Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Current State On Writing On Counterfeiting in China

Comment on comment
Neil Wilkoff, blogger of IP Finance, commented on an Economist article, called Pro Logo: Brands in China (January 14, 2012) see here, that did not give enough context nor support for its assertions. The first part of the article is about the backlash the Chinese furniture company DaVinci got after it was revealed that their "Italian" products were made in China then shipped to Italy and reimported back to China. The media Schadenfreude was probably created because the company stressed to be the real thing. So far, I was thinking that only the subtitle of the Economist article Chinese consumers are falling out of love with fakes was made by an editor that might have read the article diagonally. But then the following assertion was made: "Whatever the truth behind this murky affair, it has revealed something about how the attitudes of Chinese consumers are changing. Counterfeiters are no longer popular. Not long ago, Chinese shoppers applauded the fakers for saving them money. Now they scorn them. If it’s a fake, the well-heeled sneer, you can’t flaunt it." I agree with Wilkoff that these assertions and those made later in the text miss enough context, and are not substantiated by enough facts. In der Beschränkung zeigt sich der Meister as Goethe once said. Therefore it might have been better if the Economist article would have restricted itself to retell the tale of the rise and fall of DaVinci, although this story broke already in July 2011, see IP Dragon's article here.

Bold statements are nice in times of love, war and sports, but otherwise it might be preferable to add words such as might, could and would in case one poses hypotheses. So the sentence "Counterfeiters are no longer popular", could be changed into "Counterfeiters might no longer be popular". And of course in talking about China specificity is well served if questions are answered such as who, what, where, when, why and how. But the Economist might already know this.

Read Neil Wilkoff's comment here.

No comments: