Last week, a natural-diamond marketing campaign in New York City that portrayed lab-grown in a negative light got many in the trade riled up.
The advertising, a product of the Natural Diamond Council (NDC), used words such as “swipe right,” “for better” and “the OG” to refer to mined stones, while “swipe left,” “for worse,” and “the dupe” represented synthetics in a side-by-side comparison. In a LinkedIn post, industry member Michael Schechter said he was “deeply disappointed” in the negative connotations against lab-grown and asked others for their opinions.
While the NDC took down the site the campaign’s scannable QR code linked to after I asked it for comment on the commotion, it’s a bit like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. The story I wrote on that short-lived marketing ploy generated far more response than any other I’ve published in my nearly eight years with Rapaport. It also spawned not only this follow-up story, but one from JCK’s Rob Bates.
The launch of that promotion followed two others in the trade that also seemed to boost natural through adverse depictions of lab-grown. The first, an Antwerp World Diamond Centre (AWDC) initiative, saw synthetics being offered in a gumball machine for EUR 5, while a social media push from the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) implied lab-grown diamonds were “not real” and “imitations,” unlike natural.
Meanwhile, at the end of the week, a number of natural-diamond industry groups, producing countries, and miner De Beers met in Angola to sign the Luanda Accord, according to which participants will contribute 1% of annual export revenue to a natural-diamond marketing fund through the NDC.
That made me wonder what kind of marketing they intended to release, and would it be the type to which both trade members and consumers would respond? Otherwise, isn’t it akin to throwing money into the wind? So, I asked both sides of the equation to weigh in on the three recent campaigns, and to say whether they liked or disliked them, why, and what they thought might work better.
Trade members: Upping the anti
The industry comprises those wholly focused on natural, such as miners and traders, as well as others, such as retailers and manufacturers, who dabble in lab-grown as well. So it’s no surprise that both sides were represented. However, over 60% of respondents viewed the ads negatively. What’s more surprising was the vocality of the anti-campaigners versus the relative quiet of those in favor.
Overwhelmingly, the ad trade members related to the most was the AWDC’s gumball machine tactic. They thought it clearly pointed out that lab-grown and natural were “very different products, and one is actually deserving of the price.” Many also believed that unlike the other ads, the gumball machine was not unfairly critical, but rather a gimmick that was part of a larger campaign where consumers could learn the difference between the two.
As the director of a diamond-manufacturing firm put it, “luxury is rare, and at the end of the day all luxury is marketing. Louis Vuitton wouldn’t be able to get the same price for its bags if it manufactured the same amount as Samsonite. It’s rarity created at a price.”
Some who responded positively thought the ads were “a little crass” but were at least doing something to help buoy demand for natural and to show that while lab-grown was all about price, love and romance got lost along the way.
Another pro-campaigner liked the NDC’s ad because it called out synthetics as fakes.
“The word diamond represents a symbol,” the natural dealer said. “I don’t understand why the word diamond is used for synthetically produced tetrahedral carbons. Whoever wants to sell synthetic diamonds should promote them as lab-grown tetrahedral carbon and not as diamonds. You can’t sell wine that you’ve added bubbles to as champagne. It’s the same with diamonds.”
Hertz Hasenfeld, vice president of the Diamond Manufacturers and Importers Association of America (DMIA), also defended the NDC billboard.
“Let’s be clear: natural and synthetic diamonds are not equals,” he stressed. “They are fundamentally different products, with fundamentally different value propositions. Trying to blur the line between the two has caused untold damage — not just in lost sales, but in consumer confusion and diminished brand integrity. The natural diamond industry has every right — indeed, an obligation — to draw that line more boldly and unapologetically.
While some trade members find the recent advertising “divisive,” he continued, “what’s truly divisive is allowing synthetic diamonds to undermine the long-term equity of the natural category without challenge. It’s not ‘mudslinging’ to make a clear, creative, and culturally relevant statement about why natural diamonds are unique, rare, and meaningful. It’s necessary.”
In terms of the tone of the campaigns, Hasenfeld concurs marketing “should be smart and resonate with the right audience.”
“But let’s not mistake discomfort for poor strategy,” he added. “The NDC and others are finally beginning to push back against a dangerous narrative. It’s long overdue.”
(Not) looking good
The main reason industry members didn’t like the marketing had less to do with what it was for than what it was against. Many called the attempts “desperate,” “unclassy” and “bullying,” noting that the need to put down another product to make your own look better was an automatic turnoff.
“Rule number one in marketing: Talk about yourself, not the competition,” said a sales director. “You lost the argument before you started the conversation.”
