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

CPRIT CEO: Houston’s $2B in funding is transforming cancer research and prevention

fighting cancer

With its plethora of prestigious health care organizations like the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, UTHealth Houston, and the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston sits at the heart of cancer research and prevention in Texas.

Of course, it takes piles of cash to support Houston’s status as the state’s hub for cancer research and prevention. Much of that money comes from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT).

Data supplied by CPRIT shows organizations in Harris County gained $2.3 billion in institute funding from 2009 through 2025, or nearly $145 million per year. That represents almost 60 percent of the roughly $4 billion that CPRIT has granted to Texas institutions over a 16-year period.

“The life sciences ecosystem that has developed and changed in Houston is phenomenal,” Kristen Doyle, who became the agency’s CEO in July 2024, tells InnovationMap. “In the next decade, we will look back and see a great transformation.”

That ecosystem includes more than 1,100 life sciences and biotech companies, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.

Houston plays critical role in clinical trials

Texas voters approved the creation of CPRIT in 2007. Twelve years later, voters agreed to earmark an extra $3 billion for CPRIT, bringing the state agency’s total investment in cancer research and prevention to $6 billion.

To date, CPRIT money has gone toward recruiting 344 cancer researchers to Texas (mainly to Houston) and has supported cancer prevention services for millions of Texans in the state’s 254 counties. CPRIT funding has also helped establish, expand, or relocate 25 cancer-focused companies. In Houston, MD Anderson ranks as the No. 1 recipient of CPRIT funding.

Regarding cancer research, Doyle says Houston plays a critical role in clinical trials.

“[Clinical trials are] something that CPRIT has focused on more and more. Brilliant discoveries are crucial to this whole equation of solving the cancer problem,” Doyle says. “But if those brilliant ideas stay in the labs, then we’ve all failed.”

Researchers conduct more clinical trials in Houston than anywhere else in the U.S., the Greater Houston Partnership says.

Doyle, a 20-year survivor of leukemia, notes that a minority of eligible patients participate in clinical trials for cancer treatments, “and that’s one of the reasons that it takes so long to get a promising drug to market.”

An estimated 7 percent of cancer patients sign up for clinical trials, according to a study published in 2024 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

MD Anderson takes on cancer prevention

Doyle also notes that Houston is leading the charge in cancer prevention.

“We get some national recognition for programs that have been developed in Houston that then can be replicated in other parts of the country,” she says.

Much of the work in Houston focusing on cancer prevention takes place at MD Anderson. The hospital reports that it has received more than $725 million from the CPRIT since 2007, representing approximately 18 percent of CPRIT’s total awards.

“These efforts can have profound impact on the lives of patients and their families, and this funding ensures our exemplary clinicians and scientists can continue working together to drive breakthroughs that advance our mission to end cancer,” Dr. Giulio Draetta, chief scientific officer at MD Anderson, said in a November news release, following the most recent CPRIT award for the hospital totalling more than $29 million.

CPRIT funding for Houston institutions supplements the more than $4.5 billion in federal funding for health and life sciences research and innovations that the Houston area received from 2020 to 2024, according to the Greater Houston Partnership.

“We are curing cancer every single day,” Doyle says of CPRIT. “Every step that we are taking — whether that’s funding great ideas or funding the clinical trials that are bringing promising drugs to Texas and to the world — we are making a difference.”

Houston energy tech co. breaks ground on low-cost hydrogen pilot plant

Coming Soon

Houston’s Lummus Technology and Advanced Ionics have broken ground on their hydrogen pilot plant at Lummus’ R&D facility in Pasadena, Texas.

The plant will support Advanced Ionics’ cutting-edge electrolyzer technology, which aims to deliver high-efficiency hydrogen production with reduced energy requirements.

“By demonstrating Advanced Ionics’ technology at our state-of-the-art R&D facility, we are leveraging the expertise of our scientists and R&D team, plus our proven track record of developing breakthrough technologies,” Leon de Bruyn, president and CEO of Lummus, said in a news release. “This will help us accelerate commercialization of the technology and deliver scalable, cost-effective and sustainable green hydrogen solutions to our customers.”

Advanced Ionics is a Milwaukee-based low-cost green hydrogen technology provider. Its electrolyzer converts process and waste heat into green hydrogen for less than a dollar per kilogram, according to the company. The platform's users include industrial hydrogen producers looking to optimize sustainability at an affordable cost.

Lummus, a global energy technology company, will operate the Advanced Ionics electrolyzer and manage the balance of plant systems.

In 2024, Lummus and Advanced Ionics established their partnership to help advance the production of cost-effective and sustainable hydrogen technology. Lummus Venture Capital also invested an undisclosed amount into Advanced Ionics at the time.

“Our collaboration with Lummus demonstrates the power of partnerships in driving the energy transition forward,” Ignacio Bincaz, CEO of Advanced Ionics, added in the news release. “Lummus serves as a launchpad for technologies like ours, enabling us to validate performance and integration under real-world conditions. This milestone proves that green hydrogen can be practical and economically viable, and it marks another key step toward commercial deployment.”

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

TMC launches new biotech partnership with Republic of Korea

international collaboration

Houston's Texas Medical Center has launched its new TMC Republic of Korea BioBridge.

The new partnership brings together the TMC with the Osong Medical Innovation Foundation, or KBIOHealth. The Biobridge aims to support the commercialization of Korean biotech and life science startups in the U.S., foster clinical research, and boost collaboration in the public, private and academic sectors.

Through the partnership, TMC will also develop a Global Innovators Launch Pad to foster U.S. market entry for international health care companies. Founders will be selected to participate in the 10-week program at the TMC Innovation Factory in Houston.

“Gene and cell therapies are driving biotech innovation, opening possibilities for treating diseases once thought untreatable," William McKeon, president and CEO of the Texas Medical Center, said in a news release. "Expanding biomanufacturing capacity is essential to delivering the next wave of these therapies, and partnerships with leading innovators will strengthen our efforts in Houston and internationally.”

McKeon officially signed the TMC Korea BioBridge Memorandum of Understanding with Myoung Su Lee, chairman of KBIOHealth, in South Korea in October.

"This collaboration marks a significant milestone for Korea’s biohealth ecosystem, creating a powerful bridge between Osong and Houston," Lee added in the release. "By combining KBIOHealth’s strength in research infrastructure and Korea’s biotech talent with TMC’s global network and accelerator platform, we aim to accelerate innovation and bring transformative solutions to patients worldwide.”

This is the seventh international strategic partnership for the TMC. It launched its first BioBridge with the Health Informatics Society of Australia in 2016. It launched its TMC Japan BioBridge, focused on advancing cancer treatments, last year. It also has BioBridge partnerships with the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom.