Rice Business Professor Amit Pazgal found that in certain situations, gray markets can actually help manufacturers and retailers. Photo by Science in HD on Unsplash

A camera store in Taiwan buys Nikon cameras from an electronics shop in the Philippines, where photo equipment is cheaper. Then the store sells them to consumers in Taiwan at a lower price. The camera comes without a warranty and instructions are in Filipino – the buyers in Taiwan are happy to have a real Nikon for a lower cost.

The sellers and customers are operating in the so-called gray market – where genuine products are sold through unauthorized channels. Gray marketers buy goods in markets with lower prices, then ship them to a market with higher prices, where they will likely sell for a profit. Though the products are identical, consumers typically see gray market goods as inferior since they often lack benefits like after-sale services or warranty coverage.

For years, gray markets have posed a significant threat to both manufacturers and retailers, depriving both of customers and profits. It's estimated that around $7 billion to $10 billion in goods enter the U.S. market through gray market channels every year. The IT industry, for one, loses approximately $5 billion a year due to gray market activities.

No specific laws in the U.S. ban this practice outright, however. As a result, in recent years, retailers are increasingly taking advantage of potentially cheaper prices abroad, personally importing or using third parties to buy original goods not meant for direct sale in the United States – and then selling them here for less. Alibaba, China's most extensive online shopping site, offers its hundreds of millions of shoppers a large array of gray market goods to peruse.

Manufacturers usually respond to gray markets with knee-jerk hostility, urging customers to avoid gray market goods and even filing lawsuits against gray market peddlers. Nikon, for example, includes a website section to educate consumers on how to identify gray market products, to shun the gray market.

But is gray market commerce always destructive? Rice Business Professor Amit Pazgal joined then-Rice Business Ph.D. student Xueying Liu (now an assistant professor at Nankai University) to explore scenarios in which gray markets could be good for both manufacturers and retailers. Testing the theory in recent research, Pazgal and Liu found that there are indeed situations in which both manufacturers and retailers can profit thanks to gray markets, while the associated product also improves in quality.

To reach these conclusions, the researchers started by recruiting 118 participants between the ages of 25 and 45 to complete a gray market product survey. They found the majority had no problem buying gray market goods. Only 3 percent of consumers wouldn't consider buying cosmetics from a gray marketer, while 6 to 7 percent wouldn't buy electronics. Despite this, more than 90 percent of participants who were willing to buy required a price discount of 20 to 30 percent, showing the goods were seen as slightly inferior.

The researchers then tested responses to a model of a manufacturer selling a single product to two markets – or countries – that differed in size and in customer willingness to pay for the product. Consumers in one market would pay more, on average, for quality. For example, the Nikon D500 camera is sold for a 7.5 percent premium in Taiwan versus Thailand and a 10 percent price premium in Taiwan versus the Philippines.

Pazgal and Liu found that when the manufacturer sells their product directly to consumers in both markets when there is also a gray market, both the manufacturer's profit and product quality decrease. But when the same manufacturer sells their product indirectly to a retailer in at least one of these markets, both the manufacturer's and the retailer's profits can increase. So can the product's quality.

This occurs for several reasons. First, gray marketers increase total demand and profit for the retailer in the lower-priced market, or in the market where the gray marketer buys their goods. The manufacturer can set a higher wholesale price for the better quality product in a market where consumers pay more, and increase sales in both markets as consumers compare the regular, high-quality product to the gray market one. In fact, by offering a lower-priced, lower quality (that is, gray market) alternative to its own high-quality product, the manufacturer can better segment consumers in the higher-priced market.

Finally, the retailer in the higher-priced market becomes more profitable even though they lose some customers to the gray market. This is because increased product quality and price more than make up for lost sales. Researchers found that the results hold regardless of whether the gray marketer buys from the manufacturer or a retailer.

The bottom line: in certain situations, gray markets can improve profitability for both manufacturers and retailers (and, of course, the gray marketers). Counterintuitive though it is, manufacturers that sell through retailers shouldn't automatically see gray markets as an obstacle to their profits, rushing to demand that governments and courts shut them down. Instead, in some cases, companies could do well to embrace these gray markets, because they lead to overall improved profits.

