop for a (product category), I believe that it is a very
important purchase (strongly agree/strongly disagree).

Table I.
Scales used to assess
consumer evaluations
of brand imitations

Very poor quality

Very bad buy
I do not like at all
A product that I would never buy
A risky product
I would regret having purchased it
A product of dubious performance

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6
6
6

7
7
7
7
7
7
7

Very good quality

Very good buy
I like very much
A product that I would certainly buy
A reliable product
I would not regret having purchased it
A product of sure performance

(2) ``Before buying a (product category), I always search for a lot of

Consumer
information (strongly agree/strongly disagree).
evaluations of
(3) ``For me, buying a (product category) is a very difficult thing (strongly brand imitations
agree/strongly disagree).
Product familiarity. Product familiarity was measured with three items adapted
from a scale developed by Oliver and Bearden (1985):
(1) ``In general, I consider myself very familiar with (product category)
(strongly agree/strongly disagree);
(2) ``Overall, I think I am very well informed about (product category)
(strongly agree/strongly disagree);
(3) ``For me, (product category) represent a product category that I know
very well (strongly agree/strongly disagree).
Brand sensitivity. The brand sensitivity scale comprises three items inspired
from the discussion found in Kapferer and Laurent (1989):
(1) ``When making a purchase, I always give attention to the brand
(strongly agree/strongly disagree).
(2) ``In general, a brand tells a lot about a products quality (strongly agree/
strongly disagree).
(3) ``For me, a brand name is a very important information (strongly agree/
strongly disagree).
Generalised brand loyalty. Three items adapted from the scale developed by
Beatty and Kahle (1988) were used to measure brand loyalty:
(1) ``In general, I am loyal to a single brand in any given product category
(strongly agree/strongly disagree).
(2) ``If my preferred brand is not available at the store, it will make little
difference to me to buy a different one (reversed item) (strongly agree/
strongly disagree).
(3) ``When another brand is on sale, I generally purchase it instead of my
usual brand (reversed item) (strongly agree/strongly disagree).
Price sensitivity. Three items taken from a scale developed by Wells and Tigert
(1971) were used to measure price sensitivity:
(1) ``I shop a lot for specials (strongly agree/strongly disagree).
(2) ``I find myself checking the prices in the grocery store even for small
items (strongly agree/strongly disagree).
(3) ``A person can save a lot of money by shopping around for bargains
(strongly agree/strongly disagree).
A fourth item was added:
(4) ``For me, the price of a product is crucial information (strongly agree/
strongly disagree).

159

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2

Goodness of the imitation. In order to check if the manipulations were

successful, respondents were asked to take a second look at the four
photographs and to evaluate on a seven-point bipolar scale the goodness of the
imitation in each case (very poor imitation/very good imitation). The original
brand names were mentioned.

160

Data collection and sample characteristics

The main study was carried out in a mid-size (about 100,000 inhabitants)
Canadian city. The data were collected using a drop-off delivery procedure.
Streets were randomly selected in one of the citys residential areas. An
interviewer knocked on the door of every residence on the selected streets to
ask for residents collaboration to the research study. In order to obtain a
minimum of 20 observations in each experimental condition, a total of 352
residences had to be visited. There were 112 not-at-home and from the 240
responses, 192 persons agreed to participate. From this number, 160 usable
questionnaires could be collected for analysis. To ensure randomisation, the
questionnaires were randomly distributed across the participants. Because this
study is primarily concerned with testing research hypotheses rather than
generalising effects to a given population, obtaining a probabilistic sample was
not a specific objective and the final sample cannot be considered to be
representative of the citys consumer population. However, respondents are
adult consumers who constitute a relevant sample for the stimulus products
used in the experiment. The sample comprises a majority of women (64.1
percent) aged between 15 and 81 (mean = 37 years). Respondents are well
educated since 55 percent have some college education.
Results
Preliminary analyses
The consumer evaluation scale data were submitted to a principal components
analysis in each of the four product categories. A single factor emerged in each
instance explaining an important proportion of the variance (bread: 83.27
percent; shampoo: 82.13 percent; polo T-shirt: 73.65 percent; sunglasses: 77.70
percent). Therefore, the dependent variable was defined as the sum of the seven
scales. This variable can be interpreted as ``overall consumer evaluation.
The reliability of all scales was assessed using Cronbachs alpha coefficient
(Nunnally, 1978). The results are presented in Table II. As can be seen, except
for the scale measuring consumer involvement with the polo T-shirt product
category, the magnitude of the alpha coefficients is in general very satisfactory.
Manipulation checks
Subjects ratings of the quality of the brand imitations were contrasted in
the good versus poor imitation experimental groups. The good brand
imitations were judged to be better imitations than the poor ones in the case
of bread (mean difference = 0.75; t = 2.41; p = 0.0089), polo T-shirt (mean
difference = 1.42; t = 4.79; p = 0.0001) and sunglasses (mean difference =

