Sparkling Deception

How De Beers Convinced the World to Spend a Fortune on Engagement Rings

“A diamond is forever.” This simple phrase revolutionised how we think about love and commitment, but more importantly, how we think about spending a hefty chunk of our hard-earned cash on a tiny stone. Behind this phrase stands De Beers, the diamond giant that didn’t just sell gems; it crafted one of the most successful marketing campaigns in history. The result? A global belief that a diamond engagement ring is the ultimate symbol of love—and that you should be prepared to spend a significant portion of your income on one.

But where did this idea come from?

Let’s take a deep dive into how De Beers invented the concept of spending a portion of your salary on an engagement ring, and how they gradually upped the ante from country to country.

Note:

This article features content from the Marketing Made Clear podcast. You can listen along to this episode on Spotify:

A Glimpse Into the Past: Why Engagement Rings?

Engagement rings themselves aren’t a new concept. They date back to ancient Rome, where rings were often used as tokens of commitment. However, diamonds were not the star players in these early symbols of love. In fact, for much of history, diamonds were relatively scarce and weren’t considered a “must-have” for engagements. So how did diamonds become the centerpiece of this tradition?

Enter De Beers, the company that quite literally had a monopoly on the world’s diamond supply by the late 19th century. By the 1930s, diamonds were far from rare; De Beers had access to a vast supply from their mines in South Africa, but they needed a way to ensure that these stones would fetch high prices. The solution? Manufacture demand.

The De Beers Masterstroke: “A Diamond is Forever”

In 1938, De Beers hired the N.W. Ayer advertising agency to come up with a strategy to boost the sale of diamonds. At the time, the U.S. was still reeling from the Great Depression, and diamond engagement rings were far from a priority for the average couple. But N.W. Ayer had a plan: they needed to equate diamonds with love and eternity. Thus, in 1947, the slogan “A Diamond is Forever” was born.

This slogan wasn’t just clever; it was genius. It suggested that diamonds, like love, are eternal, and should never be resold (which also conveniently kept the diamond resale market low). This campaign was bolstered by product placement in Hollywood films, where dashing suitors would offer sparkling diamonds to their on-screen loves. Celebrities, magazines, and even etiquette guides began pushing the idea that true love required a diamond ring.

The Birth of the Salary Rule: The First One-Month Benchmark

Even with this surge in diamond popularity, De Beers had another challenge: how much should people spend on these glittering stones? They needed a concrete number that would feel significant, but not unreachable. In the 1930s and 1940s, De Beers came up with the “one-month salary” rule.

The company promoted the idea that men should spend at least one month’s salary on an engagement ring to truly show their commitment. This was a brilliant psychological tactic. It didn’t specify an actual dollar amount, which would alienate certain income brackets, but rather tied the price to each person’s individual earnings.

“Two months’ salary showed the future Mrs. Smith what the future would be like,” read one De Beers ad from the 1980s. “How else could two months’ salary last forever?“

From One Month to Two… and Then Three

The genius of the “one-month salary” rule is that it’s scalable, and adaptable. As post-war affluence grew, so did the amount De Beers suggested men spend. By the 1980s, advertisements in the U.S. and other countries began nudging that number up to two months. “Two months’ salary” became the new standard, cleverly marketed as the minimum investment to ensure a “forever” commitment.

But De Beers didn’t stop there. In certain markets, particularly in Asia and Europe, they experimented with a “three-month salary” rule. Japan, which was a huge growth market for De Beers, saw this messaging take root during the post-World War II economic boom. The message? If you truly loved your partner, you wouldn’t skimp on the engagement ring, three months of income was the ultimate display of devotion.

The Cultural Impact: Global Diamonds, Local Tactics

What’s particularly fascinating about De Beers’ approach is how they adapted the salary rule depending on the country. In wealthier countries like Japan and the U.S., De Beers pushed for higher spending standards, while in countries with more modest incomes, they often stuck with the one-month rule. This wasn’t just smart business; it was brilliant psychological manipulation.

In Japan, for example, De Beers had to first introduce the concept of a diamond engagement ring altogether, as it wasn’t part of traditional Japanese marriage customs. Through savvy advertising campaigns in the 1960s and 70s, they convinced Japanese women that a Western-style wedding – including a diamond engagement ring – was aspirational and modern. In 1967, only about 5% of Japanese brides received diamond engagement rings. By the 1980s, that number had skyrocketed to 60%.

This territory-by-territory approach also played on cultural values. In Europe, where austerity and practicality have been more prized in some areas, De Beers often leaned more into the “forever” aspect of the diamond rather than pushing higher income requirements. Still, the message remained the same: if you loved someone, you’d spend.

The Modern Era: Breaking the Spell?