Manufacturers can use this information to their advantage, Pazgal noted. Nikon, for example, could introduce a higher quality camera to the market, allowing it to set even higher wholesale prices and increase sales in both markets, far exceeding the cost of the higher quality product.

For consumers, meanwhile, gray markets are always beneficial because of lower prices. If companies heed Pazgal's findings, however, customers could also benefit from more innovative and higher quality cameras and other merchandise, as manufacturers hurry to create better products to bump up their profits.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and is based on research from Amit Pazgal, the Friedkin Professor of Management – Marketing at the Jones Graduate School of Business.

Turns out, timing is everything when launching a new tech product, this reacher found for Rice Business Wisdom. rawpixel.com /Pexels

Rice University researcher discovers what makes a tech product stand out in a crowd

Houston Voices

From smart phones to video games to virtual reality toys, new products roll forward as relentlessly as the tides. So what, and how, should you tell consumers about your product to avoid being swept away in a sea of similar wares?

To answer this question, Rice Business professor Amit Pazgal and colleague Yuanfang Lin of Conestoga College dove into the particulars of how companies differentiate their products by informing consumers about a new product's quality.

The rush of new products, they note, is particularly intense in technology, where innovations are constant — which means consumers constantly need information about them. Traditionally, tech companies make the case for their products using advertising, free sample, product trials and splashy product demonstrations. (See your local Apple Store).

But how does a consumer's wish for information interact with their ultimate buying decision?

Timing, Pazgal and Lin found, plays a powerful role in the type of information that best influences consumers. Suppose, for example, Firm 1 offers a new product, say a smartphone with innovative features. This makes Firm 1 a pioneer. For a certain golden period, Firm 1 might hold a monopoly in the market, since there's simply no other smartphone like theirs. This is the moment, the researchers say, to offer consumers information that reveals the product's true quality and uniqueness. Because no similar product is out there, Firm 1 has the power to establish the parameters for judging its invention.

Inevitably, of course, another company (call it Firm 2) will come up with something comparable. Thanks to the heavy lifting in innovation by Firm 1, Firm 2 has the luxury to create a phone of equal or greater quality. And this is when the tide starts to turn. One might assume Firm 2 would just inform consumers of the superior quality of its product. But, surprisingly, Pazgal and Lin found that in most cases Firm 2 will instead focus on educating consumers about their preference for quality — in effect, leaving it up to the buyer to decide which of the two phones they really wants.

However, if another firm emerges with a similar product of lesser quality, its marketing will likely take yet another turn. Instead of trying to claim better quality, late entry companies offering an inferior product typically admit outright that their product isn't as well made as other versions.

That's because such firms calculate that if customers discover this themselves, they'll react badly. By telling the truth and pricing appropriately, a firm can find a calm stretch of water elsewhere in the market, someplace where it's not clashing directly with the earlier, higher quality products.

Whether it's Alexa, a smart TV or a virtual reality game, Pazgal and Lin explain, when a product enters the market for the first time, consumers need to be shown how it works. When a second product in the same line is introduced by a different company, the marketing task changes: it's now more important to show consumers how to identify a quality product, and then let them choose for themselves.

Any time a company launches a device or service into the world, in other words, it needs to trust consumers' ability to learn — and not drown them with too much information. Informed what good quality looks like, Pazgal and Lin conclude, consumers will swim on their own to the item they truly want.

------

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Amit Pazgal is Friedkin Chair in Management and Professor of Marketing and Operations Management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston researcher secures $1.7M to develop drug for aggressive form of breast cancer

cancer research

A University of Houston researcher has joined a $3.2 million effort to develop a new drug designed to attack a cancer-driving protein commonly found in triple-negative breast cancer.

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most difficult-to-treat forms of cancer and accounts for 10 percent to 15 percent of all breast cancer cases. The disease gets its name because tumors associated with it test negative for estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors and excess HER2 protein, making it difficult to target. Due to this, TNBC is often treated with general chemotherapy, which can come with negative side effects and drug resistance, according to UH.