Scale
Dependent variables
Overall evaluation of
Overall evaluation of
Overall evaluation of
Overall evaluation of

Consumer
evaluations of
brand imitations

Number of items

Cronbachs alpha coefficient

7
7
7
7

0.96
0.96
0.94
0.95

161

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4

0.76
0.83
0.56
0.72
0.91
0.93
0.93
0.91
0.84
0.77
0.70

Table II.
Reliability of scales

bread
shampoo
polo T-shirt
sunglasses

Personal characteristics
Involvement with bread
Involvement with shampoo
Involvement with polo T-shirt
Involvement with sunglasses
Familiarity with bread
Familiarity with shampoo
Familiarity with polo T-shirt
Familiarity with sunglasses
Brand sensitivity
Brand loyalty
Price sensitivity

1.3; t = 3.30; p = 0.0007). However, the manipulation was not successful with
shampoos. Accordingly, research hypotheses involving the goodness of the
imitation factor will not be tested with the shampoo product category.
Hypotheses 1-4
Table III presents the overall analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for each
product category taken separately. The corresponding experimental treatment
means are shown in Table IV. In the case of the bread product category, the
store image 6 presence of the original brand interaction is statistically
significant. An examination of the interaction means reveals that the impact of

Source of variation

Bread
Mean
Square
F

Product category
Shampoo
Polo T-shirt
Mean
Mean
Square F Square F

Sunglasses
Mean
Square F

Goodness of the imitation (A)

Store image (B)
Presence of the original brand (C)
A6B
A6C
B6C
A6B6C

321.76
24.84
7.43
19.60
132.50
940.05
75.86

9.15
45.49
544.86
155.13
66.90
185.53
11.24

0.05
574.59
103.56
0.54
46.88
27.95
241.20

Notes:

p < 0.01;

p < 0.05

3.10
0.24
0.07
0.19
1.28
9.06a
0.73

0.10 91.95 1.10

0.48 317.53 4.11b
5.78b 15.86 0.21
1.65 94.37 1.22
0.71 10.44 0.14
1.97 35.34 0.46
0.12 50.32 0.65

0.00
6.90a
1.24
0.01
0.56
0.34
2.90

Table III.
Analysis of variance
results

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2
162

a good store image is positive when the original brand is absent but negative
when it is present. The only significant effect in the shampoo product category
is that of the presence of the original brand: consumer evaluations of the
shampoo brand imitations are more positive when the original brand is present
than when it is absent. In the polo T-shirt and sunglasses categories, the only
statistically significant effect is that of store image: brand imitations of these
two luxury products are better evaluated when they are distributed in good
image stores.
The ANOVA results presented in Table III show that the impact of the
experimental factors is not the same across different product categories. Since
these are omnibus statistical tests, a series of analytical comparisons were
performed to individually test the research hypotheses (Keppel, 1991).
Test of H1. The first research hypothesis proposes that in the case of luxury
products, there is a positive relationship between the goodness of imitation and
consumer evaluations of brand imitators (H1a), especially in the presence of the
original brand (H1b). Mean evaluations of sunglasses brand imitations are
slightly more positive in the case of good imitations (contrast mean difference
= 0.03) but the difference is not statistically significant (t = 0.02; p = 0.4908;
one-tailed test). Although the difference between mean evaluations of good and
poor sunglasses imitations is greater in the presence of the original brand
(contrast mean difference = 1.12), it does not reach statistical significance (t =
0.77; p = 0.2206; one-tailed test). The first hypothesis is not supported in the
polo T-shirt category either. The first contrast (H1a) is in the predicted
direction (contrast mean difference = 1.55) but not significant (t = 1.11; p =
0.1354; one-tailed test) and the second contrast (H1b) is not in the predicted
direction (contrast mean difference = 0.53) and not significant (t = 0.38;
p = 0.7058; two-tailed test).
Test of H2. The second research hypothesis proposes that good imitations of
convenience products are evaluated more negatively than poor ones (H2a),
especially when the original brand is present (H2b). Since the goodness of
imitation manipulation was not successful with shampoos, the hypothesis is
tested only in the bread product category. Contrary to what was expected,
consumer evaluations of good bread imitations are more positive on average

