On Branding and Counterfeit Goods

Today a friend came across a story about a fake Apple Store in China that was made to be a more or less exact replica of a real Chinese Apple Store, to such an extent that the bloggers and reporters discussing it weren't even sure whether or not it sold actual Apple products. It is even thought that the employees of the store believe that they are working for the actual Apple company. This article appeared on the heels of an announcement that Apple had a 125% increase in quarterly income compared to a year ago and shows no signs of slowing its pace.

I've written very little on counterfeit products because my opinion on them has not been cemented. On one hand, I believe that people should get what they think they're buying, and that counterfeit goods are almost always inferior in quality to their originals. People often buy name-brands because the quality and consistency of these products is ensured, just as people eat at chain restaurants or buy Starbucks, and counterfeiters often circumvent quality control by simply pasting the label of this brand on their sometimes lamentably inferior product. On the other hand, I'm often shocked by the extreme price mark-up that comes with a well-known brand, and almost feel that consumers are getting what they deserve if they are fooled by a counterfeit of that brand. Apple products, for instance, are aesthetically pleasing and generally work very well, but cost twice the price of their PC/smartphone/tablet counterparts for little discernible reason. I know I'm speaking blasphemy in the opinions of some of my readers, but the brand loyalty Apple has garnered is almost as insidious as the counterfeit rings that copy Apple's logos. The counterfeiter exploits the already brand-brainwashed public--is he a criminal, or an opportunist?

Legitimate Forgery

What does the con man, counterfeiter, or art forger do after he gets caught? He gets his own television show or works with the FBI helping to catch people like him! Television shows like White Collar and films like Catch Me if You Can emphasize the psychological issues that inveterate con men have when forced to work for the power they've always fought, but I'm more interested in the fact that former criminals can have legitimate, lucrative careers doing essentially the same things they did illegally before. John Myatt, for example (pictured above), is a famous British art forger who went to prison in the 90s but now stars in a television series and "Hollywood Film" about art forgery and his own life. His website (which could use some significant grammar editing), claims that his life story is extraordinary, yet suggests that he started forging artists' works for mainly pragmatic reasons. I wonder then, if the reformed con man misses some kind of glamor that comes with criminality, or if it's a relief to be doing a similar activity lawfully. I suspect that each forger has a very different reason for his forgery, so maybe the answer to my question is different for each individual.

The Impostor as Celebrity

On Sunday The New York Times published an obituary for Barry Bremen, self-proclaimed "professional impostor" who gained notoriety after mostly unsuccessfully impersonating athletes and celebrities in the 1980s. It seems clear from the warm, sympathetic obituary (do obituaries come in other tones?) that Bremen was admired, perhaps even envied, for his outlandish attempts to become part of events that only a select few ever experience. It seems to me that his greatest act of imposture is this New York Times obituary; just like he snuck onto professional ball fields and awards stages, Bremen has somehow slipped into the most popular daily newspaper in the country.

It also strikes me that Bremen was a sort of class-clown impostor, the type whose existence depends on the (often fairly hasty) revelation of his impersonation, and that perhaps this is why he's been so sympathetically treated. After the initial con, I conjecture that there is an inverse relationship between length of time conned and sympathy for the conman. We all like a trick, but we don't like to feel as though we've been tricked for very long, or the trick becomes the more pejorative "deceit" or "fraud." I doubt anything Bremen every did was termed "fraud," and perhaps for that reason he is celebrated instead of reviled.

Acting as a Liar

I recently viewed the 1997 film Deceiver, which I had never heard of before but was recommended to me (based on my previous murder mystery/deception viewing) by Netflix. The film stars Tim Roth as an overprivileged epileptic alcoholic liar accused of murdering and cutting in half a call girl, and I initially expected it, based on the film's tag lines and first ten minutes, to be the portrait of a deceptive serial killer. Instead, the identity and intentions of the murderer (Roth's character?) are further and further confused, leaving the viewer with no confident grasp on the truth, even at the end of the film. What particularly struck me, more than the plot or (quite captivating) cinematography of Deceiver, was the similarity of Tim Roth's character to that of Dr. Lightman, Roth's more recent television character on the now canceled FOX show Lie to Me. In both the film and TV show, Roth uses his powers of deception to root out the deception of others, and in both he is somewhat creepy yet oddly alluring. The similarity between the two roles makes me wonder what Tim Roth is like in real life, and what makes him particularly suited to play this type of character. Can we pretend to be liars if we don't actually lie, and does pretending to be liars actually make us liars? Is acting one of the honorable reasons to lie, like deceiving criminals to get them to confess or telling a child Santa Claus is real?