De Beers new emphasis on “enduring value” is achieving widespread coverage.  Many in the trade, like JCK magazine, really WANT to believe the message!

Reading through the hopeful message of De Beers, it is easy to find many rational arguments that diamond prices are sound, but the truth is, the arguments are flawed.

The first of the arguments is that diamonds are of “enduring value”. I simply do not know what enduring value means here, given that we all know that diamonds are not a viable form of investment and never have been.

The second argument is that it is better to buy now because the supply of diamonds is limited – as existing mines are depleting or even depleted and no big mines are on the horizon.  The industry has been spinning this yarn for years when it wasn’t true.  So how can we expect consumers to believe us now?

It will be particularly interesting to see how this particular argument helps in convincing a retail customer who stands in front of display-case after display-case overflowing with diamond jewellery; not to mention the immensity of the diamond jewellery overhang, lying dormant in domestic jewellery boxes.

The final argument DTC makes is that among really affluent buyers, price is not an issue. I do not know who these affluent people are and what their weight might be among diamond buyers. Data shows that since the mid 1980’s the “sweet point” of diamond purchases simply did not change. In the US, with its social multi-layered demography, most of the diamonds sold are in the range between $2000-4000 while in Japan this “sweet point” still hovers around $2000.  For diamonds, sold as commodities, price does matter!

Of course this could all change if we reverse the tide of the 1980s and return to first principles.  Diamonds are luxury, pure and simple. They must be sold as such.

The one thing we know about luxury is that it is ultimately irrational (the subject of my PhD – thankfully now completed!).  Luxury is a fine example of the fact that that the value for money is NOT what we seek. When we ask people for a definition of luxury we usually get two answers.

First, we hear that luxury is expensiveness and second, we hear that luxury is unnecessary (or superfluous). In this sense, diamonds are, in principle, the pinnacle of luxury – as they are, quite literally of no use whatsoever.  When it comes to valuation, saying that luxury is unnecessary opens the door to premium and unbounded, personalised pricing – the antithesis of commodities.

Instead of recognising and embracing the irrational consumer, since the 1980s,  De Beers has adopted a rational line, looking to “educate the customer”.

This is still the producers’ strategy – at the expense of the industry , which simply has to follow the leader’s line.

However, as these ‘rational’ arguments will never convince any serious customer, we have seen and will continue to see a lower proportion of people interested in diamonds.  Other luxury offers, by contrast remains resolutely irrational – and many categories are indeed relatively resilient to economic considerations. Purchasing of luxury is ultimately an irrational activity.

Of course it is just possible that during the coming six weeks American customers will storm the jewellery stores and clear up everything still in their vaults delivering a knock-out blow to the recession.

My feeling, though, is that we are looking less at a boxing match and more at a game of Russian roulette that may well send the final blow to the de-facto bankrupt industry.  Doubling up the Christmas ad spend and pleading with consumers to value ‘their commodities’ at heavily inflated prices is a very big gamble indeed.

I propose the following short prescription for the diamond industry’s long-term recovery:

First and foremost:

A true leader must emerge from deep within the industry at the level of primary production.

(2) This leader must have the ability, confidence and commitment to squeeze supply when necessary.

(3) This leader must recognize and solve the question of “enduring value” at the retail jeweler level.

(4) Retail jewelers must be trained and retrained on true luxury and understand it inside and out. This goes far beyond anything attempted by the industry to date. It is the cornerstone to the health of the industry medium and long term. Isaac speaks to this when he mentions irrational purchases.

DeBeers had the formula right prior to the 1980’s, but steered off course…they need a map and they need to learn to read the signs

(5) The practice of ‘Memo’ing goods, except in the instance of a 10 days special request for an established client must be relegated to the past.

(6) Jewelers must gravitate to partner suppliers who can work effectively with them to eliminate bottlenecks in supply.

No diamond should sit in a jewelers inventory for extended periods of time.

(7) Primary polishers must invest their profits (which means they must first have some profits) into their business to improve infrastructure (equipment) and train a new generation of diamond polishers. If a business is profitable then good business practice will lead those who survive to take these steps independently. Those who refuse to move forward with innovation will eventually close their doors.

(8) Consumers should be allowed to rediscover the hidden value of diamonds – The essence of self expression. Being able to express in action what one can not express in words.

Forget the 4C’s. Forget about diamonds as an investment. Diamonds are a symbol of the irrational – LOVE.

(9) Bank debt must be reduced significantly. There will always be a necessity to work with others money, but it is out of control.

In my view the industry debt is most likely 5-7 times more than is healthy.

(10) Banks must be enabled regain confidence in the price of rough and the downstream distribution (this is once again a a function of strong leadership and even political guarantees by governments whose revenue depends on the diamond industry’s health).

I read the comments of DTC and confess my utter amazement…

Take a look at the Enduring Value Media Release.  Among many other things they argue that the medium and long term fundamentals of the diamond industry are strong (!?)

That’s rings about as true as John McCain stating that the fundamentals of the US economy are sound just days before the biggest meltdown of the US financial sector since the founding fathers walked the land.

I also take real issue with whatever data collection indicates that diamond jewelry is the #1 gift for holidays 2008 “by a wide margin”.  I can report to you, direct from Main Street USA, that the bigger decision is whether gifts will be exchanged at all.  It is all well and good that consumers desire “fewer, better things”, but the real pocketbook world is a bit more complex than that.

On the other hand, I do acknowledge that spending a gazillion dollars to market to consumers the idea that diamonds are a great long term store of wealth probably feels like only viable option available right now.  What other choice do they really have? Just run the ads and hope for the best.

There is a real risk that the old ‘kill the messenger theory’ will come into play here.  Being the bearer of bad tidings is never easy.

However, I think Isaac has a point.

Our industry is in a real mess. No doubt about it.

We have been looking for some time now for a new style of leader to step forward and help navigate the industry through this mess.  I’m sure DTC feels it’s acting in the best interests of the industry to protect the PRICE of diamonds, but I would urge a fundamental rethink to safeguard the VALUE of diamonds

The move of Martin Rapaport was a shot across our bows.  And it was definitely was heard around the world, but remember that it was just a warning shot.  It has had absolutely no impact at the consumer level and I have serious doubts that it has had any real impact at the jeweler level.  However, the killer shot is being loaded into the cannon – and it may be unleashed unless someone steps into the leadership role, changes the industry heading, and puts the ship on a path to safer waters.

Here is my idea – If DTC wants to really boost demand they should invest directly into the local retail jeweler.

It is the DTC, not consumers, who have lost confidence in the ‘enduring value’ of diamonds.  They are the ones who do not own any diamonds of their own.  They only borrow diamonds, sell them to consumers, and eventually pay off these diamonds when the risk has reduced to zero.

Protecting this ‘enduring value’ is the marketing question that should been receiving the undivided attention of DeBeers. Given where we are the answer of how to fix this problem is best left to the highly paid consultants. But from the street level, it seems like a matter of incentives (or disincentives) for consumers to purchase.

In an attempt to push product down the pipeline for the past 20 years, the industry has eroded and destroyed this enduring value in the eyes of the retail jeweler.  ’Enduring Value’ looks like a return to basics. And about time too.  But is it leadership?  Not in my view.

Yours, Randy Pearson,
Registered Supplier, AGS