Product

Table IV.
Experimental
treatment means

Polo T-shirt
Sunglasses
Shampoo
Bread

Good imitation
Good store image
Poor store image
Original Original Original Original
brand
brand
brand
brand
present
absent
present
absent
32.10
25.95
25.15
33.70

31.20
29.75
24.35
42.15

28.75
25.30
27.70
38.45

32.00
22.47
23.63
34.37

Poor imitation
Good store image Poor store image
Original Original Original Original
brand
brand
brand
brand
present absent present absent
31.50
27.15
27.40
33.35

31.80
28.25
25.05
35.40

27.32
21.78
27.05
36.74

27.25
26.15
19.30
31.80

than those of poor imitations (contrast mean difference = 2.85) although the
Consumer
difference is not statistically significant (t = 1.76; p = 0.0813; two-tailed test).
evaluations of
Goodness of imitation has a greater positive impact on consumer evaluations brand imitations
when the original brand is absent (mean difference = 4.66) than when it is
present (mean difference = 1.04), although as a whole the contrast is not
statistically significant (t = 1.12; p = 0.1325; one-tailed test).
163
Test of H3. The third research hypothesis predicts a positive impact of store
image on consumer evaluations of luxury products imitations. The hypothesis
is strongly supported in both the polo T-shirt (contrast mean difference = 2.82;
t = 2.02; p = 0.0228; one-tailed test) and sunglasses (contrast mean difference =
3.85; t = 2.65; p = 0.0045; one-tailed test) product categories.
Test of H4. The fourth hypothesis predicts that store image and presence of
the original brand interact to explain consumer evaluations of convenience
good imitations. Store image should have a positive impact on evaluations
when the original brand is absent (H4a), but a negative impact when it is
present (H4b). As predicted, in the absence of the original brand, consumer
evaluations of brand imitations of bread are significantly more positive if the
imitator is available in a good image store than if it is available in a less good
image store (contrast mean difference = 5.69; t = 2.48; p = 0.0071; one-tailed
test). When the original brand is present however, consumer evaluations are
more negative if the imitator is offered in a good image rather than in a poor
image store (contrast mean difference = 4.07) and the difference is statistically
significant (t = 1.77; p = 0.0390; one-tailed test). In the case of shampoo, store
image has a positive impact on consumer evaluations when the original brand
is absent (contrast mean difference = 3.23) though the difference does not quite
reach statistical significance (t = 1.48; p = 0.0705; one-tailed test). When the
original brand is present, the predicted reversed effect of store image on
consumer evaluations is observed (contrast mean difference = 1.10) but is not
statistically significant (t = 0.50; p = 0.3075; one-tailed test). Figure 1 displays
the store image 6 presence of the original brand interaction cell means for both
the bread and shampoo product categories.

