Category: Commercial Brand Protection

Inspector Led Authentication’s Contribution to Brand Protection Programs

     |     

By: Andrzej Hornostaj, VP Brand Solutions, Authentix

Identification of an at-risk product and implementing an authentication solution is not the end of the story, it is just the beginning. Constant inspection of the product in the supply chain and marketplace is required to ensure useful actionable insights is generated to minimize counterfeit and diversion practices while protecting your brand and bottom line.

Let’s Begin with Inspection Design

Inspection design is determined by the objectives of the inspection. Let’s consider two relevant approaches. Will the inspection be reactive to a specific counterfeit event, or proactive determining the scale of counterfeiting and generating actionable insights?

Ideally, inspections, like any investigation, should follow a holistic approach involving several stakeholder teams including product, brand protection, investigative, and legal. Each team has its own requirements for the actionable insights generated from an inspection. Some critical stakeholder questions may be as follows:

Product: What’s the scale and location of the counterfeiting problem for a product?

Brand protection: What’s the level of sophistication of the counterfeit operation (production and logistics)? Are security features being copied? Are packaging design changes required?

Investigative: Can the right data be gathered to support investigations into the counterfeit’s supply chain and to identify the manufacturing source? Is the evidence strong enough that it can be passed on to legal and law enforcement to perform raids and prosecutions?

Who will conduct the inspections?

The boots on the ground can either be members of the brand owner’s staff or third-party inspection agencies working on their behalf. Ideally, to infer useful insights from an inspection, the more data collected the better. This need pushes the brand toward engaging a third-party that can provide the coverage and inspector numbers to achieve data volume.

As always, inspector safety is paramount and consideration should be taken as to whether the inspector needs to be accompanied by law enforcement representatives.

Where to direct initial inspection efforts?

I would suggest initial efforts begin at the retail level where products of interest are typically more accessible to covert inspection. This type of insight helps to determine the scale or extent of the problem and generates a suitable baseline against which further inspections and remediation efforts may be compared. As pharmaceuticals are usually not accessible at pharmacies, other locations in the supply chain should be the initial focus.

Once a baseline is established, then testing of supply chain integrity should be performed. Keep in mind, some obstacles may be encountered at this stage as it is not always possible to accurately track the route by which products reach the end user beyond the first tier distributors.

To assist access / auditing of stock at distributors, brands should ensure that cooperation agreements allow for inspections with short notification times. This will prevent suspect items from being removed from the audit location by a guilty party.

Which inspection tools should be used?

Having the right tools during an inspection to automatically capture the data required for each stakeholder is important and ensures that repeat testing is minimised. With the right type of reader paired with a smart device, inspectors are equipped to not only identify counterfeit products, but also capture location data and photographs of the packaging. This complete picture of the scale and sophistication of the counterfeit operation can form the basis of effective enforcement actions.

Click here to learn more about brand protection. You can also contact Authentix at info@authentix.com.

Are Counterfeiters Innovators

     |     

Are Counterfeiters Innovators?

I read an interesting article recently about the long discussed topic of why larger organizations can’t be more like a startup. [1] This topic is often brought up in the context of keeping organizations innovative and open to new markets and ideas outside of the normal focus of that business. But this article was interesting because it put forward a new thought I hadn’t seen in the normal discourse, the idea that startups aren’t bound by the same Iegal constraints of established businesses.

The idea struck me as absurd, what investors would get behind an operation or idea that at the outset appeared to be illegal? The article goes on to illustrate how many companies, including Uber, PayPal, Airbnb, and Tesla all had at least aspects of their business model that appeared to be illegal or at least in a very gray area that ran aground of regulatory restrictions on their industries.

One example the article missed, perhaps because of its age and lack of success was Napster. By developing a user friendly interface that specialized in music files, Napster gave would be consumers of music a taste of what they really wanted in content management; a set of features like platform independence, per track purchase, mobility, and the ability to make playlists. The problem was Napster did this be enabling the general population to become content pirates, clearly running afoul of even the most liberal interpretations of consumers rights to content they owned at the time. The music industry certainly couldn’t support having its content stolen and copied, and Napster was forced to shut down in 2001 amid copyright settlements less than three years from inception.