Others noted that “making someone else’s product look bad does not make your own look good,” and that those campaigns were “not creating demand, but creating enemies” and “bringing down the whole industry.” A branding consultant observed that the strategy “destroys the diamond dream for both categories” and was a “lose-lose.”
Some believed that far from enticing Gen Z to buy natural, the advertising is instead “mudslinging” their choice to buy lab and pushing them away. Overwhelmingly, respondents thought the ads were “nasty” and “mean-spirited.”
The ads drew comparisons with marketing for other luxury products. One diamond wholesaler pointed out that Rolex didn’t target Omega to bolster its products. A buyer also cited the luxury watchmaker, noting that the ads were “destroying the story and romance of diamonds. Rolex doesn’t just tell time, it tells the world you’ve made it. Designer bags aren’t for storage — they’re symbols of style, prestige and identity.”
Possibly the most pointed response came from an industry member who thought the NDC’s “which diamond are you?” post was “such a stupid marketing angle, because although the premise is that natural and lab are different (better vs. worse), the visual below shows two identical diamonds!”
Consumers: On target?
Yes, the campaigns affect the trade, and what goes out to the world as generic natural-diamond marketing will either help or hinder the mined-diamond industry as a whole, but toward whom are the ads targeted? All three are aimed to pull in consumers, especially Gen Z buyers. But are they achieving their goals? What do consumers think of them, and would the campaigns change customers’ opinions if they were set on purchasing a lab-grown prior to seeing those ads? I checked in with over 50 Gen Z, Millennial and Gen X consumers across the US to find out.
Gen Z, the apparent target market for these ads, especially the NDC’s, likened the promotion to the classic Steve Buscemi meme “How do you do, fellow kids?” They thought it was devised by a 50-year old who was trying to sound cool by using classic Gen Z speak like the word “rizz,” but using it completely out of context.
“The ad is trying too hard to sound cool, but the language isn’t great,” noted one, while another said she didn’t think it would click well with people their age. “’Rizz or fizz’ is so corny,” she said. “Nobody in my age bracket would ever write that. This had to be written by some older Millennial desperately trying to connect to the younger generations.”
Many also pointed out shaming lab-grown, and by association, those who buy them, didn’t appeal at all to a generation that was all about sustainability, traceability and giving back. “It means you don’t believe in your own capabilities, and in order to succeed, you have to throw your competition under the bus. Do you have a fear your natural diamonds are not good enough to stand on their own?”
The ‘why’
Another large reason the marketing doesn’t sit right with younger consumers is because it doesn’t take into account why they buy lab-grown in the first place, those surveyed said. When given the options of which factors were most important to them when making a diamond purchase, I offered several choices: Rarity, amount of money spent, value down the road, size, aesthetic, sustainability, traceability and giving back.
By far the most popular choices were money spent and aesthetic. Consumers wanted something that looked good and didn’t cost a lot. They were more concerned about diverting money to experiences and “more important” purchases like buying a house, vacations and education. One even mentioned that their diamond would rate on the same scale as a $10 beaded necklace, as long as both were products they liked and would keep wearing indefinitely.
More than half of respondents also explained that if their mind was already set on a lab-grown diamond, they would be hard-pressed to change it, even if they liked the advertising, given they had likely thoroughly researched their decision before making their purchase. Some said the current advertising would actually make them lean more toward lab-grown, even if they had initially decided on a natural, because the ads “reeked of desperation” and made the product seem “unappealing and not special.”
The law of attraction
With the Luanda Accord in place, and the trade looking to drop a nice chunk of change on marketing, both industry members and consumers have ideas on what they would find appealing or perhaps even persuade them to veer toward natural instead of lab.
“I think the ads should play off the idea of natural diamonds building generational wealth, which is what the younger generation is all about,” said one consumer, while others suggested advertising the pros, the value of a mined diamond, and the fact that it’s a special, rare purchase.
Focusing on nostalgia for natural and its connection to the rarity of true love, and pulling at heartstrings, was also a popular choice.
Industry members and consumers alike felt campaigns should focus on differentiating why natural was good, not why lab-grown was bad, and offer a valid value proposition for buying mined stones. Most significantly, people want detailed information on what makes natural the better choice.
“Don’t put down something in order to promote something else; it’s tasteless,” a consumer said. “And most importantly, it still doesn’t tell me why I should buy the natural.”
What’s your opinion? Join the Vote
Images: The AWDC campaign (l); Rough diamonds (c); The NDC campaign (r). (AWDC/Shutterstock/Michael Schechter)
