by David Barnett, Richard Ferguson and Sheena Yonker
August 2025 saw the publication of INTA's Anticounterfeiting Committee Policy Global Project Team report, 'Anticounterfeiting and Return on Investment'[1,2], considering the issue of the calculation of return on investment (ROI) for brand-protection initiatives (with a specific focus on counterfeiting activity).
Whilst much of the content echoes previous research, the new report does describe some of the relevant factors in slightly different ways, thereby providing some alternative frameworks which can be used to consider relevant ideas. The publication of the report therefore offers a suitable opportunity to revisit and expand on some of the key points relating to the general subject area.
Pre-existing research and concepts
In general, the ability to quantify ROI for brand protection initiatives is a long-standing requirement in many organisations, frequently associated with a desire to demonstrate success and secure funding for future similar projects.
The key ideas necessary for constructing calculation frameworks have been outlined in a range of prior pieces of research, with some of the most significant points[3,4] outlined below.
- For e-commerce marketplace enforcement specifically, ROI is most traditionally assessed by considering the numbers of infringing items removed through takedown actions, applying a customer substitution rate (i.e. the assumed proportion of customers who will buy a legitimate item once the infringing version is made unavailable - and potentially also applying an additional conversion factor to account for the proportion of available items which translate to a sale), and then using the legitimate item price to estimate the increase in profit generated through additional legitimate sales as a result of the enforcement.
- Modifications or enhancements to the above simple approach can be made by considering:
- Variability in substitution rates; specifically, the effects of e.g. item price (either absolute, or differential between infringing or legitimate goods), or the degree of deception involved in the sale of the infringing items.
- Use of 'data caps' to prevent unrealistically high calculated ROI values.
- The long-term impact of the enforcement programme, rather than just basing the calculation on the short-term numbers of ongoing enforcements carried out on a regular basis - i.e. considering the scale of the infringement landscape as compared with that observed at the start of the service, before active takedowns were being carried out. Related to this idea is an assessment of how 'clean' the search results are (for infringing vs. legitimate items), or the degree to which the brand owner is able to achieve 'ownership of the buy button' - i.e. be the top-listed seller in response to searches for relevant product terms.
- The impact of the brand protection initiative on brand value - essentially, considering intangible (though still quantifiable) impacts associated with factors such as consumer brand awareness, loyalty / churn, and reputation. Also relevant in this type of determination are areas such as reductions in the cost of capital for the brand owner (i.e. perceived brand risk), and in operating costs required to address ongoing issues.
The importance of considering additional factors, such as 'real-world' impacts (e.g. increases in numbers of visitors to physical stores, or information from 'on-the-ground' actions such as raids and seizures), direct monetary gains (such as proceeds from fines or damages arising from successful legal actions), and volumes of infringements avoided in the future as a result of a proactive brand protection programme, has also been noted.
However, it is also clear that there is no 'one-size-fits-all' approach to ROI calculation, and any framework will have a number of associated caveats, such that the algorithms are really most appropriate only for like-for-like comparisons.
Additional ideas from the new report
INTA's new report stresses the idea of considering brand protection as a strategic business imperative, and also reiterates the importance of taking a conservative approach (i.e. to prevent unrealistic estimates which can affect the credibility of ROI assessments).
The report also emphasises the importance of integrating online and offline components, particularly in investigative strategies (e.g. to identify relevant physical locations and supply chains). This idea is also familiar from previous research looking at activity 'hotspots'[5,6,7,8], which can allow efforts to be focused in key locations, in a cost-effective way. Also previously noted is the importance of data analysis in establishing the existence of clusters of infringements associated with individual high-volume key infringers, to better inform where enforcement should be targeted[9,10]. Additionally, in brand protection programmes, offline measures can include raids and seizures, and a range of legal proceedings.
It is also noted that careful monitoring of relevant online channels can provide early warning of new threat types, and insights into market trends. Furthermore, impacts resulting from brand protection efforts can potentially also similarly be assessed, by monitoring for factors such as changes in volumes of customer complaints.
Furthermore, the implementation of initiatives such as product tracking or verification measures can, as well as contributing to securing the supply chain and reducing the ease of counterfeiting in their own right, result in a positive effect on perception for brands seen to be protecting their customer base and leading in innovation. Brand protection initiatives can also fulfil compliance requirements and mitigate legal risk.
