Comments on: Selling Diamonds with an Anti-Consumerism Message

By: Steph

Steph — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 23:24:19 +0000

This looks as if it could have come out of a newspaper during WWII- I remember seeing a similar one on this site from that era using similar logic to get people to buy washing machines and the like.

By: The Politics of Romance: Part 3 - A diamond is for never « woman of (an)other color

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:32:58 +0000

[...] So we can see exactly how capitalism reinforced marriage as an unequal, gendered institution, as well as how advertising and marketing perpetuated already existing attitudes about romance and love. Thus, normalized narratives about the diamond ring were born, and we still see these advertisements today. [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:11:33 +0000

@ Anonymous: Try selling a diamond or returning one to a jewelry store and see what kind of value you get out of it. Not much, compared to how much was probably initially paid.

@ NL: Engagement rings are ownership symbols. Skip it.

By: Sociological Images » TEDDY BEARS SUBSTITUTE FOR EMOTIONAL WORK

Sociological Images » TEDDY BEARS SUBSTITUTE FOR EMOTIONAL WORK — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:33:42 +0000

[...] of a stuffed animal to do your emotional work for you is in the same category as ad campaigns for diamonds and credit cards that promise viewers intimacy through purchase of the products. However, Vermont [...]

By: Camilla P

Camilla P — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:37:29 +0000

Cancleef and Arpels is messing around with similar connotations with their ‘Sweet’ Alhambra collection. Connecting mom/daughter jewellery to happiness

http://www.vancleef-arpels.com/en/van-cleef.html#/alhambra/

Is it just me or does the lady next to her ‘daughter’ look like she has a black eye? that shes covering up with way too much make-up, ahh yes the age old trope of jewelry forgiving domestic violence…

By: grady

grady — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 09:30:24 +0000

to NL: The arm would be a real conversation peice.

By: NL

NL — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:55:31 +0000

My fiance and I are looking at engagement rings now and *everything* is diamond. Certainly there are other non-diamond rings that are nice, but the minute you say “engagement” the jewelry store clerk takes you to diamonds.

I’ve always said, “Skip the ring, just bring me the bloody arm of the kid who would have dug out the diamond.”

By: Interrobang

Interrobang — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:35:57 +0000

When I decided to go for the “fewer, better things” lifestyle, I bought things that are actually better and might appreciate in value. Diamonds don’t cut it — one of the few things they don’t cut.

By the way, if for some perverse reason you actually like diamonds, it is possible to get DeBeers-free, conflict-free natural diamonds; they come from Canada. As far as I know, DeBeers hasn’t been able to corner the market in Canadian diamonds, likely because Canadian mining interests are more ruthless than DeBeers is these days.

By: Silviu Gherman

Silviu Gherman — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:39:52 +0000

Yeah, I really love this ad, it’s so twisted… I bet the creative guy (or girl, for that mater) took pride in this. Being cynic is not enough, if you’re not a clever one. or, as they say in Romania, the fool, if he’s not a cheeky bastard, is not fool enough.

By: XXLAshley

XXLAshley — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:11:54 +0000

“Stuff you buy but never cherish” eh? Sounds like the diamond earrings my mom got me, for she assumed that I, like thousands of other women who see these ads, think that their lives would be more full with diamonds. Hell, if my boyfriend was to propose to me with a ring out of a gumball machine I wouldn’t mind. Love>diamonds.

By: Heather Leila

Heather Leila — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:55:38 +0000

I saw this ad in the New Yorker and thought it would be a good post on this site! It’s one of the first ads I’ve seen (not from a financial organization) that is giving a nod to the recession.

And no, diamonds, just like many luxury items, are not good investments. Gold and silver can always be melted down and remolded, but diamonds, once cut and sold to an individual always lose their value- which shouldn’t make sense if they were really forever, but that’s how we know DeBeers is lying to us.

By: Diamonds « We all live downstream

Diamonds « We all live downstream — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:14:34 +0000

[...] December 8, 2008 From Contexts (Sociological Images): DeBeer’s new strategy (a different approach to consumption) for selling diamonds [...]

By: Atlanta

Atlanta — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:57:58 +0000

Response to anonymous, first post, “I thought … real diamonds were a good investment”, read the wonderful article in the Atlantic, find out how extensively and deeply the diamond market is manipulated, and esp how impossible it is to sell your own diamonds at anything but a steep loss.

By: Barbar

Barbar — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:14:58 +0000

Anonymous:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/198202/diamond

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:07:57 +0000

I always thought jewellery such as real diamonds were a good investment considering that it’s real value does not go through volatile changes whereas the nominal value does. I may be wrong.