Counterfeiting has moved beyond isolated incidents to become a persistent consideration within modern commerce. As digital marketplaces expand and consumer access increases, the way counterfeit products are encountered, evaluated, and purchased has evolved. According to Marcus Kneen, CEO of SnapDragon, this shift requires businesses to rethink how they approach brand protection, not as a reactive measure, but as an ongoing strategic priority.
He explains that counterfeiting today is shaped less by visibility alone and more by accessibility and consumer purchase power. As brands have increasingly adopted direct-to-consumer (D2C) models in recent years, the same accessibility has lowered the barrier to entry for counterfeit sellers, enabling them to reach consumers through the very same digital channels.
"Products that once circulated in less visible channels are now appearing in environments where consumers already browse, compare, and make purchasing decisions," Kneen says. From his perspective, this has made the issue more complex, as it intersects directly with everyday buying behavior rather than only existing on the margins.
Consumer attitudes reflect this complexity. Findings show that while only 13% of respondents admit to intentionally purchasing counterfeit goods, this rises among younger consumers, reaching 26% in EU residents. Mary Kernohan, Chief Commercial Officer of SnapDragon and Chair of the INTA Unreal Campaign, notes that this difference points to a generational shift in how value and authenticity are perceived.
"Through our work with young consumers, we see that accessibility and price sensitivity can influence decisions in ways that don't always align with traditional expectations around authenticity," she says. "That's why education around the risks and implications of counterfeit goods remains critical."
At the same time, awareness of the broader consequences of counterfeiting appears to be well established. The 2020 version of the same study indicates that 83% of respondents agree that counterfeit goods harm businesses and jobs, while 71% recognize potential risks to health and safety.
Kernohan adds that these risks are not abstract. "Counterfeit products are often produced without adherence to safety or environmental standards," she explains. "Whether it's unsafe materials, faulty electronics, or fraudulent online services, the consequences can range from financial loss to real harm for consumers."
These risks are closely tied to consumer experience and perception. SnapDragon completed research through Ipsos in the United States that shows that 57% of counterfeit purchases are driven by low prices, while 36% result from misleading ads or scams. When consumers unknowingly buy counterfeit products, the impact on trust can be immediate, with 44% reporting a decline, including 29% who say it dropped significantly.
Beyond the initial transaction, this loss of confidence can lead to negative reviews, shifting social sentiment, and broader reputational challenges, with some brands requiring 18 to 36 months of sustained transparency and customer engagement to rebuild trust.
According to Kernohan, this contrast highlights a key challenge for brands. "There is a clear understanding of the impact, but that awareness does not always translate into behavior," she says. "That gap is where businesses need to focus their attention."
This dynamic also reinforces why counterfeit risks cannot be viewed solely through a financial lens. Kernohan explains that negative customer experiences, whether driven by poor-quality products, safety concerns, or fraudulent transactions, often extend far beyond the initial purchase. "What we see is that these experiences quickly translate into complaints, negative reviews, and increased pressure on customer service teams," she says. "These ripple effects ultimately compound both reputational damage and revenue impact for brands."
Kneen explains that this evolution has prompted a shift in how organizations approach risk. He notes that businesses are increasingly recognizing the importance of integrating brand protection into ongoing strategy rather than treating it as a reactive function. In his view, this reflects a broader transition toward ongoing proactive planning, where protection becomes part of growth discussions rather than a response to disruption.
He adds that this is where structured and proactive brand protection support becomes increasingly relevant. SnapDragon works with organizations to proactively monitor, accurately detect, and effectively address a broad range of brand threats across digital platforms, combining data analysis with human expertise to act on what matters most for each business. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all model, the focus is on aligning protection strategies with a company's growth plans, market expansion, and customer engagement priorities, so that efforts contribute to long-term value rather than isolated fixes.
Kernohan suggests that this approach requires a deeper understanding of each organization's specific context. "Every business has a different growth trajectory, pace of innovation, customer base, and risk profile," she says. "What matters is aligning protection efforts with those factors so that they support long-term objectives and safeguard both brand value and revenue."
This perspective also reflects a broader change in how protection strategies are designed. While technology can identify patterns and surface potential risks at scale, she notes that interpretation remains critical in determining which issues have the greatest impact on brand value and commercial performance.
"Data can show you where something is happening, but understanding why it matters, and which risks are most damaging, requires context," Kernohan explains. "That is where experience, global insight, and analysis come into play, especially when businesses are making decisions that affect their reputation and customer relationships across multiple markets."
The findings further reinforce the role of understanding in shaping consumer behavior. For example, 52% of respondents cite the availability of affordable original products as a key reason for avoiding counterfeits, while 48% point to a better understanding of the harm caused to producers. Kneen notes that these insights highlight an opportunity for brands to influence behavior through both accessibility and communication.
"It is not just about enforcement," Kneen says. "It is about creating conditions where consumers can make informed choices and see the value in choosing authenticity."
As counterfeiting continues to evolve alongside digital commerce, businesses are increasingly recognizing that protection cannot operate in isolation. According to Kneen, it must be connected to broader conversations around growth, innovation, and customer trust. This includes anticipating risks before entering new markets, understanding how products and services are represented across platforms, and ensuring that protection strategies evolve alongside business objectives.
He notes that this moment represents a shift not only in scale but in urgency. "Brand protection is no longer a separate function," Kneen says. "It is part of how businesses build trust, support their customers, and sustain growth over time, especially as technologies like AI accelerate the speed and sophistication of counterfeit activity."
In this environment, Kneen notes that the ability to respond with agility, those who proactively safeguard their brand may define the difference between those who successfully navigate these challenges and those who struggle to keep pace.
