De Beers’ 1947 “A Diamond is Forever” campaign, created with ad agency N.W. Ayer, invented the modern diamond engagement ring tradition. Before this, diamond rings weren’t a common symbol of love. Facing a supply glut after the Great Depression, De Beers—founded by Cecil Rhodes and later controlled by the Oppenheimer family—hoarded diamonds to create artificial scarcity, despite them not being rare. The slogan tied diamonds to eternal love, while strategies like the “two months’ salary” rule encouraged bigger purchases as proof of commitment. Celebrity endorsements, Hollywood placements, and the 4Cs standard further embedded this into culture. Yet diamonds have low resale value, and the industry has faced criticism for conflict diamonds, human rights abuses, and environmental damage. Today, affordable lab-grown diamonds challenge the old narrative, giving couples more ethical and budget-friendly choices.
Long Version
The Illusion of Eternity: How De Beers Invented the Diamond Engagement Ring Tradition
The phrase “A Diamond is Forever” is more than an advertising slogan; it’s a cultural cornerstone that transformed diamonds from mere gemstones into symbols of eternal love, commitment, and romance. Launched in 1947 by De Beers through their partnership with the N.W. Ayer advertising agency, this marketing campaign singlehandedly invented the modern diamond engagement ring tradition. What began as a strategy to address a supply glut in the diamond industry evolved into a global phenomenon, embedding diamonds into social norms around emotional commitment and performative moments like proposals. Yet, beneath this brilliant facade lies a story of market manipulation, artificial scarcity, and a cartel that controlled the diamond mines of South Africa and beyond. Diamonds aren’t inherently rare—De Beers hoarded vast stockpiles to fake scarcity, pushing concepts like the “two months’ salary” rule to boost wholesale revenue and rough diamond sales for the entire industry. This article delves into every facet of this history, from the monopoly’s origins to its toxic legacy, offering a complete examination of how consumer culture fell for one of the most effective marketing ploys in history.
The Origins of De Beers and the Diamond Monopoly
De Beers’ story traces back to the late 19th century, when Cecil Rhodes arrived in South Africa during the diamond rush of the 1870s. Rhodes, a British imperialist, consolidated small claims around the Kimberley mine, founding De Beers in 1888 to dominate diamond production. By amalgamating operations, he created a near-monopoly, controlling supply from key diamond mines in South Africa. This early cartel set the stage for artificial scarcity, where De Beers restricted output to maintain high prices despite abundant natural diamonds.
The company’s grip tightened under Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, a German-born financier who gained control in 1927 after his Anglo American corporation became a major shareholder. Sir Ernest centralized distribution, forming alliances with producers worldwide to regulate rough diamond sales. His son, Harry Oppenheimer, succeeded him in 1957, further solidifying the monopoly that once commanded 80% to 85% of global diamond supply. Through stockpiling and strategic releases, De Beers engineered market manipulation, ensuring diamonds remained perceived as scarce investments tied to romance and financial sacrifice.
The Great Depression and the Need for Reinvention
The 1930s brought challenges, as the Great Depression triggered a supply glut in the diamond industry. Sales plummeted, and De Beers faced excess inventory from its mines. To counteract this, the company turned to aggressive marketing, partnering with N.W. Ayer to reframe diamonds not as luxuries but as essentials for commitment. This era marked the shift toward associating diamonds with eternal love, transforming a commodity into a symbol of enduring romance amid economic hardship.
The Birth of “A Diamond is Forever”
In 1947, Frances Gerety, a copywriter at N.W. Ayer, penned the iconic advertising slogan “A Diamond is Forever” during a late-night brainstorming session. Debuting in 1948, the campaign featured glamorous ads in fashion magazines, emphasizing diamonds’ permanence as a metaphor for unbreakable bonds. De Beers poured a massive advertising budget into this effort, promoting the diamond engagement ring as a must-have for proposals. The slogan’s genius lay in its dual appeal: it discouraged resale by implying diamonds should be kept forever, while tying them to emotional commitment and social norms.
Crafting the Myth of Eternal Love and Commitment
De Beers’ marketing masterfully linked diamonds to romance, portraying them as tokens of eternal love that signified deep commitment. Ads depicted couples in idyllic settings, reinforcing the idea that a diamond ring was essential for any serious relationship. This narrative extended to the performative moment of proposal, where the ring became a symbol of financial sacrifice and emotional depth, embedding it into consumer culture worldwide. Over decades, this association has influenced how societies view marriage and partnership, turning a simple gem into a profound emblem of lifelong bonds.
The “Two Months’ Salary” Rule: A Financial Sacrifice for Romance
One of the campaign’s most enduring inventions was the salary guideline for ring purchases. Initially suggesting one month’s salary in the 1930s, De Beers escalated it to two months’ salary by the 1940s, and even three months’ salary in markets like Japan. This “rule” framed the purchase as a financial sacrifice proving true love, boosting sales by encouraging larger carat weight and higher spending. It capitalized on social pressures, including ring shaming, where smaller stones implied lesser commitment. Today, this guideline persists in many cultures, though growing awareness of its origins has led some consumers to question its validity and opt for more personalized expressions of affection.
