CONSUMER RESPONSE TO COPYCAT PRODUCTS:

EMPIRICAL STUDY ON LUDHIANA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter No. Chapter Name Page no.

1. INTRODUCTION 1-26

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 27-33

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 34-35

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 36-51

5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 52-54

ANNEXURE-I i

ANNEXURE-II ii-iii
 CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION

COPYCAT BRAND
A copycat brand is a brand which copies, mimics or is made deliberately similar to an
established brand in the marketplace.

Why do companies adopt copycat brands?

Copycat brand owners want to take advantage of the brand owner’s investment which has gone
into building up an established brand, without making that significant investment themselves.
They want to get as close as they legally can to taking the benefit of that investment, and some of
them are not afraid of testing where that legal limit is in the courts. This is the copycat brand
owner has larger size or deeper resources than the established brand owner, or the copycat brand
owner enjoys an asymmetric trading relationship with a smaller established brand owner who
relies upon the copycat brand owner as a customer. Small established brand owners is should be
aware.
How does copycat branding work?
First of all we need to understand how a brand works. Brands work by providing a sense of
familiarity to the purchaser. People like stability and familiarity. Even if the previous experience
of a brand was mediocre or poor, faced with the choice of a known brand and several new or
untested brands, it is human nature to revert to what is familiar.
Copycat brands work by taking familiar features from established brands and applying those to a
newly made up brand so that the consumer feels comfortable with the made up brand. Copycat
products look similar to the brand leader.
Faced with a direct choice between an established brand and a copycat brand the consumer is
more likely to choose the established brand all other things being equal, such as price,
availability, and package size. However usually all other things are not equal, and the copycat
brand is priced cheaper than the original brand.
If the consumer is looking at price first, the familiarity given by the copycat features on the made
up brand reassure the consumer that it is OK to buy the made up brand product. If the consumer
is looking at an established branded product next to a copycat branded product the copycat
features give the message that this is an alternative to the established brand. The lower price can
then seal the purchase.
When a consumer buys a copycat branded product they are not buying the original product.
Common reasons why a customer would buy a copycat brand is because it is cheaper, because
they cannot afford the original brand, or because the original brand is unavailable, or because
they made a mistake and thought it was the original brand.

Copycat Behavior
Imitation brands attempt to free-ride on positive brand-associations build by the leader brand, a so-
called copycat strategy. Copycat practices become close to a natural response, if a firm faces high
uncertainty in the environment it operates in. Funding innovation is a risky investment for firms who
are unable to process the information in this environment and may result in a costly gamble. As these
firms lack the processing ability, they will instead observe successful firms, who the copycats assume
are better able in processing the information. Likewise, the more successful a firm was in the past,
the more likely they are to be successful in the future. In addition, a new product that proved itself to
be successful often indicates a newly discovered segment in the market. Imitation brands are able to
react quickly with few risks or costs, by introducing an imitation product into the market.

The reason copycat strategies are even possible, is due to the presence of brand confusion, which in
turn is caused by the fact that consumers are unable to process the load of information, in order to
make brand choices. The definition of brand confusion is often not made clear in literature.
Consumer brand confusion consists of one or more errors in inferential processing that lead a
consumer to unknowingly form inaccurate beliefs about the attributes or performance of a less-
known brand based on a more familiar brand's attributes or performance.
Brand confusion can be the result of similarities between the characteristics of two or more features,
with higher degree of similarity increasing the inaccuracy of an individual's inferential processing. A
higher similarity in product features results in stimuli that are perceived to be more similar by
consumers, followed by a higher likelihood of brand confusion occurring. These copycat brands
exploit this confusion by tapping into previously stored information in the memories of consumers.
Positive information of a leader brand can be activated by the sight of the copycat product, due to this
confusion. If this occurs, a copycat product can be evaluated more positively and closer to the leader
brand. However, brand confusion differs from related processes, e.g. uncertainty, miscomprehension,
infringement and deception.

Table: The Differences between Brand Confusion and Related Processes

Uncertainty Consumer is aware of the potential error. Uncertainty is less likely to affect
brand choice, but instead will delay choice until more information is available.
Miscomprehension Consumer misinterprets a message, resulting in a discrepancy between the
intended message of the brand and the received message by the consumer.
Infringement A product is found to be too similar to another product by the court. It is
important to note that brand confusion is not a necessity for infringement to
take place. Infringement is determined by a judge, and not by the fact if brand
confusion truly takes place or not.
Deception Comparison of different brands is not necessary. The key point is that there is
a discrepancy between the product characteristics and those that are claimed
by the marketer.

In practice, copycat strategy is the application of brand confusion in the marketing strategy of a
brand. Copycat brands imitate the name, logo, package design or even products of competitor firms,
with the belief that they can benefit from being similar to competitors. Copycat practices are not a
rare phenomenon in the current market. On the contrary, copycat behavior is a common and
widespread occurrence concluded that half of the store brands imitated the packaging of a leading
brand in terms color, size and shape. Leading brands will naturally seek to protect and maintain the
competitive advantage they obtain from innovating and having a first-mover advantage. However, it
has been shown that successful innovators can seldom prevent the entry of imitating firms, which
may lower profits of the leading brand.

The common belief is that by being visually more similar to the leading brand, positive associations
linked to the leading brand will be triggered and transferred to the copycat brand, resulting in a better
evaluation of the copycat. It has been thought that consumers evaluate unfamiliar products by using
visual similarity to a more known product in the same product category. Previous studies have
demonstrated that consumers indeed use visual similarity as a cue to determine perceived similarity
between multiple products. As perceived similarity grows, perceived substitutability may grow as
well. This in turn may possibly lead to consumer accepting the copycat more easily as an established
product inside this product category and therefore see it as a possible alternative to the leading brand.
Using this logic, one would expect that a higher degree of imitation, i.e. higher similarity between the
leader brand and copycat, would lead to a larger transfer of positive associations and therefore to a
better evaluation of the copycat brand. However, past research has indicated that copycats who adopt
a high-similarity imitation strategy are not necessarily evaluated better than non-copycats when they
are compared to the leader brand. Transferred associations are possibly not an accurate representation
of the quality of the imitator in reality, as it is mostly based on visual cues. This in turn can lead to
negative consequences, for dishonesty towards consumers in terms of the quality of the copycat. In
cases of high similarity, consumers may perceive this as blatant imitation with the intent to mislead
the consumer, resulting in them 'punishing' the copycat. Instead, it was found that moderately similar
copycats were evaluated better than both low similar and high similar copycats, as consumers
transfer some positive associations from the leader brand to the copycat, but do not perceive this as
intentional deceit.
It is recognized that there are two types of copycat strategies: attribute-based, also known as feature-
based, and theme-based copycats. Attribute-based copycats imitate perceptual elements of leading
brands that are considered to be low-order, such as shapes, colors, font, name etc. These copycats
attempt to be literally the same as the leader brand and can therefore share many visual similarities
with the leading brand it copies from, making the intentions of the copycat brand more obvious to the
general public. This is supported by the fact that the majority of court cases concern cases with
attribute-based copycats. While attribute-based imitation is relatively easy to use, it does not
necessarily result in the desired result. High attribute-based similarity can backfire when consumers
evaluate the imitation brand in a comparative environment.
The second type of copycat strategy is a theme-based copycat strategy. On the contrary to attribute-
based copycats, theme-based copycats imitate more abstract characteristics and semantic attributes,
e.g. feelings, atmosphere etc., from a leading brand through its visual presentation. These abstract
higher-order characteristics are also known as 'themes'. It is possible for consumers to assess two
products as similar, when the products share a common theme, despite the two products being
visually very dissimilar.
 BRAND LOYALTY

Brand Loyalty is a scenario where the consumer fears purchasing and consuming product from
another brand which he does not trust. It is measured through methods like word of mouth
publicity, repetitive buying, price sensitivity, commitment, brand trust, customer satisfaction, etc.
Brand loyalty is the extent to which a consumer constantly buys the same brand within a product
category. The consumers remain loyal to a specific brand as long as it is available. They do not
buy from other suppliers within the product category. Brand loyalty exists when the consumer
feels that the brand consists of right product characteristics and quality at right price. Even if the
other brands are available at cheaper price or superior quality, the brand loyal consumer will
stick to his brand. Brand loyal consumers are the foundation of an organization. Greater loyalty
levels lead to less marketing expenditure because the brand loyal customers promote the brand
positively. Also, it acts as a means of launching and introducing more products that are targeted
at same customers at less expenditure.