Today, De Beers’ decades-long campaign still influences how we view diamonds and engagement rings. Although the pressure to buy a diamond ring has lessened slightly, thanks to movements advocating for more ethical and cost-effective alternatives like moissanite or lab-grown diamonds, the “two-month salary” rule persists in many Western countries.

Interestingly, the rise of the internet has started to challenge this norm, with younger generations questioning the necessity of diamonds. Nevertheless, De Beers’ influence is hard to shake. Many people still feel societal pressure to spend a certain amount, and even some etiquette guides continue to mention the two-month rule.

De Beers and Ethics

Hold Your Diamond Studded Horses Right There… I feel like this article is becoming a love poem to how brilliant De Beers are at marketing!

But unfortunately it wouldn’t be balanced to not mention some rather prominent human rights issues that were happening behind the scenes while these marketing campaigns were doing so well.

These concerns are tied to historical practices in diamond mining, although the company has taken steps to address these issues in recent years. Below is a summary of the key human rights challenges linked to De Beers:

1. Conflict Diamonds and Blood Diamonds

For years, the diamond industry, including De Beers, was associated with the trade in “conflict diamonds” or “blood diamonds.” These are diamonds mined in war zones and sold to finance armed conflict against governments, often leading to severe human rights abuses such as forced labor, displacement, and violence against civilians. While De Beers denies direct involvement in the sale of conflict diamonds, the lack of effective oversight in diamond supply chains in the 1990s allowed such diamonds to enter the global market.

2. Labor Exploitation

Diamond mining, particularly in Africa, has historically been linked to poor working conditions, inadequate wages, and unsafe environments. In certain areas where De Beers has operated or sourced diamonds, there have been accusations of labor exploitation, including the use of child labor and forced labor in artisanal mining communities. While De Beers claims its mines adhere to international labor standards, smaller, unregulated mines, which can sometimes funnel diamonds into the supply chain, often do not.

3. Land Displacement and Indigenous Rights

De Beers has been involved in diamond mining operations in Botswana, where indigenous communities, such as the San people, have been displaced from their ancestral lands. These relocations have been criticized by human rights organisations as unjust, with accusations that De Beers’ operations contributed to the forced removal of these communities. While the Botswana government disputes these claims, many activists argue that the company did not adequately consult with or compensate the affected populations.

4. Environmental Damage and Health Risks

The environmental degradation caused by diamond mining can lead to long-term human rights violations. Pollution from mining operations can contaminate water sources and soil, affecting local communities’ health and livelihoods. De Beers has faced criticism for the environmental impact of its mining operations, which often disproportionately affects poor communities that rely on natural resources for survival.

5. Kimberley Process and Ethical Concerns

To address the issue of conflict diamonds, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) was introduced in 2003. De Beers was an early supporter of the KPCS, which aimed to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the global market. However, critics argue that the Kimberley Process has been largely ineffective in eliminating human rights abuses, as it only addresses diamonds directly linked to rebel conflicts, while other forms of exploitation and violence persist. De Beers has faced scrutiny for its reliance on the KPCS as the primary standard of ethical sourcing, which some claim is insufficient in addressing broader human rights concerns in the industry.

Recent Efforts by De Beers

In recent years, De Beers has made efforts to address these human rights issues, promoting its commitment to “conflict-free” diamonds and responsible sourcing. They launched programs to ensure better labour conditions in their operations and support artisanal miners through initiatives like the GemFair program, which aims to improve transparency and ethical practices in small-scale mining. Despite these initiatives, challenges remain in ensuring the full traceability of diamonds and preventing abuses in the supply chain.

While De Beers has made strides toward improving its ethical practices, particularly through its commitment to conflict-free diamonds, the company remains linked to historical and ongoing human rights issues. The legacy of conflict diamonds, labor exploitation, and environmental harm still casts a shadow over its operations. Ensuring complete transparency and fairness across the diamond supply chain continues to be a challenge for the company and the industry as a whole.

The Takeaway: The Price of Love

So, what’s the final verdict on De Beers and their diamond engagement ring empire? They didn’t just create a market, they built a cultural institution. Through a combination of clever advertising, social engineering, and psychological manipulation, they convinced the world that not only should you buy a diamond engagement ring, but that it should cost a significant portion of your salary.

As Professor Russell W. Belk from York University puts it, “De Beers didn’t just sell diamonds; they sold the idea that diamonds were a necessary part of romantic love.” And they didn’t just do it once; they continually adapted this idea to fit different eras and markets.

At the end of the day, the De Beers salary rule is less about what you can afford and more about what they could convince you to spend. So, the next time you hear someone mention that “two-month salary rule,” remember, this isn’t a centuries-old tradition; it’s the product of one of the most successful marketing campaigns of all time.

As De Beers would say, forever is a long time, but spending three months’ salary on a rock?

That’s a marketing marvel.