Hollywood Celebrities and Celebrity Endorsements
To amplify appeal, De Beers leveraged the movie industry and Hollywood celebrities for endorsements. They placed diamonds in films and on stars, creating aspirational imagery. High-profile figures wore De Beers pieces at events, further entrenching the engagement ring tradition in popular culture. This strategy not only glamorized diamonds but also integrated them into storytelling, where they often represented pivotal romantic milestones, influencing generations of viewers.
Establishing Social Norms and the Engagement Ring Tradition
Before De Beers’ intervention, diamond engagement rings were not a universal custom. The campaign normalized them, turning proposals into scripted events centered on the ring. This shifted social norms, making diamonds synonymous with marriage milestones and perpetuating consumer culture’s focus on material symbols of romance. In many societies, the absence of a diamond ring can still carry subtle judgments, illustrating the deep entrenchment of this manufactured tradition.
The 4Cs: Standardizing Diamond Quality
De Beers popularized the 4Cs—cut, color, clarity, and carat—to educate consumers on diamond value. This framework, emphasizing carat weight alongside other attributes, helped justify premium pricing for natural diamonds, distinguishing them in a controlled market. By standardizing evaluation, it empowered buyers with knowledge while reinforcing the perceived superiority of De Beers’ offerings, making quality assessments more accessible yet tied to the company’s narrative of exclusivity.
The Dark Side: Conflict Diamonds, Human Rights Abuses, and Environmental Impact
De Beers’ dominance has a toxic legacy. The company has been linked to conflict diamonds, also known as blood diamonds, funding wars in Africa through illicit trade. Human rights abuses, including exploitation in diamond mines, have marred its history, with reports of violence and unfair labor. Environmental impact is equally severe; mining operations have caused habitat destruction and pollution, such as mercury contamination in various sites. Despite sustainability pledges, these issues continue to raise ethical concerns, prompting calls for greater transparency and reform in the industry.
The Rise of Lab-Grown and Synthetic Diamonds
In recent years, lab-grown diamonds and synthetic diamonds have challenged De Beers’ hold on natural diamonds. These alternatives, chemically identical but produced in controlled settings, offer ethical and affordable options. De Beers initially entered the lab-grown market but pivoted to focus solely on natural stones, highlighting distinctions in growth patterns and value. As of 2025, the lab-grown diamond market has grown significantly, reaching approximately $28 billion, with projections for continued expansion at a compound annual growth rate of around 9-12%. However, oversupply has led to price drops, and some industry observers note a potential shift in consumer preferences back toward natural diamonds due to their perceived uniqueness and emotional appeal. Prices for a 1-carat lab-grown diamond range from $800 to $2,000, compared to $4,000 to $9,000 for a natural one, making them increasingly accessible.
Market Manipulation and Resale Value
De Beers’ artificial scarcity inflated prices, but diamonds have notoriously low resale value due to markups and controlled supply. Once purchased, they depreciate rapidly, exposing the illusion of diamonds as investments. This reality contrasts with the marketed image of enduring value, encouraging consumers to view purchases more as sentimental keepsakes than financial assets.
Recent Developments in the Diamond Industry as of 2025
By late 2025, De Beers has reported increased production and sales in the third quarter, with rough diamond output surging 38% to 7.7 million carats and sales volumes more than doubling compared to the previous year. However, challenges persist, including new US tariffs on diamond imports from India, which have undermined demand recovery. Rough diamond trading conditions remain cautious, with market analysts predicting possible price adjustments in early 2026. The company positions itself as a natural diamond-first entity, emphasizing sustainability and innovation to thrive amid recovery signs. Meanwhile, the broader market reflects a rethinking of distinctions between natural and lab-grown diamonds, with ongoing debates about their roles in jewelry and consumer choices.
The Toxic Legacy and Consumer Culture
De Beers’ strategies have shaped consumer culture, turning diamonds into status symbols while masking ethical concerns. From Cecil Rhodes’ imperial roots to the Oppenheimers’ cartel, the diamond industry’s market manipulation has influenced global perceptions of value and romance. This legacy prompts modern consumers to seek alternatives that align with personal values, such as ethical sourcing or non-traditional rings.
Conclusion
De Beers’ 1947 campaign was brilliant marketing that invented scarcity, tradition, and desire where none inherently existed. By tying diamonds to eternal love and pushing rules like two months’ salary, it boosted sales for everyone in the chain. Yet, awareness of its manipulations—from monopoly tactics to environmental and human rights issues—empowers consumers to question this fabricated narrative. With the rise of lab-grown options and evolving market dynamics in 2025, the diamond landscape continues to shift, offering more choices for informed decisions.