Figure 1.
Graph of the store image
6 presence of the
original brand
interaction (shampoo
and bread product
categoaries)

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2
164

Test of H5. Table V presents the product moment correlations between

consumer evaluations of brand imitations and the measures of five personal
characteristics:
(1) involvement with the product category;
(2) product familiarity;
(3) brand sensitivity;
(4) generalised brand loyalty; and
(5) price sensitivity.
These correlations have been estimated for each product category separately.
Overall there is good support for the hypothesis. Of the 20 correlations, 18 are
in the predicted direction and 13 of them are statistically significant.
Examining the magnitude of correlations, it can be seen that generalised brand
loyalty, brand sensitivity and product category involvement are more
important overall than the other personal characteristics in explaining
consumer evaluations of brand imitations. In the Foxman et al. (1990) brand
confusion study, involvement with the product class was also one important
individual factor associated with confusion.
Discussion and conclusion
The results of this study are of interest to manufacturers of brand imitations
and marketing researchers as well. A first and important finding concerns the
impact of goodness of imitation on consumer evaluations. Contrary to what
was predicted by the research hypotheses, goodness of imitation had no impact
on consumer evaluations of brand imitators. This result holds across three
different product categories, and whether the imitated brand is present or not.
Since court decisions on trademark infringement are based heavily on
perceptions of overall similarity between the imitator and the original brand
(see Zaichkowsky, 1995), these results imply that making very good imitations
might not be worth the risk for manufacturers. As long as consumers infer that
a given product is a brand imitator, the goodness of imitation does not seem to
matter a great deal. It would be important to try to replicate this finding using

Involvement with the product

category
Table V.
Product familiarity
Correlations between
Brand sensitivity
consumer evaluations
Brand loyalty
of brand imitations and Price sensitivity
five personal
Notes: a p < 0.01; b p < 0.05
characteristics

Predicted
relationship

Bread

()

0.21a

0.26a

0.12

0.17b

()
()
()
(+)

0.04
0.07
0.26a
0.07

0.16b
0.17b
0.23a
0.01

0.13
0.25a
0.13b
0.13b

0.10
0.25a
0.17b
0.14b

Shampoo Polo T-shirt Sunglasses

other products and with stronger manipulations of goodness of imitation. The

Consumer
good brand imitations used in this study were judged as significantly better
evaluations of
imitations than the poor imitations, but the differences were perhaps not large brand imitations
enough to impact on consumer evaluations. Although the use of photographs is
common in consumer research, using physical products might be more
appropriate in future studies to really capture the reality of brand imitation.
165
Contextual factors such as the image of the retail outlet, the presence of the
original brand and the type of product that is imitated appear to play an
important role in explaining consumer evaluations of brand imitations. Thus, it
was found that the image of the store in which a brand imitator of a luxury
product is offered carries over to the brand. This result was observed with two
different types of product, sunglasses and polo T-shirts, and hence seems to be
quite robust. However, when the brand imitator is a common, frequently
purchased product, the impact of store image varies depending on the presence
or absence of the original brand. In the absence of the original brand, a brand
imitator is better evaluated when it is available in a good image store than
when it is available in a poor image store. The reverse is observed when the
original brand is present. These latter findings are less robust since significant
results were obtained with only one product category (bread). In the other case
(shampoo), the pattern of results was consistent with the hypothesis, but not
statistically significant. Thus, it would be important to gather additional
information on this issue before making general statements concerning the
interaction between store image and presence of the original brand in the
explanation of consumer evaluations of brand imitations. If they are replicated,
these results would have some interesting implications for the merchandising
of brand imitations. Thus, brand imitations of convenience products in a good
image store should not be displayed near the original brands. In discount
stores, the presence of original brands near brand imitators would not matter.
As for brand imitations of luxury products, the better the image of the store in
which they can be found, the more positive consumers evaluations.
Five personal characteristics considered in this study were found to be
related significantly to consumer evaluations of brand imitations. In general,
evaluations of brand imitations are negatively associated with:
.
product category involvement (polo T-shirt excluded);
.
product familiarity (luxury products excluded);
.
brand sensitivity (bread excluded); and
.
generalised brand loyalty.
They are positively associated with price sensitivity (bread and shampoo
excluded). The non-significant correlation between involvement and consumer
evaluations in the polo T-shirt product category is probably due to the poor
reliability of the involvement scale (Table II). The positive correlations between
consumer evaluations and price sensitivity may be explained by the fact that
the luxury product brand imitators were priced much lower than the original

