Companies are putting more anti-counterfeit programmes in place and spending more money on them. More than half of top executives think combating counterfeits is a significant priority, and they are willing to invest even more than they are today. It makes sense because counterfeiters are no longer little shops but large-scale manufacturers, often even more significant than original brand manufacturers.

 The anti-counterfeiting world is shifting, and packaging manufacturers must adapt. If you are looking for any solution, you can consider anti-counterfeiting by Blokchi.

Here’s a rundown of the most important general guidelines.

There are three essential protection strategies. They aren’t mutually exclusive, are frequently used in conjunction, and have limitations:

Tracking and tracing each individual product from manufacturing to distributors and retailers, all the way to secondhand stores.

 

* Personal data protection and business data protection in some cases.

 

Furthermore, a physical protective factor is required in any case. Otherwise, a user may read a QR [quick response] code and obtain information about the product’s history, but there is no guarantee that the product has not been replaced.

 

Add safeguards so that a client can tell the difference between real and phoney on their own.

* Some buyers purchase fakes on purpose.

 

According to the studies, this could be the case for a significant section of the market. We’re dealing with a broader issue here. It’s nearly tough to stop clients who desire fakes. The maker should inquire why the customer does not see enough value in real products.

Anti-counterfeit packaging will become increasingly popular. Suppliers of packaging will be requested to make recommendations for the most appropriate elements. The selection of parts must be based on the inspection personnel’s knowledge. The protection must fit their abilities.

 

Criteria for anti-counterfeiting solutions

The following qualities of protective components are required with this reservation:

 

Unpredictability. 

Even a layperson inspecting a product should be able to tell if it is real. Let us demonstrate the difference between the most recent holograms and the most dependable protective technology currently available. A visual illusion based on switching between logo and numerals or between grey and black hue could be included in the hologram. Because most inspection personnel cannot distinguish it from other holograms with the same logo, such protection would be ineffective. On the other hand, humorous features like a dancing bear or a 3D flower with shifting colours can be incorporated into the hologram. They’d provide an extremely effective defence.

 

Self-destructive behaviour. 

According to the protective factor, any effort to remove it and place it on another package must result in its permanent destruction. Drawing with special inks is a fantastic way to ensure self-destruction. If a hologram is used, it should be made up of smaller pieces that fall apart when handled.

 

The ability to be imitated. 

Counterfeiters must be unable to produce a similar product. Simple technologies like watermarks, drawing with special inks, or previous generation holograms struggle to meet this criterion.

Some manufacturers try to include as many safety features as possible on their packaging. On the other hand, behavioural studies demonstrate that having too many pieces causes confusion among inspectors rather than improving security. Up to three major conspicuous components are recommended.

Hidden aspects can also be incorporated to allow the person assessing the item to dig deeper if there is a suspicion. This extra (hidden) layer of protection might be based on a variety of factors:

 

  1. Additional holographic visual effects, such as emerging objects illuminated by red light from a specific angle.
  2. Microletters, symbols, or dots on a microscopic scale.
  3. A substance that is protected. Microscopic markers can be used to make packages out of paper or plastic. Markers with varying levels of security can be utilised.

In any event, while choosing anti-counterfeit packaging, keep the following factors in mind

 

  • A balance between the expenses of protection elements and the product’s price. The designer should be aware of not only their costs but also the costs incurred by counterfeiters.

The product’s life cycle includes the packaging life cycle (time and conditions). It’s a problem if the product or container outlasts the protection feature, such as when a label is applied directly to a long-lasting product. Some security features, such as unique printing inks or even some holograms, lose their effectiveness after two to three years, if not sooner. 

However, because of the potential for misuse and copying, it is not a good idea if the anti-counterfeiting feature lasts much longer than the remainder of the packaging. This knowledge should be used to develop anti-counterfeiting solutions. Producers of packaging who manage it have the potential to become strategic partners with major brands.

About Author