‘Conflict-Free’; Just Another Marketing Ploy
by Meghan Connolly Haupt
Introduction:
“There is no such thing as perfectly clean diamonds – that is to say, having no social or environmental impact.”
Meghan has become a regular contributor to fairjewelry.org. This excellent article is a follow up on the piece I wrote on Kimberley Certification earlier in March.
~ Marc Choyt, Publisher, fairjewelry.org
The true value of diamonds lies not in the stone itself, but rather in the expression of love, happiness, commitment and pride that are often communicated through them. More important than the size or the brand on the diamond, is the story of partnership, hard work, or perhaps family, that the gem represents.
Sadly, this has all but been lost in today’s society. Diamonds are now seen as a commodity with a perceived value that has largely been manipulated by those who benefit the most from their sales.
The issues associated with the diamond industry (mining, manufacturing, trade) are profoundly negative from both the social and environmental perspectives and are too great to detail in this article. Suffice to say that the people most impacted by the diamond trade are not those benefitting the most from the $50 billion industry. This article is about marketing, and with it I seek to help empower consumers to break the trend of manipulation.
There is an old phrase in the marketing world that “consumers are made, not born.” This statement couldn’t be truer for any single industry than the diamond industry.
Coming out of the great depression, DeBeers, then with almost total control of the diamond industry, sought to create a culture around diamonds in the United States where none previously existed. Their initial efforts to make diamonds relevant focused on using the power of Hollywood.
By courting movie executives, they were not only able to get diamonds worn in major films on the biggest stars of the time, but even to go so far as to sway producers from portraying any negative association with diamonds. One film that was originally planned to be released as “Diamonds are Dangerous,” was changed to “Adventures in Diamonds,” with the tone of the movie also being changed so as not to cast diamonds in a negative light.
The real turning point came in 1948 when DeBeers launched the “Diamond is Forever” campaign, one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history according to Advertising Age Magazine. In just a single decade (the 1950s), the percentage of American women presented with a diamond engagement ring rose from 50 to 80 percent. Twenty years later, in the 1970s, the “two-month” rule (now the “three-month rule) was created, setting a new expectation for how much a man should spend on his fiancé’s engagement ring. By making diamonds applicable to all classes (regardless of whether the monthly income was $1000 or $10,000) they created a culture where all men felt pressured to buy their fiancé a diamond ring.
With momentum and an increased marketing budget, the diamond cartel expanded their strategy, moving to high schools and universities where presentations were given about the fascinating history of diamonds, thereby cultivating a new generation of enchanted consumers. Men were encouraged to buy the biggest diamond they could afford with messaging suggesting that the value of the engagement ring reflected how much the man was willing to sacrifice for his marriage.
N.W. Ayer, the first advertising agency in the US and credited with the “Diamond is Forever” slogan, conducted a study proving they had indeed changed culture. In 1988, 41 percent of grooms agreed with the statement that “it wouldn’t be a real marriage proposal without a ring,” but just two years later, 54 percent of grooms agreed with the statement.
In more recent years, with increased consumer access to information, the DeBeers monopoly on the diamond industry has broken down. Modern technology has started to empower consumers with knowledge of the realities of the diamond trade.
Though the extent to which the environment has been devastated due to diamond mining remains largely under-reported, most consumers are now aware of the issue of “blood diamonds.” It is widely understood that “blood diamonds” are those that originate from areas controlled by illegitimate forces and used to fund military action in opposition to legitimate governments.
Here is where consumers are being manipulated by the diamond industry again – we are led to believe that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) has all but eliminated blood diamonds.
Consumers are consistently told by jewelers that not only are their diamonds “conflict-free” (which they are using inaccurately to mean that they are not blood diamonds), but that they are “clean.”
In a matter of a few years, consumers’ concern around diamonds has been almost completely mitigated by industry marketing efforts designed to make consumers believe that as long as they are purchasing “conflict-free,” they can feel good about buying diamonds.
“Conflict-free” absolutely does not address labor and environmental abuses resulting from diamond mining. Nor does it assure ethical labor in the digging, cutting and polishing of diamonds. The definition of conflict-free is indeed very narrowly focused on funding war conflict. Water pollution, community displacement, destruction of habitats, unsafe working conditions and low wages are just a few of the many issues still associated with diamonds, even those certified conflict-free.
In addition to being weakly defined, the KPCS is a volunteer initiative that lacks authority and oversight to truly regulate the diamond trade. This is no better illustrated than in the case of Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe has maintained its status as a member of KPCS while media outlets around the world are reporting on mass killings taking place as the government forcefully takes control the diamond mines in order to advance their own agenda through the revenue the diamonds generate.
Increasingly, consumers seek to align their purchasing decisions with their values, but even these conscious consumers are being misled into thinking that by buying conflict-free they are doing just that. Of course, there is no such thing as perfectly clean diamonds – that is to say, having no social or environmental impact.
Even those grown in a lab have some environmental impact. However, the degree of impact is obviously vastly different between lab-grown and mined diamonds. There is also a broad range of impact within mined diamonds, depending on where and how they are obtained. As of recent, there are a few programs in Africa whereby small scale miners are appropriately involved and benefitting.
All of this is not to say that boycotting is the responsible thing to do. The reality is that the diamond sector does have the power to contribute to sustainable development in some of the world’s poorest areas. Consumers don’t need to sacrifice their values for beauty. Fair-trade gems and lab-created diamonds provide a variety of alternatives, offering beauty and luxury that consumers can feel good about buying, giving and wearing. These alternatives can enhance the value of diamonds as they are more directly rooted in our own ethical values, putting that much more meaning into the message of love or friendship or whatever sentiment goes along with the jewelry.
Meghan Connolly Haupt is the founder and principal of C5 sustainable fine jewelry, offering custom design services and ready-to-wear pieces that you can feel good about. C5 jewelry is responsibly made in the United States from recycled precious metals and ethically sourced gems (both fair-trade and lab-created).