Yet it took Apple to drag the industry forward into digital distribution two years later rather than an internal industry response. The music industry was threatened because they didn’t know how they could monetize digital sales the way they had with physical media. And the industry suffered greatly for over a decade, with replacement revenues from digital media and streaming services just now reaching levels of the pre-Napster world. But the truckloads of CDs, associated manufacturing and logistics, and other cost structures in the industry have now been revolutionized. Digital content distribution is very high margin, with a higher percentage of revenues going to artists, and spurring on all new industries of content creation and entertainment. The future is very bright for this industry.

So what does this have to do with counterfeiters? Well, I think we can agree that counterfeiting is illegal and dominated by “startups” that can ignore the legal norms of doing business. That is not that surprising. And the technological innovations that have led to widespread outsourcing and high quality manufacturing around the globe are now being turned against the same industries that have benefited from them. Internet distribution of products have accelerated sales, but at the same time opened the door to counterfeit products being sold direct to consumer. Counterfeiters are extremely quick to exploit all these “innovations” to create an opportunity that established companies can’t exploit.
So what can we learn from this? I think the biggest takeaway from previous lessons is that there is no quick fix to the competitive threat. Fighting off the examples given will require a giant shift in how those industries do business. And the innovations of counterfeiters in the last 10 years will require companies to think beyond the simple fixes of applying a hologram or monitoring an online presence. It will require an examination from the ground up of how they source, manufacture, distribute, and ultimately sell to consumers.

In previous articles I’ve talked about the changing threats coming to CPG because of online retailers. [2] We’ve talked about both consumer and inspector led authentication, and the challenges both have. [3] An overall brand protection program that includes monitoring contract manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to gain visibility into the flow of products to consumers is becoming ever more important with the continued growth of counterfeiting. A holistic approach to fight these “innovators” is needed. Companies need to stop thinking about anti-counterfeiting solutions as a standalone effort, and think of the principals of securing supply chains and distribution as they think about the principles of quality, efficiency, and sustainability in their operations.

[1] https://hbr.org/2017/06/why-you-cant-just-tell-a-company-be-more-like-a-startup
[2] http://authentix.com/blog/preparing-for-the-pendulum-to-swing/
[3] http://authentix.com/industries/spirits/inspector-led-authentication/

There Are No Shortcuts To Safe Medicines

     |     

The Partnership for Safe Medicines® recently hosted a panel briefing of several former federal law enforcement officials and public health experts to discuss the merits of recent prescription drug importation proposals[1]. The panel highlighted one of the often overlooked aspects of these proposals aimed to quickly reduce the cost of prescription drugs to patients in need in the United States: the safety of these drugs that would circumvent current FDA regulated domestic supply chains.

Certainly the promise of lower cost prescription drugs is a powerful message to an electorate that sees the costs of these medicines continue to rise while stories of lower cost drugs in other parts of the developed world also make headlines. But those other countries have carefully negotiated and managed supply chains with pharmaceutical companies that ensure the safety of their drugs and often make it illegal to fill a prescription from outside the country. Such is the case in Canada, where Canadian pharmacies cannot fill prescriptions for U.S. patients. Instead, internet pharmacies that claim to be Canadian import drugs or counterfeits sell them to unsuspecting consumers. Like it has for so many other industries, the internet has enabled easy access of buyers and sellers, but with little accountability for product quality or authenticity. Consumers are left to trust the supplier is legitimate, often with no means for recourse if there is a problem.

So why not simply empower the FDA with oversight on importation of drugs from other countries to help ensure safety? That’s a reasonable proposal, but one that will undoubtedly add to the cost of importation. Furthermore, this is not a U.S. only policy problem. For example, if the U.S. and Canada were to legalize the import/export of drugs between the two countries, what would be the effect on Canadian drug prices? In 2014, total Canadian expenditures on prescription drugs was estimated to be $29B[2]. By comparison the United States spent $374B[3]. Even a mild influx of orders from the U.S. could stress the Canadian system, more importantly Canadians, affect pricing since drug companies will be forced to negotiate with Canada as an international supplier, and not a domestic single payer system, certainly driving up costs for Canadians.

The U.S. has left the pharmaceutical industry largely unregulated when it comes to pricing. We have no single payer system, we do not place limits on pricing, and we let the profit motivation of the free market system drive pricing, profit, investment, and innovation. And while we can certainly feel the effects of rising drug costs, we can also see that this system has of its own accord driven us to greater and greater innovation for treatments and cures, and has created a very secure supply chain for the sale and distribution of those medicines. There is almost certainly some kind of change and reform coming to healthcare costs in the U.S., and the pharmaceutical industry will have its part to play, but compromising safety cannot be part of the equation.