Also explicitly noted is the distinction between 'soft' and 'hard' ROI - essentially, the difference between the assessment of potential benefits and 'direct' monetary gains (e.g. through fines or damages) outlined above. One key point made in the report is that the assessment of 'soft' ROI is made particularly difficult by the fact that the nature and scale of significant proportions of infringing activity is frequently unclear (i.e. 'illicit trade obscurity').
It is stressed that the aim of brand protection is ultimately to facilitate legitimate product sales, in an ecosystem where counterfeiting is currently associated with an annual economic cost of almost half-a-trillion dollars[12]. The report outlines some possible ROI calculation frameworks, including a 'substitution rate' approach for marketplace enforcement, similar to that outlined above, in addition to other simple calculation methods for assessing ROI from physical seizures, and from settlements achieved through legal actions.
A final key point to note is the importance of adopting a cross-functional collaborative approach to brand protection within organisations, together with regular processes of review and strategy adaptation.
Further thoughts
Overall, we echo the assertion that an idealised framework for assessing ROI for brand protection should capture issues relating to consumer sentiment, as well as just (hard and soft) financial recovery - and, even just considering explicit monetary impacts, it is worth reiterating the point that any simple mathematical formulation will generally only provide part of the picture. Beyond this area, an ability to track complaints, reviews and social sentiment - both before and after enforcement - can provide more comprehensive insights, though this requires adequate technical capabilities from the brand protection service provider.
The early phases of product development and launch are often a key pressure point for brand owners. Counterfeits often appear quickly, and therefore the capability to measure the rate of appearance of infringing goods, in addition to quantifying takedown speeds and tracking reductions in customer complaint volumes within these initial stages, can help to make ROI more tangible. Similarly, intensified bursts of online and offline enforcement during key marketing campaigns may also be appropriate. As noted in the INTA report, internal collaboration within an organisation is key, and should include input from (at least) sales, marketing and social management functions.
Within companies, boards are also likely to expect to see demonstration of online vs offline cost efficiency. The construction of a simple metric (along the lines of 'cost-per-pound-of-protected-value') could help explain spend allocation. This determination may not be straightforward, however; for example, it is often the case that civil litigation often retrieves only limited financial proceeds, and can (in isolation) appear to be associated with a negative ROI, though additional factors (such as deterrent effects to future infringements) should also be considered.
Crossover into the offline space is generally an important part of any brand protection initiative, but often comes with its own difficulties. For example, it may be difficult to achieve sufficient collaborative input from law enforcement agencies, unless case evidence is well established and clear cut. Offline efforts may also be made more difficult in cases where relevant IP rights have not been established. However, raising public awareness of infringement 'hot spots' (in addition to providing guidance regarding the dangers of counterfeits and how to spot them) can also be advantageous.
In general terms, both online and offline measures need to be properly accounted for, in a joined-up fashion, in any comprehensive assessment of ROI. One key element is the use of effective case-management systems which are able to incorporate insights from the full extent of the brand owner's supply chain, using data on levels of infringements throughout (including customs seizures, levels of online saturation, and so on). Going forward, it would be extremely instructive to see a range of anonymised case studies, ideally involving data sharing across key industry bodies (INTA, IACC, ACG, etc.), so that appropriate ROI benchmarks could be created.
As a final point, it is also important to note that the discussion in this article has focused primarily on counterfeiting specifically. This is of course only one of the areas a brand protection programme should address, and which include issues as diverse as phishing, malware distribution, and executive impersonations. Even just considering the sale of physical goods, other areas of concern - such as the trade in 'grey goods' (i.e. official items, but distributed through unapproved channels) - must generally also be addressed.
References
[4] 'Patterns in Brand Monitoring' (D.N. Barnett, Business Expert Press, 2025), Chapter 11: 'Quantifying brand protection return-on-investment'
[5] https://www.iamstobbs.com/opinion/tracking-the-uk-trade-in-fakes-counterfeit-hotspots
[6] https://www.iamstobbs.com/opinion/tracking-the-uk-trade-in-fakes-ins-and-outs
[8] 'Patterns in Brand Monitoring' (D.N. Barnett, Business Expert Press, 2025), Chapter 15: 'Links to offline data'
[12] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/mapping-global-trade-in-fakes-2025_94d3b29f-en/full-report.html
This article was first published on 25 September 2025 at:
