By and large I don't believe in passion,not in the workplace at least. At the individual level its problematic but at the organisational level its a disaster for collective action by workers and a key way in which our rights are destroyed and pay and conditions are eroding.
However I'm not completely immune and although I try to keep work and my passions entirely separate, recently there has been some overlap. I love watches, I just love them - be it an iconic Omega Seamaster Pro, a more little known but amazing Casio Oceanus S100 or a G-Shock MTG. I am obsessed with watches. I like reading about them, I like handling them and I like trading them with other watch collectors.
A little while ago a student came to be and said that they wanted to do their thesis on counterfeit goods. I said OK and we had a look at some papers together. As we were talking I saw this table:
We talked about it and the student left. Then A little while later I realised that while we had been talking I'd scribed "mostly bollocks" on the table. Why had I scribed this and in what context has I meant this?
I then realised that it was related to watches. If you get into watches and you build up a collection at some stage you run up against counterfeits and therefore you have to develop a working knowledge of them and where they come from. So why did I think it was bollocks?
Because like a lot of responses to a problem, the underlying message is one of education - if we inform people about X, they will stop doing Y. Except I already suspected from my hobby this wasn't actually true and the opposite was occurring. So how do to turn that into a piece of your actual peer reviewed literature?
So I went away and spend a few months collecting data on the buyers of counterfeit watches, the sellers and also in some ways most interestingly the producers. I ended up with about 10,000 data points which I analysed via Nvivo and this seems to confirm my thinking and also add some other surprisingly things around supply chain and customer service I'd never considered. For example, would you be surprised to know that many watch counterfeiters offer QC pictures to buyers?
Here comes the dull bit
So my upcoming work in this area critiques current thinking about Counterfeiting Avoidance Measures (CAMS) via the case of the conspicuous counterfeiting of luxury Swiss watches. It uses this case to produce an analysis of consumers not as passive purchasers or subject to deceptive practices, but co-producers of knowledge who are involved in complex interactions with each other and actively engage with counterfeiters. This in turn leads to improvements in the quality of counterfeit goods and simultaneously increase the expertise of others in their community of interest about how to obtain ‘high quality’ counterfeit goods. It further argues that this interaction and dialogue assists economic intermediaries (‘Trusted Dealers’) in ensuring that their customers receive watches of the standard that they expect and reduce the need to provide after-sales service. Each stage in this process provides its own challenge to CAMS.
It also challenges this underpinning idea that education of consumers or their exposure to expert views in a reference group (information susceptibility) will make them less likely to buy counterfeit goods but rather may helps them to be more selective in obtaining counterfeit goods of higher quality.
* I should point out that the table represents Cesareo and Stottinger's summary of the extant literature not their actual position which in many ways in similar to mine - especially around what they call Hybrid consumers.