European
Journal of
Marketing
35,1/2
166

brands. The decision to provide price information with the product stimuli was
founded on our desire to be as realistic as possible. However, by doing so the
brand imitation effect was confounded with the effect of price in the
experimental conditions where the original brand is present. In future studies,
it would be interesting to manipulate jointly goodness of imitation, presence of
the original brand and price. In addition to eliminating possible confounding,
this would permit to collect useful data on the interaction between these factors.
Although the use of different product categories in the present research has
contributed to increase our knowledge about the brand imitation phenomenon,
it is clear that more work needs to be done in order to better understand how
consumer evaluations of imitations as well as the effects of contextual factors
like store image and presence of the original brand on these evaluations depend
on product type. Distinguishing between convenience and luxury goods is
relevant because imitations can be found in these two categories of goods, but it
might be more useful in future studies to focus on how consumers relate to
different products and purchase situations. Luxury and convenience goods
differ on several dimensions like image, perceived risk (social, financial,
psychological), familiarity, affective involvement, and so on (Dubois, 1994).
Observed differences in consumer reactions associated with product
differences may thus be caused by one or several of these factors. A more
satisfying research approach would be to try to understand the role of
fundamental consumer characteristics in the process of evaluating brand
imitations. One consumer characteristic worthy of investigation is affective
involvement. According to Dubois (1994), buyers of luxury goods (e.g.
perfumes, beauty products, design shoes) are characterised by a state of high
affective involvement when buying and consuming these goods. The pleasure
associated with luxury products emanates from numerous sources ranging
from the store atmosphere to actual consumption. This view is consistent with
the findings of this study where store image had a significant impact on the
evaluation of brand imitations of two luxury products. It would be important in
future studies to gather data on the total consumer experience surrounding the
purchase and consumption of brand imitations that differ with respect to
affective involvement. This should be accomplished with the use of qualitative
methods like in-depth interviews or focus groups. These methods are probably
best suited to bring some rich information about the role of affective
involvement in the development of consumer perceptions and evaluations of
brand imitations.
References
Beatty, S.E. and Kahle, L.R. (1988), ``Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship:
The impact of brand commitment and habit, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 16, Summer, pp. 1-10.
Dubois, B. (1994), Comprendre le consommateur, 2nd ed., Dalloz, Paris.
Foxman, E.R., Muehling, D.D. and Berger, P.W. (1990), ``An investigation of factors contributing
to consumer brand confusion, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 170-89.

Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), ``Innovative decision processes, in Robertson, T.S. and
Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, pp. 316-48.
Jacoby, J. and Mazursky, D. (1984), ``Linking brand and retailer images (do the potential risks
outweigh the potential benefits?, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 105-22.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1995), ``Stealing brand equity: measuring perceptual confusion between national
brands and `copycat own-label products, Marketing and Research Today, May,
pp. 96-103.
Kapferer, J.-N. and Laurent, G. (1989), ``La sensibilite aux marques, in Kapferer, J.-N. and
Thoenig, J.-C. (Eds), La Marque, McGraw-Hill, Paris, pp. 93-124.
Kapferer, J.-N. and Thoenig, J.-C. (1992), ``Les consommateurs face a la copie. Etude sur la
confusion des marques creee par limitation, Revue Franc aise du Marketing, Vol. 136,
pp. 53-66.
Kay, H. (1990), ``Fakes progress, Management Today, July, pp. 54-8.
Keppel, G. (1991), Design and Analysis: A Researchers Handbook, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Levitt, T. (1966), ``Innovative imitation, Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 63-70.
Loken, B., Ross, I. and Hinkle, R.L. (1986), ``Consumer confusion of origin and brand similarity
perception, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 5, pp. 195-211.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. and Bearden, W.O. (1985), ``Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action:
a moderating influence attempt, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, December,
pp. 324-40.
Ward, J., Loken, B., Ross, I. and Hasapopoulos, T. (1986), ``The influence of physical similarity on
generalization of affect and attribute perceptions from national brands to private label
brands, in Shimp, T.A. et al. (Eds), AMA Educators Proceedings, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 51-6.
Wells, W.D. and Tigert, D. (1971), ``Activities, interests, and opinions, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 11, August, pp. 27-35.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1995), Defending Your Brand Against Imitation, Quorum Books, Westport,
CT.

Consumer
evaluations of
brand imitations
167