Counterfeiting remains a significant challenge, as acknowledged by all participants at the Asia Security 2024 Conference and Exhibition held at Aloft Aerocity, New Delhi. In his presentation titled ‘The Handbook for Brand Owners – Dos and Don’ts of Anti-Counterfeiting Strategy,’ Ankit Gupta, joint managing director of Holostik Group, commenced his discussion by addressing a crucial question – How can we effectively combat counterfeiting? Gupta emphasized that the issue extends beyond merely identifying the problem; it involves the implementation of comprehensive strategies to address it.
Gupta highlighted the incentives that drive counterfeiters. These incentives, coupled with vulnerabilities in the supply chain and weak regulatory frameworks, especially in India, create fertile ground for counterfeit products. Gupta stressed the necessity for stricter laws and real consequences to deter counterfeiters effectively.
“In India, consumers are extremely price-conscious, often lured by attractive offers on eCommerce platforms,” Gupta noted. This prioritization of cost over quality complicates the regulatory environment and global supply chains, providing substantial incentives for counterfeiters. Gupta highlighted that Holostik Group, for the past 30 years, has been navigating these challenges across various industries, each with its own counterfeiting solutions.
A report by the Authentication Solution Providers’ Association, where Gupta serves as vice president, reveals that approximately 40 to 49% of medicines in India are counterfeit – a staggering statistic. Similarly, 25 to 30% of consumer packaged goods (CPG) are counterfeit. These figures point out the massive scale of the problem and the tendency of consumers to opt for counterfeit products due to price incentives.
“Counterfeiting severely damages brand reputation and impacts multiple industries,” Gupta explained. He pointed out that 20% of automotive accidents in India result from faulty electronics, many of which are counterfeit. In agriculture, contributing 15% to India’s GDP, 30 to 35% of pesticides are counterfeit, posing significant risks to the food supply.
Drawing from his 18 years of experience in the Indian market, Gupta observed significant changes, particularly in the last five years. Brand owners, once reluctant to acknowledge the counterfeiting issue, have become more proactive, driven by the rise of social media. Young consumers today are more conscious about product authenticity and vocal about their dissatisfaction with counterfeits.
“Brand owners are now more engaged in managing their supply chains and empowering consumers to authenticate products,” Gupta said. However, he pointed out that ensuring consumers receive genuine products, especially in the pharmaceutical sector, remains a critical challenge.
Gupta emphasized the crucial importance of tracking and tracing the supply chain from manufacturing through to retail. He highlighted a common misconception among brand owners who assume their brand is not subject to counterfeiting. Gupta clarified that if you believe your consumers are familiar with your brand, there is a significant likelihood that it is being counterfeited.
Gupta highlighted a common oversight – treating anti-counterfeiting measures as merely an expense. He emphasized that even with just 10% efficacy, you break even, and with any effectiveness beyond that, you start generating profit from these solutions.
Gupta urged companies to continuously upgrade their anti-counterfeiting measures, as solutions adopted five years ago might not be effective today. He dispelled the myth that only luxury products need protection, emphasizing that any product can be counterfeited.
He also warned against relying on a single technology for brand protection. “No single technology is perfect. Combining different technologies is crucial for an effective solution,” he stated. For instance, a QR code alone is insufficient for supply chain security. Gupta advocated for a problem-focused approach, integrating multiple technologies to create a robust anti-counterfeiting strategy.