UH College of Pharmacy research associate professor Wei Wang is developing a drug that can target the disease more specifically. The drug will target MDM2, a protein often overproduced in TNBC that also contributes to faster tumor growth.

Wang is working on a team led by Wei Li, director of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Pharmacy’s Drug Discovery Center. She has received $1.7 million to support the research.

Wang and UH professor of pharmacology and toxicology Ruiwen Zhang have discovered a compound that can break down MDM2. In early laboratory models, the compound has shown the ability to shrink tumors.

Wang and Zhang will focus on understanding how the treatment works and monitoring its effectiveness in models that closely mirror human disease.

“We will study how the drug targets MDM2 and evaluate the most promising drug candidates to determine effective dosing, understand how the drug behaves in the body, compare it with existing treatments and assess early safety,” Wang said in a news release.

Li’s team at the University of Tennessee will be working on the chemistry and drug design end of the project.

“This work could lead to an entirely new class of therapies for triple-negative breast cancer,” Li added in the release. “We’re hopeful that by directly removing the MDM2 protein from cancer cells, we can help more patients respond to treatment regardless of their tumor type.”

10+ Houston innovation leaders in the spotlight at SXSW 2026

where to be

Houston's innovation scene will be well represented at South by Southwest (SXSW) this month.

The week-long, Austin-based conference and festival will spotlight some of the Bayou City's leaders in health care, energy, space and more. The event kicks off today, March 12, and runs through March 18. The SXSW Innovation Conference will feature keynotes, workshops, mentoring sessions and more throughout various venues in the city.

Here's who to see and when and where to find them:

March 12

Aileen Allen, venture partner at Mercury Fund

Mentor Session from 4-5:15 p.m. at Hilton Austin Downtown

Allen will host a mentoring session focused on funding, marketing, advertising, PR and the future of work.

March 13

Heath Butler, partner at Mercury Fund

SXSW Pitch-Smart Cities, Transportation, Manufacturing & Logistics from 2:30-3:30 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Butler will judge five innovative startups as they pitch their solutions to advance smart cities, enhance transportation systems, modernize manufacturing, transform logistics, and strengthen government infrastructure and civic operations.

Jonathan Cirtain, CEO and president of Axiom Space

The Clock is Ticking for Space - Replacing the ISS from 4-5 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Cirtain will discuss Axiom's pursuit of building the world’s first commercial space station.

March 14

Jesse Martinez, founder and CEO of LSA Global

SXSW Pitch-Intelligent Systems, Robotics, & Multisensory Technology from 10-11 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Martinez will judge five innovative startups as they pitch their technologies that aim to enhance the way people connect, communicate and share unique life experiences with those around them in a digital ecosystem.

Jennifer Schmitt, head of operations at Rhythm Energy

Powering Texas with Reliable Integrated High-Demand Energy from 10-11 a.m. at Marlow

Schmitt will join a panel to discuss how EirGrid, the state-owned electric power transmission operator in Ireland, is pioneering solutions as the country works toward 80 percent renewable integration by 2030.

Saki Sasagawa, director of business development for JETRO Houston

Now is Japan's Time: Leading the Future with Deep Tech from 10-11 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Sasagawa joins a panel that will share real-time insights from diverse perspectives on the forefront of Japan’s deep tech and IP businesses.

March 15

Bosco Lai, CEO and co-founder of Little Place Labs

SXSW Pitch Alumni: Where Are They Now? from 10-11 a.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Lai joins a panel of four former SXSW Pitch winners to share how they leveraged the platform to take their startups to the next level.

Tara Karimi, cofounder and chief science and sustainability officer at Cemvita

South by South America: The Rise of Southern Brazil Tech from 2:30-3:30. p.m. at The Line

Karimi will participate in a panel to discuss how Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil's southernmost state, is attracting elite talent and AI infrastructure and share insights on navigating the next wave of South American tech growth.

March 16

Dr. Pavitra P. Krishnamani, emergency medicine physician at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Viva La Revolution: How the Digital Age is Transforming Wellness from 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. at Hilton Austin Downtown

Krishnamani will discuss the latest advancements and policies that can accelerate the digital age of health care, such as wearables, telehealth and artificial intelligence.

