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

World's largest student startup competition names teams for 2025 Houston event

ready, set, pitch

The Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship has announced the 42 student-led teams worldwide that will compete in the 25th annual Rice Business Plan Competition this spring.

The highly competitive event, known as one of the world’s largest and richest intercollegiate student startup challenges, will take place April 10–12 at Houston's The Ion. Teams in this year's competition represent 34 universities from four countries, including one team from Rice.

Graduate student-led teams from colleges or universities around the world will present their plans before more than 300 angel, venture capital, and corporate investors to compete for more than $1 million in prizes. Last year, top teams were awarded $1.5 million in investment and cash prizes.

The 2025 invitees include:

  • 3rd-i, University of Miami
  • AG3 Labs, Michigan State University
  • Arcticedge Technologies, University of Waterloo
  • Ark Health, University of Chicago
  • Automatic AI, University of Mississippi and University of New Orleans
  • Bobica Bars, Rowan University
  • Carbon Salary, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Carmine Minerals, California State University, San Bernardino
  • Celal-Mex, Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education
  • CELLECT Laboratories, University of Waterloo
  • ECHO Solutions, University of Houston
  • EDUrain, University of Missouri-St. Louis
  • Eutrobac, University of California, Santa Cruz
  • FarmSmart.ai, Louisiana State University
  • Fetal Therapy Technologies, Johns Hopkins University
  • GreenLIB Materials, University of Ottawa
  • Humimic Biosystems, University of Arkansas
  • HydroHaul, Harvard University
  • Intero Biosystems, University of Michigan
  • Interplay, University of Missouri-Kansas City
  • MabLab, Harvard University
  • Microvitality, Tufts University
  • Mito Robotics, Carnegie Mellon University
  • Motmot, Michigan State University
  • Mud Rat, University of Connecticut
  • Nanoborne, University of Texas at Austin
  • NerView Surgical, McMaster University
  • NeuroFore, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Novus, Stanford University
  • OAQ, University of Toronto
  • Parthian Baattery Solutions, Columbia University
  • Pattern Materials, Rice University
  • Photon Queue, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
  • re.solution, RWTH Aachen University
  • Rise Media, Yale University
  • Rivulet, University of Cambridge and Dartmouth College
  • Sabana, Carnegie Mellon University
  • SearchOwl, Case Western Reserve University
  • Six Carbons, Indiana University
  • Songscription, Stanford University
  • Watermarked.ai, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
  • Xatoms, University of Toronto

This year's group joins more than 868 RBPC alums that have raised more than $6.1 billion in capital with 59 successful exits, according to the Rice Alliance.

Last year, Harvard's MesaQuantum, which was developing accurate and precise chip-scale clocks, took home the biggest sum of $335,000. While not named as a finalist, the team secured the most funding across a few prizes.

Protein Pints, a high-protein, low-sugar ice cream product from Michigan State University, won first place and the $150,000 GOOSE Capital Investment Grand Prize, as well as other prizes, bringing its total to $251,000.

Tesla recalling more than 375,000 vehicles due to power steering issue

Tesla Talk

Tesla is recalling more than 375,000 vehicles due to a power steering issue.

The recall is for certain 2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles operating software prior to 2023.38.4, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The printed circuit board for the electronic power steering assist may become overstressed, causing a loss of power steering assist when the vehicle reaches a stop and then accelerates again, the agency said.

The loss of power could required more effort to control the car by drivers, particularly at low speeds, increasing the risk of a crash.

Tesla isn't aware of any crashes, injuries, or deaths related to the condition.

The electric vehicle maker headed by Elon Musk has released a free software update to address the issue.

Letters are expected to be sent to vehicle owners on March 25. Owners may contact Tesla customer service at 1-877-798-3752 or the NHTSA at 1-888-327-4236.

Houston space tech companies land $25 million from Texas commission

Out Of This World

Two Houston aerospace companies have collectively received $25 million in grants from the Texas Space Commission.

Starlab Space picked up a $15 million grant, and Intuitive Machines gained a $10 million grant, according to a Space Commission news release.

Starlab Space says the money will help it develop the Systems Integration Lab in Webster, which will feature two components — the main lab and a software verification facility. The integration lab will aid creation of Starlab’s commercial space station.

“To ensure the success of our future space missions, we are starting with state-of-the-art testing facilities that will include the closest approximation to the flight environment as possible and allow us to verify requirements and validate the design of the Starlab space station,” Starlab CEO Tim Kopra said in a news release.

Starlab’s grant comes on top of a $217.5 million award from NASA to help eventually transition activity from the soon-to-be-retired International Space Station to new commercial destinations.

Intuitive Machines is a space exploration, infrastructure and services company. Among its projects are a lunar lander designed to land on the moon and a lunar rover designed for astronauts to travel on the moon’s surface.

The grants come from the Space Commission’s Space Exploration and Aeronautics Research Fund, which recently awarded $47.7 million to Texas companies.

Other recipients were:

  • Cedar Park-based Firefly Aerospace, which received $8.2 million
  • Brownsville-based Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), which received $7.5 million
  • Van Horn-based Blue Origin, which received $7 million

Gwen Griffin, chair of the commission, says the grants “will support Texas companies as we grow commercial, military, and civil aerospace activity across the state.”

State lawmakers established the commission in 2023, along with the Texas Aerospace Research & Space Economy Consortium, to bolster the state’s space industry.