Brand loyalty - definition

Brand loyalty is determined by your returning customers--those who continue to buy your
products rather than switch to your competitors. Brand-loyal customers are willing to go the
extra mile to buy your product, be it higher prices or the literal extra mile. They are also the most
likely to recommend you to their friends and colleagues. To a marketer, loyal customers bring in
most of the revenue through repeated purchases and referrals.

Measurement of Brand Loyalty:

Brand loyalty was initially measured by only considering a customer's purchase habits. If a
customer repeatedly purchased products from a particular brand, then the customer was
considered loyal. However, this approach ignored a significant number of additional factors that
contribute to the consumer-brand relationship.

Five metrics of brand loyalty

Over time, the views of marketers and researchers have evolved to include a number of other
metrics to measure brand loyalty. These five metrics are:
 i. Involvement and commitment - how dedicated your customers are to your products, as
well as your brand

ii. Perceived value - the functional, personal, and social impact your products have on your
customers

iii.Trust - how good your brand's track record is with your customers

iv. Satisfaction - how well your products are able to meet and exceed customers'
expectations

v. Repeated purchase - a measure of whether the above four criteria manifest into something
practical: a pattern of continued purchases from your current customers

Involvement and commitment

Involved customers have a deeper awareness of your products. They have spent more time using
your products and have developed a more detailed relationship with your brand. Commitment
to your brand, then, is a measure of your customers' willingness and eagerness to maintain that
relationship. Higher levels of involvement and commitment lead to better brand loyalty.

Involvement in and commitment to your brand are characterized by a thorough knowledge of

your products. Your questions may be tailored to their exposure to your brand and their
association with brand attributes.
"Which product have you heard of the most among the following?" (involvement)

"Would you like periodic updates on our products?" (commitment)

Perceived value

When we think of a product's value, we think of it in functional, emotional, and social terms--
how well a product performs, how well the customers relate to the people behind the brand, and
how the product becomes part of a customer's identity in the social world.

The functional value of a brand is a direct result of its quality and expected performance.
Questions that directly target the specific features of a product can reveal all aspects of a
customer's experience with your product's functionality. For example, if the product being
reviewed were a mobile app for a food delivery company, a functionality survey may include
questions such as:

"How easy or difficult is it to navigate our app's interface?"

"How quickly were you able to place orders with your chosen restaurant?"

"In general, were your orders processed correctly and delivered on time?"

A second dimension, however, is whether the customer is committed to the brand. Philip Kotler,
again, defines four patterns of behaviour
1. Hard-core Loyals - who buy the brand all the time.
2. Split Loyals - loyal to two or three brands.
3. Shifting Loyals - moving from one brand to another.
4. Switchers - with no loyalty (possibly 'deal-prone', constantly looking for bargains or 'vanity
prone', looking for something different).

BRAND AWARNESS:

Brand awareness is defined as “buyer’s ability to identify the brand, within the category, in
sufficient detail to make a purchase” and state that brand awareness makes the brand a candidate
for purchase. Brand awareness is also described as the ability of a potential buyer to recognize or
recall that brand is a member of a certain product category. Brand awareness refers to the
strength of a brand’s existence in the mind of consumer. In terms of former consideration, brand
awareness is related to the strength of the resulting brand node or trace in memory, as reflected
by consumer’s ability to identify the brand under different conditions.

Customer loyalty is seen as an important factor to operational success and profitability. As a result,
topics related to customer loyalty have been covered frequently by research. It is often viewed as the
strength of the relationship between a consumer's attitude and repeated purchases.
Four-Stage Loyalty Framework

As stated in the introduction of this chapter, three areas of interest are discussed in this chapter. This
section rounded up, this chapter continues to its final section and topic; Perceived Similarity.

Perceived Similarity
The appearance of a product, and brand identity are key elements to achieve success in the market
with a product. Consumers perceive the identity of a product through their visual senses, which they
then use to identify visual cues (associations linked to certain perceptual attributes) of those products.
Intuitively, similarity is a result of one creating a comparison between two entities, in terms of
commonalities and differences in their visuals/features. These are then processed by the brain to
'calculate' the extent of similarity between the two entities. The more commonalities relative to the
differences, the more similarity is perceived. These commonalities include attributes such as color,
shape, graphical elements or even names. However, individuals can also perceive similarity in more
areas than visual attributes. Abstract thematic similarities affect the perceived similarity between
entities as well. These theme-based similarities are feelings/associations/emotions that two entities
share in common.

Consumers' Mind
It should be noted that the objective similarity, i.e. how many characteristics products objectively
share in common, may not be the same as the perceived similarity by consumers.

Examples of copycat branding

Copycat branding extends to consumer goods such as toasters, kettles consumer electronics,
mobile phones, and even complete automobiles. Typically a copycat brand mimics features of
the shape, colour, feature layout, and / or relative placement of design features of an original
product, but without copying exactly.
Isn’t copycat branding just another name for fair competition?
That depends upon whether it infringes anyone else’s legal rights or not. Anything which
infringes the legal rights of another person is not fair competition, but anything which does not
infringe a legal right of another person, however blatant, or cheeky and no matter how damaging
to the established brand, is legal.
Copycat product retailers may argue they are providing great value by providing a very similar
product usually at a lower price than the original.
On the one hand owners of established brands have invested heavily in product development,
marketing and brand development and have a legitimate expectation of generating an adequate
return on investment.
On the other hand, monopolies are generally considered to be bad for society, with a few
exceptions and free unrestricted competition is generally considered to be a good thing.
If you want to invest heavily and build up an exclusive strong established brand in the
expectation of a reasonable and adequate return on investment, then provided you stay within the
law, you are free to do so.
Similarly, if you think that established brands are overrated, overpriced and consumers are being
ripped off and are just paying for the brand, but you can provide an alternative or equivalent
product of a quality acceptable to consumers but without the bloated price premium charged by
the established brand, then you are free to do so provided you stay within the law and are not
prevented from doing so by a legal right of another person, for example an intellectual property
right.
The people who decide between the established brand or the copycat brand is the general
consumer. It is a democratic decision with each consumer making their own personal choice on
which product to buy.
The people who decide whether any intellectual property rights have been violated are the courts.

ESTABLISHED BRAND
An established brand helps in distinguishing the product of one producer or trader from those of
others. It also helps to differentiates between a source of goods or services. A brand can raise the
standard of using. A luxury brand for example can extend across automobiles, fashion clothing
and jewellery and even extend to the interior design of apartments.
Brand owners spent lakhs or crores in building up an established brand. After investment, they
can either change their strategies or price or enjoy superior sales volumes at similar prices
compared to their rivals as a result of that significant investment.

Perhaps coca-cola is established brand in the world ®. It would be difficult to displace Coca-
Cola by another new cola brand, because it is so ingrained in people’s memories and experience
that it has extraordinarily deep goodwill with the consumer. If anyone can defend their brand in
court then it would be the Coca Cola Company. However that doesn’t stop people trying to copy.
No brand is safe from copycat brands.

Do established brands suffer as a result of copycat branding?

Yes, establishing brand suffer because of copycat branding. The established brand can have its
reputation and exclusivity, and therefore its value diminished. The perceived distance between
the established brand and the next best product is reduced. Depending on how close the copycat
brand gets, copycatting can lead to downward pressure on the price premium which can be
charged by the established brand, or erode sales volumes of the established brand product.
The effect of a copycat brand on an established brand can be:
- Drawing the consumer’s attention away from the established brand, and towards the copycat
brand;

- Impairment of the ability of the consumer to find the established brand;

- Mistakenly selecting the copycat brand instead of the established brand;

- Dilution of exclusivity of the established brand;

- Reduction in pricing power of the established brand;

- Reduced sales volumes of the established brand;

- Loss of contract with a customer or distributor and being replaced by a copycat product
supplied by a cheaper competitor.
But by keeping the copycat brands as far away as legally possible, the effect of copycat brands
on established brands can be minimised.
Advantages for retailers or producers in creating copycat brands can include:
- Diverting market share away from established brands to your own copycat brand;

- Replacing a more expensive established brand supplier with a cheaper alternative supplier,
whilst maintaining sales volumes;

- Provide a lower cost equivalent product to the end consumer compared to an established
branded product;

- Exert additional buying power over a supplier of an established brand by introducing an

alternative competing copycat own brand;

- Occupy the profit margin residing in the price gap between a new unknown own brand and a
well known established brand;

- Increase sales volumes of a little established brand or unknown brand product by re branding as
a copycat brand.

Where is the line between fair and unfair competition?

Protection is given by a bundle of individual rights. These include registered trade marks, which
protect features such as names, logos, designs, smells, sounds and shapes, the common law of
passing off which protects against misrepresentations which cause damage to a trader, copyright
which protects original works such as artwork packaging, registered designs which protect the
appearance of products, and patents which protect technical innovations embodied in the way in
which products work.

Whether a particular type of copying is “fair competition” or not depends whether any
intellectual property rights are breached or not. If a copycat product is getting too close for your
liking, but it doesn’t infringe any of your intellectual property rights, then although it might be
unwelcome, blatant, aggressive, cheeky, lack integrity or even be laughable, and might even
make you angry, if no rights or laws are breached then it is allowable.
On the other hand, if there is a breach of an intellectual property right or a law, then the
competition is not fair and should be stopped.

What is the difference between a copycat brand and an “own brand”

There is overlap, because inventors of copycat brands tend to protect them and create their own
intellectual property rights to make the copycat brand their own.
However, in general an “own brand” particularly of a supermarket or retailer more likely does
not copy a well known established brand, but rather is something which it is intended that the
customer will identify with the brand owner as supplier.
An own brand is generally not intended to be a copycat brand.

What is the difference between a copycat product and a counterfeit product?

A counterfeit product usually aims at deliberately deceiving a consumer into thinking that it is
the actual product of an established brand, whereas a copycat brand does not. Examples of
counterfeits might include counterfeit Rolex® watches, and counterfeit mobile phone batteries.
Usually, the counterfeit is of poorer quality than the original, and whilst it may function, it is
unlikely to function as well as the original product and the materials will be cheaper.
Counterfeit products can be unsafe or even life-threatening, for example counterfeit automobile
brake parts, or counterfeit aircraft components.
A counterfeit product breaches every type of intellectual property owned by the established
brand owner, and is illegal. Often the counterfeit product is a direct rip-off of a product made by
an established brand owner, with the intention to deceive the consumer into thinking the product
is genuine when it is not.
On the other hand, a legitimate copycat product falls within the law and is not intended to
blatantly deceive the consumer into thinking that the product is that of an established brand.
What is the difference between a copycat and a fake?
A fake product, or at least a good fake, can be virtually identical or indistinguishable from the
original article, and could be of the same or even better quality than the original product. Further
a fake is not necessarily illegal, and there is not necessarily any intention to deceive the buyer if
the product is sold as being a copy. Where products are not protected by intellectual property, a
good fake product can provide exceedingly good value for money for the consumer compared to
purchasing the original product.

How can we help? – for copycats

We advising some of the main originators of copycat brands in just how far they can go in
copying established brands without being liable for infringement of trade marks, copyright,
patents, registered designs or falling foul of the common law tort of passing off. We provide
product and brand clearance searches down to the specific details of individual packaging and
advertising. So far we have a 100% track record of keeping our copycat brand clients out of
trouble.
If you already have a problem with an established brand owner, we can advise you on which side
of the infringement line you stand on depending on whether you are infringing or not, and either
defend you or advise you on settling the case and re – branding.

We can identify which types of protection apply to your products, we can create registered rights
to protect your brands and the brand features of your products, and spot any gaps or weaknesses
in your existing protection which could be exploited by a copycat product.

As we have read before there are 2 types of fake brands

Counterfeit products:- These are fake products that bear identical name of product/ packaging/
colour scheme and even same name and address as the genuine manufacture. They look exactly
the real product and trademarks.
For e.g.: ‘Ponds’ Talcum powder, ‘clinic plus’ shampoo.

Pass off products:- Such products have similar surrounding name or have a similar spelling with
similar looking design & packaging. These product are meant to mislead the consumer who are
illiterate or in hurry to purchase goods.

For e.g. “LUK” for LUX & ‘Head & Shower’ for Head & shoulder.
Fake brands exist in rural as well as urban location. But the problem is in rural areas especially
the people with low income and lack of knowledge of the products of the original brand. People
in rural areas in India can recognize alphabet but not complete words.

The Indian rural landscape being scattered in smaller villages, gaining access in all of them is a
tedious task for brand.

The local entrepreneurs are well aware of these challenges. They take advantage by
manufacturing cheap substitute of original brands, misleading the rural consumer.

The consumer are aware of the brands owning to adds broadcasted on radio and television
channels but on the time of the purchase, the consumer tend to pick their fake products due to
unavailability of original products or get fooled by retailers who on purpose sell cheap products
for higher margins.

The top brands in India are estimated to loose upto 30% of their business because of fake
products which causes not even the loss of revenue but also bear the damage to brand image and
loyalty of consumers.

Brands should protect themselves from copycat design by register their design idea that they
believe is unique.
Copycat brands
Commercial businesses implement competitive benchmarking exercises in a bid to measure
business performance vis-à-vismarket competitors. This practice usually defines a set of metrics
as the evaluation criterion and seeks to make comparisons. Brands are also sometimes fond of
referring to competitive strategy that has proven successful. The danger is when this goes beyond
benchmarking and turns, almost unnoticed, into imitating that strategy. This is dangerous
because what works in one organization, will almost certainly, not work in another. The
situations and circumstances of each organization are different and, most importantly, their
essence and core values are completely different. We have said often how we believe that the
branding, and indeed organizational, strategies would be much more relevant if they are built on
the inherent positive valence.
Let’s take a look at some instances wherein an excessive focus on imitating competition failed.

1. Vanilla Coke

Vanilla ice cream remains a favorite inter-generational choice of frozen dessert for millions
of Indian consumers. The trend persists and this flavor holds its own even in the highly
diversified desserts market in India where major brands bring new flavors and formats every
year. Coca-Cola worked on a vanilla flavor for its mass-market products and launched
Vanilla Coke. However, the project floundered and the product was withdrawn from the
market. Consumers did not know quite what to make of the product. The vanilla flavored
drink tried hard to be both a much-loved cola, and an equally much-loved ice-cream but
 ended up being a wannabe ice-cream float. The Indian consumer did not seem amenable to
choosing a pale imitation when any number of originals were available.

2. Maruti Versa

Maruti Suzuki’s launch of the Versa, a family van, promised much but stopped short when it
mattered. The product sought to extend the bloodline of the Maruti Omni van by encroaching
into the territory of a true international icon, the Volkswagen Type 2 (or the Transporter).
The product was visibly larger than the Omni and, in a nod to the perceived aspirational
value, was priced at close to the sedans of the day.

The boxy shape of the Versa and a high (perceived) price point failed to meet the
expectations of consumers. The lines of the vehicle were less than perfect and this added to
the negative market reaction. Maruti’s rivals were offering impressive vehicle designs and
wider options to consumers at similar price points. This ‘multi-purpose vehicle’, which was
not quite a VW, rapidly lost ground in the Indian market.

3. Blackberry Storm
 Blackberry was a major consumer telecommunications hardware manufacturer in the first
decade of this century. Research in Motion, the firm that made the Blackberry devices, was
famous for its high-quality consumer products and its failsafe software security protocols.
Following the launch of the Apple iPhone in 2007, Blackberry attempted to launch the
Blackberry Storm as a phone that was just as smart. However, as InfoWeek
opined, “BlackBerry’s inability to react effectively to market changes, specifically the first
iPhone and AT&T’s deal with Apple, doomed the famed smartphone maker.” Imperfect
software and other developmental flaws showed up starkly when compared to Apple’s
challenger. Blackberry’s famed market share eroded, and sales declined as the markets and
customers eagerly switched to Apple’s first iPhone device. Clearly, Blackberry’s defensive
play against Apple had failed and this proved to be a harbinger for the Canadian device
maker’s eventual downfall.
4. Maggi Dal Atta Noodles

Maggi is THE staple brand in the Indian market for instant noodles. The brand’s range of
products has generally been well-received, but the Dal Atta variant failed in the Indian
market. Nestlé, the manufacturer of Maggi noodles, wanted to offer a ‘healthy’ quick snack
to try and cash into a visible shift in the Indian consumers’ mindset to healthy snacking
options. This presented a perception challenge for the brand as well as the Indian consumer.
A brand that had more or less created the product category of fun foods that were meant for
instant consumption, not deep reflection, was now trying to associate itself with a movement
driven by good sense and reason. Perhaps not surprisingly, the product failed the taste test
with the Indian consumers and registered very low uptake in major Indian cities.

5. TATA Nano
The Nano envisioned as an uber-affordable small car, targeted the Indian middle-class
buyers. TATA designed the project to take on Maruti Suzuki’s domination in the large-
volume, small car segment in a huge market like India. While driven by an extremely high
innovation element, the product seemed to want to be everything that Maruti’s iconic 800
was, except smaller and cheaper. Tata Motor’s seemed to be targeting a seemingly vast
Indian middle-class that may have aspired to buy the Maruti 800 but could not afford it.
However, the Nano failed the expectations of the targeted consumer segment. Its engine
proved less than optimized to client expectations, and the vehicle acquired an unfortunate
image of being unsafe on Indian roads. In addition, the “cheap car” stigma and the less-than-
inspired visual styling of the TATA Nano seriously damaged the market prospects of the
automobile. In a very real sense, the Nano was always less than what it tried to be.
How to protect your brand from copycats
In highly competitive markets, the objective is to stand out over and above your rivals. But what
if you’re highly successful and a competitor tries to muscle in on your territory by copying your
successful formula? What can you do to stop copycats misleading and potentially stealing your
customers?

Why brand copycats can be a problem

Copycat products are not a new phenomenon. In individual retailers borrow heavily from the
colour schemes, logos and overall feel of established and well-known names in their own-brand
products. While many consumers knowingly purchase these cheaper alternatives, plenty will still
prefer to stick with the brand they know and love. But the fact that the appearance of the own-
brand product is so similar to what they wish to buy has been proven to be confusing.

At the moment, copycat packaging is deemed to fall foul of competition law if it does any of the
following:
 Any information is false and it is likely to deceive the average person
 It could be confused with products, names or marks associated with a competitor
 It knowingly misleads a person into believing a product is manufactured by a rival
organisation
The issue came to a head recently when the government opened a review into the enforcement of
the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) against copycat packaging.
This was defined as “the practice of designing the packaging of a product (or its ‘trade dress’ or
‘get up’) to give it the general ‘look and feel’ of a competing well-known brand (typically the
market leader).”

Register your designs

If you come up with a product or design idea that you believe is unique, you need to take
ownership of it and stake your claim. This can be done in various ways, such as registering your
creation with the Intellectual Property Office.
Ultimately, brands need to take ownership of any elements of their product that they can lay
down a marker for. They are not legally entitled to exclusive use of certain colours and visual
cues, but they are in a position to create a meaningful brand across multiple platforms. By
engaging with a target audience in creative, distinctive and unique ways, they can establish a
memorable identity and forge close emotional links with a core consumer base. This can be
enough to make your brand the first port of call for loyal customers.
Government deciding not to give brands more powers to fend off copycats, the organisations has
to safeguard their brand integrity without protection from the law. If anything, this should be
seen as an opportunity rather than an obstacle. They now have a clear reason to make their
brands distinctive and imitation-proof, with a clear focus on building strong identities and
devising ideas and concepts that simply can’t be copied.
It would be easy for firms to believe customers’ purchasing decisions are based on a careful
weighing up of the available facts, but many experts agree that their thought processes are
instead largely swayed by gut instinct and emotions.

1. Greed
2. Fear
3. Altruism
4. Envy
5. Pride
6. Shame

The idea goes that brands can therefore generate a sale if they either create or augment at least
one of these emotions and that when enough of them are present, the “change occurs within the
buyer’s emotional state and a purchase decision becomes inevitable.” Organisations therefore
need to understand their target audience in order to know how to trigger certain responses.

According to the Market Enhancement Group, these responses are most likely to happen if
people trust a brand and believe it is dependable and reliable. Emotional responses also depend
on having confidence in an organisation, so they must convince prospective customers that they
have the knowledge, expertise and desire to meet their needs. Finally, they must convey the
sense that they have the customer’s best interests at heart and are sensitive to their needs.

They need to base their identity on themes, ideas and compelling stories that resonate with their
target audience.

Copycat brands imitate the name, logo, package design or even products of a leader brand. This is
not a rare phenomenon, but a widespread occurrence in the current market. The imitation of products
can vary across different cases. Some copycat brands are very transparent in their actions, while
others are more subtle when it comes to imitating the competition. However, copycats generally
share a common goal, which is to attempt to free-ride on positive brand-associations build by the
copied brand, often a brand leader, such as product quality. As imitations are often priced below the
leader brands, leader brands are at risk of suffering loss of sales or having their brand equity
damaged. Understanding consumers' thought process when dealing with imitation would point us in
the right direction to comprehend how brand imitation functions and which factors are of influence.

The assessment of copycat brands may not only be affected by the extent of similarity between
products of the copycat and leader brand, but also on the state of mind of the person who assesses it,
i.e. how brand loyal the person is and to which brand the loyalty is directed towards.
 COMPETITORS

It is said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. But when faced with a copycat
competitor risking your business, it might not seem so at all. Unfortunately there is not much you
can do to stop them. But there are a few things you can do to protect your brand.

1. Cover all legal bases

Patents, provisional patents on ideas, trademarks are all important. They will cover your back if
you ever need to go the legal route.

2. Confront the copycat whenever possible

Mostly people copy ideas because they are working. A few times, someone might not even
realize the implication of what they are doing. Contact them and let them know that you do not
appreciate what is happening. Call them out publicly in a way they can’t avoid or pretend
ignorance. It won’t always work, but at least they’ll know that you are watching them.

3. Offer Superior Service

Products can be copied, but service can be a different matter altogether. Many customers find
service as important as the quality of the product, so this is one area in which you can deliver and
expect results.

4. Don’t stop Innovating

As a business you can’t stop innovating, even when shackled with the fear of copycats. Keep in
touch with your customers and markets. Commit to understanding their needs and keep trying to
fulfill them. That will keep you ahead of the game.

5. Don’t let them get you down

Copycat competitors are a way of life. Accepting the fact instead of stressing over it will help
keep your focus where it should be. Staying focussed on your growth, your customers and
innovation instead of getting caught up in watching who is copying you is the only way to deal
positively with this.
 Case study
The Entrepreneurial Copycat: A Case Study On How to Succeed

Some 30 years ago, I began work on my first book: Sweat Equity which profiled America’s best
small companies. I thought it would be fun to go back and revisit some of the lessons that my co-
author Geoffrey N. Smith and I came up with, the ones--like this extremely counter-intuitive
idea.--that have stood the test of time.

It is one thing to say as we did that an entrepreneurial idea doesn't have to be original. It is quite
another to say that outright copying is entrepreneurial. But it can be. You can play Pepsi to Coca-
Cola KO +0.16% or Avis to Hertz. But there has to be a need in the marketplace. Nine times out

of ten that need is called "eliminating a monopoly (or near monopoly." Introduce competition
and you have filled a need: You have introduced an alternative to what exists..

While easy to say, it is far harder to do. You have to know the marketplace intimately to spot the
opportunity. That's a key reason that people who leave big companies to create their own
business in a related field usually set up shop near their former employer. It keeps them close to
the market they know best. That market is either one their former employer did not serve well, or
it's a market searching for a second source of a material, service or supply it needs.

That alternative supplier is likely to be a copycat entrepreneur.

Here are two situations where copying someone else's idea works.

