“Which Technology is Best?” part 1

Technology Advisor: We will, in the future, give periodic technology advisors in our web-blog. They will appear by request from our readers, customers and our own call every three weeks under the title “Which technology is best?”

In the following first article in that series, we will briefly discuss visible vs. invisible marks.

 

Which Technology is Best?

While most Mark-owners today agree that some kind of technology is helpful to at least detect counterfeits if not outright combat it, much time has been spent to discuss which one might be best suited for the individual brand.

Much depends upon what kind of problems the owner faces, which product he produces, what kind of manufacturing process he employs and what kind of enforcement regime he uses. Furthermore, one needs to consider if the application of technology to one’s brand is meant to be communicated to the public as a kind of consumer protection/marketing tool, if enforcement officials like the customs service are asked to do some detection work or if the enforcement methods are strictly an internally executed policy.

To start with, some thoughts are usually given to the size of the problem, the profit margins of the product, the possibilities of transferring the incremental costs to the customer, the licensee or the consumer.

The next question to be asked is if the technology is to become an integral part of the product or if it is to be added later on to the product by applying it through printing, labelling or other methods.

First things first: The decision to go with a visible technology or an invisible one stands for most firms in the foreground. Visible technologies have to be used if the consumer has to be addressed. The argument goes that it should be part of a marketing effort to tell the customer that you care for him, that you are interested that he knows that and that you want to convince him that you are doing something for the quality of the product and the integrity of your brand. So far so good. You decide on a clearly visible technology, you apply it on the product and you develop a good advertising campaign directed at your customers and those interested in your brand and product. The problem is that any technology, be it holograms, OVI inks or others, can only be viewed subjectively. The viewer will clearly recognise that the product has the marking on it which it is supposed to carry. Can he differentiate if the markings are real or fake? In most cases the answer will have to be a probable NO. No, because he does in most cases not have a product with him of which he knows that the markings are real. So, he has nothing to compare it with; he cannot positively say that the product he intends to buy is real or fake. For a clear recognition and definite judgement if a product is the real thing, visible markings are not very useful. The customer will not know what he is looking at. As an example the following: You receive change at the cash register. You look at the bill; do you really know if the hologram, the OVI – print is real? And with currency bills it is easy, because you at least have the feel of the paper and usually you carry another bill with you to compare it with. When confronted with a situation like the one described, even experts fail quite often to make accurate judgements.

As a tool to communicate, to tie the customer to your product, to make your concern for quality credible and for effective marketing, visible technologies are very good. One company I know applied holograms to the hang-tags on their products. The customer was asked to send the tag in after he purchased the product; All tags sent in were collected and became part of a drawing for a free vacation trip. This ties the customer to your brand, but to use it as purely an identifier, moves this action into the high risk area of investment. The lesson: visible technologies for the consumer Yes, but use them in connection with a determined and focused marketing and advertising campaign, to assuage the consumer but to make a clear statement claiming that if the product carries such and such a visible marking it is the real thing, would be misleading the consumer at best.

The next article will discuss anti-counterfeiting technology for the textile industry.

Comments

[anina.net]

your blog is getting so goood! did you write that?

[veritas]

i think there will never be a perfect counterfeit detecter,i think technology is so far advanced that people will be printing there own money and getting away with it,i think it would be wise to do away with paper money all together,wouldnt you agree?

[Stephan]

Thank you for your comment on our blog. In fact, I agree with one part of your comment, namely that many people are in fact trying to print their own money; however usually they are not very successful doing it. There are multiple security features visible as well as invisible ones. The detectors installed at banks, are beyond any doubt exceedingly sophisticated, precise, and efficient. The paper that is used for printing bank notes as well as the security features incorporated in it, are only available to bank note printers and not to the general public, not even for money, not even for lots of money. The problem with fake bills usually is associated with the market place where insufficient detectors are in use, or the people receiving bank notes don’t bother to check if they are real.

Thank you again, your comments are always welcome!