(Closed) History of the Diamond Marketing Campaign

posted 10 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
Member
2293 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: July 2008

Too true.  Its a huge racket.  The price of diamonds is still almost completely artificially controlled.  Any white diamond much under 2 ct really has very little intrinsic value.  Only the colored ones (yellow, pink, blue) are actually rare.  The "new market" for cognac and chocolate really cracks me up – those used to be only industrial diamonds, but now we’re supposed to thing they are rare and fabulous.  The one thing I absolutely won’t wear is pave – most stones of that size are cut by child labor in India and Pakistan.  IMO that’s just as bad, or worse, than buying conflict stones.

De Beers actually invented the concept of the diamond engagement ring as a marketing tool.  Prior to their control of the market, most e-rings were colored stones (generally sapphire, which are also a hard stone that wears fairly well).

Post # 4
Member
79 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: September 2008

I’d read that article a couple of years ago and it helped cement my decision not to get a diamond engagment ring.  In addition to the blood diamond issue, I hate feeling manipulated. Of course, some could argue that the institution of marriage and the mere concept of the engagement ring, regardless of the stone used, is really a result of social manipulation, but mine’s just so pretty!  =)

Post # 5
Member
83 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: March 2008

Are you planning on wearing a white wedding dress?  Do you own an ipod?  Do you wear makeup?  By your definition, these are all the result of "social manipulation". Any tradition or norm you observe will come from external sources.  That isn’t inherently bad (or good), it is completely subject to your values and the circumstances surrounding your choice.  (I’m not wearing a white wedding dress, I love my ipod and engagement ring because those decisions are in line with my values).

If you don’t value a diamond enough to pay what they cost, by all means don’t pay it.  But don’t think that you’re avoiding "social manipulation".  

Post # 6
Member
79 posts
Worker bee
  • Wedding: September 2008

Miss Banana – I was trying to acknowledge the point you make in my last comment.  I apologize if that wasn’t clear.

Post # 7
Member
2293 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: July 2008

I don’t think its purely a money issue for everyone, MissBanana.  And clearly you can’t live in society without being influenced.  And you can’t make a stand on every issue.  But if you decide not to get a conflict diamond, or not to get a diamond at all, or to eat organic, or not wear leather, or whatever… you do get to explain your thought process, and it might be informative to others even if it doesn’t influence their decisions in any way.  And you do get to have a position on some issues and not on others without being called some kind of hypocrite. Not every consumer decision needs to be politically based, although its never a bad idea to understand the politics your dollars are supporting.

For the record: I am for humane animal treatment and slaughter, and I do eat meat and wear leather.  I buy organic when I can.  I have an iPod only because my sister bought it for me, but I do love it.  I do use cosmetics, but only products not tested on animals.  I did not intend to have a white wedding dress (for no political reason, just because I don’t generally look good in white), but fell in love with and bought a lovely dress in a sort of vanilla color.  My diamond is yellow, and Australian.

The topic ‘History of the Diamond Marketing Campaign’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors