Or so the Canadian Anti-Counterfeiting Network (CACN) would like you to think.
In a “special section” on counterfeiting in Saturday’s Toronto Star, Canada’s most widely read newspaper, the CACN ran three massive, half-page ads. The first featured a portrait shot of an adorable little girl, her puppy-dog eyes moist for the camera. Next to her in bold type: “WOULD YOU RISK HER LIFE?”
Well. Would you?
The section, all six pages of it, had a similarly biased tone. Counterfeiting is evil, here’s why, end of story. One major issue for the CACN and the Star, who clearly worked hand in hand on this one, is the apparent acceptance Canadians have for rip offs. We love a deal. What’s more, Canada has become a major transition point for counterfeit goods on their way to the US. We’re even a world leader in that infamous counterfeit trend: the guy in the movie theatre with a camcorder. And who said the rising dollar would hamper the film industry, huh?
Let’s consider couple things, here. First off, is counterfeiting really as evil and dangerous as the CACN would have you believe? Secondly, is the tone of the message here - guilt tripping, fear mongering, etc - really going to be effective, considering our already blasé attitude?
Counterfeiting “risks the health and welfare of Canadians who are exposed to poorly made and often dangerous goods,” reads one CACN advert. Even without evidence to back this statement, it is a reasonable argument. We should be able to trust that certain things, such as electrical products and pharmaceuticals, be genuine. Unregulated pharmaceutical drugs are dangerous - even if they don’t have negative health effects, they do negate the positive effects which can be life-savers. That said, the biggest victims of counterfeiting - fashion, film and recording companies - cannot use the same argument. A pirated copy of Spiderman won’t poison you, and those ripoff Gucci boots won’t fall apart as you’re free-climbing in Yosemite.
I would risk my daughter’s life to save a few grand. If I had a daughter.
As well, the CACN makes no mention of legitimate items containing potentially dangerous substances. The great Chinese toy recall, involving several companies, was in regards to licensed products. The pet food scare, again, occurred in legitimate factories. How many faulty car parts have led to massive recalls? Is everything dangerous for me? Isn’t this really an issue of undercutting profit margins? Isn’t this really about huge companies used to having their way, who are suddenly confronted with a real and serious challenge to their grip on the global economy?
Herein lies the issue that these companies are ignoring: what gave rise to the counterfeit industry?
The largest corporations and industries, for all their touting of the inherent positivity of market forces, cannot tolerate the ebbing of their control. As they inflate prices further and further (you’re telling me a
thousand dollars for a handbag is reasonable?) they alienate a larger and larger portion of the population. The kind of people who would NEVER spend that kind of money on a fashion item couldn’t care less about intellectual property. Making it worse for legitimate designers is the popular desire to be drenched in brands. People simply cannot afford to own the real stuff, but they also cannot be caught dead outside their front doors without sixteen logos. As you raise the price of your brand, as well as the desire for it, you invite counterfeiting. People know that your profit margins are in the hundreds of percentage points, that the twenty dollar version is only slightly inferior, and that no one can really tell the difference. Why would they spend the full amount? So screw it, if they can rock some sweet D&Gs for fifteen bucks, so be it.
With this attitude so pervasive in society, the heavy-handed message the CACN promotes will only serve to hold back their cause further. When I feel patronized, talked-down to, and generally taken to be ignorant, I usually ignore the message. One CACN message splashes the headline: “COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS FUND ORGANIZED CRIME.” So do illegal narcotics, and full-scale prohibition against them hasn’t stemmed their tide, has it? I think people have a real rationalization here:
If I could give twenty dollars to organized crime for fake sunglasses, or four hundred to some giant multinational corporation for real ones, I’ll go fake.
I can’t say I’d blame them, either.
Perhaps the fashion industry should embrace the existence of cheaper versions of their products, just as the recording industry has begun to turn a profit off downloadable music: iTunes and Napster, as examples. I’d love to see a Prada store with a discount section - cheaply made, ripoff versions of their stuff available for one tenth the price. Discerning tastes, with the wallet to match, would still toss away a small fortune on the genuine article, while us lower classes would still be able to send our money to the real thing. Wouldn’t it be better to get fifty bucks for the five hundred dollar shoes, rather than nothing?
They’ve successfully marketed their way to true need creation, without making their products accessible to the masses they’ve snared. What did they think was going to happen?
Share This
something to be dangerous and industry tests show it to be safe, I have a hard time with trust.
