The Beauty of Fake

I am not writing as an advocate of counterfeit merchandise, but rather from a journalistic perspective: I have been researching the subject of counterfeit handbags, which is why I landed on this Website, and what I find curious is that claims of child labor and terrorism are rarely corroberated. The sources speak vaguely and there are rarely specifics, yet bloggers and journalists alike keep perpetuating criminal accusations, which in my mind are beginning to wear thin as little more than "Cry Wolf" scare tactics. (And we all know what will happen if we Cry Wolf one too many times.)

While I am sure there is some truth to the allegations, I would like to know exactly HOW much truth. The closest I have come in that search is an article put out earlier this year by Harper's Bazaar with respect to child labor. Why aren't mainstream media able to document specific connections to crime, illegal labor or terrorism if these activities are as prevalent as consumers are lead to believe?

Therein lies another problem: I live near Los Angeles and not far from the most notirious modern American slave operation discovered in the garment industry. Garment workers were lured to the states with the promise of freedom only to be enslaved in an El Monte, CA sweatshop imprisoned behind barbed wire. Make no mistake: The Los Angeles Garment District, in general, is staffed by illegal workers receiving illegal under-the-table wages in substandard working conditions, often in antiquated highrises that do not meet Los Angeles area earthquake standards. Nothing is being done to bring the buildings up to code let alone to protect the workers who toil inside them — and this sweatshop reality exists right here in the United States!

In any honest examination of this topic, one must also consider the motivations for outsourcing similar labor to the Third World. Outsourcing offers a cheaper labor force, and a cheaper labor force equals greater profits. Why? Because regulations are comparitvely lax, and standard of living (wages) comparatively low. There have been a host of manufactures, from Donna Karren and Guess to Nike and Walmart, implicated in these sweatshop operations, many involving child labor. Consumers need to understand, for this reason, that buying "boutique" brands that command premium pricing is absolutely NO guarantee that workers are treated any better than their counterfeit counterparts. I believe, therefore, that it does a great disservice to all the abused laborers in the U.S. and Third World to imply that child labor is the domain of counterfeit operations. By defining the issue as a "counterfeit problem", those who are employed to manufacturer "legitimate brands" are marginalized. Labor problems are widespread to be sure, but they are only made worse by the fact that US law cannot be enforced oversees to guarantee that working conditions are humane. For this reason, I tend to hold suspect any company that manufactures exclusively in the Third World. Companies that engage in 100 percent outsourcing are avoiding rule of law just as surely as they are bolstering their stockholder's shares.

I cannot emphasize this point enough: Responsible investigative journalism does not rely on a single source or second-hand anecdotes. Reporters and their editors have a journalistic responsibility, if not moral imperative, to gather collaborative evidence before publishing claims put forth solely by the IACC and the design company press releases. If it is as bad as these agencies claim, "press release reporting" will not shed enough light on the harm these counterfeit operations create. By the same token, press release reporting — e.g. single-source accusations — rely entirely on the Honor System with no fact checking or vetting required. It begs the question of how objective the source is, when the source of such damming evidence exists to produce images that do not consist of Third World counterfeiters attempting to feed their families, but engaging in criminal conspiracies for political gain (as in implied by Al Qaeda's "connection" to the counterfeit merchandise industry). Furthermore, if the IACC has proof of criminal profit motives, media should be invited to participate in ongoing investigations as opposed to accepting at face value shady generalities set forth long after the fact. (For example, did Al Qaeda sell counterfeit goods to sponsor 911? If so, where are the investigative reports, court transcripts, law enforcement testimony, Homeland Security evidence, etc.?) Finally, I would like to see increased media attention placed on the motivations many companies have for outsourcing to the Third World long after establishing their designer reputations in the First World (Coach, for example). Does it suggest an act of desperation — that the economy is faltering to the point where even luxury goods producers feel threatened? Or is it an act of greed driven by needy stockholders? Alternatively, with a robust retail markup characteristic of premium designer brands, why are designers scraping the bottom of the labor barrel by manufacturing in the Third World — unless, perhaps, they are motivated to evade US labor and environmental regulations?

Let me reiterate: Counterfeiters are clearly up to no good. But from where I sit, many of the legitimate brands are not up to much better. Unfortunately, by neglecting to tell the flip side of the story, consumers are denied the opportunity to realize how prevalent abusive labor practices have become, or the reality that shopping at a premium retail stores and boutiques offers no assurance that the garment industry workers who generate such articles are fairly treated or compensated adults! If we are to begin connecting the dots as consumers, the media must dig deeper than any one source or any one press release can honestly convey. Because the media neglects this opportunity more often than not, I fault reporters, on the rare occasion this issue is covered, for perpetuating largely unsubstantiated claims of criminal complicity in the counterfeit trade while doing little to demonstrate that such problems are in no way limited to counterfeit manufacturers. Certainly if there were any dark conspiracy afoot, the U.S. would outlaw the ability for consumers to LEGALLY purchase counterfeit merchandise on the basis of national security. Instead it remains illegal to sell trademarked goods, but perfectly legal to purchase illegal merchandise for personal or novelty use. Designers themselves are also complicit because too few use unique serial numbers but instead, as is the case with Louis Vuitton, rely on date codes that can be easily copied. When these key areas are addressed, and those buying such merchandise are themselves subject to jail time, I believe the problem with counterfeits will be half of what it is today. We must first have the media, will and regulation to see that this situation improves — and right now I do not see that will forthcoming as anyone who has walked China town in New York or Los Angeles can attest to.