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 founders launch edtech startup, pilot to pinpoint why students are struggling

learning gaps

Early detection. It sounds simple enough: identify a problem before it has the chance to become a bigger one.

But in practice, early detection is much more difficult to navigate, especially in education, when it comes to identifying the reasons behind a student's academic struggles.

That’s why co-founders Alapati “Al” Ware and Estela Montanez launched Progress Report, a Houston-built K-12 learning-intelligence platform designed to go beyond identifying that a student is struggling.

The platform recently began its pilot program with 35 educators and more than 200 students in Texas and Arizona.

“It’s a micro-learning school that works with children with disabilities, primarily dyslexia and nonverbal students,” Ware tells InnovationMap.

The platform is also being used by homeschool parents, home teachers and Houston educators, including those at SWPS College & Career Preparatory Academy, a Houston charter school.

Ware says Progress Report was designed to fill a gap he and Montanez saw in existing edtech. Some platforms cater almost entirely to students, leaving teachers with little insight into if and how a child is learning. Others focus heavily on district data, where “the student is just a number,” leaving teachers to navigate disconnected tools.

“Our goal was [to] focus purely on the teacher because the teacher is the backbone,” Ware says.

Progress Report traces student performance to learning gaps and prerequisite skills, helping educators understand not only where a student is struggling, but what may be causing it.

The platform then helps teachers build individualized instruction for general education students, students with special education and Individualized Education Program (IEP) needs, and Spanish-speaking learners—all within one educator-controlled system.

The goal is to reduce the guesswork and hours of manual work educators can spend developing individualized lesson plans.

Progress Report helps idenitify learning gaps and common roadblocks for each student. Image courtesy Progress Report

For Ware and Montanez, the mission is also personal.

The concept dates back to around 2023, when the co-founders first had to navigate and address their children’s educational needs.

Ware, Progress Report’s CEO and CTO with a background in edtech, built the platform end-to-end after watching his daughter, who had an IEP related to speech, struggle to get the support she needed.

Montanez, the company’s COO, brought another perspective. Her son is on the autism spectrum. She now leads Progress Report’s operations, partnerships and pilot execution while helping carry its focus on bilingual families from Puerto Rico to Houston.

Together, they began researching ways to personalize their children’s learning and help them progress academically. Montanez’s son went on to become an AP student and high school athlete, while Ware’s daughter began reading more than two grade levels above her grade, they tell InnovationMap.

But Progress Report isn’t designed simply to give a struggling student more work.

Take a student who appears to have difficulty with math.

The problem may not actually be math, the founders share. The student could understand the calculations but struggle to comprehend complex words used in a math problem.

Progress Report is designed to trace those performance patterns back to learning gaps, prerequisite skills or other instructional barriers. From there, it can recommend a next instructional step while leaving the educator in control.

The same concept applies to accommodations.

The system can read IEPs, 504 Plans, Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFPs), evaluations and other special education records. Approved IEP goals can then be mapped into the student’s learning graph, while accommodations can carry over into lesson planning and question delivery.

The founders say that approach separates Progress Report from simply adding another artificial intelligence chatbot to a classroom. And still, they believe teachers have to remain at the center.

Teachers, in fact, helped build Progress Report.

The founders began meeting with Houston-area educators months before the pilot. Their feedback helped shape the platform before testing began.

“We’ve been building alongside these educators,” Ware says.

Parents are another piece.

Progress Report can give parents access to their child’s learning record so they can see learning gaps as they develop. Teachers can also see information on work being completed at home when the parent and educator are working together.

After the pilot wraps, Ware and Montanez plan to introduce a $29.99 monthly subscription for homeschool parents, teachers and other educators. They say the price was intentionally kept relatively low to help make the tools more accessible.

They are also exploring ways to work with organizations that could help families who can’t afford the platform.

Moving forward, the goal is considerably bigger.

Over the next five years, Ware and Montanez want Progress Report to become what they describe as a “gold standard” in every state. They know getting there will require building relationships with educators, technology leaders, policymakers and school board members.

For now, they’re starting with a few hundred students and a question that sounds simple but can be remarkably difficult to answer: Why is this student struggling?

