Final word on fakes
- From: Frank Adam <fajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:51:43 +1000
Well, at least until the next reply or thread. :)
I'm not to the left nor to the right on this, but the fence is
starting to hurt my butt, but must say the argument is getting a
little old and tiring. So let's put wht we've learnt nicely together,
each draw your own conclusion and let it be... Right, as if. ;-)
Q : Are fakes illegal to produce, buy and sell ?
Anti: Yes, they are stealing from the company.
Pro : They are a natural byproduct of fame.
Me : Yes on both, but the former is definitive, the latter is
Decision is Yes.
Q : Are fakes immoral ?
Anti: Yes, they stride against normal business practices and steal
from others hard work.
Pro : Not any more than company espionage, price fixing, restriction
of trade and extraordinary profiteering.
Me : Yes on both, but one wrong doesn't justify another.
However, we certainly are done over at many checkouts by lesser than
expected quality of products, products which contain equal parts, but
not equal prices. Products which for all we know and suspect have been
copied off one company by another. The Japanese are supposedly the
biggest copiers and design pinchers of the world, yet they are also
one of the most technologically and financially advanced, because we
all gladly buy their products.
Advertising is a form of mind manipulation. The blimp doesn't fly
above venues to show us that we can fly, it's there so you remember
what's written on the side of it.
Radio and TV commercials are not louder than the normal program, they
are simply compressed, meaning that all silences are removed. The
result is that the advertisers scream their message into our brains.
Even when you say $%#$%&^ this Sony advert, you already have sony in
So.. It's fair to say that "morality" and "business" should not be
mentioned in the same sentence, so this question and all reference to
morality, be it addressed to legit or fake is moot.
Decision is Yes.
Q : Are fakes hurting a company ?
Anti: Yes, they impact the prestige of the brand and reduce the
customer base, by their reluctance of buying a product which may be
thought of as fake.
Pro : No, they advertise the product.
Me : Yes on both counts. The question is which is more relevant.
The prestige of a brand can not be reduced by a fake. Prestige is
based on your product's quality. Nobody will look at a fake product
and think that the real deal is not good. Rather the opposite "what do
you expect, it's a cheap fake"
Customer base can be true, especially yuppies will probably be
affected by that thinking. However, with high priced and prestigous
products, the customer base is a limited sector of the public. These
people tend to mingle in their own group and will not be found to
question each others' ability to buy the legit product.
Advertise ? They certainly do that. People buy fakes because they like
them, or in order to impress others. This has a roll on effect, where
those who were impressed, will want to impress back. And when they do,
they will do so with a similarly "prestigous" fake or the real thing.
To think that the advertising factor of fakes is negligable is very
Decision is NO
Q : Are fakes hurting the customer ?
Anti: Yes, they fool the customer into buying an inferior product.
Pro : No, most fakes are poor quality.
Yes. The higher quality ones are designed purely to do so. This takes
the dishonesty factor another notch higher, since the customer
actually believes that he or she is buying a legit product.
However a lot of real brands are also poor quality, so(for a bonus
point) is selling a legal brand promoted as a quality brand hurting a
customer any more than selling a fake ?
A cheap fake can not be considered to be fooling a customer any more
than a perfectly legit brand selling a set of 99 tools at $20.00. You
get what you pay for.
Decision is NO.
2:2 It's a damn draw ! :)
There you go... have fun taking it apart. ;o)