1. A company suddenly finds itself dependent on the supplier of one product or service. A
computer company may be buying all its keyboards from a single manufacturer; an ice cream
company might be getting all its milk from one diary. The company becomes worried that it sole
supplier might go out of business or be crippled by a strike or start charging exorbitant rates.
That concern creates an opportunity for an entrepreneur who can (also) provide the worried
company with what it needs.

2. Copying also works where the market is so big and the product so basic that there is plenty of
room for more than one supplier. Soft drinks, car rentals and gasoline stations are simple
examples. In either case, "all" the entrepreneur has to do is provide a "me-too" product.
 Case study from Control-Bit Technologies!

Control-Bit Technologies is a software manufacturing company that has specialized in the field
of computerized security systems since 1985.

Our software has been installed in banks, military bases, high-tech facilities, courts and other
places, with many years of successful operation, close personal service and support. Our
products use the most advanced software tools, meeting the customers’ needs and adapting to
various kinds of hardware can be achieved quickly and inexpensively.

SESAM is an excellent cost-effective site management software system, which enables easy
integration of diverse systems into a simple and intuitive control and reporting command center.
SESAM works in Client/Server mode over networks, the intranet, and Internet. SESAM is ideal
for industrial complexes, campuses, hotels, shopping centers, correctional, municipal, and other
facilities.SESAM is a vendor-independent system that can be easily integrated into previously
installed equipment from different vendors. New hardware systems are easily installed with no
need to redefine existing applications.

Database and Challanges

We are using Firebird SQL, which is stable, quick, and free (since version 1.5 in 2007, now
using version 2.5.2).

Our applications use multiple databases, for various purposes: System configuration database,
automatic event logging, photo archiving, and more.

Part of our solutions is to run multi-node hot backups, and remote worker nodes, which requires
semi real-time database replication.

A hot backup solution includes a primary server that replicated its databases to the secondary
standby server.

Big projects include multiple hot backups, and more that 20 remote worker nodes. The master
active server replicates data to all nodes, over LANs and WANs. Some installations are based on
slow radio networks, a fact that adds more challenges to achieving a well functioning product
which is based on databases.

CopyCat Implementation

We replicate multiple databases to multiple nodes. Some databases are being modified less
frequently (system configuration), while others are being updated every second (history logging).
Each database has its own record size, update frequency, and network connection speed. We are
running multiple processes: one process for each master database. Each replication process has a
separate thread per replication node, since some nodes may be off-line, and the network speed to
each node is different.

Technical details

 10 GB — the size of the history database, old records are automatically cleared
 2,000,000 records in history database (limit is only because older history is not required)
 Approximately 50,000 new records per day (depends on customer application)

Customer Support

During the development and integration of CopyCat into our products, we need technical
support. We are impressed by the quick and professional support, including remote session into
our computer.
 CHAPTER-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Grossman and Shapiro (1988) studied the case when the quality of the product is not
observable. Much as the paper modeled products along both dimensions of status and quality,
status utility is modeled to be dependent on the brand itself and independent of the number of
buyers of the product. They concluded that policies that deter copycats may not improve social
welfare.

Dhar and Hoch (1997) define private labels are as those products owned, controlled and sold
exclusively by a retailer and for what the retailers must accept all responsibility from developing,
sourcing, warehousing and merchandising to marketing such as branding, packaging, promoting
and even advertising.

Bontems et al. (1999) researched on private brands quality and their impact on national brand. If
private label have low quality it can’t compete with national brand and national brand
manufacturers no need to worry to sell their products. If the private label quality is high, they
might have stiff competition with national brand.

Padmanabhan (1999) in his article “Business experience, product lines of dealers and farmers
loyalty to dealer for pesticides in southern Tamil Nadu” conducted that the brand loyalty, which
revealed that the price of the preferred brand, efficiency of the preferred brand and influence of
advertisement significantly influenced the brand loyalty. Only when the price of a particular
brand is comparatively low, the farmers would naturally prefer to low priced brand. Otherwise
farmers would naturally continue to purchase the same brand.

Gabrielsen & Suogared (2000) explained that why National Brand manufacturers increase their
price when retailer introduce or sell store brand. They found out that the national brand
manufacturer offered a low wholesale price product to retailer with a condition, that retailer not
allow to sold or introduced private brand in that product category. If the retailer will launch or
sell retailer brand, then the retailer will receive national brand at high price It found that, first
type of customers are loyal and second type are opportunist consumer.

Srinivasan (2000) in his article “Consumer perception towards processed fruits and vegetable
products” revealed that, consumer with higher educational level was found to consume more
processed products. The quantities of processed fruit and vegetable products were consumed
more in high income group. The tolerance limit of price increase identified was less than 5 per
cent, any price change above this limit, would result in discontinuance of the use of the
processed product. Consumers preferred processed products because of convenience of ready-to-
eat form.

Ailawadi et.al.(2001) Studied that the store brand can’t compete with National Brands in
national advertising & high promotions. Store brand product can compete with national brand by
offering discounts to consumer in their price. It can vary as per product categories from twenty to
thirty percent. Consumers prefer these store brands as they found fine quality without
compromising. However, National Brand manufacturers have to suffer due to large cost on
advertising and sales promotion. Since National Brands sold a large share of product in
department stores, it can impact negatively over an extensive period of time.

Gaur and Waheed (2002) on their study “A Study of buying behaviour for branded fine rice”
conducted a study on buying behaviour for branded fine rice in Chennai and Coimbatore city.
The study indicated that retailers were ranked as the prime source of information and the family
members as the next important source of information about the branded fine rice. Rice mandy
formed the major source of purchase for Chennai (73.00%) and Coimbatore (70.00%)
households. Quality and image of the brand were ranked as first and second factors influencing
brand preference in both Chennai and Coimbatore cities.

Chintagunta et al. (2002) researched the food segment. Researchers proved that growth of
retailer brand generates a reduction in the price of the leading National branded product of India.
Baldinger et al. (2002) explained the significance of domestic access for a private label to
understand its acceptance, augmentation and expansion. Private Label is made wide reach due to
price, variety and value of the product.

Goldman (2003) indicated that the Retailers make an effort to capture market share with the
help of its own brand. This study found out that at the start the quality was not a significant
characteristic while developing product but later on the private label quality improved.

Ailawadi & Keller (2004) analyzed about the loyalty of store in multiple product categories.
They explained that loyalty toward store can be developed with the help of promotions in the
store.

Rajarashmi and Sudarsana (2004) in their study “Buyer behaviour of home appliances with
special reference to microwave products in Bangalore city” revealed that, almost all sample
respondents preferred branded products and if their favorite brand is not available in the retail
shop, they will go for another store and purchase their favorite brand. If it is not available in the
market, the respondents were ready to postpone their purchase decision.

Davies & Brito, (2004) result is that effective consumer choice is likely to be reduced as the
number of brands diminishes, in particular where support for secondary brands is taken away,
reducing inter-brand competition to the point where only the leading brands survive through
continuous new product and packaging design to take on own-label goods. The decline in
secondary brands, in a number of product categories in the major stores, suggests that this trend
is already emerging.

Bontemps et al. (2005) Without branded goods widely stocked across the retailer class, though,
there will be significantly reduced inter-retailer competition adversely affecting consumer
welfare, where price rivalry may be dampened and retailers concentrate on non-price methods of
increasing store loyalty, raising consumers’ switching costs and therefore reducing the elasticity
of their own-label products.
Aron M. Levin (2005) in their study “A Multi-Attribute Analysis of Preferences for Online and
Offline Shopping: Differences across Products, Consumers, and Shopping Stages” stated that a
multi-part survey was administered to assess how product attribute evaluations drive differences
in online/offline shopping preferences between products, between consumers, and between
stages of the shopping experience. Two groups of participants - a student sample and a sample
from a national survey panel - were asked to rate their likelihood of shopping online or offline
for each of a series of products, both at the search stage and at the purchase stage. They were
then asked to rate the importance of attributes that might have differential importance for
products like clothing and books, and to rate the extent to which they thought each attribute was
delivered better online or offline.