If Progress Report works the way its founders envision, teachers and parents will have a clearer answer.

Pioneering cohousing development opens in Houston's historic 2nd Ward

Housing in Hou

An experimental, multi-generational building in the East End is now open and accepting residents. Only 10 of the 33 units remain available at East End Commons, the first project from CoHousing Houston.

Located at 115 Lenox, East End Commons was first conceived in 2017 and is designed to combine the security of home ownership with the community aspect of apartment life, essentially a condominium but with added focus on bringing neighbors together.

Units range from 900-2,000 square feet, offering ample private home space, but with a large Common House area and central courtyard for gatherings, working, and interaction. Large front porches encourage people to spend time outside where they can meet their neighbors, as do extensive foot paths for casual meetings.

"At East End Commons, you know your neighbors before you move in — so you have a network of people and spaces that are immediately there for you," said founding resident Kelli Soika. "We designed for larger shared spaces versus larger personal spaces in order to foster the breakdown of the barriers that lead to loneliness."

Combating loneliness and isolation is certainly necessary. A 2025 survey conducted by the American Psychological Association shows that most Americans feel a sense of societal division and lonely. A loss of "third spaces," where people gather outside the home or work, is a prime factor. East End Commons aims to alleviate some of that disconnectedness.

"I wanted to live in a neighborhood that is imbued with a sense of community above the individual, like we have all experienced in Houston during times of disaster recovery," said Lynn Morstead, one of East End Commons‘ founding residents. "In those instances, such as Hurricane Harvey, we surface from our separateness and come together in new and unexpected ways. With East End Commons, the goal is to translate that notion beyond a set period of time and make it a fixture of everyday life. I call it 'disaster-free neighborliness.'"

East End Commons was designed by Kathleen English of English + Associates. Sustainability is part of the project's design, with amenities such as geothermal heating and cooling exchange HVAC, pre-heated water systems, low-energy use air conditioning and heating, and native landscaping.

Prices for units range from $300,000 to the $900,000s, which can be more than double the home price in the rapidly gentrifying East End. HOA fees not only help maintain communal areas, they also cover shared internet, water, and other communal expenses. Similarly, government of the building is handled democratically via a community board that aims to make decisions by building consensus.

For more information, email info@cohousinghouston.com or call 832-900-2919.

MD Anderson president to retire after nine years, interim successor named

retirement plan

An era is ending at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

On Aug. 26, Dr. Peter WT Pisters announced his plans to retire from his role as president of the comprehensive cancer center. He will work on a smooth transition of leadership with interim president Dr. Jeffrey E. Lee throughout September.

“I first arrived at UT MD Anderson 32 years ago with a passion for doing everything I could to advance our mission to end cancer. Serving as the only faculty member to become president, and now marking nine years in the role, I can say with great pride and gratitude that there is no better place than UT MD Anderson to turn hope into healing for patients and families everywhere,” Pisters said in a news release. “With a timeless strategy, a strong leadership team, unprecedented levels of financial health, and a priceless culture anchored in our deeply held Core Values, now is the right time for me to transition to other opportunities. UT MD Anderson has never been stronger, and its future has never been brighter.”

Pisters assumed the presidency in 2017 and helped launch some of the most cutting-edge new clinics in MD Anderson history. One of those was the James P. Allison Institute, named for the Nobel Laureate scientist who discovered a way to suppress immune response on tumors so that immune cells would attack cancer cells instead. As head of his titular clinic, Allison pioneered several new immunotherapies against cancer.

Pisters also oversaw the creation of the Institute for Data Science in Oncology in 2024, an innovative consortium of scientists dedicated to enhancing single-cell imaging to improve precision in cancer treatments. The institute also brought together teams to use data-driven analytics regarding safety, quality and access.

The UT System Board of Regents praised the leadership and work of Pisters in a statement, wishing him well in the next phase of his career.

“The Board of Regents and I are profoundly grateful to Dr. Pisters for his exceptional presidency over the past nine years and for thoughtfully concluding his service when UT MD Anderson is thriving at its best position of peak performance, strength and impact. We wish him our very best with his retirement and in his next chapter,” Kevin P. Eltife, chairman of the UT System Board of Regents, added in the release.