A “new De Beers” won’t rescue the diamond industry. Nor should it

By John Marchese 
The diamond industry wants to speak with a single voice. Maybe that’s the problem.
In my previous article for The Jewelry Wire, I proposed an independent Global Diamond Demand Authority—a single body responsible for creating and sustaining consumer desire for natural diamonds.
But that raises a question: Is a single mouthpiece a good thing?
Trade analyst Avi Krawitz has argued that category marketing cannot, on its own, revive demand the way it once did. Today’s consumers are “fragmented, values-driven, and often skeptical,” and seek marketing that they resonate with emotionally.
He believes individual retailers and brands need to own the narrative; an argument that works with a self-purchasing professional in Shanghai may not land with a couple in Ohio.
Disagreement is healthy
The industry often disagrees on how to talk about diamonds. Yet, that’s treated this as something that can be fixed with the proper structure. But maybe that’s the wrong way to look at it. Maybe disagreement is natural, even healthy, for a category this large.
When the Natural Diamond Council (NDC) ran ads directly contrasting natural and lab-grown diamonds, a Rapaport survey found more than 60% of respondents reacted negatively. Others called the approach “necessary” and “long overdue.” Former NDC CEO David Kellie has noted “sustainability messaging does really well [on some platforms]. On others, it doesn’t.”
Those are three defensible, evidence-based positions about how to sell diamonds. When a single authority picks one of them, that doesn’t resolve the disagreement; it just overrules the other two and asks the losing side to underwrite a message they might not agree with.
Forcing agreement doesn’t result in a stronger message; it simply produces one forged by politics rather than evidence.
On the other hand, when 100 retailers tell 100 different stories about what a natural diamond means, that isn’t a bad thing. It’s what a category this emotionally and culturally varied should look like.
The infrastructure for a decentralized approach already exists. Most companies develop their own advertising, in-store training, and social media content. But the trade has never leaned into that structure, worrying that consumers will be confused by so many different messages. Isn’t it preferable to have a single, cohesive pitch?
Not necessary. Take coffee. Peet’s Coffee and a gas-station chain frame their product differently. That doesn’t confuse consumers. It lets them absorb varied narratives. They still understand the category.
If one retailer describes a diamond’s rarity poetically and another emphasizes its craftsmanship, that is texture. It makes the category stronger.
The diamond industry needs data
So what should an authority do? Roughly 75% of polished diamonds are sold unbranded. Most of the trade has no independent research budget and relies on collective data.
The industry needs better shared information, including baseline consumer research across markets that takes an honest look at what is and isn’t working, and collects data on the industry’s blind spots.
Retailers in Dallas and Mumbai may never agree on how to talk about diamonds. But they can both benefit from knowing how today’s consumers feel about the product.
Put facts first
Consumers don’t get upset when they receive different messages about a product. But they get turned off when the trade disagrees about what is true.
If one retailer says their stones are conflict-free and another can’t back up that claim, that isn’t a difference in storytelling—that’s a disagreement about basic facts. No amount of creative freedom should be allowed to paper over that.
The industry needs to agree on basic issues, such as origin, sourcing, authenticity, and any comparative claim made against lab-grown alternatives. Decisions related to marketing—such as meaning, occasions, and why a particular person may want a particular stone—should not require total consensus. In fact, we’re better off without it.
The Diamond Collective’s proposed Trustmark should be a required universal standard that settles a basic fact, similar to how things work in the wool business. The Woolmark Company licenses a mark that verifies one thing—that the garment meets a defined fiber-content standard. Thousands of competing brands use it and tell entirely different and occasionally contradictory stories about the same material.
This structure also avoids legal issues. A body trying to compel funding for a single message may find itself on contested legal ground. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory mushroom-marketing assessment was compelled speech, and therefore unconstitutional. That isn’t a problem for a body that simply shares research.
So then … how do we market diamonds?
None of this answers the big question. The industry has grown used to someone else (meaning De Beers) building demand for diamonds. It has shown little appetite for promoting its products, especially in this current crisis.
And so, for years, the industry has constantly called for a centralized campaign. Yet, nobody wants to pay for that either. That’s why there hasn’t been one for decades. Category advertising brings up the classic free-rider problem; everyone benefits from it but hopes someone else will pay for it.
So what to do?
Start with trust. A Trustmark avoids the free rider problem because only those who pay and pass the audit get to use it.
Fund research. Produce regular, expert reports on a handful of key markets.
Assist those who work with the customer. Most smaller jewelers don’t need a message handed to them. That said, many could use help. A shared library of licensed imagery, origin stories, verified facts, and training materials can provide the ingredients while letting every retailer cook their own meal.
And who will pay for it?
Obviously, a large part of the bill should be placed on parties with the strongest reasons to act: miners, producing nations like Botswana, and large retailers and brands. Bourses and grading labs can offer a small per-transaction fee tied to verification.
But let’s be honest about what is possible. The current crisis is partly structural: there is competition from lab-grown, soft demand in key markets, and a shift in what diamonds mean to younger buyers. No marketing structure, centralized or not, can reverse that overnight.
This stripped-down approach promises that whatever the natural diamond industry morphs into—likely a smaller, premium category—will stand on facts that consumers can trust, as well as evidence the trade can act on.
The old De Beers isn’t coming back
For years, there was no group responsible for building consumer desire for diamonds. That had serious consequences. But any fix won’t look like the old De Beers, which provided one campaign and one voice that the whole trade fell in line behind.
That model belongs to 1947—not a market where consumers piece together meaning from hundreds of sources, and expect a jeweler in their own city to sound like themselves, not a category.
Two things should be centralized: facts that everyone depends on, and research that helps them understand the market. From there, let a thousand stories bloom.
John Marchese is president of Marchese Associates, a branding and marketing consultancy. His career includes leading global marketing services companies serving Fortune 100 corporations. He has also advised some of the world’s leading diamond manufacturers—including Leo Schachter, HK Designs, KP Sanghvi, and Indigo Jewelry/S Vinodkumar Diamonds—in brand creation, positioning, and new market launches.