Adeolu B. Ayanwale (2005) in their study “The Influence of Advertising on Consumer Brand
Preference” mentioned that the proliferation of assorted brands of food drinks in the country has
led to cut-throat competition for increased market share being witnessed among the operators in
the food drink industry. When competition is keen and the consumers are faced with brand
choice in the market, it becomes imperative for the manufacturers to understand the major
factors that can attract the attention of buyers to his own brand. These then form the basis for
marketing panning and action.

Kubendran and Vanniarajan (2005) in their study “Comparative analysis of rural and urban
consumers on milk consumption” studied that, the change in consumption pattern was due to
changes in food habits. If income and urbanization increase among consumers, the percentage of
income spent on consumption increased. The urban consumers preferred mostly branded
products compared to rural consumers. The most significant factors influencing buying decisions
were accessibility, quality, regular supply, door delivery and the mode of payment.

Ramasamy (2005) in their article “Consumer Behaviour towards Instant Food Products”
reported that the buying behaviour is vastly influenced by awareness and attitude towards the
product. Commercial advertisements over television was said to be the most important source of
information, followed by displays in retail outlets. Consumers do build opinion about a brand on
the basis of which various product features play an important role in decision making process. A
large number of respondents laid emphasis on quality and felt that price is an important factor
while the others attached importance to image of manufacturer.

Vincent (2006) in his article “A study on brand consciousness among children and its effect on
family buying behaviour in Bangalore city”. elicited that quality was an important factor that
draws consumer towards branded products. Branded products were accepted as good quality
products. People do not mind paying extra for branded products, as they get value for money.
Media is a key constituent in promoting and influencing brand. A child’s insistence affects
family’s buying behaviour. Children are highly aware and conscious of branded items. Although
unbranded products sometimes give same satisfaction as branded products, customers would still
prefer to purchase a branded product.

Shyamala Mathan Sankar (2006) on his study “Consumer Perception of Global vs. Local
Brands: The Indian Car Industry” said that consumer perception of global brands vs. local brands
in the Indian car industry. Consumer brand perceptions have substantial implications in
Marketing. The study explores and understands consumer perceptions of global and local car
brands in India by accomplishing the secondary objectives. The secondary objectives were
achieved by highlighting the factors that affect consumer preference for global brands; by
examining the effects of country of origin on consumer perceptions of global brands and local
brands; and by studying the effects of consumer ethnocentrism towards global brands.

Dr. D.Kamalaveni, Dr. S.Kalaiselvi, and Ms. P.P.Saranya Devi (2010) in their study “Buying
Decisions of Mens’ Shirts: Single Brand Show Rooms Vs Multi Brand Retail Outlets
Perspective” stated that India is witnessing change in life styles of large section of the
population. The need to understand the emerging markets and consumers has become a big
challenge for the corporate world especially in creating and managing a powerful brand. By
developing a powerful brand, corporates can establish 'brand equity' and the equity assists firms
in a variety of ways to manage competition and to maintain market share. Branding is one of the
most effective competitive tools and it is a challenging task for the marketer to nurture a brand
into a strong, profitable brand.
Dr. S. Subadra (2010) on their study “Consumer Perceptions and Behaviour: A Study with
Special Reference to Car Owners in Namakkal District” reviewed that the market is now
predominantly consumer driver. The focus is shifting for product based marketing to need based
marketing. Consumer is given many options to decide. Passenger car segment is no exception to
this general trend. An effective market communication is imperative for reaching the target
audience. So it is important that we study the consumer perceptions and behaviour of the car
owners which will give us feedback on how marketing strategies can be worked.

G. Vani, M. Ganesh Babu and N. Panchanatham (2010) in his article “Toothpaste Brands –A
Study of Consumer Behavior in Bangalore City” focused that the external factors like
demographic, social, cultural ,price, quality ,product attributes etc for buying toothpaste. The
market share of any product is highly determined by the purchasing behavior of the consumers.
Following study is conducted by the researcher to find out the behavior of the consumers, to
analyze the preference of consumers, & consumer awareness. Descriptive research design was
adopted and the data is collected through primary and secondary sources. The method adopted
for conducting survey is questionnaire; Simple random sampling technique was adopted for
selecting the consumers.

Attiya Kanwal (2011) on his study “Consumer preference of International brands over local
brands” aimed at determining consumer preference of international brands instead if national or
local brands. Consumer evaluates products based on information cues, which are intrinsic and
extrinsic. If a consumer is satisfied with a product, he will buy it again, become loyal and over
time develop a relationship with the brand. There are various factors which influence consumer
purchase decision. The price of a brand plays a fundamental role in the consumer’s choice of
brand. If a brand is priced too high then a consumer will avoid it. The price of a brand is an
indication of the quality of the brand as well.

Prof Shital Vakhariya and Dr. Vilas Chopde (2011) in their study on “A Study of the
Consumer Preference of Private Labels over National Labels in Apparel Segment of the
Departmental Stores in Nagpur Region" pointed out that as per FICCI Ernst & Young 2007
report, (taken from- The Marketing White book 2009-10), the retail sector in India was worth
$280 billion, out of which organized retail worth $14 billion. In the beginning of 2010,
contribution to private sector in Garment segment to total turnover is 10% and it is expected to
cross 20% by 2012. As per the BMI India Retail Report, for the third-quarter of 2010, forecasts
the total retail sales will grow from US$ 353 billion in 2010 to US$ 543.2 billion by 2014. With
the expanding middle and upper class consumer base and increase in disposable income, the
scope of organized retailing is widening in India store brands.

Prof. Lakshmi Nair (2011) in her study “Private Labels Brands in Food & Grocery: The
Changing Perceptions of Consumers & Retailers in India- A Study in the Pune Region” viewed
that the private labels or store brands are on escalating journey for growth in last few years in
Indian market. The growth of private label brands (PLBs) is quite impressive in food and grocery
segment, in spite of presence of leading national manufacturers brands in most of the categories.
Though, initially PLBs were considered as cheap alternatives and therefore visible in copycat
and generic categories, today they are apart of well defined retail mix strategy, are developed in
value innovators and premium categories for profit maximization and customer loyalty.

Dr. Ramesh Sardar (2012) on his article “Brand Preference of Passenger Cars in Aurangabad
District” detailed that the analysis of marketing, a consumer behavior and brand preference of
passenger car is carried out in Aurangabad district of Maharashtra state. As a result, focusing on
an industry where brands, marketing knowledge and distribution networks have been important
determinants in the growth and survival of firms. It reaches distinct conclusions. The article
illustrates the analysis and interpretation of data. Finally it concludes with findings and
recommendations of the study which may be useful for general public as even the manufacturers
and dealers can understand the dimensions reflecting brand preference of passenger cars and
impact of all these factors on customer satisfaction.
 CHAPTER-3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES

 To study the consumer preference towards copycat brands.

 To study how people differentiate between the copycat brands original brands.
 To study the reasons for opting/ consuming copycat brands.
 To study the consumer as the purchase decision depends on it.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

The nature of the research is exploratory. The exploratory research is research conducted
for a problem that has not been studied more clearly, intended to establish priorities,
develop operational definitions and improve the final research design.

SAMPLING TECHNIQUES:

Convenience sampling technique was used for selecting the sample size. The selection of
the sampling unit is based on convenience of the researcher.

SAMPLE SIZE:

A sample of 100 respondents was selected for the purpose of research project.

TYPE OF DATA:

Primary data was used for the purpose of collection of data.

Primary data has been collected directly from sample respondents through questionnaire and
with the help of interview.
TECHNIQUES FOR ANALYSIS:

Percentage, Bar Graphs and Pie charts were used for data analysis.

Area of Study: Ludhiana City.