March 18

Charlie Childs, co-founder and CEO of Intero Biosystems

Spinning Out: What It Takes to Build a University Startup from 2:30-3:30 p.m. at The Line

Childs will join founders who spun their companies out of the University of Michigan to share the real story of navigating IP, early capital, team building, market validation and the “valley of death.”

Dr. James Allison, regental chair of immunology and director of The Allison Institute at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Dr. Padmanee Sharma, professor in the Department of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Beyond Checkpoints: Immunotherapy’s Next Act from 2:30-3:30 p.m. at the J.W. Marriott

Allison and Sharma will sit down with 21-year-old, Stage 4 cancer survivor Sharon Belvin and Time Magazine journalist Alice Park will discuss the future of immunotherapy and what challenges remain.

Last year, Houston startups Little Places Labs and Helix Earth won top prizes in their respective categories at the prestigious SXSW Pitch event, held this year from March 13-14. No Houston startups were named finalists to compete in this year's event.

NASA revamps Artemis moon landing program by modeling it after Apollo

To the moon

NASA is revamping its Artemis moon exploration program to make it more like the fast-paced Apollo program half a century ago, adding an extra practice flight before attempting a high-risk lunar landing with a crew in two years.

The overhaul in the flight lineup came just days after NASA’s new moon rocket returned to its hangar for more repairs, and a safety panel warned the space agency to scale back its overly ambitious goals for humanity’s first lunar landing since 1972.

Artemis II, a lunar fly-around by four astronauts, is off until at least April because of rocket problems.

The follow-up mission, Artemis III, had been targeting a landing near the moon’s south pole by another pair of astronauts in about three years. But with long gaps between flights and concern growing over the readiness of a lunar lander and moonwalking suits, NASA’s new administrator Jared Isaacman announced that mission would instead focus on launching a lunar lander into orbit around Earth in 2027 for docking practice by astronauts flying in an Orion capsule.

The new plan calls for a moon landing — potentially even two moon landings — by astronauts in 2028.

“Everybody agrees. This is the only way forward,” Isaacman said.

The hydrogen fuel leaks and helium flow problems that struck the Space Launch System rocket on the pad at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in February also plagued the first Artemis test flight without a crew in 2022.

Another three-year gap was looming between Artemis II and the moon landing by astronauts as originally envisioned, Isaacman said.

Isaacman stressed that “it should be incredibly obvious” that three years between flights is unacceptable. He'd like to get it down to one year or even less.

Isaacman, a tech billionaire who bought his own trips to orbit and performed the world’s first private spacewalk, took the helm at NASA in December.

During NASA’s storied Apollo program, he said, astronauts’ first flight to the moon was followed by two more missions before Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. What's more, he added, the Apollo moonshots followed one another in quick succession, just as the earlier Projects Mercury and Gemini had rapid flight rates, sometimes coming just a few months apart.

Twenty-four Apollo astronauts flew to the moon from 1968 through 1972, with 12 of them landing.

“No one at NASA forgot their history books. They knew how to do this," Isaacman said. “Now we're putting it in action.”

To pick up the pace and reduce risk, NASA will standardize its Space Launch System rockets moving forward, Isaacman said. These are the massive rockets that will launch astronauts to the moon aboard Orion capsules. At the same time, Elon Musk's SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin are speeding up their work on the landers needed to get the astronauts from lunar orbit down to the surface.

Isaacman said next year will see an Orion crew rendezvousing in orbit around Earth with SpaceX's Starship, Blue Origin's Blue Moon or both landers. It's similar to the methodical approach that worked so well during Apollo in the late 1960s, he noted. Apollo 8, astronauts' first flight to the moon, was followed by two more missions before Armstrong and Aldrin aimed for the lunar surface.

“We should be getting back to basics and doing what we know works,” he said.

The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommended that NASA revise its objectives for Artemis III “given the demanding mission goals.” It’s urgent the space agency do that, the panel said, if the United States hopes to safely return astronauts to the moon. Isaacman said the revised Artemis flight plan addresses the panel's concerns and is supported by industry and the Trump administration.