Which of your packaging features invite counterfeiting?
You spend on holograms, taggants, serialization, substrates and closures on the assumption that each one deters. Some do. Some do nothing measurable, and some combinations make a pack easier to imitate convincingly. FyndEm Shield tells you which is which, from your own channel data — so packaging spend becomes a directed investment rather than a uniform one.
FyndEm Shield, feature effectiveness
Four questions your product-protection would love to have answers for
Seizure counts and test-buy results tell you what already happened, somewhere, to something. None of them tell you what to change.
Do you know which features, or combinations of them, are inviting counterfeiting rather than deterring it?
Every anti-counterfeit feature is bought on the promise that it deters. Very few of them are ever measured against outcomes. A feature that is easy to imitate badly can be worse than no feature at all — it tells a buyer the pack is genuine while offering the counterfeiter a template.
When you upgrade a line, are you going like-for-like or investing in newer instrumentation — and is that a data-driven decision?
Line replacement usually defaults to what was there before, because that is the defensible choice in a capital review. But like-for-like quietly re-buys whatever protection you already had, including the parts that were not working. The decision deserves evidence, not precedent.
Do you know where counterfeiting is concentrating — which product, which market, and which pattern?
Counterfeiting is never evenly spread. It concentrates in a product, in a corridor, and in a repeatable pattern — diversion, demand surge, relabeling. Knowing the three together is what turns brand protection from reactive enforcement into a targeted program.
When management asks what counterfeiting is actually costing you, what do you show them?
Seizure volumes measure enforcement activity, not exposure. Every honest answer starts with an estimate nobody in the room trusts, which is why the budget conversation stalls. Get the magnitude of the iceberg below the water line — per market, per product — from your own numbers, not industry estimates.
Value from the channel signals you already collect
- Directed packaging spend, from feature-level evidence on what deters and what merely costs — instead of protecting every SKU identically
- A defensible line-upgrade case, replacing like-for-like habit with evidence on which instrumentation changes outcomes
- An investment case per feature or combination, on tap — continuously available rather than commissioned as a study each time capital is reviewed
- Targeted enforcement, through concentration by product, market and pattern, refreshed weekly rather than reviewed annually
- A magnitude figure management can argue with, built from your own channel data and your own cost configuration
Every prediction is actionable
Every FyndEm Shield prediction carries specific actions, a lead time, a confidence level and a dollar impact. The dollar impact is what lets your team prioritize — and it comes from your own cost configuration, not from an industry estimate of counterfeit prevalence.