 CHAPTER-4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Table 4.1 : Gender of Respondents

Gender No. of respondents Percent

Male 58 58%

Female 42 42%

Total 100 100

Gender

42%
Male
Female
58%

Fig.No.4.1: Gender of Respondents

Interpretation:

The above pie chart represents the percentage of gender wise composition of survey
respondents. This suggests that, out of 100 respondents 58 were male and 42 were female in
the survey.
 Table No.4.2: Income of Respondents

Income (Rs) No. of Respondent %age

Upto 50,000 p.m. 5 5%
50,000-1,00,000 25 25%
1,00,000-5,00,000 35 35%
5,00,000-10,00,000 40 40%
10,00,000-15,00,000 30 30%
Total 100 100%

45%
40%
40%
35%
35%
30%
30%
25%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
5%
0%

Fig. No.4.2: Income of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
The above pie diagram showed that 40% of the respondent had income of Rs.5,00,000-
10,00,000, 35% having Rs 1,00,000-5,00,000, 30% having Rs.10,00,000-15,00,000, 25% having
Rs.50,000 to 1,00,000 and 5% of the respondent’s income upto 50,000 p.m.
 Table No.4.3: Education of Respondents

Educational Qualification No. of Respondent %age

Matric 27 27%
Graduation 23 23%
Post graduation 20 20%
Professional 30 30%
Total 100 100%

Educational Qualification

30% 27%
Matric
Graduation
Post graduation
20% 23%
Professional

Figure No.4.3: Education of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
The above pie chart shows that 27% of the respondents are matric, 23% are graduation, 20% are
post graduation and 30% of the respondents are professional.
 Table No.4.4: Occupation Profile of Respondents

Occupation No. of Respondent %age

Student 12 12%
Professional 8 8%
Service 18 18%
Business 58 58%
Higher life 4 4%
Total 100 100%

70%

60% 58%

50%

40%

30%

20% 18%
12%
10% 8%
4%

0%
Student Professional Service Business Higher life

Fig. No.4.4: Occupation Profile of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
The above bar graph showed that the occupation of the respondents i.e. 12% student, 8%
professional, 18% professional, 58% business and 17% higher life.
1. Which type of brand do you prefer?
Table No.4.5: Preference of brand
particulars No. of Respondent %age
Copycat brands 30 30%
Original brands 43 43%
Both 27 27%
Total 100 100%

27% 30%

Copycat brands
Original brands
Both
43%

Fig. No.4.5: Preference of brand

Interpretation:
The above pie chart shows that 43% of the respondents prefer original brand, 30% of
respondents prefer copycat brands and 27% of the respondents prefer both brands.
2. Why do you think people prefer copycat brands?
Table 4.6: Reasons for preference
Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Cheap 42 42%
Reliability 15 15%
Variety 3 3%
Trust 15 15%
Awareness 8 8%
Others 7 7%
Total 100 100%

45% 42%
40%

35%

30%

25%

20%
15% 15%
15%

10% 8% 7%
5% 3%

0%
Cheap Reliability Variety Trust Awareness Others

Fig.4.6: Reasons for preference

Interpretation:
The above bar graph shows that 42% of the people prefer copycat brand because it’s cheap, 15%
of respondents think it’s reliable and trustworthy, 8% of respondents believe it’s awareness, 7%
of the respondents thinks it’s other reason and 3% of the respondents think it’s because of
variety.
 3. What things help you to choose between copycat brands & original brands?

Table No.4.7: Differentiate between copycat brands & original brands

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Material/ quality 47 47%
Price 29 29%
Brand name/ logo 21 21%
Style 3 3%
Total 100 100%

3%

21%
47% Material/ quality
Price

29% Brand name/ logo

Style

Fig.No.4.7: Differentiate between copycat brands & original brands

Interpretation:
The above pie chart shows that the respondents differentiate product on the basis of 47% of
material/ quality, 29% of price, 21% of brand name/ logo and rest of 3% style.
 4. Rate the copycat brands/ product if ones used.
Table No.4.8: Rating
Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Highly satisfactory 5 5%
Satisfactory 29 29%
Neutral 41 41%
Dissatisfactory 20 20%
Highly dissatisfactory 5 5%
Total 100 100%

45%
41%
40%

35%
29%
30%

25%
20%
20%

15%

10%
5% 5%
5%

0%
Highly Satisfactory Neutral Dissatisfactory Highly
satisfactory dissatisfactory

Fig. No.4.8: Rating

Interpretation:
It is interpreted that majority of the respondents are neutral for their response, 29% are satisfied,
20% are dissatisfied and 5% are both highly satisfied and highly dissatisfied.
5. Why do you think people prefer original brands?

Table No.4.9: Preference towards original brands

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Durability 21 21%
Status 59 59%
Expensive 18 18%
Uniquiness 2 2%
Total 100 100%

2%

18% 21%

Durability
Status
Expensive
Uniquiness

59%

Fig. No.4.9: Preference towards original brands

Interpretation:
Out of 100 respondents 59% of them purchase original brands because of status, 21% durability,
18% expensive and rest of 2% uniquiness.
6. Which category of copycat products would you like to buy?

Table No.4.10: categorization of product

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Clothes 29 29%
Footwear 3 3%
Bags 51 51%
Cosmetics 15 15%
Food items 2 2%
Total 100 100%

60%
51%
50%

40%
29%
30%

20% 15%

10% 3% 2%

0%
Clothes Footwear Bags Cosmetics Food items

Fig. No.4.10: categorization of product

Interpretation:
The above bar graph reveals that 51% of the respondents like to buy bags, 29% likes to buy
clothes, 15% likes to buy cosmetics, 3% likes to buy footwear and remaining 2% of respondents
like to buy food items.
7. What factors help for the growth of copycat brand?

Table No.4.11: Growth of copycat brands

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Consumer’s perception 15 15%
Value 5 5%
Awareness 59 59%
Satisfaction 21 21%
Total 100 100%

21% 15% 5%
Consumer’s perception
Value
Awareness
59%
Satisfaction

Fig. No.4.11: Growth of copycat brands

Interpretation:
Out of 100 respondents, 59% of the respondents believes that copycat brands are growing
because of lack of knowledge among the customers, 21% of respondents believe that purchasing
fake products gives them more satisfaction, 15% of respondents think it is because of consumer
perception as some of them don’t like to spend more money on the products which are readily
available at cheaper prices and 5% thinks wearing copycat brands will help them to be on the
same level as the people wearing original brands.
8. How often do you buy copycat brands?

Table No.4.12: Often purchase of copycat brand

Particulars No. of Respondent %age

Weekly 14 14%
Monthly 60 60%
Yearly 12 12%
Special occasions 14 14%
Total 100 100%

14% 14%
12% Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
60%
Special occasions

Fig. No.4.12: Often purchase of copycat brand

Interpretation:
The above pie chart shows that 60% of the respondents purchase copycat product monthly, 14%
either purchase weekly or on special occasion and remaining 12% purchases yearly.
9. Do you bargain even while buying the copycat products?

Table No.4.13: Bargaining Power

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Yes 11 11%
No 69 69%
Sometimes 12 12%
Occasionally 18 18%
Total 100 100%

10%
16%

Yes
11% No
Sometimes
Occasionally

63%

Fig.No.4.13: Bargaining Power

Interpretation:
Out of 100 respondents, 63% of the respondents do not bargain while purchasing copycat
products, 16% bargain occasionally, 11% bargain sometimes and 10% definitely bargains.
10. Do you shop online for copycat products?

Table No.4.14: Online shopping

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Yes 32 32%
No 53 53%
Sometimes 25 25%
Total 100 100%

23% 29%

Yes
No

48% Sometimes

Fig.No.4.14: Online shopping

Interpretation:
It is interpreted that 48% of the respondents do not prefer online shopping of copycat products,
29% prefer online shopping and 23% prefer sometimes online shopping.
11. Are you price sensitive when it comes to buying original brands?
Table 4.15: Sensitivity towards original brands
Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Highly satisfactory 19 19%
Satisfactory 32 32%
Neutral 21 21%
Dissatisfactory 20 20%
Highly dissatisfactory 8 8%
Total 100 100%

35% 32%

30%

25% 21%
20%
19%
20%

15%
8%
10%

5%

0%
Highly Satisfactory Neutral Dissatisfactory Highly
satisfactory dissatisfactory

Fig. 4.15: Sensitivity towards original brands

Interpretation:
The above bar graph shows that 32% of the respondents are satisfied with original brands
because they might be status conscious, 21% of the respondents are neutral because they prefer
both ‘copycat product and original product’, 20% are dissatisfied because original brands are
very expensive, 19% are highly satisfied because of the quality that original brands offer and
remaining 8% highly dissatisfied.
12. Whose opinion do you seek while buying copycat brands?

