Web Appendix A

Figure 1: Counterfeit products being sold in the Asian markets

Figure 2: Example of a simple fake logo

Figure 3: Examples of look-alike logos of well-known legitimate brands

Figure 4: Examples of a LLF, MLF and HLF logos used in Study 1a & 1b

Figure 5: Sample trial used in Study1a

Figure 6: Error percentages in the identification of whether a logo was fake or not- Study 1a

Figure 7: Response latencies in the identification of whether a logo was fake or not - Study 1a

Figure 8: Examples of some Random Level Fake Logos (RLFs)

Figure 9: Sample trial in Study 1b

Figure 10: Response latencies in Study 1b

Figure 11: Examples of fake F1 and F2 logos

Figure 12: Examples of fake F3 logos

Figure 13: Error percentages corresponding to the identification of whether a logo was fake or not in Study 2a

Figure 14: Response latencies corresponding to the identification of whether a logo was fake or not in Study 2a

Figure 15: Fake logos and chances of their identification as a fake

Figure 16: Response latencies in Study 2b

Figure 17: Response latencies of F2, F3 and OLs which differ significantly from each other

Figure 18: Fake logo examples with altered logo symbols

Figure 1. Counterfeit products being sold in the Asian markets

Figure 2. Example of a simple fake logo

Gucci versus Chanel(Both luxury brands)

BMW versus BYD(Both car manufacturers)

Toyoyta versus Geely(Both car manufacturers)

Lamborghini versus Arash(Both car manufacturers)

Oldsmobile versus Mahindra

(Both car manufacturers)

Pepsi versus Korean air(a soft drink and an

airline)

Figure 3. Examples of look-alike logos of well-known legitimate brands

Original Logo (OL)

Low-Level Fake (LLF)

Mid-Level Fake (MLF)

High-Level Fake(HLF)

Figure 4. Examples of a LLF, MLF, and HLF logos used in Study 1a & 1b

Figure 5. Sample trial used in Study1a

LLF MLF HLF OL05

101520253035

Chart Title

Logo condition

Erro

r %

Figure 6. Error percentages in the identification of whether a logo was fake or not- Study 1a.

(Error bars represent the standard error of the means)

Fixation cross (700 ms)

Brand logo(3000 ms )

Fixation cross (700 ms or until a

repsonse)

Participant could respond at any time after the logo had been presented; Next trial appeared only after a response was made by the participant

LLF MLF HLF OL700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

Type of logo

Resp

onse

late

ncy

(ms)

Figure 7. Response latencies in the identification of whether a logo was fake or not - Study 1a.

(Error bars reported as per Cousineau, 2005)

Brand name RLF logo Brand name RLF logo

Burger King Costa Coffee

Budweiser Domino’s Pizza

Ferrari Heineken

Figure 8. Examples of some Random Level Fake Logos (RLFs)

Figure 9- Sample trial in Study 1b

LLF MLF HLF RF OL465

470

475

480

485

490

495

Fake Real

Type of logo

Resp

onse

late

ncy

(ms)

Figure 10. Response latencies in Study 1b (Error bars reported as per Cousineau (2005)

Blank screen (300 ms)

Brand logo(LLF, MLF, HLF, RLF and OL)

(400 ms )

Target word ('Fake' or 'Real') (displayed till the time a participant

responds)

Blank screen (300 ms)

F1 logo: Only the positions of first and last letters are kept intact and rest of the brand name has been changed

F2: Only the first and last letters of the brand name has been changed while keeping the rest of the name intact

Figure 11. Examples of fake F1 and F2 logos

Original Logo (OL) Fake Logo 1 (F1) Fake Logo 2 (F2)

Figure 12. Examples of a fake F3 Logos

Original Logo (OL) Fake Logo 3 (F3)

F1 F2 F3 OL0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Type of logo

Eroo

r rat

e pe

rcen

tage

Figure 13. Error percentages corresponding to the identification of whether a logo was fake or not in Study 2a

(Error bars represent the standard error of the means)

F1 F2 F3 OL760

780

800

820

840

860

880

Type of logo

Resp

onse

late

ncy

(ms)

Figure 14. Response latencies corresponding to the identification of whether a logo was fake or not in Study 2a

(Error bars reported as per Cousineau (2005)

Original brand logo Counterfeit brand logo Remarks

1a

Difficult to detect as both brands have same first and last letters and same number of letters

1

b

Easier to detect as the first letter is diferent

Figure 15. Fake logos and chances of their identification as fake

F1 F2 F3 OL500

505

510

515

520

525

530

Fake Real

Type of logo

Resp

onse

late

ncy

(ms)

Figure 16. Response latencies in Study 2b

(Error bars reported as per Cousineau (2005))

Fake Real500

505

510

515

520

525

530

F2OLF3

Type of target word

Resp

onse

late

ncy

(ms)

Figure 17. Response latencies of F2, F3 and OL which differ significantly from each other

(Error bars reported as per Cousineau (2005)

Original logo Fake logo

Figure 18. Fake logo examples with altered logo symbols

p = .06p = .005p < .001p = .002