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.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

5 must-know fall application deadlines for Houston innovators

apply now

Editor's note: As fall reaches full swing, Houston's innovation scene is calling on the latest batch of founders and startups looking to make a difference. A number of accelerators have opened applications. Read below to see which might be a good fit for you or your venture. And take careful note of the deadlines. Please note: this article may be updated to include additional information and programs.

Did we miss an accelerator or competition accepting applications? Email innoeditor@innovationmap.com for editorial consideration.

Texas Life Science Forum

Deadline: Oct. 2

Details: Ventures can apply to present at the 15th annual Texas Life Science Forum, hosted by BioHouston and Rice Alliance. Participants will meet during office hours with venture capitalists, tech scouts, corporate venture groups and angel investors, and present their pitches in a public forum. Pitches take place on Nov. 10 and office hours are held Nov. 11. Find more information here.

Greentown Lab's Go Make 2027: Advanced Carbon Materials with ExxonMobil

Deadline: Oct. 9

Details: Greentown Labs is seeking applications from startups developing novel carbon-based technologies for its latest Go Make cohort in conjunction with ExxonMobil. The structured accelerator is designed to facilitate validation activities and explore potential long-term collaborations with Exxon, according to Greentown. Founders will have the opportunity to engage directly with industry leaders to test, validate and scale their carbon technologies in real commercial contexts. The program tentatively starts on Jan. 20, 2027 and concludes June 16, 2027. Find more information here.

Activate's U.S. Fellowship Cohort 2027

Deadline: Oct. 30

Details: Activate supports scientists at "the outset of their entrepreneurial journey." It partners with U.S.-based funders and research institutions to support its fellows in developing high-impact technology. Its fellows receive a living stipend, research and development funding, connections from Activate's robust network of mentors and access to a curriculum specific to the program for two years. Applicants must have a bachelor’s degree and 4-plus years of post-baccalaureate scientific research, engineering or technology development experience. Their work must be based in the physical or biological sciences or related engineering disciplines. Find more information here.

Rice Innovation Fellows

Deadline: Oct. 30

Details: The Liu Idea Lab for Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Lilie)'s Rice Innovation Fellows program supports Rice Ph.D. students and postdocs in turning their research into real-world ventures. Participants receive $10,000 in translational research funding, co-working space and personalized mentorship. Candidates from all Rice engineering and science-related disciplines are encouraged to apply. Find more information here.

The TMC's Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics

Deadline: Oct. 30

Details: Texas-based ventures and researchers developing a cancer therapeutics project can apply to this accelerator funded by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. The nine-month program runs February-September 2027 and focuses on market research, FDA regulations, intellectual property, licensing, finance, fundraising, legal and other critical areas for cancer-related ventures. Participants will complete the program with at least one grant submission and have the option to pitch to investors, corporate partners, media and other influential guests. Find more information here.

Houston college joins inaugural workforce accelerator supported by Google

hands-on training

Houston City College (HCC) is one of 15 community colleges from around the country to be selected for the first-ever Workforce Futures Accelerator.

The three-year effort is supported by Google.org, the tech company’s philanthropic arm, and led by the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), a non-profit educational organization that represents over 500 community, junior, and technical colleges. The accelerator focuses on helping colleges embed virtual, employer-sponsored training opportunities into short-term workforce training programs, giving participants access to opportunities that they might otherwise receive through internships or other "work-based learning" stints.

"The Workforce Futures Accelerator reflects the Houston City College mission of offering a high-quality, affordable education for workforce training and career development," Pretta VanDible Stallworth, HCC trustee and chair-elect of the ACCT board of directors, said in a news release. "Advancing student success and creating pathways to opportunities ensures that our students are well equipped to succeed and build a secure future in today's economy.”

Through the accelerator, HCC is tasked with fusing online project-based learning opportunities with its workforce education programs. The idea is to give students hands-on experiences working on projects sponsored by employers, allowing them to gain real-world knowledge in the process.

HCC will select two workforce programs that meet the accelerator’s criteria and insert into them into coursework. In the second and third year of the accelerator, the selected colleges are expected to scale the programs by adding instructors and programs to develop a network of to support their continued implementation.

“Participation by HCC will strengthen how we provide students with career-connected learning experiences that complement their classroom education and align with the needs of employers,” HCC Chancellor Margaret Ford Fisher added in the news release. “We are focused on ‘future forward’ strategies to meet the present and future needs of our region’s businesses.”

Two other Texas colleges were chosen to participate in the accelerator: Lamar Institute of Technology in Beaumont and Grayson College in Denison.

The remaining cohort includes:

  • Bergen Community College in Paramus, New Jersey
  • Central Louisiana Community College in Alexandria, Louisiana
  • Clark State College in Springfield, Ohio
  • Great Basin College in Elko, Nevada
  • Heartland Community College in Normal, Illinois
  • Hudson County Community College in Jersey City, New Jersey
  • Manchester Community College in Manchester, New Hampshire
  • Mesa Community College in Mesa, Arizona
  • Mohave College in Kingman, Arizona
  • San Joaquin Delta Community College in Stockton, California
  • San Juan College in Farmington, New Mexico
  • West Virginia University Parkersburg in Parkersburg, West Virginia

New report ranks Texas among top 10 states where AI could disrupt jobs

AI Workforce

A new nationwide report examining where AI could "reshape" the most jobs has ranked Texas No. 9 among the most at-risk states for AI job disruption.

The new SmartAsset report compared all 50 states and the District of Columbia to calculate the estimated percent of the workforce employed in the 26 occupations with the highest AI exposure, as determined by June 2026 research by the Virginia Economic Information and Analytics Division.

The findings revealed that 500,000 Texas workers, or 3.55 percent of the total workforce, are employed in occupations with "high exposure to potential AI disruption."

This also places the Lone Star State as the 9th most at-risk state in the U.S. where AI exposure can lead to "declining hiring demand, wage pressure, task automation, and other forms of disruption."

"States with larger concentrations of highly exposed occupations could experience more pronounced labor-market changes, particularly in roles where core tasks are more vulnerable to AI-driven restructuring," the report's author wrote.

Texas' biggest cities, like Houston and Austin, are known for their thriving tech and business industries, and the study noted that many of the occupations within those sectors are the most at risk. The Virginia Economic Information and Analytics Division said the top five most AI-exposed occupations in the U.S. are: mathematicians, proofreaders, correspondence clerks, court reporters, and media and communication workers. Additionally, computer programmers, database administrators, web developers, telephone operators, and communications equipment operators round out the top 10 most at-risk positions.

These are the 16 remaining occupations most exposed to AI disruption, in order:

  • Data Entry Keyers
  • Statistical Assistants
  • Office Support Workers
  • Interpreters and Translators
  • Database Architects
  • Software Quality Assurance Analysts
  • Medical Transcriptionists
  • Software Developers
  • Writers and Authors
  • Payroll Clerks
  • Web Designers
  • Miscellaneous Computer Occupations
  • Insurance Claims Processors
  • Telemarketers
  • Computer Numerically Controlled Tool Programmers
  • Bookkeeping and Accounting Clerks

A separate SmartAsset report from April 2026 found about 20.5 percent of Texas workers use AI to do their jobs in some capacity. That trend will continue to shift further as employers and employees choose to adopt — or reject — AI implementation.

Across the U.S., Washington topped the list as the state with the highest concentration of AI-exposed jobs, with nearly 5.7 percent of the state's workforce employed in the 26 most at-risk positions. SmartAsset said Washington's high prevalence of technology companies is a significant factor that skyrocketed the state to the top of the list.

"Home to major technology companies including Microsoft, Amazon, T-Mobile and Expedia, the state has large numbers of computer programmers and software developers, two occupations with high exposure," the report said.

Meanwhile, Mississippi ranked No. 51 with the lowest concentration of AI-exposed jobs in the nation. About 22,500 workers in Mississippi, or 1.93 percent of its workforce, are at risk for AI disruption.

The top 10 states where AI could reshape the most jobs are:

  • No. 1 – Washington
  • No. 2 – Virginia
  • No. 3 – District of Columbia
  • No. 4 – California
  • No. 5 – Utah
  • No. 6 – Maryland
  • No. 7 – Colorado
  • No. 8 – New Hampshire
  • No. 9 – Texas
  • No. 10 – North Carolina
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.