Table No.4.16: Opinion seeking while buying copycat production

Particulars No. of Respondent %age
Family 33 33%
Friends 15 15%
Individual 32 32%
Internet 15 15%
Others 5 5%
Total 100 100%

33% 32%
35%

30%

25%

20%
15% 15%
15%

10%
5%
5%

0%
Family Friends Individual Internet Others

Fig. No.4.16: Opinion seeking while buying copycat production

Interpretation:
The above survey shows that 33% of respondents are family oriented so they purchase products
according to the needs of the family, while 32% of the respondents care for their own needs,
15% of the respondents either rely on friends or on internet and remaining 5% depends on other
information.
 CHAPTER-5
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Copycat product is a product that has been designed, branded or packaged to look exactly like
that of a well established competitor and it is cheaper than the original product.

It is found that:

 The percentage of gender wise composition of survey respondents. This suggests that,
out of 100 respondents 58 were male and 42 were female in the survey.

 40% of the respondent had income of Rs.5,00,000-10,00,000, 35% having Rs 1,00,000-

5,00,000, 30% having Rs.10,00,000-15,00,000, 25% having Rs.50,000 to 1,00,000 and
5% of the respondent’s income upto 50,000 p.m.
 27% of the respondents are matric, 23% are graduation, 20% are post graduation and
30% of the respondents are professional.
 The occupation of the respondents i.e. 12% student, 8% professional, 18% professional,
58% business and 17% higher life.
 43% of the respondents prefer original brand, 30% of respondents prefer copycat brands
and 27% of the respondents prefer both brands.
 42% of the people prefer copycat brand because it’s cheap, 15% of respondents think it’s
reliable and trustworthy, 8% of respondents believe it’s awareness, 7% of the respondents
thinks it’s other reason and 3% of the respondents think it’s because of variety.
 The respondents differentiate product on the basis of 47% of material/ quality, 29% of
price, 21% of brand name/ logo and rest of 3% style.
 Majority of the respondents are neutral for their response, 29% are satisfied, 20% are
dissatisfied and 5% are both highly satisfied and highly dissatisfied.
 59% of them purchase original brands because of status, 21% durability, 18% expensive
and rest of 2% uniquiness.
 51% of the respondents like to buy bags, 29% likes to buy clothes, 15% likes to buy
cosmetics, 3% likes to buy footwear and remaining 2% of respondents like to buy food
items.
 59% of the respondents believes that copycat brands are growing because of lack of
knowledge among the customers, 21% of respondents believe that purchasing fake
products gives them more satisfaction, 15% of respondents think it is because of
consumer perception as some of them don’t like to spend more money on the products
which are readily available at cheaper prices and 5% thinks wearing copycat brands will
help them to be on the same level as the people wearing original brands.
 60% of the respondents purchase copycat product monthly, 14% either purchase weekly
or on special occasion and remaining 12% purchases yearly.
 63% of the respondents do not bargain while purchasing copycat products, 16% bargain
occasionally, 11% bargain sometimes and 10% definitely bargains.
 48% of the respondents do not prefer online shopping of copycat products, 29% prefer
online shopping and 23% prefer sometimes online shopping.
 32% of the respondents are satisfied with original brands because they might be status
conscious, 21% of the respondents are neutral because they prefer both ‘copycat product
and original product’, 20% are dissatisfied because original brands are very expensive,
19% are highly satisfied because of the quality that original brands offer and remaining
8% highly dissatisfied.
 33% of respondents are family oriented so they purchase products according to the needs
of the family, while 32% of the respondents care for their own needs, 15% of the
respondents either rely on friends or on internet and remaining 5% depends on other
information.
 CONCLUSION

The goal of this study was to investigate whether brand loyalty plays a role in the evaluation of
copycats or imitation products. The findings suggest that a loyal customer base does not protect a
brand from copycat strategies from the competition in certain situations. The risk is particularly valid
in the case where a major brand is the copycat, as customers will evaluate the copycat more
positively, if they are more loyal to the leader brand. However, having competition copying the
leader brand will improve the overall evaluation of the leader brand, as copycat behavior confirms
the superiority of the leader brand. On the other hand, brands that are considering to adopt copycat
strategies should also consider different factors. Imitating a leader brand will result in positive
responses from loyal customers of the leader brand, but cause a negative response from consumers
that are loyal to the copycat brand. Additionally, consumers will overall evaluate the leader brand
better, if it is being copied, resulting in a relative worse evaluation for the copycat.

This indicates that in the presence of copycat behavior, the consumers’ response to both the leader
brand, as well as the copycat brand is not straightforward, as the bipolar direction of the effect of
brand loyalty on copycat behavior make the net effect ambiguous. However, it can be concluded that
the findings suggest that leader brands with a loyal following are not completely immune from
copycats. Simultaneously, leader brands should not always perceive copycats as a negative issue, as
it can increase the overall evaluation of the leader brand.
 ANNEXURE-I
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Dr. Ramesh Sardar (2012) on his article “Brand Preference of Passenger Cars in
Aurangabad District” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Vol.2 Issue 3,
ISSN 2231 5780.
 Desh Raj Singh (2010) “A Comparative Study of Customer Satisfaction toward
Performance of Hero Honda, TVs and Bajaj Bikes” Field research U.P. Technical
University, Lucknow.
 Dr. D.Kamalaveni, Dr. S.Kalaiselvi, and Ms. P.P.Saranya Devi (2010) “Buying
Decisions of Mens’ Shirts: Single Brand Show Rooms Vs Multi Brand Retail Outlets
Perspective” International Refereed Research Journal www.researchersworld.com Vol. –
I, Issue –1
 G. Vani, M. Ganesh Babu and N. Panchanatham (2010) in his article “Toothpaste Brands
–A Study of Consumer Behavior in Bangalore City” Journal of Economics and
Behavioral Studies Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 27-39, Dec 2010.
 Shyamala Mathan Sankar (2006) “Consumer Perception of Global vs. Local Brands: The
Indian Car Industry” MA dissertation
 Vincent, N., (2006), “A study on brand consciousness among children and its effect on
family buying behaviour in Bangalore city”, Indian Journal of Marketing, 36 (1): 12-18.
 Kubendran, V. and Vanniarajan, T., (2005) “Comparative analysis of rural and urban
consumers on milk consumption” Indian Journal of Marketing, 35 (12): 27-30.
 Ramasamy, K., Kalaivanan, G. and Sukumar, S., (2005), Consumer Behaviour towards
Instant Food Products. Indian Journal Marketing, 24 (2-3): 55-59.

i
 ANNEXURE-II
QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Profile:
1. Name :
2. Age :
3. Gender : Male Female
4. Income : Upto 50,000 p.m. 50,000 – 1,00,000
1,00,000-5,00,000 5,00,000-10,00,000
10,00,00-15,00,000
5. Educational Qualification:
Matric Graduation
Post Graduation Professional
6. Occupation :
Student Professional
Service Business
Higher life

General Information:
1. Which type of brand do you prefer?
Copycat brands Original brands
Both
2. Why do you think people prefer copycat brands?
Cheap Reliability
Variety Trust
Awareness Others

3. What things help you to choose between copycat brands & original brands?
Material / quality Price
Brand name/logo Style
4. Rate the copycat brands/ product if ones used.
Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral
Dissatisfactory Highly dissatisfactory

ii
5. Why do you think people prefer original brands?
Durability Status
Expensive Uniquiness

6. Which category of products would you like to buy?

Clothes Footwear
Bags Cosmetics
Food items
7. What factors help for the growth of copycat brand?
Consumer’s perception Value
Awareness Satisfaction
8. How often do you buy copycat brands?
Weekly Monthly
Yearly Special occasions

9. Do you bargain even while buying the copycat products?

Yes No
Sometimes Occasionally

10. Do you shop online for copycat products?

Yes No
Sometimes

11. Are you price sensitive when it comes to buying original brands?
Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory Neutral
Dissatisfactory Highly dissatisfactory

12. Whose opinion do you seek while buying copycat brands?

Family Friends
Individual Internet
Others

iii