Counterfeiting and diversion of medicines and medical products are global issues that affect all countries. These illegal activities threaten the health and welfare of the citizens who receive fake or substandard product, as well as threaten the revenues of brand owners. These activities also undermine the efforts of the government to ensure the availability of affordable drugs to its citizens, thus enabling the proliferation of disease, which can lead to development of drug resistant pathogens.

Authentix is dedicated to the development of products and services that allow the authentication of products and their packaging in supply chains around the world. Authentix provides integrated programs that enable manufacturers to protect their products in complex supply and distribution chains, and informatics to monitor and report on problems as they become apparent.

For more information visit http://authentix.com/offerings/sherlox/.

1.) http://www.safemedicines.org/2017/04/the-fallacy-of-drug-importation.html
2.) https://www.cihi.ca/en/canadians-spent-288-billion-on-prescription-drugs-in-2014
3.) http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-drug-costs-20150414-story.html

Preparing for the Pendulum to Swing

     |     

With the proliferation of internet trade and globalization of manufacturing the pendulum has swung in the favor of counterfeiters as far as ease of access to markets and manufacturing capabilities. And no one has been a bigger lightening rod for criticism around this swing than Alibaba founder Jack Ma. Some of this criticism is well deserved, like the time Mr. Ma suggested:

“The problem is the fake products today are of better quality and better price than the real names,” he said at Alibaba’s investor day in Hangzhou. “They are exactly the same factories, exactly the same raw materials but they do not use the names.”(1)

And I suppose if one puts no value on the skills required to do market research, design and test products, develop quality plans and raw material specifications, then yes, contract manufacturers produce the exact same goods whether they carry the added logo and identification of the innovative companies that create the intellectual property and trademarks that people come to know and trust.
But recently Jack Ma wrote an open letter to China’s “parliament” suggesting that harsher enforcement against counterfeiting was key to fighting the problem.(2) It is no coincidence this change in focus from the quality of counterfeits to fighting the scourge of illicit goods comes at a time when The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) reinstated the Alibaba TaoBao platform on its blacklist of “notorious markets” for selling fakes.(3)

But Mr. Ma does in fact have a point here. As reported in the article:

Alibaba says it handed over 4,495 leads on counterfeiting in 2016 that crossed the threshold of goods worth at least 50,000 yuan ($7,250). Of those, the authorities took on 1,184. That resulted in a scant 33 convictions. Alibaba has launched high-profile efforts, such as a push with the police in the city of Shenzhen and the luxury-goods brand Swarovski to shut down merchants selling fake watches. But some lawyers say those efforts amount to showboating.

But the sheer size of the problem of counterfeit distribution through an essentially frictionless market like Alibaba or Amazon Marketplace and Ebay make the follow-up on potential cases overwhelming for enforcement agencies. An activity that used to require some level of distribution and brick and mortar storefront to move counterfeit goods that could be investigated and raided is now replaced by digital entities that can literally appear and disappear with a few keystrokes. Traditional approaches to fighting illicit goods are overmatched.

So, what can a brand owner do to battle this enormous problem? The reality is that in the 21st century if you are a brand owner creating value from those intangible product qualities of design, style, quality, and ultimately reputation, you need to be investing some degree into the further differentiation of your finished good from that of your contract manufacturer. In our twenty years protecting brands we most often see hybrid and multi-layered solutions as effective means to enable different levels of inspection, from the internal security expert, all the way down to the consumer. And with the proliferation of smart devices and internet access, new tools are becoming available set to swing the pendulum back into the favor of brand owners to track the location of their products and possible illicit goods are a rate commensurate with the new internet economy. What is important is that brands consider equipping their goods with an overall brand protection program that includes monitoring and sampling contract manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to gain visibility into the flow of their products to consumers.


1. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2016/06/15/jack-ma-says-fakes-better-quality-and-better-price-than-the-real-names/

2. http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/03/08/2017/alibaba-urges-china-get-real-fakes

3. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/2016-Out-of-Cycle-Review-Notorious-Markets.pdf

4. http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/03/08/2017/alibaba-urges-china-get-real-fakes

Back To Top