We’ve all heard of black markets, but ‘gray markets’ now cost companies billions in sales each year. How do you define the term, and which product categories does it affect most?
David Soberman: Gray markets occur when a product is designed and destined for a particular market, and an intermediary known as a ‘gray marketer’ brings that product to a second market to sell it for less than its list price in that second market. In contrast to black marketing which involves counterfeit or illegal goods, gray marketing is completely legal. In some cases, scarcity drives this behaviour. For example, when the iPhone was first launched, there were shortages in the UK, so people were bringing iPhones in from other markets. But scarcity-driven gray marketing is really an aberration. The standard gray-market situation is driven by price: someone brings products from a market where the price level is lower to a place where the price for the exact same product is higher.
Of course, for certain kinds of products, this simply doesn’t work. In Switzerland, a Big Mac costs around $7, and in Canada, it’s around $4. The price differences for the Big Mac are highlighted by the well-known Big Mac index that is published regularly in the Economist. Technically, you could take Big Macs from Canada and sell them in Switzerland for $6, making $2 per Big Mac. But Big Macs are highly perishable so this isn’t possible. Nevertheless, this example indicates the basic motivation behind gray marketing. Gray marketing thrives in durable good and non-persihable categories such as clothing, luxury products, IT products, mobile phones and some over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. Gray market sales are estimated to comprise nearly 10 per cent of all pharmaceutical sales in the European Union, and 25 per cent of on-patent pharmaceutical sales. In the cell phone industry, Fortune reported that in 2007, as many as 1 million iPhones (out of 3.75 million sold) are estimated to have been diverted to the gray market.
Consumer advocates and governments have actually applauded the increasing role of gray markets. Why is this?
DS: There is an assumption in Economics -- and I think it’s borne out in reality -- that higher prices generally lead to less total welfare. When prices are high, a number of people might like to buy the product, but they can’t afford it. The real issue is that if the cost of making a product is less than value that somebody gets from consuming it, you can increase the welfare by having that consumer consume the product. What companies often do is, they employ price discrimination: if they’re selling a product in Canada, they will sell it a higher price than if they were selling it in Malaysia. Clearly, the purchasing power of Canadians is higher than that of Malaysians, but the fact that the higher price is charged in Canada means that less people will purchase the product than otherwise would. And assuming that the cost to produce the product is equivalent across the two countries – which is true for many products – there is a basic loss in welfare.
Generally the government and the Department of Consumer Affairs try to ensure that the prices for products are competitive and this is why there are strict laws against practices such as price collusion. Of course, there are products where low (or competitive) prices are not in the public interest, that is with products known as ‘vice goods’ -- things like tobacco, where there is actually a disincentive for lower prices. But for most products, both consumers and the government want to try to keep prices fairly low. And that’s what gray markets do.
Francesco Bova: Gray markets are clearly not good for multinationals. If, for example, I’m Pfizer and I’m selling patented pharmaceuticals at a high price in America and a lower price in Canada, I’m obviously not a fan of the American gray market for Canadian pharmaceuticals. Specifically, I don’t like the fact that, for example, American consumers are trying to purchase their drugs in Canada because it cannibalizes my sales in America and leads to far less profit for the firm as a whole. But clearly, consumers really like gray markets. Think about a patented pharmaceutical. Because the pharmaceutical is patented, there’s often no cheap generic competitor for the drug. Additionally, in some cases, consumers need that pharmaceutical to survive. Given these two points, you can imagine that certain consumers might be willing to pay almost anything to obtain the product. So, think about how much benefit those consumers derive from having even one other option to obtain the exact same pharmaceutical at a lower price via the gray market. From a societal perspective here is the trade-off with respect to gray markets: firms are worse off because gray markets are going to cannibalize higher priced sales. The net result is that gray markets make firms less profitable; but consumers are strictly better off by having an option to purchase a cheaper alternative of the same good via the gray market. Moreover, in general, more consumers will buy when the prices of a product are lower. These are the trade-offs governments need to consider when assessing the pros and cons of gray markets.
When Americans buy health medications from Canada, does that qualify as a gray market or a black market?
Once a firm decides to enter a low-cost market, is it better to operate independently via ‘decentralized management’, or should the new operation be managed from the domestic head office (‘centralized management’)?
[This article has been reprinted, with permission, from Rotman Management, the magazine of the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management]
Centralized control may not work. Even if one subsidiary produces enough to satisfy only domestic demand, there is no guarantee that goods wont leak to another market. For that matter, it is difficult to estimate demand; and even more difficult to tell an executive that you cant grow than that much. However, Grey Market is mostly in benefit of the company. It allows company to sell products in market where it can not sell directly. E.g. Apple can sell products in India with limited presence thanks to grey market of New Delhi.
on Apr 25, 2012Gray market concept is very interesting
on Apr 23, 2012I wouldn't necessarily say that consumers like gray markets as much as they are forced to buy into it as a last resort. In a lot of cases like the shortage on injectables for cancer, the only option is to buy treatments at a significantly higher cost or not get the treatment at all. http://bit.ly/HKYi9r
on Apr 16, 2012