Should a brand owner be encouraged by high quantities of infringing goods seized, or is this an indication that a programme is failing to have much impact? Do declining seizures indicate that past actions were successful, or are they a symptom that enforcement tactics are no longer fit for purpose?
Challenging traditional KPIs
We have supported clients develop enforcement programmes that have delivered significant outcomes: millions of infringing goods seized, hundreds of responsible persons arrested, large fines awarded, significant compensation recovered etc. Over time, as these programmes matured, ‘good’ seizure figures often became harder to come by and narrow metrics began to suggest failure, not success.
Traditional enforcement KPIs have tended to focus on activities and outcomes:
At best, looking only at activities and outcomes fails to measure what is of real value to a business, commercial impact. At worst, this approach can create incentives that perpetuate, not deter, counterfeiting and other forms of interference.
Measuring impact requires a good understanding of commercial ambitions and competitive advantage. Enforcement activities that do not defend or enhance that competitive advantage arguably deliver little or no commercial impact.
We challenge clients to take a more holistic approach to KPIs, exploring how activities and outcomes have changed the behaviour of different groups of stakeholders:
Fundamentally, are efforts to influence the behaviours of these stakeholder groups minimising interference from counterfeits and copycats and so enabling a business to focus on selling more genuine products, at a higher margin?
I’ll explore some of these issues in more depth over the coming months. In the meantime, I’m always interested in any feedback on novel approaches to KPIs.