Editorial: Navigating the Murky Waters – The Elusive Market Size of Anticounterfeiting Technologies

At various industry events and meetings, and on diverse platforms, a perennial question surfaces: what is the true market size of anticounterfeiting technologies in the brand protection domain? Despite this editor’s long experience in this sector, the anticounterfeitingw question has consistently presented a significant challenge.

Throughout my career, I’ve come across numerous published reports presenting various figures, yet a persistent scepticism remains. But the bigger question is, can we genuinely rely on these market reports? Do their authors truly hold the complete answer, or is the complexity of this hidden global issue simply beyond precise measurement by anyone? This article examines a few challenges and provides recommendations for navigating the complexities of market research in this niche sector.

Challenge 1: what is being measured?

• Anticounterfeiting versus antifraud versus brand protection – many reports conflate these terms, leading to inflated or miscategorised figures. In addition, some reports might general antifraud solutions, which are not strictly anticounterfeiting technologies.
• Technologies versus services – it is important to clarify whether reports are measuring revenue from the sale of security features (holograms, RFID, secure inks) or from broader services that integrate these features (eg. track & trace platforms, authentication apps, online monitoring, and enforcement activities). Many reports combine the two.

Challenge 2: why is it hard to measure?

• Nature of counterfeiting – the illicit nature of the counterfeiting problem itself makes baseline data on counterfeiting highly unreliable. Market size estimates for anticounterfeiting solutions are often reactive to the estimated size of the counterfeiting problem, which is notoriously difficult to quantify (eg. seizure data only captures a fraction of the size).
• Industry’s reluctance to share data – most companies in the authentication sector operate with a high degree of discretion, often for competitive reasons or due to the sensitive nature of their clients’ security. They typically do not disclose granular figures for specific authentication revenues.

For example, in China and India, where over 200 companies operate in this space, only a handful publish their comprehensive financial data. Even then, isolating their authentication-specific revenue is difficult as it’s often nested within larger divisions. This pervasive lack of transparency severely hampers accurate, bottom-up market analysis.

• Fragmented and blended market structure – the industry’s fragmented nature and the multi-product offerings of many companies add immense complexity. Many authentication and brand protection companies provide a wide range of products and services, including security labels, flexible packaging with integrated features, holograms, digital track and trace platforms, and enforcement services.

How does one accurately calculate ‘authentication sales’ when a company supplies security labels that include authentication features but are sold primarily as packaging components? Isolating the size of the authentication business within such diverse and often blended operations is exceptionally challenging.

Navigating the landscape

To conduct meaningful research in authentication and brand protection, one must clearly define specific data needs, whether by technology, industry, or region. Collaborating with trusted, specialised research firms or consultants with proven expertise, joining industry associations like the IOTA & ITSA, and subscribing to journals for credible insights, all offer a significant advantage.

When reviewing syndicated reports, it is important to verify the publisher’s credibility, data sources, the number of companies surveyed, and the methodology, as well as ensuring the scope of the report aligns with your goals.

Buying syndicated reports might seem quick and easy, but they carry certain risks. The authentication and brand protection sector is specialised and complex, requiring precise, context-specific data for building effective strategies. Although market research is useful, it must be evaluated critically. Success relies on insights that go beyond surface figures to tackle real counterfeiting issues.