VMPL
New Delhi [India], November 12: A familiar logo, a nicely printed package and a scannable code can make the product seem like an authentic product. However, when these details are css opied, customers will need to ask themselves a question: what can they rely on? For brands, the risk goes beyond safeguarding a design. It's about educating a buyer to know when they have what's real versus a convincing fake before they become disappointed.
The impact is not entirely business-related. When it comes to a replacement part, the customer expects reliability; when it comes to a skincare product, the customer expects the product to conform to the label. If the replica fails, the original manufacturer might receive the complaint. Retailers may also have to try to defend products they thought were legitimate, resulting in problems during the entire purchase process and undermining years of goodwill.
The presence of a printed code is not enough to settle the issue. A QR code can lead to information about a product, but that isn't the same as being able to prove the physical product is real. If the packaging is copied, then consumers should have a verification system that can help them determine the difference between the real product and a fake.
VCQRU offers its VerifEye product as an additional tool to bolster that process through physical product authentication, optionally enhanced with a digital authentication layer. The technology is based on optical microstructures that reveal hidden images people can see without any specific equipment, the company said. The goal of its use is to provide users with a way of authentication other than the printed package itself.
According to the company, a QR code, serial number, and other digital systems can also be used with this physical feature. This hybrid approach provides brands an opportunity to approach authentication from more than one point. VCQRU states that the underlying VerifEye patents are held by Lentech Korea, and that the manufacturing process is not easily replicable by conventional printing or hologram manufacturing techniques. These are company descriptions of the technology rather than independently verified performance results.
To the customer, though, the experience matters as much as the actual security mechanism. There should be directions on what to check for, how to do a check, and what to do if something seems amiss. If verification is confusing, the buyer could drop the process altogether. Clear packaging information, readily available support, and simple answers can thus prove useful when someone is about to make a purchasing decision.
Brands must also take into account how the protection fits into the daily running of the business. The placement of the label, packaging materials, handling conditions and retailer awareness can affect the consistency of checking the feature. Manufacturers should test a system on their products and within their distribution network prior to its adoption on a broad scale. In addition to supplier management, dealing with complaints and taking action on suspected counterfeits, authentication is best applied as a component of a larger program.
VCQRU's proposal reflects the simple question that it seeks to answer: “Does a copy of the packaging suffice to gain a customer's confidence?” The company provides brands with an additional physical point of verification, alongside digital options. Its effectiveness will be contingent on implementation and a buyer's confidence and competency in using it. For a brand, it's about giving your customers something to verify, rather than something to take on faith.
For more information on strengthening product authentication and protecting your brand, connect with VCQRU.
(ADVERTORIAL DISCLAIMER: The above press release has been provided by VMPL. ANI will not be responsible in any way for the content of the same.)
